Organizations
Jobs
Tasks and Roles
Skills and Knowledge
Selection of Curricula
Charles N. Darrah
Department of Anthropology, San Jose State University
The Internet has been thrust into the public consciousness during the past few years, and its incorporation into an increasing number of domains such as education or marketing is proclaimed, celebrated, and generally accepted as inevitable. One such domain is the use of the Internet to enhance learning so people can gain the skills necessary to obtain jobs, better perform the jobs they already hold, or retrain themselves when they are displaced from those jobs. This application of the Internet to worker training and education is tantalizing to both private and public decision makers. Yet precisely how, or under what conditions, the Internet can best be used to enhance worker competence remains unclear. What is clear is that the Internet will always be used within specific contexts that affect its use. Context here refers to the often-tacit "background" in which an activity such as using the Internet occurs. Accordingly, the goals of this paper are to establish the salience of context, and to develop a framework for examining issues of context in specific uses of the Internet for training and education.
The paper consists of four sections. First, it reviews what is being said about Internet-Based Training (IBT) in the training and development literature in order to determine some of the forms IBT takes, as well as its perceived strengths and weaknesses. This literature is characterized by a tacit model of IBT as it is embedded in organizations such as companies, and the characteristics of this model are explicated. Second, IBT is explored from the perspective of a naive individual user seeking to acquire the skills and knowledge necessary to obtain a new or different job. The lessons learned from this brief sojourn are summarized, and the exercise itself is used as the basis for developing a contrasting model of Internet use in training and education. The two models of IBT are then used as a framework for discussing how context might affect specific applications of IBT. This discussion elucidates the complexity of the challenges surrounding IBT, and provides a systematic way of identifying and exploring them. The final section raises some questions for research, and discusses the larger societal implications of IBT.
Even a cursory review suggests that IBT is a heterogeneous phenomenon. It includes use of familiar Internet services such as e-mail, downloading files, bulletin boards, forums, and newsgroups. Real-time teleconferencing, interactive and self-paced tutorials, and live online classes with instructors and other students are also included (Crenshaw 1997; Marquardt 1996). Munger (1997), for example, stresses the variety of IBT applications, including simple, text-based question and response tutorials, multimedia applications, hypermedia links, and live videoconferencing. Despite the potential for interactivity, which is viewed positively by most commentators (Hamalainen, Whinston & Vishik 1996), some also indicate that IBT is currently used primarily to deliver basic textual information such as lists, pamphlets, and lectures (Crenshaw 1997). IBT is also often embedded in other technologies such as CD-ROM, audiotape, videotape, and multimedia. This suggests that people do not simply encounter IBT, but rather very specific variants of it, and the latter may be embedded in other media. The diversity of such encounters suggests that any comparisons among IBT projects should carefully consider the specific forms they take, and how they are embedded in learning systems.
Commentators also discuss at length the characteristic strengths and weaknesses of IBT. Regarding the former, some deem it useful when the training audience is large and geographically dispersed, with individual learners isolated from each other or the source of the curriculum (Glener 1996; Gordon & Hequet 1997). IBT also brings benefits to individual learners, especially those who are Internet savvy. For example, its convenience is noted, since IBT can be integrated into the schedules of busy learners, and it may be used in the comfort of their homes. Marquardt (1996) notes this allows people to initiate their learning experiences when they are most motivated to do so. The convenience of IBT is also reflected in self-paced tutorials that meet different individual learning styles, and the needs of learners with diverse backgrounds and levels of preparation.
IBT also has characteristics that make it useful for some purposes, such as for transmitting standardized technical information (Horowitz 1997) that is specific and concrete (Gordon & Hequet 1997). This information can be rapidly updated, thereby allowing a widely dispersed audience to have access to identical, current information (Crenshaw 1997; Horowitz 1997). Other strengths of the medium include the capacity to support individualized instruction, simulations, and interactivity among learners and instructors (Gordon & Hequet 1997; McCarty 1996; Welch 1996; Wulf 1996).
IBT also potentially brings several organizational benefits (Rand 1996), especially reduced training costs. Notably, it reduces travel costs associated with bringing dispersed learners to training sites. It also reduces handling and postage costs associated with delivering updated training manuals or CD-ROMS. IBT is a relatively inexpensive way to deliver training (Glener 1996), and it can bring tremendous economies of scale in disseminating information. These benefits can be captured by smaller companies if the training can be standardized (Baillie 1996). Such companies often find it difficult to support in-house training or to afford off-site travel to training sites. The rapidity with which information can be delivered and updated also supports "just in time" training, in which new information is delivered precisely when it will be used by the learners (Gordon & Hequet 1997; Marquardt 1996). IBT also offers the capacity to monitor learner progress through tutorials, to adjust the tutorials or deal directly with slow learners.
A final organizational advantage is the ease with which training can be interrupted so that trainees can return to their regular duties (Crenshaw 1997; Welch 1996). This allows organizations to deliver training with minimal planning around the work flow: A simple e-mail message can be used to pull people away from training and back to their regular duties should it become necessary. Likewise, many small employers now find it difficult to do without key employees for even short periods of training. IBT can help address this problem by delivering training in the workplace.
Despite IBT's strengths, the literature also identifies numerous weaknesses. First, it may not be appropriate for many important training goals. For example, if changing worker attitude or motivation is a goal, IBT may not be the ideal training method, nor is it appropriate when instructor charisma is important (Sims 1996). It is not ideal for developing "soft," interpersonal skills, nor is it best for most team-building endeavors (Gordon & Hequet 1997; Sims 1996). Sims (1996) also notes that it is inappropriate for developing infrequently used high level skills, or for handling novelty or addressing new, unanticipated questions.
Gordon and Hequet (1997) comment that material must be organized into modules that fit the constraints of IBT, and therefore much of importance may be left out. If this "fitting" process proceeds unconsciously, then trainers may not be aware of gaps in the training, and workers may not otherwise obtain the needed information. The very convenience of IBT can also be seen as a limitation: Learners do not have the time away from work to reflect upon what they have learned. That reflection may be critical to incorporating new skills into existing work practices.
Other weaknesses of IBT are due to current technological constraints, notably bandwidth limitations and the difficulty in rapidly downloading files. Some of these technical constraints will undoubtedly be resolved in the long term. In the short term, performance can be improved through better and more costly equipment. Cost is an often-mentioned weakness of IBT. Although delivery costs may be relatively inexpensive (Glener 1996), obtaining the necessary bandwidth can require significant investment, as can developing high quality instructional material. The latter requires significant time to develop, test, and modify. Equipment and material also must be maintained, a cost that is typically underestimated in IBT (Hall 1996).
Some weaknesses of IBT are centered more on individual users. Not all learners are equally comfortable with technology, and many do not know how to use the Internet. Training in use of the Internet at some minimal level is a prerequisite for effective training programs, but IBT may still not meet the needs of some learners. Gordon and Hequet (1997), for example, maintain that while multimedia seemingly addresses different learning styles, it is best for learners who prefer to "hack" their way through information. The social isolation of IBT users can also affect their motivation to learn. Classrooms, some argue, increase the pressure to learn. Although a benefit of IBT is that it can free participants of the effects of race, gender, ethnicity, and other markers of identity, the interaction that occurs may be a poor substitute for the face-to-face kind. Indeed, Munger (1997) cautions trainers about developing technologically based programs when simpler, face-to-face ones are just as cost effective.
Individual isolation may, according to some commentators, have important organizational consequences. It may reduce the small talk that results from bringing people together for training. Such spontaneous talk may help people work through and assimilate the curriculum, and it may also support serendipitous learning about other facets of organizational life. Another risk in using IBT is that, by making training easier to deliver, it allows numerous organizational problems to be converted into training problems. This, of course, can mask deeper organizational problems that should be addressed (Hall 1996). For example, the very need for "just in time" training may be driven by the organization's inability to plan.
What can be learned from this admittedly cursory review of IBT and the professional training literature? First, IBT is not a homogeneous and well-defined phenomenon, but rather it takes a variety of forms and serves various individual and organizational purposes. Conclusions about IBT must always recognize the specific forms it takes, and how they shape outcomes for different learners.
Second, training itself is variously defined, and ranges from the distribution of data with minimal comment to the preparation of interactive simulations, and even complexly structured courses of study. It appears that dissemination of any information by the organization may be labeled as "training." Again, generalizations about the suitability of IBT must clearly explicate the meaning of training in the specific application.
Third, IBT is always embedded in some larger training or educational endeavor: It is never done in a vacuum. Typically, it is one of several technologies which together compose a training module. Furthermore, even if used alone, IBT is still embedded in the user's other learning experiences, as well as how it fits into their daily work practice.
Fourth, much IBT occurs among professional or technical workers who are more likely to be familiar with computers. This allows many discussions of IBT to proceed as if use of the Internet per se is transparent. This, of course, may not be the case for workers lacking a technical background or for those preparing for jobs that will not regularly use the Internet.
Fifth, IBT assumes that what is necessary to perform a job is known, and can be formalized in a way that permits development of unambiguous training curricula. This assumption is predicated upon an organizational distinction between individuals who are empowered to deliver a normative model of how work should be performed, and other individuals who perform that work. However, such normative models of work may not accurately reflect how work is necessarily performed in actual contexts (Darrah 1995).
What is most striking about IBT as it is presented in the training literature is that it is typically embedded within the context of a specific organization. It is the organization that has a problem for which training in general and IBT in particular is the solution. In effect, IBT is embedded in a tacit system to improve learning. There is an organization or employer within which are jobs. The latter, according to various job analytic frameworks, can be broken down into the tasks that people must perform and the roles that they must fulfill. Tasks and roles require that job incumbents have specific capabilities (skills and knowledge) that they use on the job. As tasks and roles change, or as individual capabilities erode, the organization identifies training needs and arranges for the training or education that hopefully will provide the necessary competencies in individuals and groups. The ultimate component of the system is the individual within the organization who is the recipient of the training effort. Following this model, trainers may face a challenge in finding or developing appropriate training materials, but the trainee is typically not faced with such a daunting task.
The application of IBT as a solution to an organization's "skills problem" can be conceptualized as a model that is diagrammed as follows:
Like any model, this one simplifies a more complex reality. However, it serves two important purposes. First, it allows us to see that accounts of IBT as presented in the training literature do not constitute neutral descriptions of how the Internet enhances training and education. Instead, those accounts are based on tacit assumptions that in turn affect how IBT is conceptualized and applied. Second, the model sensitizes us to the possibility that IBT may be embedded in very different contexts. Specifically, we may ask how IBT unfolds in the absence of the taken-for-granted organizational context. In order to answer this question, we must leave the world of professional journals and sit at the computer terminal.
A sojourn through the virtual terrain of the Internet can be a daunting journey for a novice whose search for job training is fictive, but whose ignorance is real. Search engines such as "training," "Internet-Based Training," "vocational education," "job training," and others produced a large and mixed collection of sites of varying usefulness, as is familiar to habitués of the virtual environment. Offerings included well-structured programs of study for teaching conversational French (http://www.elok.com/lcf/), virtual universities that offer a broad vocational curricula (http://www.uol.com.ar/); self-contained, interactive modules such as "The Interactive Patient" (http://cgi.media.hku.hk/InteractivePatient/medicus.htm); and training courses that deal with topics of relevance to particular organizations. For example, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories (http://www-training.llnl.gov/wbt/wbt/ ) has developed online training in handling radioactive hazards and other safety issues of concern to nuclear laboratories. Also found were miscellaneous ramblings about the Internet and myriad other subjects. Addresses had changed, pages would not print, and some sites promised results to come in an unspecified future. This, of course, does not mean that IBT is impractical or irrelevant, only that it requires considerable effort by the user. Acknowledgment of this fact is important, for the novice sojourner on a real quest is unlikely to find clear road signs guiding the way.
Transfixed by the screen, I watched sites roll by, and with eager eyes and flying mouse, I explored. And despite the obviously unsystematic nature of my inquiry, patterns emerged from the sites. First, the vast majority of sites deal with training in effective use of the Internet. This impression is confirmed by Baillie (1996), who reports finding over 7 million headings under "Internet" and "training": 6.75 million of them concerned training people to use the Internet. Indeed, most educational or training programs included modules on building the Internet skills necessary to complete the remainder of the program. Other sites address how to develop and market courses on the Internet. These range from technical advice to broad suggestions, but they generally do not include examples of successful courses. These points are likely obvious to denizens of the Internet, but they are nonetheless salient if IBT is to be further broadened: the terrain appears infinite and is not well marked. The Internet is not yet a transparent tool for learning, but rather one that requires training to use.
Second, most training and education programs are targeted at information technology professionals who are already computer savvy. The emphasis is on courses in specific programming skills. For example, the NIIT NetVarsity "was set up in response to the needs of today's IT Professional. With business (sic) environment becoming more dynamic, organizations (sic) and individuals feel the need to acquire and update skills continuously" (http://www.niitnetvarsity.com/netvarsity/nv000/frame.asp). Instruction is offered in the form of one-hour, trademarked "Skillettes" such as "Getting Started with Oracle 7" and "Introduction to HTML Programming."
Third, learning opportunities range from courses that are conducted exclusively over the Internet using a variety of its features in different ways, to those which are advertised on the Internet but whose instruction is delivered on audio or videotape, or even hard copy.
The picture that emerges then is one of great variation in quality, organization, and delivery of instruction, with considerably less variation in the topics of instruction and their target audiences. It is a picture in which skills are incrementally upgraded, not one in which most of one's education is provided at the terminal.
The IBT system that emerges from this sojourn is strikingly different than the one tacit in the training literature. It begins with the individual who is searching for information about available jobs, and the skills and knowledge needed to obtain them. The quest to obtain skills and knowledge per se may be broken down into several steps. First, the requisite skills and knowledge must be identified, a task that is not always simple. Second, various ways of obtaining them—including broader education or specific training—must be located and assessed. And third, the programs to provide the skills and knowledge must be completed. Of course, the quest to obtain training or education for particular jobs may be complicated if the jobs desired change while the search process continues.
The model sensitizes us to the hopeful worker facing and investigating a daunting array of jobs and ways of preparing for them, including IBT. He or she confronts an enormous challenge of searching for information, selecting that which is relevant, and then assembling a package of materials that will provide the requisite skills and knowledge. If the IBT system in the first model is a tacit one, here it is a system constructed or created by the inquiring individual. This structural difference between the models has enormous consequences for considering IBT as a learning tool within a context.
![[Table of Contents]](/icons/up.gif){kind=icon}
[Learning Tools Within A Context:... (part 2 of 2)]