![[Table of Contents]](/icons/up.gif){kind=icon}
Learning Tools Within a Context (Continued)
The two models developed here can be used now to guide our thinking about the contexts within which IBT occurs. We begin by contrasting the training goals in each model, and how they might be integrated into the learner's life. In model 1, the learners are either augmenting their capability to perform the same job, or they are preparing for a new job within the same organization; the latter might well be a promotion. The changes they are undergoing are incremental in the sense that they remain in the organization and often in the same job. This is not to underestimate the impact of training in this model, but only to emphasize that much of the person's work remains constant. In model 2, the goal is quite different. Here the changes in the worker may be dramatic, since the learner might be abandoning one identity and transforming into someone quite different. If the abandoned identity is something the person valued, then training or retraining may be undertaken under stressful conditions.
In the literature underlying the first model, the larger lives of employed worker-learners are not mentioned. This is understandable since the incremental changes in worker skills and knowledge can usually be readily assimilated. The larger lives of learners in the second model may, however, be quite salient to their use of any learning tool. They may not simply be developing new capabilities, but transforming the fundamental patterns of their lives, how they think about themselves, and their relationships with family and friends.
Independent of the incremental or transformative nature of training is the issue of the personal conditions under which the training is undertaken. In model 1, the learner has a job, often one that is sufficiently secure to warrant organizational investment in his or her capabilities. The simple fact of a regular paycheck, with its salubrious affect on individual and family welfare, is itself significant. This situation may contrast with that in the second model where the learner is seeking not only skills and knowledge, but a (different) job and paycheck as well. Prolonged unemployment and the extent of unemployment in the larger community may exacerbate the sense of urgency under which learning is pursued, and family resources, both financial and emotional, may be stretched or depleted.
Stress, turmoil, and inadequate resources are not characteristic of everyone who is preparing to find a job, and of course, they also characterize the lives of many people who are employed. Still, the condition of being without a job is fundamentally different than that of having one. A job can provide both the financial resources to stabilize personal and family lives, and the platform from which to incrementally upgrade skills and knowledge in preparation for something better. Learners in the second model need not necessarily be without jobs, but if they are we should expect that IBT will proceed quite differently than for the employed learner in the first model.
Again, an implication is that IBT may be applied in model 2 under conditions that are probably less than ideal for learning. There may well be a sense of urgency and a perception that the stakes for one's life are quite high. Specifically, delays in searching for jobs and appropriate training or education may be especially frustrating if they are exacerbated by the very technology intended to solve the problem "efficiently." Likewise, the convenience of IBT may be less relevant to people who either lack the necessary technology in their homes or the conditions in the home which would permit them to learn. If an advantage of IBT is that it reduces off-site training time, we should remember that its cited disadvantages include isolating the learner, minimizing the markers of training as a special activity, and reducing the time for reflection upon what is learned. The simple fact of isolation may mean that the learner lacks the social support that can be provided by other students. This issue is especially salient if family members do not support the person's educational endeavor. Of course, there are likely ways that IBT can be applied that do not isolate learners, that provide them with the "away time" from potentially stressful lives to learn, and that foster the reflection that underlies deeper learning.
The fact of employment implicit in the first model also raises another issue of implicit context: the opportunity to implement and test the lessons learned. Learners in organizations are typically in situations where they can easily apply the lessons learned, and thereby assess both the utility of the lessons and their own mastery of them. This assessment allows them to determine where the lessons fit into their daily work practice. Specifically, the opportunity to apply lessons may permit learners to develop sharper questions for instructors, or it may result in awareness of other skills and knowledge that must also be mastered. It can also help learners to adjust rapidly their own efforts at learning. This ability to judge how the training will likely be relevantor irrelevant—to work practice can allow it to be tailored to the actual exigencies of work.
The situation in the second model is quite different since learners are without the opportunity to assess the utility of the lessons learned in performing a job. Of course, they may be able to correctly judge whether the training is necessary for obtaining a particular job. Still, they likely lack the opportunities to refine their mastery of the lessons learned. They are, in effect, taking a gamble that this training will actually provide the skills and knowledge recognized as such by employers.
Learners in model 1 are also acting within a social context that allows them to discuss what they have learned with other people. The latter include individuals who are affected by the trainee—customers, clients, suppliers, and so forthand others who received the same training. This suggests that there is a large component of learning that is social in nature. Narrowly construed, this means that people do not learn simply by pondering training and educational materials in isolation, but also through interacting with other people. A broader view emphasizes that people are enculturated into larger worldviews that allow them to make sense out of the bits and pieces they otherwise learn. Formal training or education is thus already embedded in on-the-job learning that nurtures the "know how" needed to work effectively (Darrah 1996; Kusterer 1978). Occupational or professional training, too, provides worldviews for assimilating new knowledge. For these learners, IBT (or any training) is but one component of a larger learning system that has both individual and social histories. They are not simply relying on IBT to train them to do the job, for they bring much to the training situation that helps them make sense of the latest lessons. Thus, learning here is less an individual activity than a social one conducted with people best qualified to judge its impact.
Learners in the second model are, of course, still learning in a social context, but it is usually quite different. They have fewer opportunities to discuss and assess what they are learning with the people who will be affected by their actual job performance. Here the formal training opportunities are the focus of learning. Still, it is important to note that they, like any other learners, enter training or educational settings with preexisting skills and knowledge. Many researchers have commented that both children and adults bring savvy to the classroom that can provide foundations for further learning (Balfanz 1991; Lave 1988). Identifying and incorporating these foundations into new learning can both acknowledge learners' already existing capabilities and support their assimilation of new skills.
The preceding comments have several implications for how we consider the application of IBT to worker training and retraining. One implication is that we should appreciate the complexity, extent, and tacit nature of much of the learning that occurs among job incumbents. Likewise, we should be modest in our claims about how IBT can improve worker training and retraining, for it will only be one component of a larger system of worker preparation. Determining where it best fits into this system is an important question in the design of any training program.
Another implication is that people bring considerable resources with them as they learn new skills and knowledge, and those resources can be used to support additional learning. Identifying individual and group variations in those foundations and incorporating them into IBT might both support the confidence of learners and enhance their mastery of new capabilities. The salience of this point is reflected in the fact that IBT is typically used in training workers holding technical, often computer-related jobs.
A final implication is that IBT could be used in ways that recognize the social nature of workplace learning. Training that reduces individual isolation and builds meaningful interaction among learners is consistent with how much workplace learning occurs. This is not to argue that sociability can be ordered up by IBT developers, only that it may be possible to apply IBT in ways that support learning to learn, not just the transfer of immediate, requisite job skills.
The organizational employer in the first model of training also makes a significant contribution, and aspects of it may not be immediately apparent. The organization contributes much to training by identifying training needs, and developing or purchasing the necessary curricular materials. The organization is able to assess the abilities of its learners, and focus the training on specific target audiences. The latter can be selected so that their members have specific characteristics in common, or if desired, a more heterogeneous audience may be selected. The organization can provide and support the required technology, including the capacity to monitor learner progress. It can provide expert coaching or other assistance to help learners master the material, and it can perform the critical task of certifying—to its satisfaction—that learners are indeed adequately trained.
These tangible organizational contributions are both significant and obvious. We have seen that the literature on IBT cautions potential users that the costs of the technological infrastructure and curricular development can be significant, on going, and underestimated. In addition, limitations of bandwidth and computer speed can affect the comfortable use of IBT. The organization can provide support so that the learner is able to focus attention on mastering the material, and not coaxing an inadequate delivery system to work.
Individuals and job training centers may not have access to the financial resources to purchase either adequate technology or expert assistance. For example, Rosen (1996), in a survey of adult literacy practitioners, found that they experienced widespread difficulties in using the Internet. These difficulties involved the technology, its integration into an office, learning to use Internet features, and finding the time to take on yet more responsibilities. The picture he paints is consistent with the experiences of many schools that obtain computers for the classroom, but then find they have insufficient resources to use them well. While many employers certainly lack the resources to fully support IBT, those capitalizing on its economies of scale are likely to be able to support an adequate infrastructure for IBT.
Other facets of the organizational contribution to training are less tangible. The organization has the capability to define what constitutes training, and organizational definitions can vary widely. This point is important if we are to understand the various activities that "count" as training. For example, enrollment in a class and receiving an updated list of product specifications are very different activities, but both may count as training within an organization. Most important is the organization's capacity to define jobs and requisite skills, and even what constitutes a successful outcome of training. This last point is subtle but important. The organization has the capacity to define success and failure by its own standards. Regardless of how the learners judge a training program, the organization can make its own pronouncement, and it can allocate its resources accordingly. This is not to indulge in cynicism, only to recognize that training in model 2 is ultimately judged by external organizations—potential employers—who decide whether an applicant's preparation is relevant and sufficient. The learners here are effectively gambling that they have made the correct choices. In the first model, the final judgment is made by the learners organization, and they take less risk that the training they choose is appropriate. Indeed, they most likely do not even make that choice.
The organizational context of IBT is not limited, however, to conceptualizing required skills, sanctioning specific training curricula, providing technological infrastructure, or legitimating definitions of success and failure. Indeed, the organization's formal contribution may be less significant than its role as an arena for communities of practice (Lave & Wenger 1991). The latter emerge among people who share, to differing degrees, common work practices. Such communities of practice may transcend the boundaries of particular organizations, and paradoxically, they may be invisible to many people within any particular organization. However, they may play a central role in developing work practices and in filling in the interstices of formal training programs.
How we think about work can have profound effects on what we deem to be reasonable preparation for jobs. I have elsewhere discussed a rhetoric of skill requirements in which work is decomposed into discrete skills that are somehow required in order to do the work. These skills are seemingly obvious and can be described by both expert incumbents and external job analysts. I have argued that while useful for some purposes, this perspective provides an impoverished view of how people work and how they learn to work. For example, much of importance may be omitted if jobs are viewed as bundles of mutually exclusive skills that inhere in the worker and job, rather than in the workplace. Skills may not be required in an obvious way. Specific skills are sometimes required to obtain jobs and then move out of them, but not to perform them. Defining required skills may reflect managerial prerogatives as much as the exigencies of work (Darrah 1994, 1996).
All this is not to perform a sleight of hand trick in which "unskilled" people can somehow perform "skilled" jobs. But it does suggest that the nature of workplaces and how they support or inhibit learning is consequential, and people may differ in the skills they deem required to perform particular jobs. It also suggests that the larger enterprise of thinking about work and workers just in terms of discrete skills may provide an inadequate basis for developing effective worker preparation programs.
A complementary perspective on work has developed over the past decade. This perspective builds on the work of scholars such as Jean Lave (Lave 1988; Lave & Wenger 1991), Sylvia Scribner (1986), and Lucy Suchman (1987), and it focuses on how people think and act within specific technological and social contexts. The rhetoric here is of practical reasoning, situated learning, communities of practice, and the social organization of work. A complete discussion of this contextualized view of work is far beyond the scope of the present modest effort, but this view does have several implications for the potential application of IBT to training and education.
First, jobs undoubtedly differ in their "context dependency." Much professional education, for example, enculturates people into a worldview that is far broader and deeper than a set of skills. This worldview helps make new tasks meaningful, and it shapes the practice of daily work. Indeed, we may even think of it as an effort at internalizing the context within which work is made meaningful.
Context is also important to the work of nonprofessionals. I have described elsewhere the sensitivity of machine operators to context, and how the excellent operator sees, hears, and feels things that are invisible to the tyro. This context sensitivity is localized, and it may not readily transfer to radically different workplaces. I have also described the work in a computer assembly plant where many workers held certificates as electronic technicians. They moved easily between employers and engaged a highly standardized world of computer components, wiring, and testing. Still, technicians were members of a community of practice, in this case one based largely on national origin, and the one technician who was not of the correct background (and who attempted to use his status as a white male to build solidarity with the company's largely white management) remained on the periphery of the community of practice. He ultimately failed in his job. This larger point, that context matters in any job, is also made by Orr (1997), who explores how photocopier repair technicians perform their work, and it is a point made repeatedly in Barley and Orr's edited collection on technical work (1997).
The argument here is simple and important. Skills training writ large is only one strand of learning how to work; participation in a community of practice may be equally important. IBT can undoubtedly help in providing some information and training to perform tasks, but it is highly unlikely to replace the larger systems of learning that occur at work. Identifying where and how IBT becomes integrated into the various streams of information and arenas for learning is perhaps a more productive strategy than simply formalizing job requirements and relying on the Internet, or any training program, to disseminate them. Thus, IBT has implications not only for training in preparation for jobs, but for the nature of jobs and the learning tools job incumbents have available.
A corollary of contextual approaches to work is that they see obtaining and holding most jobs as being only partially dependent upon technical skills. Employers hire based on a variety of attributes, including the applicant's attitude and mastery of the "soft" skills of communicating and managing interpersonal relations. This is not to say that technical skills are irrelevant, only that they may not be enough. And, as discussed earlier, IBT is considered a poor choice by most commentators for developing those "soft" skills. This suggests careful consideration anytime that IBT is used to prepare first-time workers or workers making a shift to employment where "soft" skills are important. Ways of building in opportunities for broader workforce development, including the ability to learn, and to work effectively with other people, may be especially necessary here.
The very modularization of learning in IBT is germane to the issues raised. While it may be suitable for workers making the sort of incremental change in skills discussed before, it may be inadequate for many jobs or people. Again, this is not to say that IBT has no role to play in training, only that much of successful practice eludes modularization; interstices in formal programs will persist. Ways to develop that practice can complement a narrow focus on skills and thereby assist learners in becoming more broadly employable.
Finally, the contextual approach to work implies that training situated as much as possible in actual work settings should be more effective. The danger, of course, is that training can become inflexible and prepare people for only very specific jobs. However, such training can also be done in ways that combine real and local settings with broader and more general training lessons (Harrison 1995).
Caution is thus warranted in applying IBT to worker training and retraining if it is seen as a way to deliver standardized training that is applicable regardless of context to an undifferentiated pool of applicants. This general approach has met with little success, and IBT, with its emphasis on economies of scale, could be used to automate a risky training approach. On the other hand, again, note that IBT may be entirely appropriate for incorporation into an integrated package of training or education, but the claim that it will replace existing workforce development is tenuous.
Appropriate training or retraining obviously must consider the difference between the capabilities of the person and those required of the job. The size and nature of this "gap" varies widely. Training already technically sophisticated people to add yet another skill to their repertoire is quite different than training workers to prepare for jobs in entirely new industrial sectors. The tasks of preparing unemployed youth or the hard- core unemployed for initial employment in decent jobs is different yet. I have argued that being employed in itself often brings many tangible and intangible resources to bear on learning, and that information technology workers have been so enculturated as to be able to place new training or education within a meaningful context. Despite differences in experience, professional workers are by definition the end products of extensive enculturation so that they are better prepared to learn to learn.
This paper has developed two models of IBT in context in order to raise issues that are salient to it as a learning tool. The hope is that by doing so the use of IBT to support more effective learning and workplace practice can be facilitated. Many specific questions have been raised along the way, and here I review some of the major issues that have emerged.
First, it is clear that learning how to work is a complex process, one in which training narrowly conceived plays only one part. Just where specific forms of training—and more broadly, education —fit into job preparation is a general problem not unique to IBT. But it is an issue that those who attempt to use the Internet for training purposes must address. New technologies are often promoted as replacements for existing ones, but in fact they are typically added to existing social and technological systems. We may expect this general lesson to again hold true, and ask where and how the Internet can most effectively support learning by future and present workers.
Related to the first issue, we may expect that the full potential of IBT will not be realized if its primary "training" use is to rapidly disseminate standardized information. Accordingly, a second issue is the development of IBT that relies less on the modularization of learning, and is more of a tool that supports open inquiry and conversation about work. This may challenge tacit, deep-seated assumptions about the allocation of power in the workplace.
Third, IBT is spoken of as if it is a topic removed from the larger issue of how people learn in workplaces, and how workplaces can be designed that support learning. Most discussions of IBT speak of "empowered" workers who are responsible for managing their own careers, a responsibility many employers formerly assumed. Yet many workers have been conditioned to avoid asking questions at work, and many workplaces explicitly limit workers' rights to inquire (Darrah 1996). The American educational system, too, has all too often defined learning as the passive receipt of information, and not the active creation of knowledge. If workers are to become bold and empowered learners, then many of those workers will need assistance along the way (Hatcher 1997). Furthermore, many workplaces will have to undergo fundamental change if learning at work is to be supported.
Fourth, if IBT is to play a role in worker preparation, then how can individuals be supported in their quest for job training (broadly writ) on the Internet? Perhaps the most fundamental structural contrast between the two models developed in this paper is that between the model 1 learners who are guided or instructed in their quest for training, and the lone model 2 learners facing the infinity of cyberspace, uncertainty about which jobs to pursue, and ignorance about how to assemble a coherent educational or training package. If IBT is to occupy this niche, then some sort of support seems necessary, and various models for providing it can be explored. This support may be as simple as human guides who are available to help the person navigate this new terrain. Such assistance might be made available at job training centers. Brokers, who assemble customized packages of training materials for specific jobs (Hamalainen, Whinston, & Vishik 1996), are another alternative. Or even innovations in Internet software might change the current "learner-centric" model of IBT by enabling instructors to create and guide "learning groups" (Yeh, Chen, Lai, & Yuan 1996).
Fifth, if the lessons of situated learning and vocational education are at all valid, then learning to work occurs best when people must accommodate to others in settings that correspond to the arenas in which they will ultimately work. Accordingly, we may ask how organizations can be matched to individuals and training programs. This would provide both real world preparation and reduce the isolation among learners.
Having reviewed some specific areas for inquiry concerning IBT as a learning tool in context, this paper concludes with some thoughts about even broader contextual issues at play. Thus far, discussion has centered on the lives of individuals, the characteristics of workplaces, and the roles of organizations. This definition of context in terms of individual lives and organizational arenas is appropriate, but it should not blind us to even larger societal issues that are raised by IBT.
One need not be a Luddite to point out that consideration of IBT is being conducted in a country with a history of celebrating technological solutions to problems. Indeed, a reading of the literature about IBT suggests that part of its appeal is that it enhances the latest version of computer literacy that is thought to be required of everyone (Dyson 1997). It is a sort of "medium is the message" argument: Regardless of the specific training content, the mere use of the Internet, or computers in general, has salubrious effects. These effects are promulgated as ones that bring benefits both to individuals, in the form of access to better jobs and richer lives, and to society, since it enhances national competitiveness.
Regardless of how we judge this faith in computer literacy (however defined), there are still the immediate realities of preparing people for current jobs. While many of the latter do require mastery of computers, others do not. The point here is not a curmudgeonly one, only a reminder that the world of work is very diverse and there are real people with pressing needs for jobs now. We should be especially skeptical of the argument that IBT is valuable, even if the content that it conveys is less than stellar. The fact that so much IBT is now directed at people in or preparing for technical careers raises the possibility that such people might be more willing to endure technical difficulties; indeed, they may view them as interesting challenges. For most people preparing for nontechnical careers, however, the content is what matters. People will discover soon enough if the content of training or education fails to prepare them for work, and IBT may be discredited as a misguided application of technology.
Perhaps as significant as the hardware and software that provides the infrastructure for IBT are its implicit models of learning and of being an educated person. In much of the writing about IBT, information delivered is equated with learning, and learners are viewed as consuming information as if it were just another product. The "inefficiency" of the current educational system is lamented, and the availability of modularized, "just in time" training is heralded as a source of cost savings. Learning becomes viewed as data retrieval, and education is simply a means of delivering chunks at the lowest cost.
The irony of this perspective is that many who hold it are themselves the products of broader and deeper educations that encourage thinking and reflecting. Most informational technology professionals, for example, who celebrate the benefits of delivering modules of skills "just in time" for use were not themselves largely educated in this way. This is not to say that issues of efficiency are irrelevant and that the delivery of skills modules is universally to be avoided, only to remind us that it is severely limited as a model for a complete education. Those who apply IBT to new worker training or retraining should remember that it is one thing to include modularized skills training into a larger education, and quite a different thing to conceive of an entire education as composed of such chunks.
Two policy questions are especially important. First, what are the consequences of the different tacit models of curriculum that inform how people are prepared for work? Second, how is use of these models distributed across different categories of people?
The first question raises the issue that different ways of using the Internet as a learning tool may have different consequences for the learners. These differences do not inhere in the technology, but rather in how it is used. For example, do some practices—despite the glitz—place learners in the role of passive recipients of information with little opportunity to question, critique, or reflect? Do other uses result in the expectation that learning is structured as a set of given questions and correct answers? And do still other uses allow learners to creatively synthesize data, find new questions, and generally learn by expanding their thinking into new domains? None of these uses is necessarily right or wrong, and indeed, each is likely appropriate for specific purposes. But they may be very consequential if different categories of people typically experience specific modalities of learning. For example, use of the Internet by professionals who are free to control their use of time on the job may allow them more leeway in exploring cyberspace. In fact, their ability to do so might be required by the job. Nonexempt, temporary, or lower status workers may not have the same freedom, and for them, IBT may result in a sort of job tracking with "bells and whistles." The decisions of private corporations to implement different models of curriculum may be theirs to make, but the use of public funds to support differential access to and ability to use such a learning tool is a significant policy issue.
These final words are not intended as blanket condemnation of IBT. Indeed, the thesis of this paper is that learning always occurs in very specific contexts that shape the lessons learned. IBT is no different, and both its technical capabilities and its use will affect its ultimate impact on education and training by individuals and organizations. The latter issues are generally more difficult to quantify, but they are ignored at our peril.
Baillie, J. 1996. Why the Internet Needs a Few Training Lessons. People Management 2(24):43.
Balfanz, R. 1991. Local Knowledge, Academic Skills, and Individual Productivity: An Alternative View. Educational Policy 5(4): 343-370.
Barley, S. R. and J. E. Orr, 1997. Between Craft and Science: Technical Work in U.S. Settings. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.
Crenshaw, D. 1997. `Net Training. Infoworld March 3: 61-62.
Darrah, C. N. 1996. Learning and Work: An Exploration in Industrial Ethnography. New York: Garland Publishing.
——1995. Workplace Training, Workplace Learning: A Case Study. Human Organization 54(1):
31-41.
——1994. Skill Requirements at Work: Rhetoric Versus Reality. Work and Occupations 21(1): 64-84.
Dyson, E. 1997. Education and Jobs in the Digital World. Communications of the ACM 40(22): 35-36.
Glener, D. 1996. The Promise of Internet-Based Training. Training & Development September: 57-58.
Gordon, J. and M. Hequet, 1997. Live and In Person. Training March: 24-31.
Hall, B. 1996. Ten Training Mistakes to Avoid. Training & Development July: 55-56.
Hamalainen, M., A. Whinston, and S. Vishik, 1996. Communications of the ACM 39(6): 51-58.
Harrison, B., with M. Weiss and J. Gant, 1995. Building Bridges: Community Development Corporations and the World of Employment Training. Ford Foundation.
Hatcher, T. 1997. The Ins and Outs of Self-Directed Learning. Training & Development February: 35-39.
Horowitz, A. S. 1997. `Net Train, Net Gain?. ComputerWorld February 3: 66-67.
http://cgi.media.hku.hk/InteractivePatient/medicus.htm
http://www.elok.com/lcf/
http://www.niitnetvarsity.com/netvarsity/nv000/frame.asp
http://www-training.llnl.gov/wbt/wbt/
Kusterer, K. 1978. Know-How on the Job: The Important Working Knowledge of "Unskilled" Workers. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Lave, J. 1988. Cognition in Practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lave, J. and E. Wenger, 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Leonard, B. 1996. Distance Learning: Work and Training Overlap. HR Magazine April: 41-47.
Marquardt, M. 1996. Cyberlearning: New Possibilities for HRD. Training & Development November: 56-57.
McCarty, F. H. 1996. Learning Better and Faster. Manufacturing Engineering 117(1):232.
Munger, P. D. 1997. High-Tech Training Delivery Methods: When to Use them. Training & Development January: 46-47.
Orr, J. 1996. Talking About Machines: An Ethnography of a Modern Job. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.
Prickett, R. 1997. Screen Savers. People Management June 26: 36-38.
Rand, A. 1996. Technology Transforms Training. HR Focus November: 11-13.
Scribner, S. 1986. Thinking in Action: Some Characteristics of Practical Thought. In Practical Intelligence: The Nature and Origins of Competence in the Everyday World, edited by Robert Sternberg & Richard Wagner. 13-30. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sims, D. M. 1996. Who Needs Your Classroom...Besides Your Students? Training November: 106.
Suchman, L. 1987. Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human-Machine Interaction. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Tyler, K. 1996. Training Libraries Let Learners Set the Pace. HR Magazine November: 53-56.
Welch, J. 1996. A Site-Seeing Trip into Cyberspace. People Management May 30: 28-31.
Yeh, P.J., B.H. Chen, M.C. Lai, and S.M. Yuan, 1996. Synchronous Navigation Control for Distance Learning on the Web. Computer Networks and ISDN Systems 28: 1207-1218.
-###-
[Employers as Course Developers]