INTERACTIVE INSIGHTS
Published Monthly by Midi Corporation, Princeton, NJ
VOLUME 1:ISSUE 5
June 15, 1998
__________________________________________________
Interactive Training - Part 1
__________________________________________________
"Education has very little to do with explanation. It has to do with engagement." - Seymour Papert
INTRODUCTION
If you asked 10 training professionals if "interactive" training was a good thing, nine would say yes and one would stare at you dumfounded by the absurdity of your question. Everyone seems to agree that "interactive" is a positive attribute of training.
WHAT IS INTERACTIVE TRAINING?
In common usage, when we say "interactive" training, we usually mean a training experience that is computer-based. This encompasses computer-based training (CBT) - which historically has been limited to text and graphics - as well as related varieties that make use of multimedia elements such as animation, sound and video. The use of the term "interactive" in the training world is mainly a vestige of a predecessor technology called Interactive Video disc. Although video disc was replaced as a physical storage medium by CD-ROM, the label "interactive" stuck.
If you think about it, there's a certain irony that "interactive" is not an adjective typically associated with training led by a human teacher. It's ironic because the complexity of human communication offers the greatest potential for interactivity. We tag human-led training with the unappealing labels of "traditional" or "classroom-based." Such descriptors carry connotations of being old-fashioned and less effective. We need to remind ourselves that technology doesn't own the concept of "interactivity." Such a reminder compels us as program designers to come up with "interactive designs" that make the computer do the wonderful things that human facilitators can not do.
Does delivering a training program on a CD-ROM or DVD make it "interactive?" No. The medium the training is delivered on has nothing to do with it. For example, there are training video tapes that have been digitized and delivered on CD-ROM for viewing on the computer. This kind of program is an example of a phenomenon that crops up every time a new delivery technology takes hold: with a dearth of software titles, the quickest way to fill the demand is to port over the previous generation's software. These programs transferred from videotape include no interactivity; you just watch the video. What's worse is some of these programs are described as interactive because you have to click on a "Continue" icon to move to the next segment or a right arrow icon to start playing the video.
Does making the user choose options off a menu constitute interactive training? I guess to some extent, but it's not very rich interactivity. How much thought is involved in selecting items off a menu? Any more than selecting a "Continue" icon? Probably not. Good interactivity means requiring the users to do something that requires they pay attention and give some thought to their responses. Hire someone or fire someone. Adjust the speed of the train to avoid a derailment. Open the door to the stranger standing there or not? Turn on a sophisticated piece of electronic equipment properly. Shut it down. Give the coworker the sensitive information she asked for or not? The point of the interactivity is don't let the users just sit there. Draw them in. Make them think about the content you are covering. Educational psychologists describe this active involvement with the content matter as "engagement."
NOT SO FAST
I'm frequently asked to cite research on the advantages of interactive training compared to "traditional" forms. One highly touted advantage is a reduction in the amount of time it takes for a person to get trained. It's perfectly understandable that companies want to do training faster. After all, employees are not contributing to the corporate bottom line when they are sitting in a training session. There's a commonly quoted statistic that interactive training yields a 50% reduction in training time compared to classroom training. That is an impressive finding. Although such a reduction can be accomplished, we need to look closely at the circumstances that make this possible. Everyone who has spent time in a classroom knows there are some basic shortcomings associated with classroom learning. Other people ask questions to which you already know the answers. Other people interrupt the presentation with comments that are off the topic. The instructor gets sidetracked with an amusing anecdote. Bathroom and coffee breaks are necessary and stretch longer than they are scheduled for. The instructor paces the instruction to the slowest learners. The list goes on...
Considering these problems, it is easy to see how replacing a classroom experience with something like a streamlined, self-paced PowerPoint presentation can yield some dramatic time savings. But obviously we are not including much inter-activity while achieving such efficiency. We are just substituting one presentation system for another, while trying to meet the same instructional objectives.
While watching a marketing piece by a competitor making unqualified claims that multimedia training delivers the fabled 50% reduction in training time, it struck me that I've never seen anyone admit that top notch interactive training might in fact take longer than a more traditional classroom approach. That this lengthening of training time could be the case isn't hard to explain. After all, human trainers are typically limited by what can be accomplished in the confines of the classroom. These days, most trainers are grateful that they have enough time to pull together a well organized set of PowerPoint slides based on pre-packaged graphic templates and a library of cartoon figures. Although some trainers might bring in instructional aids or props - a model, a technical manual, the text of a law or company policy, or case histories, there's a practical limit to what can be done.
High-end, interactive multimedia applications provide many more options. Some of these involve sophisticated interactivity in learning activities that are just not possible in the classroom environment. We write scripts involving actors playing out real-world scenarios. We put the trainee in decision-making situations; their decisions follow branching logic along multiple paths. We create graphics and animations to make abstract concepts or systems more concrete. Users spend time looking up answers to questions or reviewing material. Users work through simulations that challenge them to brake the train or start up a shipboard console. Users practice trouble-shooting diagnostics to fix malfunctioning equipment. With all these options, is it any wonder that the training would take longer than a lecture and slide show presentation? Of course, I would argue - on firm theoretical grounds - that this kind of training is more lasting in its effect than sitting back and passively viewing a PowerPoint presentation.
There is no doubt that in real-world training there will be the need for some informational "data dumps." There's also a time and place for giving trainees an opportunity to get close to the content in a meaningful way. Most applications will inevitably involve some combination of different training needs (i.e. just tell them this stuff; give them more time practicing on that stuff). The instructional strategies, including the degree of interactivity, will have to be planned accordingly.
__________________________________________________
About the Author
JC Kinnamon
Program Manager, Training Applications
Midi Corporation
JC's focus at Midi is to ensure that the high quality graphics and video work together in training programs to teach employees the concepts and skills necessary to accomplish corporate goals. JC joined Midi in 1990 as a multimedia producer and has experience in all facets of multimedia production.
Prior to joining Midi, he was assistant director of the Office of Statewide Computer Policy & Instructional Technology with the New Jersey Department of Higher Education. There, he managed the country's only state-run competitive grant program for college faculty, collaborating with educational technology experts from across the U.S. to fund innovative ideas that used technology to improve undergraduate education. He also wrote speeches and testimonies delivered to state legislators by the state's higher education leadership.
He began his career teaching educational computing at Columbia University's Teachers College where he was the assistant director of the Microcomputer Resource Center, and where is he now nearing the completion of his Ph.D. in educational psychology. He holds an MA in both computing education and psychology from Columbia and a BA in psychology from Salisbury State University.
Midi can be reached on the World Wide Web at http://www.midicorp.com.