Ñòóäîïåäèÿ

Ãëàâíàÿ ñòðàíèöà Ñëó÷àéíàÿ ñòðàíèöà

ÊÀÒÅÃÎÐÈÈ:

ÀâòîìîáèëèÀñòðîíîìèÿÁèîëîãèÿÃåîãðàôèÿÄîì è ñàäÄðóãèå ÿçûêèÄðóãîåÈíôîðìàòèêàÈñòîðèÿÊóëüòóðàËèòåðàòóðàËîãèêàÌàòåìàòèêàÌåäèöèíàÌåòàëëóðãèÿÌåõàíèêàÎáðàçîâàíèåÎõðàíà òðóäàÏåäàãîãèêàÏîëèòèêàÏðàâîÏñèõîëîãèÿÐåëèãèÿÐèòîðèêàÑîöèîëîãèÿÑïîðòÑòðîèòåëüñòâîÒåõíîëîãèÿÒóðèçìÔèçèêàÔèëîñîôèÿÔèíàíñûÕèìèÿ×åð÷åíèåÝêîëîãèÿÝêîíîìèêàÝëåêòðîíèêà






Table 37. 1. Institutional training categories and loads in the U. S. Military.






Recruit training: 38, 000 Provides introductory physical conditioning and

military training to indoctrinate and acclimate enlisted entrants to military life.

Specialized skill training: Provides personnel with initial job qualification skills

99, 100 and new or higher levels of skill in military specialties to

meet specific job requirements

One-station unit training: An army training program that meets the objectives of

9, 600 both recruit training and specialized skill training

through a single course

Officer acquisition training: Provides education and training that leads to

19, 300 commissioning in one of the services; also known as

precommissioning training

Flight training: 5, 500 Provides initial flying skills needed by pilots, navigators,

and naval flight officers

Professional development Includes educational courses conducted at service

education: 12, 900 schools or at civilian institutions to broaden the outlook

and knowledge of personnel or to impart knowledge in

advanced academic disciplines

research reported by the Army Research Institute has demonstrated a positive learning effect among delayed-entry recruits (Belanich, Sibley, & Orvis, 2004). Specifically, the findings demonstrated that game participants recalled procedures better than facts, while graphic images and spoken text were recalled more accurately than printed text.

A different picture for blended learning emerges with the largest institutional category: specialized skill training at the individual level. Numerous examples of combining technology with classroom and hands-on laboratories are available, but space limits the description to two examples.

A Blending with Intelligent Tutoring Systems. An instructional technology that has matured in recent years is intelligent tutoring. Intelligent tutoring systems have evolved from an arcane art of knowledge engineering to development methods and delivery options that are becoming more commonplace. Fundamental to an intelligent tutor is a body of domain knowledge encoded as an expert system of rules (Farr & Psotka, 1992). This expertise is accessible to the student during a learn­ing exercise under the control of an instructional strategy governed by production rules, Bayesian networks, or other computational schemes representing expert knowledge. The goal is to have the student construct a mental representation of


Blended Learning in Military Training



the domain knowledge—the expert's facts, rules, and procedures—for later application.

One example is the blending of an intelligent tutoring system within an advanced course in field artillery. The eighteen-week course employs the instructional methods of lectures on theory, doctrine, and tactics with peer discussions and reading assignments. A culminating activity is the integration of what was learned into a four-hour practice lab, called a sand table exercise. This exercise requires small groups working collaboratively to demonstrate their knowl­edge with operational planning. Limitations of the conventional sand table, such as small group versus individual instruction, led to the development of an intelli­gent tutor for this one learning activity.

The conventional sand table is a low-fidelity training device: an actual table of sand with molded terrain features and rocket assets, such as loaders and vehi­cles, depicted by miniature objects. It is used to evaluate reconnaissance, selection, and occupation of position strategies. During the exercise, students review an operations order, evaluate a terrain, and strategically decide where to place firing points, ammunition hiding areas, and so forth within a terrain model.

The virtual sand table is the intelligent tutoring counterpart for conducting the same training but on an individual basis. It is essentially a simulation game, where a student's actions are evaluated against a set of expectations governed by a set of rules. Although an actual sand table may appear useful, an individual cannot truly benefit unless there is a trained expert present to critique the process through regular and informative feedback. In reality, an insufficient number of instructors are available to critique students during the exercise. An intelligent tutor offers a remedy.

The tutoring component is designed to simulate an instructor coaching a student at a conventional sand table. The focus is the evaluation of the student's selected positions and routes. The basis for the coaching is a three-step process: a situation assessment of the map area, diagnosis and evaluation of the student's decisions, and generation of feedback (coaching) to the student. As the student places assets for occupation of position, a simulation component calculates the line of sight, mobility, and trajectories for the rockets in real time. The results from the simulation are displayed and sent to the intelligent tutor component for evaluation. Coaching templates can consequently be triggered. An example of a coaching experience is displayed in Figure 37.1.

In an evaluation of the effectiveness of the intelligent tutor to the conven­tional sand table, an effect size of 1.05 standard deviation units for the intelli­gent tutor was reported, based on a sample of 209 for the conventional sand table and 105 for the intelligent tutor (Wisher, Abrahmson, & Dees, 2001). This trans­lates to a 35 percentile increase in learning above the mean performance of the


 


 


 



The Handbook of Blended Learning


FIGURE 37.1. COACHING THE STUDENT DURING MAP RECONNAISSANCE.


conventional group. The effect size reported is in line with those reported in other studies of intelligent tutors in the military and higher education, which is about 1.0 (Woolf & Regian, 2000).

A Blending with Collaborative Learning Tools. A second example of blending concerns a career course for armor officers who belong to the Army National Guard or Army Reserve. This course used a blend of three instructional phases: (1) an asynchronous training phase delivered over the Internet, (2) a synchro­nous Web-based phase in a collaborative, virtual environment, and (3) a two-week face-to-face resident training. In the asynchronous phase, students learned basic concepts with feedback from both the learning management systems and the in­structor. The second phase consisted of seventy hours of synchronous instruction in a Web-based, virtual environment. The third phase was face-to-face instruction


Blended Learning in Military Training



in which the students engaged in realistic classroom and field exercises for two full weeks. Part of the formula for the blending was based on the number of train­ing days available per year, which is one weekend a month and two full-time weeks.

Of interest is a study on the interactions during the synchronous phase (Orvis, Wisher, Bonk, & Olson, 2002). Here, small groups of students " convened" in a virtual operations center, a visual rendition of an actual tactical operations cen­ter. Students connected from different geographical locations, generally their homes. Training sessions lasted between four and eight hours on two consecu­tive weekend days. The collaboration tools available were group as well as private chat, shared whiteboard, shared book shelf, shared-text application, and three-dimensional terrain tools. The students' learning environment involved solving problems collectively concerning military operations and generated work prod­ucts, such as a mission analysis.

More than sixty-five hundred acts of text chat were recorded during the synchronous training sessions. Results indicated shifting patterns of interaction over the six-month period; technology concerns gradually diminished, while on-task discussion peaked in the middle months, and social interactions were higher at the start and end of the training, just prior to the face-to-face resident phase. Overall, student chats were categorized as on task 55 percent, social 30 percent, or technology related 15 percent. Examples of chats and focus group data indi­cated that there was an emphasis on fostering student problem solving within the online course.

Blended Learning in Collective Training

Collective training, also referred to as unit training, concerns the development of skills needed to accomplish a unit's mission essential tasks: its wartime objectives. It is a primary contributor to readiness, along with equipment, supplies, and per­sonnel availability. (Readiness is a peacetime measure of how well the force is pre­pared to conduct its missions.) A parallel to face-to-face classroom instruction concerns training on ranges and in operational areas. These are physical zones set aside specifically for testing weapon systems and training units of all sizes. Some ex­amples are ground maneuver areas, drop zones, torpedo alleys, and live-fire ranges. Excluding airspace, sea surface, and underwater training areas, there are approxi­mately 440 range complexes covering nearly 30 million acres in the United States. Unit training frequently entails activities that pose risk to the safety and well-being of participants. During the 1988 to 1991 period, for example, 752 active-duty personnel died while engaging in peacetime training. About 64 per­cent of these were due to aviation mishaps. For this and other reasons, simulators and simulations are being blended more and more into collective training.



The Handbook of Blended Learning


Ranges and Simulations. Military ranges and operating areas are enablers of unit performance. However, encroachment pressures such as private housing developments adjacent to ranges, restrictions imposed by environmental regulations, and growing competition for airspace and the electronic frequency spectrum are impeding the ability to train in realistic environments. An area of blended learning being exploited concerns distributed simulations. Simulations are simply abstractions of the real world. When distributed, individuals and crews can synchronize to activities in other simulators or even to concurrent activities that are occurring on an instrumented training range. All activities are sensed, timed, and linked through advanced technologies.

How is this accomplished? A key technology is high-level architecture (HLA), a standard for constructing distributed simulations. It was approved as an open standard through the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE Stan­dard 1516) in 2000. It is intended to facilitate interoperation between a wide range of simulation types and to promote the reusability of simulation software. HLA encompasses virtual, constructive, and live simulations. A group of simulations interoperating under HLA is called a federation.

Distributed Simulations. Distributed simulations seek to create a highly realistic, widely distributed, seamless environment for training and mission rehearsal. The goal is to resolve actions within a setting that integrates terrain, ocean, atmosphere, and dynamic environmental effects. Command behaviors are cred­ibly simulated along with information from sensors and interfaces to command-and-control systems. Manned simulators as well as live, instrumented systems can be federated as needed.

This technology is a blend of three technical areas: (1) synthetic environments, representing areas within the real world; (2) synthetic forces, which are computer-generated entities operating in synthetic environments programmed to employ the tactics and techniques of friendly and opposing forces; and (3) networking, that is, communications technology linking human and synthetic forces in shared synthetic environments. The objective is to faithfully represent the spectrum of conflicts in conducting operations.

The networking of simulators for training started in the 1980s with funding from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. One advancement in blended learning is distributed mission training. In the air force, for example, these systems have full-domed visuals, interconnected simulators, and a networked train­ing center that incorporates live feeds from other simulators hundreds of miles away. They provide realistic training to pilots and air crews through precise time-space-position information with convincing weapon engagement simulations. The


Blended Learning in Military Training



benefits are tremendous because pilots are now able to train with multiple aircraft platforms on the same mission scenario. Recent advances now allow simulators to be linked to actual weapons platforms, providing increased fidelity to the virtual training experience.



Blended Learning in Large-Scale Exercises. A related model of blended learn­ing is emerging for integrating the training during large exercises. The model is known as live-virtual-constructive (L-V-C) simulations. The model reflects an am­bitious effort to link simultaneously the activities that occur on instrumented, live fire ranges with virtual activities in widely dispersed simulators. These activ­ities are linked to computer models that construct outcomes based on intricate mathematical models of how a unit is expected to perform under a given set of circumstances. Work is underway to develop a global, multinational network of live forces, learner-in-the-loop virtual simulators, and constructive simulations to provide a robust training and mission rehearsal environment.

The L-V-C environment allows troops to train together even if they are not physically located in the same area. In the past, large numbers of forces needed to be moved at great expense. An air force pilot can now target a blip on the screen representing someone sitting in a simulator located far away. Training and targeting can be based on real-time outcomes from virtual simulators and prob­abilities from constructive simulations rather than live targets.

An example of this blended learning environment was a combined joint task force exercise dubbed Operation Blinding Storm conducted in June 2004. Nearly thirty thousand U.S., British, Canadian, and coalition forces from seven other nations participated in this major L-V-C exercise intended to prepare troops for multinational operations. Tasks such as " conduct amphibious assault and raid operations" were executed through a networking of seventeen military units (live), six simulators (virtual), and twenty-one simulations (constructive). As depicted in Figure 37.2, mine warfare operations were conducted at range complexes in North Carolina, as seen through a Sea Dragon helicopter simulator in Florida, while a command group at sea monitored the activities of a live assault group landing on the North Carolina beach that had just been cleared through the simulation.

The idea is to meld live, virtual, and constructive forces on the battleground so that a player-learner cannot tell the difference between one and the other. Based on a global network, the concept is eventually to conduct an exercise with the capacity to integrate players from around the world. For example, people training in Korea could potentially be tied into a network that will include forces on the East Coast of the United States and in Europe. The Joint National Training Capability initiative is pursuing this goal.



The Handbook of Blended Learning



FIGURE 37.2. DEPICTION OF A LIVE-VIRTUAL-CONSTRUCTIVE LEARNING EXERCISE.

VIRTUAL Helicopter Simulator detecting mines

LIVE

UK Marines amphibious assault

Source: Photo of simulator courtesy CAE.


Ïîäåëèòüñÿ ñ äðóçüÿìè:

mylektsii.su - Ìîè Ëåêöèè - 2015-2024 ãîä. (0.012 ñåê.)Âñå ìàòåðèàëû ïðåäñòàâëåííûå íà ñàéòå èñêëþ÷èòåëüíî ñ öåëüþ îçíàêîìëåíèÿ ÷èòàòåëÿìè è íå ïðåñëåäóþò êîììåð÷åñêèõ öåëåé èëè íàðóøåíèå àâòîðñêèõ ïðàâ Ïîæàëîâàòüñÿ íà ìàòåðèàë