Future Programs

The extraordinary change in the strategic environment demands a similar trans­formation in how the military prepares for new missions. Emphasis must shift from deliberate planning against a known capability to adaptive planning for an opposition whose tactics and techniques are uncertain. A shift from large hierar­chies to smaller, distributed forces trained to adapt to uncertain scenarios is underway.

A set of instructional technologies under development that can enable such a transformation comes under the general term advanced distributed learning (ADL). The blend here is across a variety of existing technologies made possible through interoperability standards for online instruction. Also tied in is a Web services model that communicates across learning environments through a common ar­chitecture (Blackmon & Rehak, 2003). The blend can also be across content areas, allowing the learner to combine a selection of learning exercises from a variety of authors, vendors, and sources into one seamless, adaptive learning experience.

Blended Learning in Military Training

The Advanced Distributed Learning Vision

The ADL Initiative originated in 1997 through the President's Office of Science and Technology Policy (Wisher & Fletcher, 2004). An executive order gave the DoD a leadership role within the federal government. ADL is based on three main components: (1) a global information infrastructure, with registered repositories populated by reusable instructional objects; (2) a server, which discovers, locates, and then assembles instructional objects into education, training, and perfor­mance-aiding materials tailored to user needs; and (3) devices that serve as personal learning associates on which the materials are presented.

This material will be tailored to the needs, capabilities, intentions, and learn­ing state of each individual or group. Much of the work of the server is expected to be accomplished by middleware in the form of learning management systems. Within ADL, this implies a server-based environment in which the intelligence for controlling the delivery of learning content resides with the learning management system.

Learning Objects and Learning Management Systems. To date, most ADL effort has been devoted to the specification of reusable, sharable instructional objects. ADL development envisions the creation of learning libraries or repositories where learning objects may be accumulated and catalogued for broad distribution and use. Such repositories will provide the basis for a new instructional object econ­omy that rewards content creators for developing high-quality learning objects and assembling them into adaptive learning experiences.

The key function of a learning management system in this context is to man­age content objects, so that it should be possible for a learning management system to launch content that is authored by using tools from different vendors and to exchange data with that content. The function of launching content has largely been solved with the Sharable Content Object Reference Model (SGORM). This model constitutes an important first step toward releasing learning content objects from local implementations (Dodds & Thropp, 2004). It is intended to provide specifications that enable content objects to be easily shared across multiple learn­ing delivery environments. Indeed, one reason for its creation was an earlier frustration with a multitude of proprietary systems and learning content designs that were barriers to broader use of technology for military training (Government Accounting Office, 2003).

Sharable Content Object Reference Model. The current version of SCORM is realizing worldwide adoption among hundreds of vendors and other develop­ers. A successful reference model must support full articulation of guidelines

The Handbook of Blended Learning

that can be implemented in the production of content objects. Much of the work needed to create the reference model is accomplished in a collaborative manner involving industry, academia, and governmental agencies, and on a global scale. One function of the ADL leadership in this process is to organize, encourage, orchestrate, and document their development efforts.

In terms of common repositories of content, ADL is examining the Handle System (Corporation for National Research Initiatives, 2004) as a comprehensive system for assigning, managing, and resolving persistent identifiers, known as " han­dles, " for digital objects (content objects) and other resources on the Internet. The Handle System consists of a unique and persistent identifier for a resource and its owning organization, a protocol for resolving its location, and a reference imple­mentation of the protocol so that a resource can always be found. The Handle System has the backing of the International Digital Object Identifier Foundation, which provides a framework for managing intellectual content, such as electronic journal articles, images, and instructional objects (International Digital Object Identifier Foundation, 2003).

ADL envisions a blended environment where learners are engaged with interconnected learning activities, such as moving from a multiplayer online instructional game to a sequence of learning objects relevant to a game strategy and perhaps then to an intelligent tutor and then back to the online game.

Closing Comments

An examination of the military training reveals blending of instructional tech­nologies not found in other learning environments. The blended environments address individual and unit skills. The extent to which the military employs tech­nology for training and its sheer complexity is not always apparent to others. A day on the exhibit floor of a large military training technology conference, such as the Interservice/Industry Training Simulation and Education Conference, can be an awesome experience.

There is no preestablished formula for a model of blended learning. Media se­lection models provide recommendations, but time, facilities, and instructor avail­ability are critical factors. The need to reduce travel costs is another. Safety, environmental factors, and the call for readiness clearly play a role. Military research on education and training attends to the many excellent ideas emerg­ing on learning environments created in academia or practiced by industry. An examination of practices and trends in the military can be of similar value. This chapter serves to make others aware of the innovations from military research and experimentation in designing next-generation learning environments. Through technology transfer, learners everywhere may ultimately benefit.

Blended Learning in Military Training

References

Belanich, J., Sibley, D. E., & Orvis, K. L. (2004). Instructional characteristics and motivational

features of a PC-based game. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the

Behavioral and Social Sciences. Blackmon, W. H., & Rehak, D. R. (2003). Customized learning: A Web services approach.

Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University: Learning Systems Architecture Lab.

Retrieved August 20, 2004, from https://www.lsal.cmu.edu/lsal/expertise/papers/

conference/edmedia2003/customized20030625.html. Corporation for National Research Initiatives. (2004, February 9). Corporation for.National

Research Initiatives, " The Handle System." Retrieved August 12, 2004, from https://www.

handle.net/introduction.htrnl. Department of Defense. (2002). Military manpower training report. Washington, DC: Pentagon,

Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Readiness). Department of Defense. (2004, June 9). Department of Defense training transformation implementation

plan. Washington, DC: Pentagon, Office of the Under Secretary for Personnel and

Readiness. Dodds, P., & Thropp, S. (2004, February 9). Shamble Content Object Reference Model, SCORM

2004 overview. Retrieved August 12, 2004, from https://www.adlnet.org/index.cfm?

fuseaction=rcdetails& libid=648. Farr, M. J., & Psotka, J. (Eds.). (1992). Intelligent instruction by computer: Theory and practice.

Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis. Fletcher, J. D., & Chatelier, P. R. (2000). Military training. In S. Tobias & J. D. Fletcher (Eds.),

Training and retraining: A handbook for business, industry, government, and the military (pp. 267-288).

New York: Macmillan. Government Accounting Office. (2003). Military transformation: Progress and challenges for

DoD's advanced distributed leaning programs. Washington, DC: Government Accounting

Office. International Digital Object Identifier Foundation. (2003). The Digital Object Identifier System.

Retrieved August 12, 2004, from www.doi.org. Orvis, K. L., Wisher, R. A., Bonk, C. J., & Olson, Т. М. (2002). Communication patterns

during synchronous Web-based military training in problem solving. Computers in Human

Behavior, 18, 783-795. White House. (2004). The national security strategy of the United States of America. Washington,

DC: White House. Retrieved July 13, 2005, from https://www.whitehouse.gov/

nsc/nss.html. Wisher, R. A., Abramson, L. J., & Dees, J. J. (2001). The effectiveness of an intelligent

tutoring system for rocket training. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on

Advanced Learning Technology. Madison, WT. Wisher, R. A., & Fletcher, J. D. (2004). The case for advanced distributed learning. Information

and Security: An International Journal, 14, 17—25. Woolf, B. P., & Regian, J. W. (2000). Knowledge-based training systems and the engineering

of instruction. In S. Tobias & J. Fletcher (Eds.), Training and retraining: A handbookfor business,

industry, government, and the military (pp. 339-356). New York: Macmillan.

CHAPTER THIRTY-EIGHT