Factors influencing the uptake of Web-based learning in the Australian Army Diane Newton Allan Ellis SOUTHERN CROSS UNIVERSITY

NEWTON & ELLIS Research aims To understand what factors were influencing the Army’s development and delivery of CBL To understand the perspectives of soldiers involved in CBL development and delivery What is the role of perspectives in development and delivery of CBL?

NEWTON & ELLIS Research method Two rounds of interviews with CBL course design and development team (2004, 2005) Interviews and questionnaires: managers, students (Regular and Reserve), instructors Classroom observations, historical documents, Army evaluations

NEWTON & ELLIS Moving towards WBL <1996Conventional face-to-face training. Isolated CBL development and delivery 1996Strategic support for CBL: Defence Efficiency review, TECHSIM report 2000Training Technology Centre: CD-ROM packages development Regional Training Centres: classroom delivery CBL 2003Classroom based multimedia CD-ROM packages. Dept of Defence: Web-based learning project, LMS 2004Classroom based multimedia CD-ROM packages Trial Reserve soldiers’ pilot CBL distance learning 2005Classroom based multimedia CBL. Development of distance CBL. Shift to Web compatible ‘hybrid’ courses on CD-ROMs

NEWTON & ELLIS Workplace Factors What is influencing the uptake of Web- Based Learning? Technical Factors Learners’ Needs Cultural Factors WBL Uptake External Factors

NEWTON & ELLIS Technical factors + External Dept of Defence Web-based Learning Project (LMS) + - Standard Operating Equipment updates + - Design software compatibility with SOE - Defence Restricted Network bandwidth availability - Access to DRN and computers in training establishments inconsistent

NEWTON & ELLIS Cultural factors + High level managerial support: sustainability + Army Training System and instructional design principles: standardisation + - Need to communicate Army culture-values, customs and belief - Authoritarian instructor-student relationship - ‘Turf wars’ over control and methods of training. ‘Blame culture’

NEWTON & ELLIS Workplace factors + Experienced development team: mentoring, collaboration, consultants +Development of effective project management methods for CBL - Instructors’ resistance and unfamiliarity. Need ‘champions’ - Hierarchical communication. Need for two- way communication between production and delivery sectors

NEWTON & ELLIS Learners’ needs + - Focus on providing structured, interactive media-rich courses + Variety of learning styles included in CBL + Need relevant and current content - Assumptions of computer literacy - One size fits all - Inexperienced with distance learning

NEWTON & ELLIS ‘Developer’ view of technology ADDIE Model - Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, Evaluation ‘The implementation phase remains a mystery to many…’ ‘Technically advanced and instructionally sound products will be desired by end users solely because of their technological superiority’ (Surry & Ensminger 2003).Surry & Ensminger 2003

NEWTON & ELLIS ‘Adopter’ view of technology ‘Focus on needs and opinions of potential adopters and characteristics of adoption site’ ‘The end user is the primary force for change’ ‘The growth of technology is an evolutionary process.’ (Surry & Farquhar 1997)Surry & Farquhar 1997

NEWTON & ELLIS What factors influence effective WBL implementation? LearnersDevelopment Delivery Social Cultural Political Technical Workplace External The adoption of WBL is an evolving process of aligning technical, cultural, social, political, external and workplace factors to meet learners’ needs. Effective communication is essential for this process.

NEWTON & ELLIS Thank you Diane Newton Allan Ellis Full Paper: newton/paper.html