1. The 2006 ADL Survey 70th Meeting of the NATO Working Group on Individual Training and Education Developments 17-21 September 2007 Bergen, Norway J. D. Fletcher (Fletcher@ida.org)

2. Some Background (Why are we doing this?)

3. Tasking From NATO Training Group Purpose: Improve the quality of NATO training and education through cooperation and resource sharing. Approach: Implement ADL on a large scale. Task Objective: Identify common needs, priorities, and existing capabilities for ADL (i.e., need for interoperable education and training systems that address common, high-priority NATO and PfP operational needs). Product(s): Provide an annual report to the Military Committee through the International Military Staff.

4. Some Results from the 2002 “Quick Survey” Responses from 23 countries Seven high priority training areas identified: NCO Staff Training, English Language, Staff Procedures, C2, Doctrine, Information Technology, and Cross Cultural Training Internet delivery preferred over high-bandwidth lines Cooperative development preferred over centralized development Distributed content libraries preferred over centralized libraries Unclassified content preferred over classified content Agreement on the need for an interoperable, distributed ADL capability for NATO/PfP

5. 2004 Survey 31 responses from 19 Countries Mostly Land, but substantial representation from Air, Sea, and MoD Academies and civilian education and training also represented

6. Some Results from the 2004 Survey Thirty-one responses received from 20 countries. Total of 387 courses that use or planned to use ADL technologies Mostly Technical training (52%); Basic C2 (21%); and Staff training (18%) -- Mostly blended approaches (68%). Infrastructure needed for ADL widely available, but costly and not everywhere available (e.g., in homes). Top six obstacles to adoption of ADL were seen as: Availability of Development Expertise; Expertise of Military Instructors in using ADL; Expertise of NCOs in using ADL technologies; Availability of ADL Materials; Understanding of ADL by Military Commanders and School Administrators; and Cost of ADL. The value of ADL on-demand learning to NATO/PfP nations continued to be widely recognized and accepted.

7. 2006 Survey (What have we found?)

9. 2006 Survey 24 Responses from 17 Countries Mostly MoD, but substantial representation from Air, Sea, and Land Academies and Civilian also represented ADL applications in nations range from few to 1000s Final report at May 2007 WG IT&ED meeting Final Final report at September 2007 WG IT&ED meeting

10. Courses Using ADL Technologies “Now” “In 3 Years”

11. Increase in Number of Courses Using ADL Technologies Total NCO Total Officer Total Def Civilian Totals 200426610417387 2006 “Now” 440340114568870 2006 “In 3 Years” 5437513956710462

12. ADL Plans and Policies ArmyNavyAir Force Joint Forces MoD Wide Strategic Plan 74648 Implem- tation Plan 64546 R&D Plan32433 Policy Directives 66846

13. Course Length and ADL Use NCO Average Officer Average Civilian Average Overall Average Average length (days)* 29 1123 Percent time using ADL Technologies 44402636 *For courses using any ADL capabilities

14. Teams, Crews, Staffs *For courses using any ADL capabilities NCOsOfficersCivilians Number of courses 356965 Average length (days) -42- Longest (days)-135- Percent time using ADL Technologies ---

15. Course Importance (most to least) -- ADL Aside 1) Language and culture training 2) Professional development for officers 3) Training for trainers 4) Preparation for ‘other’ NATO assignments 5) Preparation for NATO staff assignments 6) Professional development for NCOs 7) Preparation for in-country staff assignments 8) General military training for officers 9) Command and control training 10) General military training for NCOs 11) Professional development for civilian personnel 12) Initial training for officers 13) General military training for civilian personnel 14) Initial training for NCOs 15) Initial training for civilian personnel

16. Authoring Tools Ready-Go; D2L editor Web-CT editor; Authorware; Breeze, Knowledge Assembler; Articulate Present; Articulate Quiz Maker; Director; Question Mark Perception; Adobe Acrobat; InfoPak; Captivate; Rapid Builder; Document Editor; Course Composer; Flash; ToolBook; Explicanto; Sumatra; IDEA; LAPODA; Dreamweaver; PfP LMS Prototype 2 Development Tool; IBM Authoring Tool; Toolbook Instructor; iLEX; Aloha II; TurboDemo; Oracle; Lotus; Lectora; Powerpoint Our respondents reported over 900 authoring tools now being used to prepare ADL materials

17. Learning Management Systems Sun Learntone; Web-CT; D2L; Learn Logic; A-tutor (LCMS); Edu-Center; GENERATION; Global Teach; LOTUS Release 1.04; LOTUS Release 1.05; iLearning; ILIAS; Intuitext; MOODLE; First Class; Fronter; Lotus LearningSpace 5; Learngate; Army Learning Management System (ALMS);Blackboard; Aspen; Meridian KSI;Plateau; Learn.com; MGen Our respondents reported over 2500 courses now using Learning Management Systems (aka LMSs)

18. Infrastructure Email World Wide Web Computer Courses Video Tele- conferencing Professional Academies 95%88%75%77% Training Schools 87%86%70%76% Military Bases 84%79%62%69% Homes77%79%70%---

19. Acquiring ADL How AcquiredPercent “Off the Shelf” (no modifications) 30% “Off the Shelf” (minor modifications) 5% “Off the Shelf” (major modifications) 6% In house by uniformed military developers 28% In house by MoD civilian developers 24% Outside contractor 38% SCORM 1.2 58% SCORM 2004 21%

20. Acquiring LMSs How AcquiredNumbe r “Off the Shelf” (no modifications) 71 “Off the Shelf” (minor modifications) 28 “Off the Shelf” (major modifications) 51 In house by uniformed developers 24 In house by MoD civilian developers 12 Outside contractor 2

21. 2006 - Top Six Obstacles to ADL Use (1) Limited expertise of non-commissioned officers in using ADL technology (2004 - #3) (2) Quality of infrastructure (e.g., telephone lines, electrical power) for delivering ADL materials to military personnel (2004 - #9) (3) Cost of infrastructure (e.g., telephone lines, electrical power) for delivering ADL materials to military personnel (2004 - #18) (4) Cost of ADL materials (2004 - #6) (5) Availability of expertise for developing ADL courses (2004 - #1) (6) Expertise of officers in using ADL technology (2004 - #10)

22. 2006 - Next Six Obstacles to ADL Use (7) Understanding by officers of ADL objectives, issues, and benefits (2004 - #11) (8) Cost of student help services (2004 - #13) (9) Expertise of instructors to teach courses using ADL (2004 - #2) (10) Availability of student help services (2004 - #21) (11) Availability of hardware (e.g., computers, modems) for delivering ADL materials (2004 - #23) (12) Availability of ADL materials (2004 - #4)

23. 2006 - Top Six Benefit(s) Expected from ADL (1)Increased quality of general military training (2) Increased quality of command and control training (3) Reduced costs in using techniques, weapons, materials, facilities, etc. (4) Agility - ability to maintain concurrency with military equipment and systems (5) Accessibility - anywhere/anytime training and education for crews and teams (6)Increased interoperability of command and control training

24. 2006 - Benefits 7-12 Expected from ADL (7) Increased accessibility of general military training (8) Increased interoperability of general military training (9) Accessibility -- anytime/anywhere training and education for military units (10) Increased interoperability of language and/or cultural training (11) Agility - ability to tailor instruction to current duty assignments for individuals, crews, teams, staffs (12) Reduced costs for distance training and education

25. 2006 - Benefits 13-18 Expected from ADL (13) Increased interoperability of initial training (14) Agility -- ability to tailor instruction to individual needs (15) Increased interoperability of professional development (16) Increased quality of language and/or cultural training (17) Reduced costs for residential training and education (18) Reduced educational and training costs for travel and for temporary duty assignments

26. Comments … Quick Survey suggested there was strong interest in not replacing current courses, but in using ADL for: - Preparation for training and new assignments - Refresher/sustainment training - Specific information seeking and problem solving However we now seem to be busy developing replacement ADL materials for blended environments -- many courses -- about 1/3 ADL Strong interest in advancing in-country ADL capabilities - Training for in-country staff positions - Training for trainers - Language and culture training 35 repositories reported -- CORDRA coming along Expertise in ADL improving, but both costs and expertise still seen as “obstacles”

27. More Comments … Major benefits: Agility (rapid preparation and modification), accessibility (anywhere, anytime), and reduced costs for training (and overall infrastructure costs) Interoperability currently of more interest than reuse Availability and quality of learning management systems does not seem to be an obstacle (cf ILIAS) ADL materials (e.g., courses) split about evenly between “off the shelf” and in-house acquisition Infrastructure needed to support ADL satisfactory(?) and still improving High command support for ADL continues

28. Question … Is this survey business worthwhile?? Next time: - Web based - NTG Website - More sensible questions - Fewer questions - More ACT involvement