The 2006 ADL Survey

70th Meeting of the NATO Working Group on Individual Training and Education Developments

17-21 September 2007Bergen, Norway

J. D. Fletcher (Fletcher@ida.org)

Some Background(Why are we doing this?)

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.

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

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

Some Results from the 2004 Survey

•Thirty-one responses received from 20 countries.

• Total of 387 courses that use or planned to use ADL technologiesMostly Technical training (52%); Basic C2 (21%); andStaff 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.

2006 Survey(What have we found?)

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

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

Courses Using ADL Technologies

NCO Officer Def Civ Totals

Intial 2 10 3 15

GMT 3613 3675 179 7467

PDM 267 239 253 759

TT 521 87 21 629

Totals 4403 4011 456 8870

NCO Officer Def Civ Totals

Intial 10 19 6 35

GMT 4528 4749 255 9532

PDM 304 285 258 847

TT 595 86 48 48

Totals 5437 5139 567 10462

“Now”

“In 3 Years”

Increase in Number of Courses Using ADL Technologies

Total NCO

Total Officer

Total Def

Civilian

Totals

2004 266 104 17 387

2006 “Now”

4403 4011 456 8870

2006“In 3 Years”

5437 5139 567 10462

ADL Plans and Policies

Army NavyAir Force

Joint Forces

MoD Wide

Strategic Plan

7 4 6 4 8

Implem-tation Plan

6 4 5 4 6

R&D Plan

3 2 4 3 3

Policy Directives

6 6 8 4 6

Course Length and ADL Use

NCOAverag

e

OfficerAverage

Civilian

Average

OverallAverage

Average length (days)*

29 29 11 23

Percent time using ADL Technologies

44 40 26 36

*For courses using any ADL capabilities

Teams, Crews, Staffs*For courses using any ADL capabilities

NCOs Officers Civilians

Number of courses

35 69 65

Average length (days)

- 42 -

Longest (days)

- 135 -

Percent time using ADL Technologies

- - -

Course Importance (most to least) -- ADL Aside

1) Language and culture training2) Professional development for officers3) Training for trainers4) Preparation for ‘other’ NATO assignments5) Preparation for NATO staff assignments6) Professional development for NCOs7) Preparation for in-country staff assignments8) General military training for officers9) Command and control training10) General military training for NCOs11) Professional development for civilian

personnel12) Initial training for officers13) General military training for civilian

personnel14) Initial training for NCOs15) Initial training for civilian personnel

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

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)

Infrastructure

EmailWorld 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%

Homes 77% 79% 70% ---

Acquiring ADL

How Acquired Percent

“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%

Acquiring LMSs

How Acquired Number

“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

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)

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)

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

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

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

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”

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

Question …

Is this survey business worthwhile??Next time:

- Web based- NTG Website- More sensible questions- Fewer questions- More ACT involvement