Performance Improvement Quarterly, 9(4) pp.

57-78

An Analysis of the Competencies Needed by

Trainers to Use Computer-Based Technologies
and Distance Learning Systems

Julie A. Furst-Bowe
University of Wisconsin-Stout

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to wide range of technologies in training,

describe computer-based technologies and that the major types of technolo-
and distance learning systems cur- gies will not change significantly in the
rently used in employee training and next three years. However, there are
to determine which technologies will several newer, more sophisticated
be used in future training processes. technologies that will be used with
The competencies needed by trainers greater frequency in the future. The
to use the various types of technologies respondents indicated that it was
were also examined, including pre- more important for trainers to be able
ferred sources of competency develop- to use or assist trainees in the use of a
ment. Barriers trainers face when system than to be able to develop new
implementing new technologies were systems or programs. Vendor training
also determined. A questionnaire was and self-study methods were identi-
developed and used to collect the data fied as the two most common resources
from 381 ISPI members. The results for developing competencies in in-
indicate that organizations are using a structional technology.

Training professionals perform in fined as the hardware and software

a great variety of roles as they apply used in the processes of teaching
their competencies to the human re- and learning (Anglin, 1991). Con-
source development challenges fac- temporary design and delivery sys-
ing their organizations (McLagan, tems include computer-based train-
1989). Two primary duties of train- ing systems, multimedia systems,
ers include designing and delivering electronic performance support sys-
instruction. Each of these duties is tems, and telecommunication sys-
becoming more challenging as tech- tems for distance learning. In addi-
nology evolves. The use of instruc- tion, computer technology is being
tional technology in training has used to enhance traditional class-
grown tremendously over the past room training.
five years; tools have improved and Although not every organization
have produced several changes in the has implemented these new design
way training is being designed and and delivery systems, the number of
delivered (Haag, 1993). organizations using these systems
For the purpose of this study, in- increases each year. A recent survey
structional technology may be de- of organizations with more than 100

VOLUME 9, NUMBER 4/1996 57

employees indicated that 48% are apply this knowledge to the develop-
using computer-based training, 27% ment and delivery of training using
are using multimedia systems, and computer-based technologies, dis-
43% are using some type of distance tance learning systems, and other
learning system to deliver training types of instructional technology
(Industry Report, 1995). (Hannum, 1990). Trainers who lack
The use of technology-based deliv- these skills may be limiting their
ery systems in the training process effectiveness and their ability to ob-
has many potential benefits for orga- tain positions and advance in many
nizations. For example, the use of areas of the field.
computer-based technology in the Developing and maintaining ex-
design and delivery of training may pertise in instructional technology
result in greater learning gains, can be challenging to trainers for
more consistent and acceptable job many reasons. Because instructional
performance, enhanced cost-effec- technology is an emerging field,
tiveness, and greater flexibility re- many of the concepts associated with
garding the time and locations of this field, including “multimedia”
training (Hannum, 1990). Several and “distance learning,” have taken
research studies have concluded on a wide range of meanings, result-
that, under the right circumstances, ing in confusion for practitioners
computer-based delivery systems (Anglin, 1991). Also, because many of
are considerably more cost effective these technologies are still evolving,
than classroom training and produce there are few standards in the field.
learning that is at least equal, if not The hardware and software associ-
superior, to what can be achieved in ated with these technologies is con-
a classroom (Haag, 1993). However, tinually being changed, upgraded,
the idea that learning gains can be and replaced. It is often difficult for
attributed to computer-based tech- both new and experienced trainers to
nologies is not without controversy design, develop, and implement
and is still an issue open to debate. hardware and software in a timely
Technology is expected to be espe- manner when the technological envi-
cially helpful in addressing the needs ronment is dynamic and the rate of
of geographically-dispersed trainees obsolescence is increasing (Anglin,
and in reducing the need for class- 1991). Finally, many trainers who
room facilities (Perlstein, 1993). have spent several years using tradi-
The value derived from the use of tional training methods and media
technology in training, however, is may resist or feel uncomfortable with
not due to the hardware itself but new technology (Schaaf, 1992).
rather to the instructional processes There is a need for a better under-
that technology can support standing of the competencies re-
(Hannum, 1990). To be effective in quired by trainers regarding the use
their positions, today’s trainers must of new technologies in training and
possess competencies needed to per- how these competencies may be de-
form in increasingly technological veloped. Although there have been
environments. They must have a several needs assessments con-
solid understanding of learning theo- ducted to identify the competencies
ries and methodologies and be able to of trainers, including the American

58 PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT QUARTERLY

Society for Training and eotapes, books and manuals
Development’s Models for HRD (Lindstrom, 1994). However, be-
Practice and the competency studies cause these programs and resources
published by the International are relatively new, no statistics exist
Board of Standards for Training, regarding the percentage of trainers
Performance and Instruction, typi- who complete formal or self-paced
cally, studies of this type do not pro- programs and how successful these
vide any detailed information about programs are in meeting the needs of
the competencies trainers.
needed to use spe- In addition,
cific types of hard- Respondents plan even trainers
ware, software, or who are highly
delivery systems. to use more complex skilled in the use
Currently, technologies in of instructional
there are several technology may
resources that
their computer- experience diffi-
could provide based training and culty when
training to train- electronic i m p l e m e n ting
ers who need to new types of de-
develop their performance livery systems in
knowledge, skills, support systems, the work envi-
and abilities in ronment. There
designing and de-
and more computer are often barriers
livering instruc- conferencing to in organizations
tion using con- deliver training that inhibit the
temporary in- successful imple-
structional tech- over distances. mentation of in-
nology. These re- There will be less structional tech-
sources include 1) nology in train-
undergraduate
use of certain types ing. These barri-
and graduate of distance ers may include
courses at col- learning systems, high costs, lack of
leges and univer- management
sities; 2) courses, such as support, lack of
workshops and audioconferencing trainer skills,
certificate pro- cultural defaults
grams offered by
and one-way video. for the classroom
trade schools or experience, and
technical colleges; and 3) conferences failure to identify needs adequately
and seminars offered by professional (Gery, 1994).
associations (Lindstrom, 1994).
Many hardware and software ven- Statement of the Problem
dors also provide training to organi- Little is known about the nature
zations that purchase their equip- of the challenges encountered by
ment and products. Finally, trainers trainers as they attempt to incorpo-
can train themselves using training rate computer-based technologies
courseware, computer tutorials, vid- and distance learning systems into

VOLUME 9, NUMBER 4/1996 59

their training processes and pro- 5) What barriers exist in the
grams. Few studies have examined workplace that prevent trainers
the impact of these technologies on from using computer-based tech-
the role of the trainer. nologies and distance learning sys-
tems to deliver training?
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to Significance of the Study
provide current information on the Technology has dramatically
implementation of instructional changed the way training is designed
technology in employee training and and delivered. Current technological
the competencies needed by trainers trends necessitate that training pro-
to utilize instructional technology in fessionals learn new job skills
their jobs. This information may be (Lindstrom, 1994). This study was
used to assist training professionals designed to benefit training profes-
in determining their continuing edu- sionals, human resource develop-
cation or training needs in the area of ment managers, academicians, and
instructional technology. The infor- other training providers by offering
mation also may be used by universi- practical, timely information that
ties, professional organizations, and may be used to update trainer skills
others who provide degree programs and training programs. This study
in human resource development or will provide current information on
instructional technology to develop the implementation of instructional
relevant curricula. technology in training efforts at a
time when it is crucial for trainers to
Research Questions expand their repertoire of skills in
This study sought answers to the this area.
following questions:
Methodology
1) What types of computer- This study sought to determine the
based technologies and distance types of instructional technology cur-
learning systems are being used to rently being used to design and de-
deliver training in business and in- liver employee training, and the types
dustry? of technology that will be used in the
2) What types of computer- future. It also sought to determine the
based technologies and distance competencies required for trainers to
learning systems will be used to use instructional technology to design
deliver training in the future? and deliver employee training and the
3) What are the competencies sources for developing those compe-
needed for trainers to design and tencies. A final purpose of the study
deliver instruction using computer- was to identify the barriers that
based technologies and distance hinder the implementation of instruc-
learning systems? tional technology in training pro-
4) Where are trainers obtaining grams. This section on the methodol-
the competencies needed to design ogy of the study describes the re-
and deliver instruction using com- search design, population and
puter-based technologies and dis- sample, instrument development,
tance learning systems? data collection, and data analysis.

60 PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT QUARTERLY

Research Design Population and Sample
This study was conducted during The population selected for this
a six-month period from June to De- study included members of the Inter-
cember in 1994. First, a literature national Society for Performance and
review focusing on the use of in- Instruction, specifically those mem-
structional technology in training bers living and/or working in the fol-
was conducted. Next, a question- lowing Midwestern states: Illinois,
naire was developed by the re- Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota and Wis-
searcher and reviewed by a group of consin. This group was selected over
eight trainers, research consult- members of other professional train-
ants, and experts in the field of in- ing associations because of ISPI’s fo-
structional tech- cus on perfor-
nology. The first mance technology.
section of the sur- Overall, The association’s
vey contained de- 1993-94 National
mographic items, respondents Membership Di-
including job title reported that the rectory was used
of respondent, to obtain a list of
type of organiza-
ability to use or members alpha-
tion and size of or- assist trainees in betized by state.
ganization where the use of the In the five Mid-
the respondent western states in-
was employed. In technology was the cluded in the
the second sec- most highly needed study, there were
tion, respondents a total of 1,093
were to identify:
competency. The members. A sys-
a) how technology ability to evaluate tematic sample
is currently be- the effectiveness of of members was
ing used to de- s e l e c t e d . This
sign and deliver a specific method of sam-
training in their technology was also pling is appropri-
organizations, b) ate when a list of
their percep-
frequently potential subjects
tions of the types identified. is available and
of technology when the list is
that will be used arranged in a
to design and deliver training in manner that will not interfere with
the future, c) the level of compe- the purpose of the study (Babbie,
tency required of trainers in each 1990). This method also assured that
type of technology, and d) sources a proportional number of individuals
of competency development in from each of the five states would be
each technology. In the third sec- included in the sample.
tion of the survey, respondents The following steps were taken to
were asked to identify barriers in determine the size of the sample.
the workplace that limited the First, a decision was made to estab-
implementation of instructional lish a confidence level of 95% (0.95)
technology in training. for the results of the study. Then the

VOLUME 9, NUMBER 4/1996 61

formula outlined in How to Deter- graphic information, including their
mine Appropriate Survey Sample job title and the size and type of
Size (Narins, 1994) was applied to their organization, and complete
calculate the appropriate sample the remaining three pages of the
size for the population. For a popula- survey.
tion of 1,093, a sample of 381 was The second and third pages of the
required to produce the desired confi- survey contained a grid that listed 32
dence level. This method of deter- types of instructional technologies
mining sample size was generous divided into categories. These cat-
and provided latitude against typical egories included computer-based
sources of error including non-re- training systems, multimedia sys-
sponse. The first member was chosen tems, electronic performance sup-
at random from the list of members port systems, virtual reality, dis-
in the designated five-state area. tance learning systems, and com-
Then every third member was se- puter presentation systems. Addi-
lected until the sample had reached tionally, five areas were further di-
the desired size. vided into subcategories. In each cat-
egory and subcategory, respondents
Instrument Development were asked to indicate whether they
Given the purpose of the study, used each technology in their train-
the research questions to be an- ing efforts and whether they planned
swered, and the size of the sample, a to use each technology in the next
mail questionnaire appeared to be three years. They were also pro-
the most economical and appropri- vided with an option to list addi-
ate data-collection technique. The tional technologies that were not
instrument was developed following included on the questionnaire.
a careful examination of similar In this same section, respondents
studies found in the review of lit- were asked to assume that their or-
erature and was designed to collect ganization planned to use each tech-
data via a self-administered ques- nology and to choose the levels of
tionnaire. competency they believed would be
The instrument consisted of an needed to implement the technol-
11x17-inch sheet of paper printed on ogy. The levels included 1) the abil-
both sides and folded into a four- ity to use or assist trainees in the use
page booklet. The body of the ques- of a particular technology, 2) the
tionnaire was divided into three sec- ability to assess the effectiveness of
tions. In the first section, respon- a technology, 3) the ability to select
dents were asked if their current a technology for an organization,
position involved designing, deliver- and 4) the ability to develop a pro-
ing, or managing training. If indi- gram or system using the technol-
viduals were not currently working in ogy. Respondents were allowed to
the field of training and development, select as many levels as they felt
they were instructed to send back the were appropriate.
survey without answering the remain- Respondents were then asked to
ing survey items. Respondents who identify where they had obtained or
were currently employed in the field would plan to obtain competency in
were instructed to provide other demo- each technology. A list of training

62 PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT QUARTERLY

sources, including colleges and uni- letter also contained the informed-
versities, technical colleges, semi- consent information required by the
nars and conferences, vendor-spon- researcher’s university.
sored training and self-study meth-
ods, was provided. Data Collection
In the third section, printed on the The 381 questionnaires were
fourth page of the survey, respon- mailed with cover letters and post-
dents were asked to identify barriers age-paid return envelopes on Octo-
in the workplace that limited the use ber 7, 1994. A pencil was included in
of instructional each envelope as
technology in incentive for indi-
training. In this Vendor training viduals to re-
section, respon- spond to the sur-
dents were pro-
and self-study were vey. Seven of the
vided with a list of the most popular surveys were re-
potential barriers methods for turned to the
and were asked to sender due to an
indicate if the developing incorrect or out-
barriers were competency in dated address.
present in their These individuals
work environ-
instructional were removed
ment. These bar- technology. from the sample,
riers included: in- Seminars, reducing the
sufficient fund- sample size to
ing; hardware in- conferences, and 374. Thirty per-
compatibility; workshops were cent of the
lack of manage- sample, 112 indi-
ment interest or
frequently viduals, returned
support; lack of identified, but not the survey by No-
time, knowledge, the primary method vember 5, 1994.
or technical skills On November 6,
among trainers; for competency 1994, a second
lack of interest development in any mailing, which
among trainees; included the
inadequate needs
specific technology. questionnaire, a
assessment; and second cover let-
lack of technical support. Respon- ter, a postage-paid envelope, and a
dents could also identify additional packet of instant coffee, was mailed
barriers. to the remainder of the sample. By
A cover letter was developed, December 12, 1994, 49% of the
printed, and mailed with each sur- sample, 184 individuals, had re-
vey. The cover letter explained the turned the survey.
purpose of the study and the format In a phone follow-up conducted
of the questionnaire. It emphasized between December 12 and Decem-
the importance of respondent input ber 16, 1994, an attempt was made
and provided the name and complete to contact every individual who had
address of the researcher. The cover not returned the survey. During the

VOLUME 9, NUMBER 4/1996 63

phone calls, individuals were asked were returned to the researcher on
several questions related to the use February 3, 1995. In each section of
of instructional technology in train- the survey, each item was analyzed
ing and were reminded to send back in terms of frequency of each re-
the original survey. However, the sponse, and overall percentages for
researcher was unable to reach 54 each option were provided. In addi-
people via telephone because they tion, Z-tests on the difference of pro-
were no longer employed at the orga- portions between the “yes” responses
nization listed in the directory. of current users and the “yes” re-
These individuals were then sponses of those who planned to use
dropped from the sample. Thus, the each technology were conducted to
final sample size was 320. Following determine if there were significant
the phone calls, another 15 surveys differences between current and
were returned. The final number of planned usage. Chi-square tests
responses was 199, for a response were conducted to determine if there
rate of 62%. Of the 199 individuals were significant differences among
who returned the survey, 52 indi- the various training sources selected
viduals indicated that they were not by respondents.
involved in the design or delivery of
employee training programs Findings
(mostly university faculty members,
students, and retirees) and did not Demographic Characteristics
complete all of the items on the sur- of Respondents
vey. This left a total of 147 com- Although all of the 147 respon-
pleted questionnaires to be ana- dents indicated that they were in-
lyzed. volved in the design or delivery of
In the phone interviews, indi- employee training, the current pro-
viduals were asked if they were cur- fessional titles of the respondents
rently using 10 of the 32 technolo- varied greatly (see Table 1). The re-
gies included in the survey instru- spondents could select among seven
ment. They were also asked where job titles given on the questionnaire
they had received instructional or they could write their title in the
technology training and if there space provided. Training manager
were barriers in their organizations (20.4%), instructional designer
that limited the use of instructional (10.9%), and training consultant
technology. The data from the phone (9.5%) were the three most common
interviews indicated that there titles. Respondents selected the
were no major differences or sources other four (given) titles as follows:
of bias between respondents and performance technologist (4.8%),
non-respondents. trainer (3.4%), instructor (2.8%), and
instructional developer (1.4%). Ap-
Data Analysis proximately half (50.3%) of the re-
On December 23, 1994, the sur- spondents indicated that their titles
veys were delivered to the University were not included on the list of op-
of Wisconsin-Stout’s Academic Com- tions provided and wrote in their
puter Center to be analyzed. The titles. Forty different titles were re-
data were tabulated and the surveys ported by the respondents.

64 PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT QUARTERLY

 Table 1
Respondents’ Current Job Titles

N = 147

Response Number Percent

Training Manager* 30 20.4

Instructional Designer* 16 10.9
Consultant 14 9.5
Training Director 9 6.1
Performance Technologist* 7 4.8
Training Coordinator* 7 4.8
Vice President 6 4.0
Trainer* 5 3.4
Training Specialist 5 3.4
Program Manager 5 3.4
Instructor* 4 2.8
Performance Assurance Manager 3 2.0
President 3 2.0
Professor 3 2.0
Education Director 2 1.4
Instructional Developer* 2 1.4
Business Specialist 1 .7
Assistant Personnel Director 1 .7
Computer Services Manager 1 .7
Educational Resources Manager 1 .7
Human Resource Devel. Director 1 .7
Human Resource Devel. Manager 1 .7
Human Resource Representative 1 .7
Human Resource Specialist 1 .7
Learning Specialist 1 .7
Methods and Procedures Analyst 1 .7
Organizational Devel. Director 1 .7
Performance Improvement Manager 1 .7
Project Manager 1 .7
Project Team Leader 1 .7
Quality Assurance Director 1 .7
Research and Support Manager 1 .7
Sales Director 1 .7
Senior Administrator 1 .7
Staff Development Manager 1 .7
Systems Analyst 1 .7
Technology Supervisor 1 .7
Training Analyst 1 .7
Multiple Titles 2 1.4
No Response 2 1.4

* = job title that was printed on the questionnaire

VOLUME 9, NUMBER 4/1996 65

 Table 2
Size of Organization Where Respondent is Employed

N = 147

Response Number Percent

Fewer than 100 employees 30 20.4

100 to 500 employees 20 14.0
501 to 1,000 employees 15 10.0
1,001 to 5,000 employees 25 17.0
5,001 to 10,000 employees 15 10.0
More than 10,000 employees 41 27.9
No response 1 .7

Table 3
Type of Organization Where Respondent is Employed

N = 147

Response Number Percent

Manufacturing* 29 19.7
Transportation/Communications/Utilities* 19 12.9
Consulting Services 18 12.2
Finance/Insurance/Banking* 17 11.6
Business Services* 12 8.2
Wholesale/Retail Trade* 8 5.4
Education* 8 5.4
Health Services* 6 4.1
Government/Military* 4 2.7
Commercial Training 4 2.7
Computer Services 4 2.7
Agriculture 2 1.4
Automotive Services 2 1.4
Distribution 2 1.4
Hospitality 2 1.4
Research 2 1.4
Accounting 1 .7
Association Management 1 .7
Environmental Service 1 .7
Legal Services 1 .7
Organizational Development 1 .7
Systems Design 1 .7
Public Administration* 0 0
Multiple Responses 2 1.4

* = organizational category that was printed on survey

66 PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT QUARTERLY

 The size of the respondents’ orga- sign and deliver training in organiza-
nizations also varied considerably tions. Respondents were asked to in-
(see Table 2). One-fifth of the respon- dicate if they were currently using
dents were employed at small organi- each technology and if they planned
zations with fewer than 100 employ- to use each technology in the next
ees, and 14% were employed at orga- three years. The results indicate the
nizations with between 100 and 500 percentage of respondents who are
employees. Ten percent were em- currently using, or who plan to use,
ployed at medium-sized organiza- each of the technologies. Z-tests on
tions with between 501 and 1,000 the difference of proportions between
employees, and 17% worked for orga- the “yes” responses of current users
nizations with between 1,001 to 5,000 and the “yes” responses of those who
employees. Ten percent were em- planned to use each technology in the
ployed at organizations with between next three years were conducted to
5,001 and 10,000 employees, and the determine if there were significant
greatest number of respondents, differences between current and
27.9%, worked at organizations with planned future usage. This test is
more than 10,000 employees. recommended when a null hypoth-
Respondents were also asked to esis is assumed with regard to two
indicate the category that best de- observed proportions. It is an estima-
scribed their organization (see Table tion of population variance that in-
3). The largest percentage of respon- volves determining a weighted mean
dents (19.7%) indicated they were of the two sample proportions
employed in manufacturing firms. (Guilford, 1965).
The other categories that received Computer-Based Training Sys-
high numbers of responses were tems. The respondents reported
Transportation/Communication/ wide use of computer-based train-
Utilities (12.9%), Consulting Ser- ing (see Table 4). There were few
vices (12.2%), Finance/Insurance/ significant differences in the re-
Banking (11.6%), Business Services spondents’ plans to use computer-
(8.2%), Wholesale/Retail Trade based training in the future. Al-
(5.4%), Education (5.4%), and Health though respondents project a slight
Services (4.1%). Three categories, decrease in the use of some forms of
Government/Military, Commercial computer-based training, they plan
Training, and Computer Services to significantly increase their use of
each received 2.7% of the responses. hypertext and virtual reality in the
The remaining responses were dis- next three years.
tributed among 11 other organiza- Multimedia Training Systems.
tional categories, each with fewer There were several significant differ-
than three respondents. Two respon- ences between current and anticipated
dents did not answer this item. use of multimedia (see Table 5). A
greater percentage of organizations
Types of Technology plan to use multimedia technologies in
Respondents Currently Use future training efforts. Nearly half
and Plan to Use (46.3%) of the respondents plan to use
The instrument listed 32 types of multimedia authoring programs. Re-
technologies that may be used to de- sponses indicated that there will be

VOLUME 9, NUMBER 4/1996 67

 Table 4
Use of Computer-Based Training Systems
N = 147
Response Number of Respondents
Current Future Z-Value

CBT 110 (74.8%) 106 (72.1%) 0.53

Computer tutorials 101 (68.7%) 91 (61.9%) 1.23
Computer simulations 75 (51.0%) 74 (50.3%) 0.25
Authoring programs 60 (40.8%) 73 (49.6%) -1.52
Computer drills 47 (32.0%) 55 (37.4%) -0.98
Hypertext programs 32 (21.8%) 56 (38.0%) -3.06**
Virtual reality 5 (3.4%) 18 (12.2%) -2.82**

** = significant at the .01 level

Table 5
Use of Multimedia Training Systems
N = 147
Response Number of Respondents
Current Future Z-Value

Multimedia training 80 (54.4%) 95 (64.6%) -1.78

CD-ROM 54 (36.7%) 73 (49.7%) -2.24*
Authoring programs 46 (31.3%) 68 (46.3%) -2.63**
Interactive videodisc 42 (28.6%) 59 (40.1%) -2.09*
Digital photography 39 (26.5%) 57 (38.8%) -2.12*
Digital sound 37 (25.2%) 56 (38.0%) -2.50*
CD-I 17 (11.6%) 44 (29.9%) -3.88**
DVI 14 (9.5%) 41 (27.9%) -4.04**

* = significant at the .05 level

** = significant at the .01 level

Table 6
Use of Electronic Performance Support Systems
N = 147
Response Number of Respondents
Current Future Z-Value

EPSS 93 (63.3%) 100 (68.0%) -0.86

On-line help systems 74 (50.3%) 77 (52.3%) -0.23
Information databases 74 (50.3%) 76 (51.7%) -0.35
Expert systems 28 (19.0%) 64 (43.5%) -3.14**
Embedded/concurrent 22 (15.0%) 52 (35.4%) -5.38**
Intelligent tutoring 14 (9.5%) 48 (32.7%) -4.86**

** = significant at the .01 level

68 PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT QUARTERLY

 Table 7
Use of Distance Learning Systems
N = 147
Response Number of Respondents
Current Future Z-Value

Videoconferencing 64 (43.5%) 69 (46.9%) -0.59

Audioconferencing 62 (42.2%) 54 (36.7%) 0.95
Two-way video systems 52 (35.4%) 58 (39.4%) -0.72
One-way video systems 40 (27.2%) 39 (26.5%) 0.13
Computer conferencing 28 (19.0%) 45 (30.6%) -2.29*
Audiographics systems 15 (10.2%) 24 (16.3%) -1.55

* = significant at the .05 level

Table 8
Use of Computer Presentations and Local Area Networks
N = 147
Response Number of Respondents
Current Future Z-Value

Computer presentations 110 (74.8%) 98 (66.7%) 1.54

Local area networks 100 (68.0%) 91 (61.9%) 1.10
Presentation software 98 (66.7%) 88 (59.9%) 1.21
LCD panel 86 (58.5%) 79 (53.7%) 0.82
Data/video projector 77 (52.4%) 75 (51.0%) 0.23

increases in the use of all types of multi- systems, embedded/concurrent

media systems including CD-ROM training, and intelligent tutoring
(49.7%), interactive video (40.1%), within EPSS systems is expected to
compact disk interactive (29.9%), increase significantly in the future.
and digital video interactive (27.9%). Distance Learning Systems. The
Electronic Performance Support respondents reported that several
Systems. Electronic performance types of distance learning technol-
support systems were being used by ogy were being used to deliver train-
63.3% of the respondents (see Table ing, including audio, video, and com-
6). The data indicate that there will puter technology (see Table 7).
be no significant change between There was only one significant dif-
current and future use of electronic ference between current and
performance support systems. More planned use of distance learning
than two-thirds of the respondents systems. According to respondents,
plan to use or continue using EPSS in this area of expected growth will be
their organizations. However, the in computer conferencing. Thirty
use of such technologies as expert percent of the respondents plan to

VOLUME 9, NUMBER 4/1996 69

use this technology in the future. Competencies Needed to Design
The use of audioconferencing sys- and Deliver Instruction
tems and one-way video systems is After respondents had identified
expected to decline. the technologies they were currently
Computer Presentation Systems using and would be using in the near
and Local Area Networks. Computer future, they were asked to indicate
presentation systems and local area the level or levels of competence they
networks were being used heavily by believed would be necessary to
respondents (see Table 8). Although implement each technology success-
there were no statistically signifi- fully in their organizations. Four
cant differences in this category, re- types of competencies were listed on
spondents’ predicted that computer the survey in an order that sug-
presentation systems will not be gested an increasing level of exper-
used as frequently in the future. tise. For each item, respondents
Two-thirds (66.7%) of the respon- could select one or more of the fol-
dents reported they will continue to lowing options:
use computer presentation systems, • Use = ability to use or assist train-
and 59.9% will use presentation soft- ees in the use of the technology
ware. In addition, fewer organiza- • Select = ability to select a technol-
tions (61.9%) plan to use or to con- ogy for an organization
tinue using local area networks. • Evaluate = ability to assess the
Other Instructional Technologies. effectiveness of a technology
A small number of respondents • Develop = ability to create a pro-
(8.1%) listed other technologies they gram or system
are currently using and plan to use in The results have been divided into
the future to design and deliver five categories. For each category of
training in their organizations. technology, the number of respon-
These technologies include print, dents is noted for each of the four
satellite, video, television, and levels. Percentages were not calcu-
internet. lated and chi-square tests were not

Table 9
Levels of Competence Required to Implement
Computer-Based Training Systems

Response Level of Competence

Use Sel. Eval. Dev.

CBT (n=105) 64 51 62 50
Authoring programs (n=95) 60 52 55 46
Computer tutorials (n=109) 69 58 65 54
Computer simulations (n=102) 63 55 62 54
Computer drills (n=80) 48 42 47 35
Hypertext programs (n=78) 49 39 44 37
Virtual reality (n=42) 28 15 22 14

70 PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT QUARTERLY

 Table 10
Levels of Competence Required to Implement
Multimedia Training Systems

Response Level of Competence

Use Sel. Eval. Dev.

Multimedia training (n=87) 50 47 53 34

Authoring programs (n=83) 53 43 51 32
Interactive videodisc (n=85) 52 51 54 27
CD-ROM (n=85) 51 54 55 32
CD-I (n=65) 38 41 46 20
DVI (n=67) 39 34 40 16
Digital sound (n=69) 40 33 37 21
Digital photography (n=68) 41 33 38 21

Table 11
Levels of Competence Required to Implement
Electronic Performance Support Systems

Response Level of Competence

Use Sel. Eval. Dev.

EPSS (n=82) 51 37 44 32
On-line help systems (n=90) 57 41 49 34
Information databases (n=89) 62 38 43 35
Expert Systems (n=72) 40 27 37 26
Embedded/concurrent (n=73) 42 33 40 32
Intelligent tutoring (n=68) 37 29 37 26

Table 12
Levels of Competence Required to Implement
Distance Learning Systems

Response Level of Competence

Use Sel. Eval. Dev.

Audioconferencing (n=75) 59 24 33 12
Videoconferencing (n=74) 59 29 39 18
Computer conferencing (n=65) 52 18 27 14
One-way video systems (n=65) 48 20 31 15
Two-way video systems (n=80) 64 24 37 20
Audiographics systems (n=42) 26 15 21 9

VOLUME 9, NUMBER 4/1996 71

conducted for the data in this section Electronic Performance Support
since respondents could select mul- Systems. In the area of electronic per-
tiple responses for each of the items. formance support systems, the ability
It should be noted that there were to use or assist trainees in the use of
missing responses in all of the cat- the system was the most frequently
egories. Several individuals re- chosen level of competency (see Table
sponded to only those items that re- 11). For all items, the ability to use a
ferred to technologies they were cur- technology was the most frequently
rently using or planning to use. chosen level, followed by the ability to
Computer-Based Training Sys- evaluate the effectiveness of a tech-
tems. In the area of computer-based nology, the ability to select a technol-
training technologies, the frequency ogy and the ability to develop a pro-
of responses for each of the four levels gram or system.
for all of the technologies is presented Distance Learning Systems. The
in Table 9. For all items, the largest ability to use or assist trainees in the
number of respondents selected com- use of distance learning technology
petency at the “Use” level, followed by was the most frequently selected com-
competency at the “Evaluate” level, petency level in this category (see
competency at the “Select” level and Table 12). There were pronounced
competency at the “Develop” level. differences between the various lev-
Multimedia Training Systems. In els in every type of distance learning
the area of multimedia training, the technology. For all items, the great-
abilities to use, evaluate and select est number of responses was in the
programs and systems were chosen “Use” level, followed by the “Evalu-
with greater frequency than the abil- ate” level, the “Select” level, and the
ity to develop multimedia (see Table “Develop” level.
10). In nearly all of the items in this Computer Presentation Systems
category, there were large differences and Local Area Networks. In the
between the number of respondents area of computer presentation sys-
that selected “Use,” “Select,” and tems and local area networks, the
“Evaluate,” and the number that ability to use hardware and soft-
chose “Develop.” ware was the most frequently iden-

Table 13
Levels of Competence Required to Implement
Computer Presentation Systems and Local Area Networks

Response Level of Competence

Use Sel. Eval. Dev.

Computer presentations (n=98) 73 43 46 29

Presentation software (n=105) 82 51 52 37
LCD panel (n=96) 79 40 41 22
Data/video projector (n=94) 76 37 40 22
Local area network (n=110) 85 34 43 23

72 PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT QUARTERLY

 Table 14
Sources of Competency Development

Degrees of Freedom = 3

Response Vend. Coll. Sem. Self x2

CBT (n = 146) 46 19 29 49 16.62**

CBT authoring (n = 132) 50 11 31 40 24.00**
Computer tutorials (n = 144) 46 18 29 51 19.05**
Computer simulations (n = 134) 46 18 27 43 15.54**
Computer drills (n = 115) 37 14 23 41 19.72**
Hypertext programs (n = 109) 35 11 25 38 21.92**
Virtual reality (n = 67) 26 6 19 16 49.16**
Multimedia training (n = 106) 35 11 31 29 20.66**
Multimedia authoring (n = 112) 39 9 31 33 22.37**
Interactive videodisc (n = 112) 40 9 32 31 22.75**
CD-ROM (n = 114) 35 9 32 38 21.69**
CD-I (n = 85) 27 5 25 28 35.85**
DVI (n = 85) 27 5 25 28 35.85**
Digital sound (n = 90) 30 5 23 32 34.43**
Digital photography (n = 92) 31 6 24 31 31.95**
EPSS systems (n = 108) 38 10 32 28 22.20**
On-line help systems (n = 121) 41 10 28 42 22.79**
Info. databases (n = 113) 35 18 25 35 13.48**
Expert systems (n = 93) 30 13 23 27 24.31**
Embedded/concurrent (n = 87) 26 8 24 29 31.69**
Intelligent tutoring (n = 88) 27 8 29 24 31.13**
Audioconferencing (n = 96) 34 9 22 31 27.98**
Videoconferencing (n = 100) 43 9 20 28 31.73**
Computer conf. (n = 76) 31 6 16 23 43.49**
Audiographics (n = 56) 22 5 16 13 60.41**
Computer present. (n = 116) 40 7 22 47 33.15**
Presentation software (n = 126) 43 5 25 53 39.43**
LCD panel (n = 112) 42 6 18 46 38.37**
Data/video projector (n = 115) 40 4 21 50 40.98**
Local area networks (n = 138) 44 15 25 54 26.15**

tified level of competency (see Table to indicate what source they had
13). Being able to select and evalu- used, or what source they would use,
ate hardware or software in this to obtain competency in each specific
area was selected with less fre- area (see Table 14). The respondents
quency than the other levels. could select one of the following
sources: universities/technical col-
Sources of Competency leges; vendor training; seminars/
Development conferences; or self-study methods.
After responding to items dealing Chi-squares were calculated to de-
with the desired levels of compe- termine if there were significant dif-
tency, respondents were then asked ferences between the sources. For

VOLUME 9, NUMBER 4/1996 73

 Table 15
Barriers that Limit the Implementation of
Instructional Technology in Training

N = 147

Response Number Percent

Lack of development time 118 (80.3%)

Insufficient funding 109 (74.1%)
Hardware incompatibility 92 (62.6%)
Lack of knowledge or skills 90 (61.2%)
Lack of management support 79 (53.7%)
Lack of technical support 75 (51.0%)
Inadequate needs assessment 57 (38.8%)
Past problems with technology 44 (29.9%)
Lack of support for training efforts 37 (25.2%)
Lack of interest among trainees 23 (15.6%)

every technology, respondents chose Other barriers that were identi-

vendor training, self-study methods, fied by more than half of the respon-
and seminars and conferences sig- dents included lack of knowledge or
nificantly more often than university skills on the part of designers and
or technical college instruction. Once trainers (61.2%), lack of manage-
again, several respondents re- ment interest or support (53.7%),
sponded only to those technologies and lack of adequate technical sup-
they were using or planning to use. port (51%). Other barriers such as
inadequate needs assessment pro-
Workplace Barriers that Prevent cesses, past problems with instruc-
Trainers from Implementing tional technology, general lack of
Instructional Technology support for training efforts, and lack
There are several barriers in the of interest among trainees were also
work environment that prohibit the identified to a lesser degree.
successful implementation of in-
structional technology in training Discussion
(see Table 15). According to four- In summary, organizations are
fifths of the respondents, the larg- currently using a wide range of tech-
est barrier in this area is a lack of nologies, and there are 12 technolo-
time to develop new training pro- gies that are currently being used by
grams. The second largest barrier, at least 50% of the respondents.
cited by 74.1% of respondents, was These technologies include com-
a lack of funding for hardware, soft- puter-based training, computer tuto-
ware, and facilities. Incompatibil- rials, computer simulations, com-
ity between hardware systems was puter presentation systems, presen-
identified as a barrier by 62.6% of tation software, electronic perfor-
the respondents. mance support systems, on-line help

74 PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT QUARTERLY

systems, information databases, ability to use or assist trainees in the
multimedia systems, LCD panels, use of the technology was the most
LCD video/data projectors, and local highly needed competency. The abil-
area networks. ity to evaluate the effectiveness of a
These are the same technologies specific technology was also fre-
that 50% or more of the respondents quently identified. It does not appear
indicated they plan to use in the next that respondents expect to be respon-
three years. However, respondents sible for selecting new instructional
indicated they plan to make signifi- technologies. The ability to develop
cantly greater use of multimedia de- programs or systems was identified
velopment and delivery tools includ- by few respondents as being neces-
ing authoring programs, interactive sary for most technologies. However,
video, CD-ROM, compact disk inter- it should be noted that the individuals
active, and digital video interactive. surveyed were primarily training
They also indicate they plan to use managers, instructional designers,
more complex technologies for their consultants, trainers and instructors,
computer-based training and elec- not programmers or CBT developers.
tronic performance support systems, Vendor-sponsored training and
including hypertext, expert systems, self-study methods proved to be the
embedded/concurrent training, in- most popular choices for developing
telligent tutoring, and virtual real- competency in instructional technol-
ity. There will also be greater use of ogy. Attending seminars, confer-
computer conferencing to deliver ences, and workshops was frequently
training over distances. identified for developing competency
According to respondents, there in some technologies; however, it was
will be less use of certain types of not the primary method for compe-
distance learning systems such as tency development in any specific
audioconferencing and one-way technology. Significantly fewer indi-
video. This would be logical as tech- viduals indicated that they would at-
nology continues to evolve and pro- tend courses and programs at uni-
vides more advanced, interactive versities, four-year colleges, or tech-
systems for the delivery of distance nical colleges to develop their skills
education (Gery, 1994). There will in any of the areas included in the
also be a decrease in the use of com- questionnaire.
puter presentation systems to de- The respondents indicated that
liver classroom training. This decline lack of time and financial resources
will occur as companies abandon are the major barriers in implement-
classroom training for more effective ing instructional technology in train-
and cost-efficient electronic instruc- ing efforts. These barriers were cited
tion delivered at the desktop by approximately 75% of the respon-
(Galagan, 1994). dents. Lack of compatibility between
The levels of competency required systems, lack of management sup-
to implement instructional technol- port, lack of technical support, and
ogy in training programs were consis- lack of trainer skills are barriers that
tent across 27 of the 32 types of tech- were identified by more than 50% of
nologies included in the study. Over- the respondents. These findings are
all, respondents reported that the consistent with the literature on this

VOLUME 9, NUMBER 4/1996 75

topic, which indicates there are sev- these areas rather than by trainers
eral reasons why technology has not themselves (Spitzer, 1988).
been fully integrated into training Respondents reported that ven-
programs, including high costs, lack dor-sponsored training and self-
of management support, and lack of study methods are the primary
skills among trainers (Gery, 1994). sources of competency development
in instructional technology. Semi-
Conclusions nars, conferences, and other training
From the findings of this study, it programs sponsored by professional
can be concluded that the major organizations appear to play a lesser
types of instructional technologies role. Universities and technical col-
used in training and development leges appear to play a minimal role in
will not change dramatically over the providing trainers with knowledge
next three years. However, there are and skills in computer-based train-
several newer, more sophisticated ing, multimedia systems, EPSS, dis-
technologies that will be used with tance learning systems, and com-
greater frequency in the future. The puter presentation systems.
respondents’ current and planned Finally, it can be concluded that
uses of instructional technology are lack of time and financial resources
consistent with other recent studies are the major barriers to imple-
on this topic, which indicate there menting instructional technology in
will be a greater use of interactive training efforts. Lack of compatibil-
technologies that will change how, ity between systems, lack of man-
when, and where trainees learn agement support, lack of technical
(American Society for Training and support and trainer skills are also
Development, 1994). It is predicted significant barriers. However, there
that in the future more companies does not appear to be a lack of
will utilize digital multimedia tech- trainee interest in using instruc-
nologies and individualized perfor- tional technologies or a general lack
mance support systems to provide of support for training efforts.
flexible training opportunities to
workers (Galagan, 1994). Recommendations
From the survey responses, it can This study was designed to assist
be concluded that it is far more im- training professionals, human re-
portant for trainers to be able to use source development managers, aca-
and evaluate new technologies than demicians and others who offer train-
to be able to design and develop their ing and degree programs by providing
own programs or systems. The data information on how instructional
from the survey support the concepts technology is currently being used in
found in the literature in this area. training and how it may be used in the
Past studies on this topic have con- future. These various groups may find
cluded that trainers should be famil- the results of this study useful in fu-
iar with the applications of instruc- ture planning efforts.
tional technology; however, program Recommendations for Practitio-
or system development is generally ners. It is recommended that training
done by computer programmers or professionals and their managers
media specialists with expertise in use the data generated by this study

76 PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT QUARTERLY

in defining current and future train- universities, and technical colleges;
ing needs and in identifying re- directors of professional organiza-
sources to obtain new skills and com- tions; hardware and software ven-
petencies in instructional technol- dors, and others who provide
ogy. In particular, training profes- courses, programs and training in
sionals should become familiar with the field of instructional technology.
the technologies that are currently The majority of respondents in this
being used by more than 50% of the study preferred vendor-sponsored
respondents’ organizations. Train- training and self-study methods to
ing professionals, whether working meet their instructional technology
in small, mid-sized, or large organi- training needs. However, several re-
zations, should also become knowl- spondents indicated that they and
edgeable regarding digital technolo- their colleagues have not been
gies and other emerging technologies trained in many aspects of instruc-
that large numbers of organizations tional technology and lack the knowl-
plan to use in the future. Skills in edge or skills necessary to be effec-
using computer systems and elec- tive in this area. Therefore, it is rec-
tronic support systems have been ommended that vendors and organi-
formally recognized as essential zations that provide self-study mate-
competencies for training profession- rials expand their offerings in in-
als (McLagan, 1989). The shift from structional technology training, par-
face-to-face training to delivering in- ticularly in the area of emerging
formation during the performance of technologies, to help address this
work will require all trainers to be- unmet training need.
come familiar with numerous deliv- Although several post-secondary
ery technologies (Galagan, 1994). institutions offer programs in in-
The data from this study suggest structional technology, few trainers
that training professionals should fo- seem to be taking advantage of these
cus on developing competency in the offerings. It is recommended that
use and evaluation of the various undergraduate and graduate pro-
technologies included in the survey. grams in training and development
However, in a small number of orga- and instructional technology review
nizations, it is also required that their instructional technology
trainers select and develop programs courses and competencies in light of
and systems. In addition to learning the findings of this study to ensure
about hardware and software, com- that their courses are relevant, ap-
ments from respondents and the lit- propriate, and accessible to training
erature indicate that trainers also professionals.
should possess competencies in us-
ing traditional media technologies.
Trainers should also understand the
process of applying appropriate in-
References
American Society for Training and De-
structional technology to perfor- velopment. (1994). Trends that will
mance problems (Piskurich, 1993). influence workplace learning and
Recommendations for Training performance in the next five years.
Providers. The results of this study Training and Development, 47(5),
may also assist faculty in colleges, S29-S32.

VOLUME 9, NUMBER 4/1996 77

Anglin, G. (1991). Instructional technol- National Society for Performance and
ogy: Past, present and future. Instruction. (1993). 1993-94 Perfor-
Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited. mance improvement resources and
Babbie, E. (1990). Survey research meth- membership directory. Washington,
ods. (2nd ed.) Belmont, CA: DC: National Society for Performance
Wadsworth, Inc. and Instruction.
Barron, A.E. & Orwig, G.W. (1995). Mul- Perlstein, R. (1993). Keep your distance
timedia technologies for training: An learning. Performance and Instruc-
introduction. Englewood, CO: Librar- tion, 32(10), 8-12.
ies Unlimited. Piskurich, G. (1993). The ASTD hand-
Galagan, P.A. (1994). Reinventing the book of instructional technology. New
profession. Training and Develop- York: MacGraw-Hill, Inc.
ment, 47(12), 20-27. Schaaf, D. (1992). Who’s in charge here:
Gery, G. (1994). The future of workplace Avoiding technology traps. Training,
learning and performance. Training 29(11), 11-18.
and Development, 47(5), S36-S40. Spitzer, D. (1988). Instructional/perfor-
Guilford, J.P. (1965). Fundamental sta- mance technology competencies.
tistics in psychology and education. Performance and Instruction, 27(7),
New York: McGraw-Hill Book Com- 11-13.
pany.
Haag, S. (1993, Autumn/Winter). Train-
ing in the workforce: The role of inter- JULIE A. FURST-BOWE is Associ-
active media. Ed-Tech Review, 39-42. ate Professor and Graduate Pro-
Hannum, W. (1990). The application of
gram Director in the School of In-
emerging training technology. Alex-
andria, VA: American Society for dustry and Technology at the Uni-
Training and Development. versity of Wisconsin-Stout. Mailing
Industry Report 1995: Vital statistics. address: CT 143, University of Wis-
(1995). Training, 32(10), 55-66. consin-Stout, Menomonie, WI
International Board of Standards for 54751. E-mail: bowej@uwstout.edu
Training, Performance and Instruc-
tion. (1986). Instructional design
competencies: The standards. Ever-
green, CO: IBSTPI.
International Board of Standards for
Training, Performance and Instruc-
tion. (1988). Instructor competencies:
The standards. Evergreen, CO:
IBSTPI.
Lindstrom, R. (1994). Learning new me-
dia. New Media, 4(2), 45-54.
McLagan, P. (1989). Models for HRD
practice. Training and Development,
43(9), 49-59.
McLagan, P. & Suhadolnik, D. (1989).
Models for HRD practice: The re-
search report. Alexandria, VA:
American Society for Training and
Development.
Narins, P. (1994). How to determine ap-
propriate sample size. Keywords.
5(4), 4-6.

78 PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT QUARTERLY