Exploration of Instructional Material Design and Delivery Methods

on Adult Knowledge Retention

by

John M. Pujazon

W
IE
A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

EV
Doctor of Business Administration

University of Phoenix

February 2011
PR
 UMI Number: 3459317

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,

W
a note will indicate the deletion.

IE
EV

UMI 3459317
PR

Copyright 2011 by ProQuest LLC.

All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346
 W
IE
EV
PR

©2011 by John M. Pujazon

All Rights Reserved

 EXPLORATION OF INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIAL DESIGN AND DELIVERY

METHODS ON ADULT KNOWLEDGE RETENTION

by

John Michael Pujazon

February 201 1

Approved:
W
IE
Jodi Menees, Ph.D., Mentor

Janice Emanuel Bunn, Ph.D., Committee Member

EV

Dawn Iwamoto, Ed.D., Committee Member

PR

Accepted and Signed: 02/67/~.e//

ate'
C , /l

Accepted and Signed: 64'

L q - a , t ~ ~ ./%+% 62/57/-~0//
I
fanice Emanuel Bunn Date

02 / 0 7 / 3 0 //
Dawn Iwamoto

-
Jeremy Moreland, Ph.D.
~ e a n , - s c h o oof
l Advanced Studies
University of Phoenix
 ABSTRACT

The quantitative, quasi-experimental study involved an exploration into the relationship

between two factors, instructional material design and instructor-led and computer-

assisted delivery methods (independent variables), and the resultant effects upon adult

learners’ retention capacity (dependent variable). The purpose of the study was to

explore and determine if a statistical significant difference existed between the

instructional material design and delivery methods and the adult learners’ ability to retain

the instructional material presented at a global security company on the Central Gulf

Coast of the United States. A convenience sample of 57 employees of Company ABC

W
participated in the exploration. A Solomon Four-Group structure was used that identified
IE
control and experimental groups, and incorporated a pretest, intervention, and posttest

design. Test calculations for the current study indicated that a statistical significant
EV
difference existed between the instructional material design and delivery method and the

adult learners’ ability to retain knowledge. Additionally, of the two delivery methods,

adult learner scores related to instructor-led training (ILT) resulted in content material
PR

gains twice the gains experienced by adult learners who experienced the computer-

assisted instruction (CAI) of the same content for employees at Company ABC. Even

though the results characterized a single company, the results are central to designers of

training material and performers of instructional delivery methods. The results of the

present study contribute important data to literature regarding material design for and

delivery methods to adult learners because a template that structured content design is

presented for ILT and CAI delivery methods.

 iv

DEDICATION

I dedicate this dissertation to my family and friends who have been a source of

support and inspiration throughout my journey: my wife Carole Anne, who understood

and supported the sacrifices that had to be made regarding family time for the pursuit of

my studies; my daughter Melissa, who inspired me as I continue to witness her

professional and personal accomplishments; my parents John and RoseMarie Pujazon,

who instilled the importance of education in my value programming; and my University

of Phoenix cohort, Bennie, Bernard, David and Phil, who on many late nights and

weekends struggled to stay awake on teleconference meetings, reviewing team project

W
inputs, ensuring deadlines and tasks were understood and submitted timely. My
IE
teammates were instrumental in providing encouragement and direction throughout our

journey to attain our common goal, a terminal degree.

EV
I also dedicate this study to all trainers and facilitators who continue to design and

deliver instructional course content with the purpose of transferring knowledge and to the

employees from Company ABC, who participated in this research, for in the absence of
PR

their activities, this study would not have been possible.

 v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

When I began this journey to obtain my doctoral degree, I did not know how

many people would play a part in my accomplishment. I could not have achieved a

doctoral degree without the guidance of many individuals including my mentor, Dr. Jodi

Menees, who challenged me to continue to persist when difficulties arose and complete

my dissertation. My committee members, Dr. Janice Emanuel-Bunn, Dr. Robin Throne,

and Dr. Dawn Iwamoto were an important part of my achievement as their feedback and

suggestions on my research topic added to the dissertation document’s quality. I

acknowledge Dr. Dawn Iwamoto, who accepted committee membership to fill a

W
committee member vacancy that occurred just prior to the start of DOC 734. I recognize
IE
Dr. Wayne Harsha for his letter of recommendation and assistance in providing my

statistical review. Instrumental in ensuring that I met all my academic requirements was
EV
my academic counselor, Ken Ramirez. Ken not only kept me on track with the program

requirements but assisted me in working through academic bureaucracy challenges. My

company’s leadership team because they allowed me to use company training facilities
PR

after hours in the performance of this exploration. Thank you to Joey Matta, who

modified the design and provided the delivery of the instructional material used in the

study. Finally, I want to acknowledge the instructors and cohort encountered throughout

the degree program. They provided a vibrant and demanding learning environment

where I could develop the essential skills to complete degree and dissertation

requirements.
 vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... xi

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1

Background of the Problem ................................................................................................ 2

Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................... 5

Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................... 7

Significance of the Study .................................................................................................... 9

Significance to Leadership.................................................................................... 11

Nature of the Study ........................................................................................................... 12

W
Population ............................................................................................................. 15
IE
Study Environment ............................................................................................... 16

Research Question and Hypotheses .................................................................................. 17

EV
Theoretical Framework ..................................................................................................... 18

Definition of Terms........................................................................................................... 24

Assumptions...................................................................................................................... 26
PR

Scope, Limitations, and Delimitations .............................................................................. 26

Summary ........................................................................................................................... 28

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................... 31

Documentation .................................................................................................................. 31

Historical Perspective ....................................................................................................... 32

Cognitive Load Theory ..................................................................................................... 37

Schema .................................................................................................................. 38

Intrinsic Cognitive Load ....................................................................................... 40

 vii

Extraneous Cognitive Load................................................................................... 40

Germane Cognitive Load ...................................................................................... 40

Communities of Practice ................................................................................................... 41

Self-Regulation ................................................................................................................. 44

Research Question……………………………………………………………………….46

Perspectives and Opposing Viewpoints ................................................................ 49

Delivery Methods and Material Design ................................................................ 51

E-learning.............................................................................................................. 52

Instructor-led classes ............................................................................................. 53

W
Instructional material design ................................................................................. 54
IE
Work Pressures and Time Constraints .................................................................. 56

Adult Learner Styles ............................................................................................. 57

EV
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 58

Summary ........................................................................................................................... 61

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODS .......................................................................... 63

PR

Research Methods and Design Appropriateness............................................................... 64

Population, Sampling, and Data Collection Procedures and Rationale ............................ 66

Instrumentation ..................................................................................................... 67

Instructor-Led Delivery Method ........................................................................... 72

Computer-Assisted Delivery Method ................................................................... 73

Pilot Study............................................................................................................. 75

Internal and External Validity........................................................................................... 77

Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 78

 viii

Organization and Clarity ................................................................................................... 80

Summary ........................................................................................................................... 80

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS .................................................................................................. 83

Pilot Study Demographics ................................................................................................ 84

Data Collection Procedures: Pilot Study........................................................................... 84

Data Analysis: Pilot Study ................................................................................................ 86

Findings: Pilot Study......................................................................................................... 92

Research Study Demographics ......................................................................................... 93

Data Collection Procedures: Research Study ................................................................... 94

W
Data Analysis: Research Study…………………………………………….…………….95
IE
Control Group ....................................................................................................... 95

Experimental Group .............................................................................................. 96

EV
Perception Survey ................................................................................................. 98

Findings: Research Study ............................................................................................... 101

Summary ......................................................................................................................... 103

PR

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS…………….………..106

Limitations and Delimitations…………………………………………………………..108

Pilot Study Findings…………………………………………………………………….109

Research Study Findings and Conclusions……………………………………………..111

H01: Instructional Material Design for ILT and CAI Delivery…………………112

H02: ILT Delivery Method……………………………………………………...113

H03: CAI Delivery Method……………………………………………………..113

Implications and Significance to Leaderships………………………………………….113

 ix

Recommendations for Future Research…………………………………………….…..116

Summary………………………………………………………………………………..117

APPENDIX A: INFORMED CONSENT, PERMISSION TO USE PREMISES, NAME

AND/OR SUBJECTS ..................................................................................................... 135

APPENDIX B: LITERATURE REVIEW SOURCES ................................................... 137

APPENDIX C: RESEARCH PARTICIPATION INTEREST FORM ........................... 139

APPENDIX D: RESEARCH PARTICIPATION CONSENT FORM…………………141

APPENDIX E: SURVEY INTRODUCTION AND INFORMED CONSENT FORM –

INSTRUCTOR-LED TRAINING (ILT). ....................................................................... 144

W
APPENDEX F: SURVEY INTRODUCTION AND INFORMED CONSENT FORM -

COMPUTER-ASSISTED INSTRUCTION (CAI)…………………………….………148

IE
APPENDIX G: PILOT STUDY CONTENT EVALUATION PANEL REVIEW FORM
EV
......................................................................................................................................... 152

APPENDIX H: COPYRFIGHT PERMISSION ............................................................. 157

APPENDIX I: RESEARCH PARTICIPATION INTEREST FORM – E-MAIL

PR

SOLICITATION ............................................................................................................. 159

APPENDIX J: CONVENIENCE SAMPLE GROUP ASSSIGNMENT……………....162

APPENDIX K: CONTENT VALIDITY RATIO (CVR)………………………………165

 x

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Solomon Four-Group Design Model ..................................................................... 9

Table 2 Pedagogical Andragogical Learning Assumptions ............................................. 33

Table 3 Cronbach's Alpha (a) for Instructor-Led Survey Items…………………………87

Table 4 Cronbach's Alpha (a) for Computer-Assisted Survey Items…………………….88

Table 5 Understanding Frequencies of Instructor-Led Pilot Survey Items (n=11)……..89

Table 6 Understanding Frequencies of Computer-Assisted Pilot Study Items (n=11)….90

Table 7 Comparison of Original Statements to Rephrased Suggestions………………...91

Table 8 Mean Score Descriptive Statistics……………………………………...……....97

W
Table 9 Exploratory Data Analysis of ILT and CAI Test Scores (CI - 95%)…….……...98
IE
Table 10 Research Study ILT and CAI Survey Descriptive Statistic Composite Mean

Score……………………………………………………………………………..……...99
EV
Table 11 Two-Tailed t-Test Comparison for Composite Survey Statements…………..100

Table 12 Two-Tailed t-Test Comparison for Intervention Posstest Scores…………….100

Table 13 Synthesized Research Study ILT and CAI Survey Descriptive Statistic…..…..102
PR

Table 14 Perception Survey Suggestions - ILT and CAI Delivery and Content…….….103
 xi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Identification of population, target population, and sample size process. ....... 68

W
IE
EV
PR
 1

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

As employees become mobile and distributed throughout the United States,

traditional face-to-face instructional delivery methods need to be reviewed (Bird, 2007;

Gorsky & Caspi, 2005). Researchers have recognized that adult learners have specific

learning needs and expectations (Forrest & Peterson, 2006). Amrein-Beardsley, Fougler,

and Toth (2007) recommended evaluating instructional material design in conjunction

with varying delivery methods. Ayers and Paas (2007), Feldon (2007), Mayer and

Moreno (2003), and Van Merrienboer, Kester, and Paas (2006) suggested the

augmentation of adult learners individual requirements by addressing cognitive load

W
impairment considerations. As companies replace retiring employees and continue to
IE
look for ways to increase their company’s competitive advantage, opportunities related to

instructional material design and material delivery methods continue to be a challenge to

EV
business training organizations.

Since 2000, a leading international security company, which provides innovative

systems, products, and solutions to government and commercial customers worldwide,

PR

has been implementing new financial software at its facilities within the United States.

An integral part of implementing these systems relates to designing and delivering

instructional material to company employees. Company employees experienced an

increase in training requirements to learn a new software application. Training personnel

evaluated the material needed and the delivery methods planned to ensure learners’

operational system knowledge. Company learners had no previous knowledge of the

application and needed to acquire quickly a working knowledge of the methods and

processes required to perform job functions. Past training programs proved ineffective as
 2

the company training division provided remedial instruction to employees for only three

months after the project completion date. Murray and Efendioglu (2007) reported

significant problems existed in the evaluation and measurement of the effect of training

in most companies. In the current study, the instructional material design and delivery

methods used by a company (Company ABC) was examined because past training efforts

at Company ABC produced less than desirable results (“BearingPoint”, 2007).

Chapter 1 contains introductory information for the study. In the first section,

background information about challenges companies encounter when training adult

learners is offered and emphasis is placed on the need for new material design and

W
delivery methods to enhance adult learning. The problem statement and purpose of the
IE
study follows. The study’s significance to the company training department and the

study’s importance to leadership are then discussed. The research continues with an
EV
analysis of the study’s design, recognition of the research question, and an examination

of the methods that supported the study. Definitions of terms used in the study follow in

the next section, supplemented by a subsequent explanation of the assumptions,

PR

limitations, delimitations, and scope of the study. The next section provides information

relevant to the problem background.

Background of the Problem

The value of traditional instructor-led training (ILT) becomes questionable when

company employees work in remote and distant locations (Gorsky & Caspi, 2005; Lim,

Morris, & Kupritz, 2007). As the distance from the home office increases, the cost

associated with delivering employee training increases. This increased expenditure can
 3

be attributed to instructor travel costs (airfare, car rentals, lodging, food, and incidentals)

and to the time lost in transit (time waiting for flights and driving to locations).

Technological innovations in computer networks and enhancements in

communication connectivity continue to improve the way companies deliver instructional

material to employees (Lim et al., 2007). Researchers have investigated and compared

differences among traditional face-to-face instruction, online learning, and blended

learning programs (Chen & Jones, 2007; Hanney, 2005; Summers, Waigandt, &

Whittaker, 2005). Varying opinions have surfaced on the effectiveness of various

W
methods, but researchers have reported no statistical significant differences among the

different teaching styles and have not mentioned which method enhances a learner’s
IE
ability to learn (Overbaugh & Lin, 2006; Summers et al., 2005; Swan, 2003). Lim et al.

(2007) observed a notable increase in learning when a combination of instructor-led and

EV
online delivery method approaches was used. Chen and Jones (2007) proposed tradeoffs

between the two methods because students in traditional delivery settings stated added
PR

satisfaction with content clarity compared to students in blended-learning setting gained

an appreciation for concepts presented.

Company ABC’s executive management made a substantial monetary investment,

replacing antiquated software systems with a state-of-the-art, common-off-the-shelf

(COTS) software application developed by an overseas company. The project lasted

approximately three years and enhanced the operations within the supply chain

organization. The system design included changes to existing processes and integrated

outside software applications. Approximately 1,500 employees at four main operating

sites required training in the new software. The company’s culture indicated the
 4

preferred method to deliver employee instruction would be through a face-to-face,

instructor-led delivery method. Although the company had hitherto employed this

method, experiences related to past software changes have not proven this setting

appropriate for future training initiatives. In the absence of a formal training department,

Company ABC’s project team considered varying instructional material design and

instructional delivery methods in an attempt to provide employees with an environment

conducive to learning the new software.

Learning can be differentiated into two distinct categories. Traditional learning is

W
provided to learners in structured elementary, secondary, and university-level settings and

is known as pedagogy. The second category, which relates to the focus of this study, is
IE
adult learning, known as andragogy (Forrest & Peterson, 2006; Ozuah, 2005).

Pedagogical learners’ main activity is to attend school and obtain an education. In

EV
contrast, adult learners have family and work responsibilities that compete for their

attention and demands (Forrest & Peterson, 2006). Cercone (2008) agreed with Forrest
PR

and Peterson and stated that adult learners have responsibilities and circumstances that

can hinder the learning process. Instructors in a pedagogical environment direct the

learning by delivering factual lecture-type material whereas the instructor in andragogical

environments guides learners through the material (Ozuah, 2005). Forrest and Peterson

(2006) observed that the facilitator recognizes the andragogical learner as a self-starting,

self-motivated individual.

Adult learners need to understand quickly the requirements for performing their

jobs (Forrest & Peterson, 2006). Returning to the job, the adult learner needs to

implement knowledge immediately. The training process governs the adult learner’s
 5

understanding. In discussing instructional method designs, Van Merrienboer et al. (2006)

contrasted simple tasks to complex tasks, stating complex tasks have many different

solutions that places a substantial load on a learner’s cognitive system, and requires

multiple learning session to master the material content delivered. The challenge to

training organizations is to provide instruction that optimizes the adult learners’ ability to

understand and learn the new software. This task often falls upon the project team.

Though the project team often has detailed software design knowledge, they have little

experience in designing or delivering instructional training material.

W
A linkage between material design and the delivery method used when conveying

instructional material to an adult learner’s community has been observed (Bird, 2007;
IE
Swan, 2003). With constraints of time, additional responsibilities, and costs associated

with training adult learners, a question arises: When implementing new systems or
EV
bringing new employees into the company, what combination of instructional material

design and delivery method, if any will enhance the adult learning experience and assist
PR

in providing a cost-effective approach in the training of company employees? This

quantitative, quasi-experimental study was applied to explore if a statistical significant

difference existed between the design and delivery of instructional material and the adult

learners’ ability to retain the instructional material presented.

Statement of the Problem

According to Murray and Efendioglu (2007), organizations remain competitive by

developing the knowledge, skills and capabilities of employees to ensure efficient

operations. Murray and Efendioglu (2007) and Simonson (2007) reported a return on

investment (ROI) as the method used by educators and trainers to measure training
 6

effectiveness. Forrest and Peterson (2006) identified concerns related to instructional

material design and varying instructional delivery methods, which appear unmatched or

misunderstood. A general problem exists as training of adult learners continues to

challenge training organizations, and adult learners need to become skilled at new

information and put that information into practice quickly (Beavers, 2009; Leal, 2009).

A specific problem existed at Company ABC as the design and delivery of instructional

material in the past has not provided employees with the learning experience needed to

perform effectively their tasks without remedial training (“BearingPoint”, 2007).

Coverdale, Roberts, Louie, and Beresin (2006) identified the quasi-experimental

W
design as the method commonly used in quantitative educational research. In the current
IE
study, a quantitative, quasi-experimental design was applied to explore the effectiveness

of employee training at Company ABC. Although a distinction is made between

EV
pedagogical and andragogical learning, the overarching focus is the adult student’s ability

to retain knowledge following workplace training.

The projection of a four to six percent attrition rate for 2010 (K. Barney, personal
PR

communication, December 2, 2009), added to the general population of approximately

1,500 Company ABC employees who required training in a new software application.

Rondeau, Ragu-Nathan, and Vonderembse (2010) discussed effective end-user training

as being a combination of form classroom training and on-the-job training. Historically,

end-user training initiatives have been successful when the training is supported by

executive management (Rondeau et al., 2010).

Instructional material designers of Company ABC’s training team were required

to design and deliver the necessary training material to support the employees’ training
 7

needs. Ineffective instructional delivery methods, ineffective instructional material

design, or a combination of both limits the effectiveness of end-user training (Fisher &

Baird, 2005). Fisher and Baird, in a 2005 study related to online learning, reported that a

better understanding of the material content is gained when students link what they are

learning with what they are doing. The research indicated if a statistical significant

difference existed between material design and delivery methods (independent variables)

and the learner’s ability to retain knowledge (dependent variable), improving their

performance.

Purpose of the Study

W
The purpose of the quantitative, quasi-experimental study was to determine if a
IE
statistical significant difference existed between the design and delivery of instructional

material and the adult learners’ ability to retain the instructional material presented at the
EV
global security company on the Central Gulf Coast of the United States. Employee

attitudes related to instructional material design and delivery methods was self-reported

using a 5-point Likert-type scale (5=strongly agree, 4=agree, 3=neutral, 2=disagree, and
PR

1=strongly disagree). The instruments are found in Appendix E and Appendix F.

Statements are designed to gauge employee thoughts about the independent variables.

The independent variables of material design and delivery methods (ILT and CAI) relate

to the clarity, flow of instructional information, and the impact on employee cognitive

load. An electronic proficiency test, using a posttest methodology, delivered at the end of

each traditional instructor-led event and employee self-paced, CAI that compared a

pretest of the instructional material used, measured the knowledge retention (dependent

variable).
 8

A one-hour training class was provided by an instructor for participants selected

to attend the traditional classroom delivery. The in class material used in the traditional

setting replicated and was given to participants selected to take the CAI instruction.

Comparing the results of the posttest data to the pretest baseline indicated the effect of

the training intervention. Seeking a high degree of external and internal validity, Walton

Braver and Braver (1988) proposed the Solomon four-group experimental design. Table

1 outlines the Solomon four-group experimental design construct.

Chapter 3, the methodology section, presents procedures followed regarding the

Solomon four-group process. Participants in the experimental groups attended the same

W
class (Project Setup), taught by the same instructor. The control group participants aided
IE
in validating the data discovered without experiencing a training intervention. A pretest

of the course design material was used to identify a pre-training baseline and a posttest
EV
measured the results of the training intervention applied. Sproull (2003) reported that the

Solomon four-group design diminished the effects of using the same design tool as the

pretest / posttest instrument. A t-test was the statistical tool used to test the significance
PR

of means in pairs; whereas, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) F test was the statistical

tool used to test the significance of group variance in means and was applied for

hypothesis testing. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), version 18,

statistical software was used. Triangulation of data drawn for the t and F test analysis

may identify any differences related to the subject’s ability to retain knowledge.
 9

Table 1

Solomon Four-Group Design Model

Group Pretest Treatment / Posttest

Intervention

E1 R O1 X O2

C1 R O3 O4

E2 R X O5

C2 R O6

Note. E = experimental group; C = control group; R = randomization of participants; O = outcome derived;

W
X = applied treatment. Adapted from Walton Braver and Braver (1988).
IE
Past efforts to train employees at Company ABC had produced less than desirable
EV
results (“BearingPoint”, 2007). In March 2007, an independent consulting group

validated comments made by employees and management during the company project’s

organizational risk-and-readiness assessment. The organizational risk-and-readiness

PR

assessment listed employee training as one of six risk elements, as project sponsors

shared concerns related to project success. Company ABC’s project sponsors identified

other organizational risk factors: communication activities, management support of the

project, competing priorities, systems and process integration, and the potential for

affected employees to adapt to substantial changes (“BearingPoint”, 2007). The study

focused on training concerns, specifically knowledge retention of company employees.

Significance of the Study

Researchers have examined the differences between pedagogy and andragogy as

well as identified processes and activities related to instructing children and adults to
 10

enhance learning experiences (Forrest & Peterson, 2006; Ozuah, 2005; Yoshimoto,

Inenaga, & Yamada, 2007). Understanding adult learners possess different learning traits

from non-adult learners provides insight into instructional design requirements (Cercone,

2008). Forrest and Peterson (2006) conducted pedagogical research in university settings

and investigated the effects of instructional material design and instructional delivery

methods in an andragogical environment by exploring similar influences upon adult

learners within a company.

Investigating whether a statistical significant difference existed between the

design and delivery of instructional material and effective learning, when teaching adult

W
learners unfamiliar with new system requirements, advances the research performed by
IE
Bell et al. in 2008. Applying theoretical concepts related to cognitive load, schema, self-

regulation, and motivation to the studied population may help in identifying structures
EV
that enhance the adult learning experience and knowledge retention (Cercone, 2008).

Proof of a statistical significant difference between the design of instructional material

that applies cognitive load concepts and its effectiveness could advance Company ABC’s
PR

instructional material design by providing an outline template for use by the company’s

training individuals.

Conclusions drawn from the data may assist in identifying influences that indicate

an increase in the participants’ ability to absorb knowledge when encountering unfamiliar

instructional material (Bell et al., 2008). Identification of differences between

instructional material design and delivery methods could benefit other companies, and

results could be of value when companies hire new employees or when companies

promote employees to unfamiliar areas within the company. These examples relate to
 11

adult learners who need to understand the changes to processes and procedures and

software enhancements, resulting in work-task enhancements (Grant, 2008). Enhancing

the field of study, the results may provide leaders with a mechanism to identify

influences that could reduce operational costs (Berger, Topp, Davis, Jones, & Stewart,

2009).

Having employees in geographically separated regions on the Central Gulf Coast

raised a concern related to training cost and training effectiveness. As distance from the

home office increases, the cost associated with delivering employee training mounts.

Instructors’ travel costs (airfare, car rentals, lodging, food, and incidentals) increased

W
training expenditures. Travel cost and the time lost in transit (time waiting for flights and
IE
driving to locations) increased the training cost. CAI could be an effective delivery

method that minimizes training cost (Liu, Chiang & Huang, 2007). The participants’
EV
ability to gain knowledge and apply knowledge quickly to the job is a general desire of

management (Bell et al., 2008; Marshburn, Engelke, & Swanson, 2009). The research

hypotheses are addressed by investigating the various instructional delivery methods

PR

used, face-to-face instruction and CAI, and explored their potential for increasing subject

knowledge levels.

Significance to Leadership

Leaders continue to search for processes to enhance their ability to manage the

company’s fiscal operations (Hiles, 2009; Lee & Ahn, 2008). A process comparing

instructional delivery methods and instructional material designs to learners’ knowledge

retention could be a valuable template for leaders because an essential feature of human

cognition has the ability to learn (Clapper, 2007). Training-cost identification and