Use of Embedded Performance Support Tools and Its Relationship to the Effectiveness and Acceptability of Practice in Web-Based Instruction

Deborah Alpert Sleight, MA
Educational Psychology
Michigan State University
sleightd@msu.edu
 
November 1997
 
 
Table of Contents
 
Introduction
Description of the Problem
Self-Instruction
Performance Support Tools
Literature Review
Acceptability
Effectiveness
Transfer
References
 
INTRODUCTION
 
The cost of training in business and industry is rising at the same time that the need for training is increasing. These increases in both cost and need are caused by the rapid growth in the amount of information the worker is expected to use on the job, by the rapid turnover of employees, and by the quickening pace of production.
One way of lowering the cost of training is to deliver it as self-instruction: it allows the worker to take the training at the worksite rather than traveling a distance, and to take the training when it is needed. An instructor need not be paid to teach each course, and any revisions to the instruction can be made immediately available. For these reasons, the use of self-instruction for training purposes is increasing.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEM
 
Much of this self-instruction is being designed to allow learners control over the sequence and selection of instructional components, and over the amount of time they spend on learning. Because learners have control over whether they skip a section or repeat it, and how long they spend on a learning task, achievement in self-instruction can vary considerably.
Research (Walberg, 1988) generally shows that the more time a learner spends on a learning task, the greater that learner‘s achievement. One way of having learners spend more time on a task is to provide additional information about that task. Embedding supporting information, such as examples, summaries, and checklists, in a self-instructional course may cause increased time on task, which may result in greater achievement and transfer. This document describes proposed research on the hypothesis that the more time people spend using the embedded performance support tools in a web-based self-instructional course, the higher their achievement scores will be and that they will use on the job what they have learned in the course.
Self-Instruction
One of the benefits of self-instruction is the capability of providing learners some control over the instruction. The type of control the learner exerts can range from simply controlling the pace of the instruction, to letting learners set their own learning goals and find their own instructional materials. In computer-based training (CBT), learner control has often meant letting learners control only the pace of instruction. In hypermedia-based instruction it often means letting learners not only set their own pace of instruction, but also decide what part of the instruction to take, and in what sequence. Self-instruction that permits learners to control the sequence of instruction is called learner-controlled or non-linear instruction.
A disadvantage of self-instruction is the lack of an instructor to facilitate learning, and the lack of other students with whom to share ideas. Self-instruction by its nature requires more from a learner than teacher-led instruction, since the learner must motivate him- or herself to begin and continue the instruction, let alone make sense of it.
In learner-controlled self-instruction the learners "decide which topics they will view, in what order they will view the topics, how the topics are related, how long they will spend on each topic, etc." (Sweany, et al., 1996). Their control of the amount of time they spend on a topic means they may not be spending enough time to learn it. Thus, learner-controlled self-instruction requires more self-direction from learners than classroom-based instruction, where a teacher is present to answer questions, help learners organize the knowledge, and encourage them to spend time on a topic (Winne, 1995).
In learner-controlled instruction learners have the option of going through the instruction in a linear or non-linear path. They also have the option of exploring any supporting material or not. Learners with experience using hypermedia programs are more likely to use a non-linear path (Reed and Giessler, 1995), which may mean they will be more likely to explore the supporting areas of the course, thus spending more time on the learning task.
Time on task refers to the time learners spend being actively and productively engaged in relevant study. Many studies of time on task have been done in classroom situations (Fisher & Berliner, 1985). Thirty out of 35 studies of time on task showed that there was a positive association between learning achievement and time on task (Walberg, 1988). If all other things are equal, time on task is generally proportional to the amount learned. In a study of the effectiveness of computer-based instruction, Montazemi (1995) observed a significant relationship between a student‘s performance and time on task.
Performance Support Tools
Time on task might be increased by embedding within the self-instructional course relevant supporting material, or performance support tools. These electronic tools are informational job aids, and can include software related to the instructional content. They are a subset of electronic performance support systems (EPSS).
An EPSS is, according to Gloria Gery (1989), "an integrated electronic environment that is available to and easily accessible by each employee and is structured to provide immediate, individualized on-line access to the full range of information, software, guidance, advice and assistance, data, images, tools, and assessment and monitoring systems to permit job performance with minimal support and intervention by others" (p. 21). An EPSS might be used to show procedures and processes for doing a task, to help people find desired information in databases, or to present alternate forms of knowledge representation (such as video, audio, text, and graphics).
EPSSs display most of the following characteristics:
are computer-based provide access to specific information needed to perform a task provide support information at the time the task is to be performed are controlled by the user reduce the need for much prior training in order to accomplish the task are used on the job, or in simulations or other practice of the job
Performance support tools resemble online job aids in that they often supply information such as summaries of content, checklists, flowcharts, decision aids, and so on. Another way they are similar to job aids is that they provide help in performing a task. Support tools embedded in self-instruction help learners practice the performance of the task they are learning in the instruction. Thus, the last characteristic in the list above implies that EPSSs can be used in practice, thus increasing time on task.
Job aids are traditionally used to improve job performance rather than learning because job aids are used to "direct immediate performance...when the need to know arises," whereas instruction "usually happens before a need arises and builds the capacity of the individual" (Rossett & Gautier-Downes, 1991, p. 6). Instruction can be used, however, to prepare people to use job aids. In this case job aids are the target of instruction. Job aids can also be used to remind people of instruction after they have completed the instruction, and can even be introduced during the instruction so as to help people remember the content of the course, and become familiar with the job aids so they will be more likely to use them after the course. Although job aids and performance support tools are not designed to help people learn, research has indicated that people learn from them anyway (Sleight, 1995).
Learning is a task like any other, and its performance may be improved with the proper knowledge and tools. Thus, performance support tools should help learners improve their learning. The support tools described by Kinzie and Berdel (1990) that proved useful in learner-controlled learning were a notepad, a glossary, a system map, and concept maps. The notepad allows learners to take notes to mentally structure their knowledge, the system map should help learners both sequence the instruction and navigate within the courseware, and the glossary and diagrams should help learners relate new knowledge to prior knowledge.
Although there has not been much research specifically on time-on-task increase by performance support tools embedded in self-instruction, there have been studies on support tools used in self-instruction. Eklund (1995) suggests using advanced navigational devices such as concept maps, providing on-line help, and offering adaptive advice that would suggest a path through the instruction.
Self-instruction might be made more effective if learners can be persuaded to spend more time on learning tasks. One way this might be done is by embedding job aids or performance support tools in the instruction. Farragher and Yore (1997) found that more time was required to finish reading a science textbook when monitoring and regulating devices were embedded in it. Jacobson (1996), however, found that merely including hypertext links in a hypermedia self-instructional course did not by itself increase the time learners spent on the instruction. His study did not reveal why they did not spend more time; one hypothesis is that the information the links led to may not have been sufficiently interesting to hold learners‘ attention.
Individual differences should be taken into account when deciding which support tools might hold learners‘ attention. Hypermedia foreign language instruction designed to provide both holistic and componential representations and support tools enabled learners with field-dependent and field-independent learning styles to achieve equally well on the vocabulary test (Liu and Reed, 1994). Performance support tools that provide relevant information may help learners with internal locus of control learn the content better. Learners with external locus of control may be helped by structuring the learning and providing sequence and selection advisement (Bar-Tal and Bar Zohar, as quoted in Santiago and Okey, 1992, p. 48).
LITERATURE REVIEW
 
The literature was reviewed for research on the acceptability and effectiveness of instruction and the transfer of learning.
Acceptability
The construct of acceptability can be operationalized as a student‘s:
confidence in his or her learning, satisfaction with the method of the intervention, feeling that the intervention was worth the time, feeling that the content was of value, and feeling that the course was enjoyable.
The type of performance support tools that could be embedded in the target course--informational job aids such as checklists, examples, flowcharts, frequently asked questions and forms--are likely to influence student satisfaction, according to the ARCS model of motivational design (Visser, J. & Keller, J., 1990). They fit under various categories of the model:
Attention (Variability) - The additional and summative supporting material provides variability, which maintains the learner‘s interest. Relevance (Familiarity) - The supporting material both summarizes information the learner is already familiar with, and injects additional material that is relevant to the content of the course, thus connecting the material to the learner‘s experience in the course. Confidence (Learning Requirements) - The supporting material builds the learner‘s confidence in expectation for success by providing information that will support the learner‘s performance on the job.
Effectiveness
The construct of effectiveness can be operationalized as:
how well students learned the content, as measured by achievement tests, and how well students transfered their knowledge to the workplace, as measured by a post-course questionnaire.
Effectiveness is measured by achievement, which is improved by spending more time on the learning task (Walberg, 1988). According to Information Processing theory, learning involves meaningfully encoding new information in order to move it into long term memory. Meaningful encoding is accomplished by rehearsing the new information, that is, by spending time using it. Providing performance support tools may cause learners to spend more time on the learning task, which means more time rehearsing new information, which means it is more likely the new information will move into long term memory.
Spending more time on task in a hypermedia program because of manadatory note-taking resulted in significantly higher achievement scores than those who were not required to spend time taking notes (Armel, D. & Shrock, S. (1996).
Although computer-based instruction can be effective in helping students improve their performance (Montazemi, 1995), it is not effective for all students. A study by Reed and Giessler (1995) showed that learners with some experience in using word processing or hypermedia programs are more likely to make use of the non-linear nature of the instruction. In another study, field independent students learned more effectively from hypermedia-based instruction than field dependent students, and academically talented students more than non-talented students (Weller et al., 1995). Field dependent learners approach a problem in a global and spectator way, whereas field independent learners can identify relevant information from among irrelevant information. Both kinds of learners can be accommodated by providing support tools that fulfill their needs. Field independent learners can have the freedom to explore the various links within the course, including the link to the embedded support tools. Field dependent learners, on the other hand, can be provided explicit supporting information that is relevant to the content of the course.
Although the several studies just mentioned found computer-based instruction in general to be effective, Ross (1990) found that providing optional practice examples and alternative contexts for statistics problems did not result in higher achievement. The research did not track how long students were engaged with the optional materials, however.
Transfer
Transfer of knowledge and skills from training to the workplace has been a field of study in educational psychology for a long time. Generally, researchers have found that psychological and physical support of the trainee‘s use of the new knowledge is important for that use to occur. The idea of embedding performance support tools in instruction that can later be used on the job is supported by the M.A.S.S. model of transfer (Yelon, 1992). According to this model, providing trainees with skills and support on the job facilitates transfer.
The following hypotheses are made concerning the independent and dependent variables and the embedded performance support tools:
Independent Variables
Hypothesis concerning the Relationship between the Variables and the Extent of Tool Use
Computer Experience
The more computer experience people have, the more time they will spend using the tools (because they will notice they are available and will take advantage of their existence).
Problem-Solving Experience
The more problem-solving experience people have, the less time they will spend using the tools (because they will not feel the need for support in learning the Global 8D problem-solving).
Liking for Computers
The more people like to use computers, the more time they will spend using the tools (because they will want to explore the program).
Required to Take the Web-Based Course
If people are required to take the web-based version of the Global 8D course, the less time they will spend using the tools (because they will want to spend as little time as possible in the course).
Preference for Self-Instruction
If people have a preference for self-instruction, the more time they will spend using the tools (because they will like the self-instructional nature of the course and will want to explore it to see what it has to offer).
Dependent Variables
Time in Course
The more time people spend using the performance support tools, the more time they will spend in the course (because they will need more time in order to use the support tools).
Achievement
The more time people spend using the performance support tools, the higher their achievement test scores will be (because they will have spent more time on task, which results in more learning).
Satisfaction
The more time people spend using the performance support tools, the more satisfaction they will feel about the web-based course (because they will have learned more and will be more confident of their knowledge).
Perceived Usefulness of Tools
The more time people spend using the performance support tools, the more useful they will perceive them to be (because they will have learned more and will be able to think of ways they can be used on the job).
The table below shows when these hypothesized relationships might exert positive or negative influence (indicated by + or - signs) on extent of tool use.
BEFORE COURSE
DURING COURSE
AFTER
COURSE
ON THE
JOB
Experience with +
Computers
+ Amount of Time
in Course
Experience wit h -
Problem-Solving
+ Satisfaction
with Course
Liking for +
Computers
Extent of
Tool Use
+ Perceived Usefulness
of Tools
Mandated Attendence -
in Web Course
+ Achievement
Preference for +
Self-Instruction
+ Application
of New
Knowledge
on the Job
Fig. 1: Influences on Extent of Use of Performance Support Tools
 
A study is needed that will test these hypotheses. If these hypotheses hold, then the more time people spend using the embedded performance support tools in a web-based self-instructional course, the more likely it is that their achievement scores will be higher and that they will use on the job what they have learned in the course.
 
REFERENCES
 
Armel, D. & Shrock, S. (1996). The effects of required and optional computer-based note taking on achivement and instructional completion time. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 14(4), 329-344.
Berliner, D. & Fisher, C. (1985). One more time. In C. Fisher & D. Berliner, Eds., Perspectives on Instructional Time. New York: Longman.
Eklund, J. (1995). Cognitive models for structuring hypermedia and implications for learning from the world-wide web. http://www.scu.edu.au/ausweb95/papers /hypertext/eklund/.
Farragher, P. & Yore, L. (1997). The effects of embedded monitoring and regulating devices on the achievement of high school students learning science from text. http://www.orst.edu/Dept/sci_mth_education/SSM/abs_Feb97.html
Gay, G., Trumbull, D., & Mazur, J. (1991). Designing and testing navigational strategies and guidance tools for a hypermedia program. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 7(2), 189-202.
Gery, G. (1989). The quest for electronic performance support, CBT Directions.
Gery, G. (1991). Electronic Performance Support Systems: How and Why to Remake the Workplace through the Strategic Application of Technology. Boston, MA: Weingarten Publications.
Greiner, J.M. & Karoly, P. (1976). Effects of self-control training on study activity and academic performance: An analysis of self-monitoring, self-reward, and systematic-planning components. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 23, 495-502.
Hannefin, M.J. (1984). Guidelines for using locus of instructional control in the design of computer-assisted instruction. Journal of Instructional Development, 7(3), 6-10.
Heller, R.S. (1990, Summer). The role of hypermedia in education: A look at the research issues. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 431-441.
Jacobson, M.; Maouri, C.; Mishra, P. & Kolar, C. (1996). Learning with hypertext learning environments: Theory, design and research. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 5(3/4), 239-281.
Jih, H.J. (1991). The relationship among the structure of interfaces, users‘ mental models, and performance in computer-based interactive courseware. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Athens, GA: University of Georgia.
Jonassen, D. (1992). Designing hypertext for learning. In E. Scanlon and T. O‘Shea (Eds.), New Directions in Educational Technology. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Karweit, N. (1984). Time-on-task: A research review. Research Report No. 332. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University, Center for Social Organization of Schools.
Keller, J. (1987). Strategies for stimulating the motivation to learn. Performance & Instruction, 26(8), 1-7.
Kinzie, M.B. & Berdel, R.L. (1990). Design and use of hypermedia systems. Educational Technology Research and Development, 38(3), 61-68.
Lienhardt, G. (1985). Instructional time: A winged chariot? In C. Fisher & D. Berliner (Eds.), Perspectives on Instructional Time. New York: Longman.
Liu, M. & Reed, M. (1994). The relationship between the learning strategies and learning styles in a hypermedia environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 10, 419-434.
McManus, T. Testing learner regulation in a web-based learning environment. URL: http:// www.edb.utexas.edu /coe/depts/ci/it/multimedia/students/McManus/srltext.html.
Messing, J. (1990). The use of content and teaching strategy control features in computer-assisted learning courseware. Charles Sturt University. Riverina. (ERIC document ED 59246).
Miller, P. (1993). Theories of Developmental Psychology, Third Edition. New York: W.H. Freeman & Co.
Misanchuk, E. & Schwier, R. (1992). Representing interactive multimedia and hypermedia audit trails. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 11(3), 355-72.
Montazemi, A.R. (1995). An empirical investigation of CBI in support of mastery learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 13(2), 185-205.
Reed, W.M. & Giessler, S.F. (1995). Prior computer-related experiences and hypermedia metacognition. . Computers in Human Behavior, 11(3-4), 581-600.
Ross, 1990. Uses and effects of learner control of context and instructional support in computer-based instruction. ERIC number ED323945.
Rossett, A. & Gautier-Downes, J. (1991). A Handbook of Job Aids. San Francisco: Pfeiffer & Co.
Santiago, R. & Okey, J. (1992). The effects of advisement and locus of control on achievement in learner-controlled instruction. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 119(2), 47-53.
Sleight, D. (1995). Use of just-in-time performance support tools for learning on demand in a work practice. http://www.siweb.com/staff/dsleight/pss.htm.
Spiro, R.J., Coulson, R.L., Feltovich, P.J., & Anderson, D.K. (1991). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism, and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. Educational Technology, 31(5), 24-34.
Sweany, N., McManus, T., Williams, D., & Tothero, K. (1996). The use of cognitive and metacognitive strategies in a hypermedia environment. Paper presented at EdMedia, Boston, MA, June, 1996.
Verheij, J.; Stoutjesdijk, E. & Beishuizen, J. (1996). Search and study strategies in hypertext. Computers in Human Behavior, 12(1), 1-15.
Visser, J. & Keller, J., 1990. The clinical use of motivational messages: An inquiry into the validity of the ARCS model of motivational design. Instructional Science, 19, 467-500.
Walberg, H.J. (1988). Synthesis of research on time and learning. Educational Leadership, 45(6), 76-84.
Weller, H.; Repman, J.; Lan, W. & Rooze, G. (1995). Improving the effectiveness of learning through hypermedia-based instruction: The importance of learner characteristics. Special issue: Hypermedia: Theory, research and application. Computers in Human Behavior, 11(3-4), 451-465.
Williams, D.C. (1996). The relationship between the availability of cognitive tools and achievement in a hypermedia environment. http://www.edb.utexas.edu/coe/depts/ ci/it/multimedia/students/Williams/.
Winne, P. (1995). Inherent details in self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, special issue, 30(4), 173-188.
Yelon, S. (1992). M.A.S.S.: A model for producing transfer. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 5(2), 13-23.
 
(c) Deborah Alpert Sleight, 1997
Permission is given to reprint for non-profit use providing credit is given.
 
Deborah Alpert Sleight
Educational Psychology
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824
sleightd@msu.edu
 
Return
THE POTENTIAL OF
ELECTRONIC PERFORMANCE SUPPORT SYSTEMS
IN SCHOOLS
 
Deborah Alpert Sleight
Educational Psychology
Michigan State University
sleightd@msu.edu
 
Fall 1992
 
 
A new way of providing support for workers in business and industry has been developed by integrating productivity software, computer-based training, online help, and databases into an integrated tool called performance support systems. This tool is still quite new, and has only been described in its use in the work world. It may have potential for solving some problems in the schools as well. This paper describes traditional performance support systems (if that word can be applied to a new performance technology) and their use in business. Then their potential use in schools is imagined.
The Problem in Business
Job requirements in business and industry have changed, which means employees have to learn more information, learn information that is more technical, analyze and use this information, and perform their jobs more quickly. According to Gloria Gery, "...the development of competence is taking place in an increasingly uncontrolled environment--at the very time competency curves must be accelerated. The reasons by now are familiar to nearly everyone: many jobs today have become more complex, involve more variables, and require more analysis, synthesis, and interpretation in increasingly diverse contexts. Even entry-level jobs." (Gery, 1991, p. 10)
In order to compete in the new global information age, workers have to know how to decide which information they need, how to find the information they need, and how to analyze the information once it is found. They also have to know how to use the tools that enable them to find and process the information. The problem is that, although the job requirements have changed, the training and job support tools have not.
Currently, good job support may include classroom training, manuals, printed job aids, a helpful and knowledgeable supervisor, and the guy next door who knows everything about the job. Although some companies provide this kind of support, many do not. But even this kind of support, which sounds ideal, has problems.
Traditional classroom training teaches employees the things they need to know before they need to know them, and teaches these things away from the workstation where the employees will use them. "Training programs are rarely integrated into the job situation; they often precede the job, inerrupt the job, deal with a subset of the job, conflict with the job, are irrelevant to the job, or follow learning that occurs on the job while waiting for training to occur." (Gery, 1990a, p. 5)
People tend to forget things they studied if they do not use them right away, and in classrooms they may not be motivated to learn because they do not yet see the need for the learning. "[People] think in terms of getting the job done. And, in getting the job done, they typically are ready to learn something new only at the moment they need to know it--when they have no other choice. But people are only human. All too often, when they need it most, they forget what they‘ve been taught, can‘t remember what they‘ve read, or can‘t find what they‘re looking for." (Dublin, 1990, p.2)
The manuals and job aids may contain all the information and procedures the employee needs to know in order to do the job, but it takes the employee time to find the information. The guy next door may be busy, and the supervisor may not be available when the employee needs to ask a question. The length of time it takes employees to find the information they need is too long for the fast paced business world of today and, increasingly, of tomorrow.
A solution to this problem may be electronic performance support systems, which provide training exactly when it is needed, and provide easy access to the information an employee needs to do a job.
A Solution: Performance Support Systems
An electronic performance support system is an "integrated electronic environment which is available to and easily accessed by each employee and is structured to provide immediate, individualized online access to the full range of information, software, guidance, advice and assistance, data, images, tools, and assessment and monitoring systems to permit him or her to perform his or her job with a minimum of support and intervention by others." (Gery, 1989, p. 21)
The components of a performance support system (PSS) might include databases, productivity software, training modules, expert systems, online help, intercomputer network access, hypertext data links, artificial intelligence mentoring, and anything else that would help the user accomplish his or her tasks. All these components would be integrated into an interface that would make it easier for the user to find the information, tool, or help when it is needed.
The PSS database can contain anything that can be digitized, which currently includes data, motion video, still images, graphics, and audio. The data could be searched in typical database fashion, by specifying key words or strings. It could also be searched in a non-linear fashion, by connecting related concepts with hypertext links. An employee reading a database entry could switch to related entries, which could be video, audio, graphics, text, or other data. This would be similar to a person reading an encyclopedia entry, then reading the cross referenced entries listed in the "Read also" section of the entry, then reading the cross references from the second entry, and from the third entry, and so on.
The PSS could also include productivity software such as programs for word processing, accounting, statistical analysis, computer-aided drawing, database management, and so on. Although these programs would likely be off-the-shelf commercial programs, they could be accessed through the same interface as the rest of the components of the PSS, making it easy for the employee to access them.
A third component of a PSS is the advisory component, or expert system. The advisor would be available to help diagnose specific problems and guide users through specific procedures. For example, an expert system could be written that could guide an agent through filling out a rarely used form in an insurance company. The employee would indicate to the expert system which form was in question. The expert system would then ask the employee a series of questions and tell the employee what kind of information should go in each section, thus guiding the employee in filling out the form.
The training component of a PSS might include mini-tutorials on specific topics related to the task at hand. A person working in a manufacturing company looking for flaws in a machine just assembled might need to review how to identify different flaws. A video tutorial could demonstrate how to do this, and could even provide practice in the form of a simulation.
An expert system could also be part of the tutorial, guiding the employee through each step of the actual process of identifying the flaw. These tutorials could be in multimedia format, text only, audio, or whatever format was suitable for the topic. Multiple formats for one topic could be produced, allowing the employee to select the format he or she prefers. In this way a user‘s learning style could be accommodated.
The online help component of a PSS could be made more specific and context-sensitive, so that when an employee had a question, help would be available, no matter what part of the PSS he or she was in. An artificial intelligence mentor could monitor the user‘s activity, and offer advice if the user wants it. (The user would have to turn on the "Advice" toggle for the mentor to be activated. Otherwise it could become annoying and intrusive!)
The PSS could contain intercomputer network access, for electronic mail within the company or across the world. Employees could talk with each other or with colleagues at other companies, and could exchange files. Communication would be much faster, and the number of people the employee could communicate with would be much greater.
With the integrated components of a performance support system, the tools and information an employee would need to do the job would be easily and quickly available at his or her desk. A PSS would help solve the problem of employees having to learn more, but having to learn it away from the place and time it is needed. It would help solve the problem of information overload by providing easier ways of finding the information needed.
One of the possible disadvantages of a PSS would be that it might tend to isolate employees at their desks. People like to socialize at work. A new arrangement of work time and break time might need to be scheduled. Also, some jobs are done better when people are working together. I would think that performance support systems could be connected to allow people to work collaboratively.
As with any other prolonged use of computers, employees‘ health could be affected. Adjustable chairs, keyboard holders and anti-glare screens could be provided to prevent or alleviate problems with eyes, backs, necks and shoulders.
The Problem in Education
These same problems are present in a different way in education, for both teachers and students. From the students‘ point of view, teaching usually takes place outside the context in which the knowledge will be used, so students do not see any need to learn.
Students are taught about computers as objects of instruction, instead of how to use them as tools, even though the business world -- for which education is preparing students -- uses computers as tools.
Students spend a lot of time trying to find the information they need to do a task, instead of spending time doing the task. We are not teaching our students how to function in this new world. Our students are falling behind other countries in grades, knowledge, and motivation.
Not only our students are falling behind, but many teachers are alienated and burned out. One of the problems teachers face is that they are overwhelmed with so much to do, they don‘t have time to evaluate their own instruction and improve it. They need all the time they have available just to be able to prepare lessons for several classes, teach those classes, grade the students‘ work, and keep track of administrative details.
Another problem is that teachers have lost control of their time and expertise, and are now executing someone else‘s plans. Their profession has become de-skilled, so that what they are required to do is to teach students only the types of knowledge and skills that can be evaluated on standardized tests. "Increasingly, teaching methods, texts, tests, and outcomes are being taken out of the hands of the people who must put them into practice. Instead, they are being legislated by state departments of education or in state legislatures..." (Apple, 1987, p. 69)
Alienation results from not being in control of your job and from your job not being valued. Teachers feel alienated because they are poorly paid, which would seem to reflect on the value society puts on their job, and they have little or no control over what and how they teach. (Vavrus, 1979, pp. 2-4)
A Solution
Although performance support systems are not a solution for all education‘s problems, they may be able to help with some.
"During the next decade, schools will gradually shift from a teaching/learning model based almost exclusively on human instruction to a new approach that combines teachers and machines. This shift will be driven by financial pressures on schools and America‘s desire to have a workforce capable of competing in the increasingly automated international marketplace. The speed of this transformation will depend on (1) how quickly America moves to a knowledge-based economy, (2) how much educators resist changing their occupational roles and organizational structures, and (3) how many resources society commits to producing quality instructional courseware and to retraining teachers and administrators." (Dede, C., 1984, p. 14).
The performance support system model for schools might be different from the ones used in business, and the teacher‘s and student‘s systems would be different from each other. Performance in education is different from performance in business and industry; the latter is a more limited, more precisely stated set of tasks to be accomplished, whereas the former is less precise and less limited. It is much easier to create a set of tools and information for a known set of tasks than it is for an unknown set.
Therefore, a student‘s PSS would lean more heavily toward the reference function in providing easy access to vast amounts of information than toward the tutorial function of providing learning on demand. There would be some tutorials that could be included, certainly, such as for difficult math or science concepts. And a network connection would be necessary to connect the student to various computer networks.
The teacher would assign students to research some area and create a report. The students would search through the multimedia, hyperlinked database for information. They would also search the internet for resources. When they had gathered the information they wanted, they would create the report, which could be typed or multimedia report. They could send this report to the teacher‘s PSS.
A teacher‘s PSS would be similar to the student‘s system, but it would also contain tools for administrative activities such as grading, testing, and recordkeeping, and tools for creating instruction and lesson plans.
The components of a teacher‘s performance support system might include:
classroom management software, for keeping track of grading, attendance, and previous assessments for each student, teaching materials such as lesson plans, teacher‘s guides, and software to be used in teaching, access to the multimedia database, which the teacher could use to create instruction, and for reference, expert systems to guide the teacher through intricate or seldom-used forms or processes, training modules on how to use the software, refreshers on specific lessons, and internetwork computer access, so the teacher would not feel isolated from his or her colleagues.
The teachers PSS could also be connected to the students‘ systems, so the teacher and students could communicate with each other, and the teacher could supervise individual students‘ work on the system.
How Performance Support Systems Would Change Education
Performance support systems would be involved in changes in education in two ways: 1) education would have to change to make it possible for the performance support systems to succeed in the schools, and 2) the use of performance support systems would change how teachers teach and how students learn.
In order for schools to accept and use performance support systems, each teacher would first have to become a computer user. In order for teachers to become computer users, the schools would have to provide them each with a computer to use on the job at school. Each computer would have to contain software that is easy to use and that provides something that makes their teaching easier.
There is no mystery to this prescription. In general, people won‘t use computers if they don‘t see any advantage to having to learn something new. If they are doing fine with things as they are, why put up with the bother of learning to use a computer?
In addition to being advantageous and easy to use, new technology has to be readily available if it is to catch on. If teachers have to stand in line to use a computer, or go to another room, or schedule an appointment, they will likely just get the work done the old fashioned way, instead of having to wait. This is the same way it works in the business world. People are more likely to use the computer if it is handy, useful, and easy to use.
Before teachers will start having their students use the computer as a tool, they have to feel comfortable enough themselves to use it as a tool. A strategy for getting performance support systems into schools, and more importantly, in USE in schools would be to get the teachers knowledgeable and excited about their own performance support system, and after that to give one to the students. In this way the teachers would not be intimidated with either teaching their students to use technology with which the teachers themselves are uncomfortable, or with having their students more knowledgeable about the technology than they are.
I think we have been overlooking teachers in our rush to throw technology at the schools. Much research is done and many papers are written on how to teach children to use computers, but little is done on how to get teachers to adapt computer technology for their own use.
Teachers would have to be willing to give up their exclusive hold on information, because students would also have access to it. This problem was encountered in the companies Zuboff researched, when they moved to a knowledge technology base.
"It concerns a subtle power shift. Taking the decision making out of some people‘s hands and giving it to others." (Zuboff, 1988, p. 255)
"Managers perceive workers who have information as a threat. They are afraid of not being the ‘expert." They are used to having everyone come to them and ask what to do." (Zuboff, p1988, .252)
"As we face change, the big issue is, ‘What‘s in it for me?‘ If I can keep the box narrowly defined, then I know my strength as a manager. I don‘t know what my new skills will need to be, so that makes me uncomfortable. Managers say, ‘You want me to build skills in others that I‘m not sure I have myself, and my future is uncertain to boot!" (Zuboff, 1988, p .252)
If we replace "manager" with "teacher," and "worker" with "student" in the above quotes, we have a description of a problem that is even now taking place in schools where technology has given students more information, and therefore more power, than they had previously.
If performance support systems are used in the schools, we will see some changes in what is taught and in how it is taught. Currently teachers have to spend a lot of time teaching students how to find the information and tools they need to do their studies. Because tools and information would be easier to use and find with a performance support system, teachers would have more time to spend teaching students how to use the information they have found, how to analyze, predict, deduce, and synthesize the information. Teachers would have to know not only how to teach these higher order skills, but would have to be able to do the skills themselves!
With their own performance support system, students could spend more time researching subjects, and constructing their own knowledge. They could spend their free time exchanging messages on the Internet with other students or with experts in the student‘s field of interest. They could use software to model math problems, then spend their time analyzing the results of the modeling. They could make predictions and see if they were right.
The students would have more time to use higher order thinking skills and problem solving, not to mention learning how to use computers as they will use them when they graduate and enter the work world.
Imagine a performance support system for a high school English teacher and her students. The teacher, Miss Alpert, gets to her classroom early to turn on her computer and look at the day‘s lesson plans that she created previously in her personal information manager (PIM) a free-form relational database manager. She prepares the students‘ computers by typing a command that tells the network which student folders to put on the desktops of the computers. The first class is a senior English literature class.
As the students settle into their seats and open their folders, their computers automatically record who is in class and who is not. This information is then sent to the teacher‘s computer and to the administrative offices for inclusion with other class information.
The students are studying a Shakespeare play. Previously Miss Alpert had run a network search of materials on Shakespeare. She downloaded a digital video file of the play, and some files containing analyses by Shakespeare experts. She has each student watch a video of part of the play on the computer monitors. Afterwards the teacher engages the students in a discussion of the facets of the play--its language, action, metaphors, and so on. The students are then assigned to watch a different part of the play and analyze it on their own.
The students have access to the motion video version of the play, a word processor file containing the script that the teacher had prepared earlier, a dictionary of Shakespearean English, and other related information that can be found in the on-line database. After the students are finished analyzing, the whole class discusses the play. Eventually, when the class has analyzed the entire play, they will annotate the script and video, and create a computerized lesson of the play for use in other classes.
After the class leaves, Miss Alpert spends the time between classes looking at the lesson plans for the next class, which is a writing class. She inserts into each student‘s folder the last writing project, which she has annotated and graded. Again she tells the network which class to prepare for, and it displays each student‘s folder on the desktop of each computer.
The writing class students sit down, open their folders, and start reading the teacher‘s annotations on their papers. As they do this, Miss Alpert records some thoughts and anecdotal information on the previous class.
The students have prepared a writing project at home. They copy the assignment to their folders at school, and the teacher tells the network to randomly place the latest assignment in other students‘ folders. The students then read and critique the anonymous projects. The resulting discussion is stored in the appropriate project‘s file, and is sent back to the student who wrote it. Each student will rewrite the project later at home. (Later, in Art class, they will illustrate their projects, and desktop publish them.)
The writing class includes a short lesson on English grammar, which Miss Alpert prepared earlier with the help of an expert system that came with her performance support system. The expert system answered her questions about the grammar problem, and then gave her access to a computer-based training authoring program, with which she prepared the lesson. The lesson was then downloaded to each student‘s folder. When the students had free time, they knew there would be a short, self-paced, computerized lesson on some problem area.
At the end of the day, Miss Alpert spends some time debriefing on the day‘s activities, and preparing for the next day. She looks at the report of the intelligent tutoring system, which records what each student did, and notes problem areas for the teacher to investigate. When she is ready for the next day, Miss Alpert connects to the Internet and answers some messages from her colleagues at other schools around the world, and sends some messages of her own. She is particularly interested in finding out if any teachers have created or run across some teaching programs on an obsure English author of the 19th century.
When she is done, the system automatically backs everything up on tape, then shuts down for the night, although it continues to operate its fax and modem, in case any messages come through in the night.
Summary
Performance support systems in business and industry provide learning on demand and easy access to the tools and information needed to perform specific tasks. Performance support systems could also be used in schools to support teachers‘ performance, and to enhance students‘ learning. The systems would be different than they are in business and industry, due to the differences between education and work. School administration, teachers and students would have to change in order for performance support systems to be successful. Use of the systems would change the way teachers taught, students learned, and schools functioned.
 
References
Apple, M. (1987). "The De-Skilling of Teaching." In Teacher Renewal: Professional Issues, Personal Choices. Bolin, F. and J. Falk (eds.), Teachers College Press, Columbia University, New York.
Bielawski, L. & Lewand, R. (1991). Intelligent Systems Design: Integrating Expert Systems, Hypermedia, and Database Technologies. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Brand, S. (1988). The Media Lab: Inventing the Future at M.I.T. Penguin Books, New York.
Carr, C. (1992). "PSS! Help When You Need It." In Training and Development, Lakewood Publications, Minneapolis.
Dede, C. (1984). "The Likely Evolution of Computer Use in Schools." In Computer Literacy for Teachers: Issues, Questions, and Concerns, Tashner, J. (ed.), Oryx Press, Phoenix.
Dublin, L. (1990). "Performance Support Systems...Now!" Handout for the 8th Annual Computer-Based Training Conference and Exposition. The Dublin Group, Inc., San Francisco.
Geber, B. (1990). "Goodbye Classrooms (Redux). " In Training, January 1990, Lakewood Publications, Minneapolis.
Gery, G. (1989). "The Quest for Electronic Performance Support." In CBT Directions, July 1989, Weingarten Publications, Boston.
Gery, G. (1990a). "A New Vision of Training." In FYI: The Quarterly Journal on Information Technology. Data Base Architects, Inc., Alameda, CA.
Gery, G. (1990b). "Performance Support Systems: Concepts and Development Issues." Handout for the 8th Annual Computer-Based Training Conference and Exposition. Gery Associates, Inc., Tolland, MA
Gery, G. (1991). Electronic Performance Support Systems. Weingarten Publications, Boston.
Gibbons, H. (1990) "The Instructional Potential of AI." In CBT Directions, February 1990, Weingarten Publications, Boston.
McFarland, T. and Parker, R. (1990). Expert Systems in Education and Training. Educational Technology Publications, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Parsaye, K., M. Chignell, S. Khoshafian and H. Wong (1989). Intelligent Databases: Object-Oriented, Deductive Hypermedia Technololgies. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Puterbaugh, G. (1990). "The Role of CBT in a Performance Support Environment." Handout for the 8th Annual Computer-Based Training Conference and Exposition.
Rosenberg, M.(1990). "Performance Technology: Working the System." In Training, February 1990, Lakewood Publications, Minneapolis.
Reid, I., and J. Rushton (eds.) (1985). Teachers, Computers and the Classroom. Manchester University Press, Dover, NH.
Schaaf, D. (1990). "And Now, On-Demand Learning." In CBT/Interactive Technologies. Lakewood Publications, Minneapolis.
Taylor, R. (ed.) (1980). The Computer in the School: Tutor, Tool, Tutee. Teachers College Press, Columbia University, New York.
Turkle, S. (1984). The Second Self. Simon and Schuster, New York.
Vavrus, M.J. (1979). "The Relationship of Teacher Alienation to School Workplace Characteristics and Career Stages of Teachers." Research Series No. 36: The Institute for Research on Teaching, Michigan State University.
Zuboff, S. (1988). In the Age of the Smart Machine. Basic Books, Inc., Publishers, New York.
 
(c) Deborah Alpert Sleight, 1992
Permission is given to reprint for non-profit use providing credit is given.
 
Deborah Alpert Sleight
Educational Psychology
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824
sleightd@msu.edu
 
Return