In a study that combined the results of multiple other studies, CBT had a slight edge over traditional instruction methods with regards to declarative knowledge, however they both tested equally for procedural knowledge and trainee satisfaction. For employees and college students, CBT was not found to be any more effective than traditional methods, however younger trainees tended to learn better from traditional methods while older trainees tended to benefit more from CBT. Increasing the variety of training methods and differentiating them from classroom learning proves to give CBT a large benefit over classroom training methods. When trainees are able to choose their training method, CBT has been proven to be more effective than classroom learning.
The success of a computer-based
training program is dependent upon the trainee's ability to use a computer and
their attitudes and predisposition towards CBT. A needs analysis needs to be
done to determine whether a CBT will fulfill the trainees needs, or whether
there are some trainees that are inexperienced with computers and will respond
negatively to the training.
An article by Williams and Zahed
(1996) found that CBT was at least as effective (if not more) than traditional
instructional methods for initial learning, however one month after the training
was complete, the computer-based training allowed for much greater retention
than the classroom method.
Additionally, Mulloy and Wallen
(2005) determined that CBT can be made more effective if narration with picture
and animation are used rather than text only or text, pictures and animation.
This should be taken into account when creating a CBT program so that the
trainees experience the maximum learning and retention.
Mulloy, K.B &
Wallen, E.S. (2005). Computer-Based Safety Training, An Investigation of
Methods. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 4(62), 257-262.
Williams, T.C.,
& Zahed, H. (1996). Computer-Based Training versus Traditional Lecture;
Effect on Learning and Retention. Journal
of Business and Psychology, 2(11), 297-310.
No comments:
Post a Comment