The U.S. Navy has always relied on superior technology and training to maintain its position as the strongest naval force in the world. Education, especially in the sciences, has served as the Navy's foundation; this has enabled Sailors and officers to maintain a distinct advantage over their adversaries. Recently, to meet the challenges of developing and maintaining a combat-ready Fleet, the Navy has shifted its focus from hands-on to computer-based training (CBT).
The Navy's answer to education in the 21st century is the Integrated Learning Environment (ILE). To achieve the goal of Fleet readiness, the Navy developed the ILE program, which relies heavily on CBT, through software and online courses. This training is available to the active-duty, Reserve, and civilian contractor community with ties to the Navy. In theory, using the ILE the Navy can track each Sailor's education and ensure the proper training is completed. But the success rate of the ILE has been highly scrutinized. Skeptics have raised numerous challenges to the effectiveness of a program so heavily rooted in technology. The Navy must address these criticisms if its education program is to continue to serve as the foundation for the technological advantage that has won it global dominance.
Despite its critics, the ILE provides remarkable educational opportunities to the Fleet. Its instruction and training programs are accessible, which gives the ILE a serious advantage. All that's needed to complete the training is access to a computer. Sailors are able to access the ILE modules while on deployment. Fewer instructors are needed, further reducing the Navy's cost of education. Sailors are able to complete training on their own time, free of the constraints set by the normal workday. This push towards Fleet-wide education based on technology has enhanced the Navy's ability to educate all of its Sailors, reduced costs, and ultimately contributed to the combat readiness of the Fleet.
So, what's the downside? What about the ILE doesn't work? One problem with computer-based versus hands-on training, is, of course, quality control. While a Sailor may earn a perfect score on an online training assessment, there's no guarantee that he actually understands the material. Even more troubling, there are ways to "cheat" the system on the computer while receiving credit for training. In a crisis, a Sailor may be required to apply ILE training which, under duress, he could be ill-equipped to perform. Thus, he becomes a liability to the ship and the mission. This scenario is greatly enhanced by the ILE's dependence on CBT.
Time-Tested Methods
Hands-on training remains the Navy's greatest educational asset and is therefore the most important facet of ILE. Although costly and time-consuming, hands-on training is a time-tested method to ensure combat readiness. Interaction with instructors during hands-on training allows Sailors to ask questions that would remain unanswered in a CBT evolution. It provides Sailors with muscle memory. In a crisis, a Sailor will revert to training and will be confident in his ability to find a solution. By contrast, although crisis response or a shipboard system may be outlined or represented by photographs in a CBT lesson, this is not sufficient. Understanding a system is enhanced by hands-on training because Sailors can both visualize and understand a piece of equipment and handle a situation in person.
Flexibility During a Crisis
For example, suppose a Sailor is faced with a damage control (DC) crisis. In the CBT training, the Sailor completes the scenario assuming that a given set of tools will be available and that the situation is isolated. The Sailor learns to solve the crisis under these constraints. However, in an actual crisis, the Sailor finds himself without the simulated tools and faces instead numerous complications that were never addressed in training. Had the Sailor completed training in a hands-on environment, he would have developed flexibility. Coupled with muscle memory, the Sailor's flexibility would increase the odds that he could solve the crisis. Hands-on training must continue to be the focus of training and education to guarantee combat effectiveness.
The greatest detriment of the shift from hands-on training to CBT, however, is the leadership vacuum that will inevitably result. Through training, a working relationship is established between officers and enlisted personnel that is characterized by both confidence and respect. The Sailors gain confidence in the abilities of the officer and in turn, the officer proves his loyalty to his Sailors by dedicating himself fully to the development and welfare of his Sailors. Hands-on training yields respect up and down the chain of command and a more efficient team that's capable of meeting any challenge.
Leadership cannot be taught or learned through a computer. It requires practice and dedication. It requires showing up. The preference of CBT over hands-on training reduces the training opportunities to the Fleet. Leadership development, both in the enlisted and officer ranks, is hampered. Even more alarming, combat readiness is reduced; officers and enlisted will lack the confidence and respect characteristic of the leadership gained by hands-on training. A return to hands-on training will guarantee combat effectiveness and encourage leadership development.
The advantages of the ILE are undeniable; educational opportunities for Sailors abound using CBT. However, education serves only as the foundation of a successful Navy. And technical knowledge alone does not guarantee combat effectiveness. The financial benefits of CBT must not overshadow the necessity to develop leadership. Leadership, rooted in technical knowledge, is what has successfully set the U.S. Navy apart from the rest of the world's navies. The ability of the U.S. Navy to retain its naval supremacy will be nullified by the leadership vacuum associated with the ILE's preference on CBT.
To address the question of the continued role of CBT, I suggest the following reforms to the ILE curriculum. First, the Navy must restrict CBT to the education of traditional subjects, not ones that require hands-on training. For example, CBT training should be limited to shore-based instruction in courses such as calculus, physics, chemistry, and other traditional classroom subjects. Each class should meet with an instructor on a weekly basis for questions to supplement CBT training. Second, examinations that track the progress of students should be administered in person by an instructor so that each Sailor is held accountable for his or her own work. Consequently the instructor will be able to provide feedback on each Sailor's examination performance, and Sailors will have ample opportunities to learn from their mistakes. These classes will build a foundation for a lifetime of education and encourage Sailors to pursue additional degrees. This system is cheaper than traditional classes because it requires fewer instructors, while meeting the educational goals of the Navy.
The Navy can benefit from the CBT facet of ILE under this form of education. Both while underway and on shore, training on crisis situations and on shipboard systems should be limited to hands-on training. This enhances combat effectiveness, keeps Sailors fresh on training, instills confidence and respect up and down the chain of command, and encourages leadership development. Computers, while underway, should serve as a source for manuals to supplement the hands-on training.
These changes to the current ILE curriculum may seem drastic, but they are necessary. By refocusing the ILE toward hands-on training, the Navy will benefit from Fleet-wide leadership improvements. This leadership will augment the technical knowledge gained through education. Ultimately, the U.S. Navy will rely on this leadership to sustain its naval supremacy.