Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T04:00:42.107Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Need for Conceptual Models of Technology in Training and Development: How Immersive Does Training Need to Be?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 November 2017

Cody B. Cox ,
Andrew House ,
Alex Lopez  and
Gregory J. Pool
Cody B. Cox*
Affiliation:
Department of Industrial-Organizational Psychology and Greehey School of Business, St. Mary's University
Andrew House
Affiliation:
Greehey School of Business, St. Mary's University
Alex Lopez
Affiliation:
Greehey School of Business, St. Mary's University
Gregory J. Pool
Affiliation:
Department of Industrial-Organizational Psychology and Greehey School of Business, St. Mary's University
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Cody B. Cox, St. Mary's University, Department of Industrial-Organizational Psychology and Greehey School of Business, One Camino Santa Maria, San Antonio, TX 78228. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Morelli, Potosky, Arthur, and Tippins (2017) articulate a strong need for industrial and organizational (I-O) psychologists to develop a more theory-based understanding of the role of technology in employee selection and assessment. We agree with their concerns but argue that this issue should include examination of how technology impacts training also. Researchers have noted that training is increasingly important for firms, and technology-enhanced training can improve learning and transfer (Ford & Meyer, 2013). However, the arguments that the authors make about the need for a theory-driven approach for examining the impact of technology on selection applies to training outcomes as well. Although considerable evidence exists that workplace training is effective and that technology can impact the success of training, there has been less theory-driven research exploring how technology can enhance or detract from training success. Researchers have already identified several variables related to technology that promote learning, but one variable that remains consistently unexplored in the organizational literature is immersion. This research is particularly important given how increasingly accessible immersive technology, such as virtual reality (VR), is becoming. Thus, we argue that as virtual training environments become more widely available, the variable of “immersion” in training environments is a particularly important one that warrants additional research.

Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 10 , Issue 4 , December 2017 , pp. 696 - 701
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arthur, W. Jr., Keiser, N., & Doverspike, D. (2017). An information processing-based conceptual framework of the effects of the use of Internet-based testing devices on scores on employment-related assessments and tests. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2002). Adaptive guidance: Enhancing self-regulation, knowledge, and performance in technology-based training. Retrieved from Cornell University, ILR School site: http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/articles/393/ Google Scholar
Chao, C., Wu, S., Yau, Y., Feng, W., & Tseng, F. (2017). Effects of three-dimensional virtual reality and traditional training methods on mental workload and training performance. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries, 27 (4), 187–196. doi:10.1002/hfm.20702 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colquitt, J. A., LePine, J. A., & Noe, R. A. (2000). Toward an integrative theory of training motivation: A meta-analytic path analysis of 20 years of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85 (5), 678–707.Google Scholar
Dalgarno, B., & Lee, M. (2010). What are the learning affordances of 3-D virtual environments? British Journal of Educational Technology, 41, 10–32.Google Scholar
DiBello, L., & Missildine, W. (2011). The future of immersive instructional design for the global knowledge economy: A case study of an IBM project management training in virtual worlds. International Journal of Web-Based Learning and Teaching Technologies, 6, 14–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dzeng, R., Lin, K., & Wang, P. (2014). Building a construction procurement negotiation training game model: Learning experiences and outcomes. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45, 1115–1135.Google Scholar
Ford, K. J., & Meyer, T. (2013). Advances in training technology: Meeting the workplace challenges of talent development, deep specialization, and collaborative learning. In Coovert, M. D. & Thompson, L. F. (Eds.), The psychology of workplace technology (pp. 43–76). Abingdon, UK: Taylor and Francis. doi:10.4324/9780203735565 Google Scholar
Fowler, C. (2015). Virtual reality and learning: Where is the pedagogy? British Journal of Educational Technology, 46 (2), 412–422.Google Scholar
Gegenfurtner, A., Quesada-Pallares, C., & Knogler, M. (2014). Digital simulation-based training: A meta-analysis. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45, 1097–1114.Google Scholar
Gist, M. E., Schwoerer, C., & Rosen, B. (1989). Effects of alternative training methods on self-efficacy and performance in computer software training. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74 (6), 884–891.Google Scholar
McMahan, A. (2003). Immersion, engagement, and presence: A method for analyzing 3-D video games. In Mark, W. & Perron, B. (Eds.), The video game theory reader (pp. 67–86). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Morelli, N., Potosky, D., Arthur, W. Jr., & Tippins, N. (2017). A call for conceptual models of technology in I-O psychology: An example from technology-based talent assessment. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 10 (4), 634–653.Google Scholar
Nilsson, N. C., Serafin, S., & Nordahl, R. (2016, July). Walking in place through virtual worlds. In International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 37–48). Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
Sitzmann, T., & Ely, K. (2011). A meta-analysis of self-regulated learning in work-related training and educational attainment: What we know and where we need to go. Psychological Bulletin, 137 (3), 421–442. doi:10.1037/a0022777 Google Scholar
Smith, M. J., Ginger, M. J., Wright, K., Wright, M., Taylor, J. L., Humm, L. B., . . . Fleming, M. F. (2015a). Virtual reality job interview training in adults with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 44, 2450–2463.Google Scholar
Smith, M. J., Humm, L. B., Fleming, M. F., Jordan, N., Wright, M. A., Ginger, E. J., . . . Bell, M. D. (2015b). Virtual reality job interview training for veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 42, 271–279.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vora, J., Nair, S., Gramopadhye, A. K., Duchowski, A. T., Meollow, B. J., & Kanki, B. (2002). Using virtual reality technology for aircraft visual inspection training: Presence and comparison studies. Applied Erognomics, 33, 559–570.Google Scholar
Wolfson, N. E., Cavanagh, T. M., & Kraiger, K. (2014). Older adults and technology-based instruction: Optimizing learning outcomes and transfer. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 13 (1), 26–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar