IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/inorps/v10y2017i04p696-701_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Cox, Cody B.
  • House, Andrew
  • Lopez, Alex
  • Pool, Gregory J.

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Cox, Cody B. & House, Andrew & Lopez, Alex & Pool, Gregory J., 2017. "The Need for Conceptual Models of Technology in Training and Development: How Immersive Does Training Need to Be?," Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(4), pages 696-701, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:inorps:v:10:y:2017:i:04:p:696-701_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1754942617000785/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:inorps:v:10:y:2017:i:04:p:696-701_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/iop .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.