What is Education?- A thread on learning and teaching, the creative process, practice [Archive]

MikeF

02-17-2010, 06:59 PM

As we continue to rediscover small wars, as we peel apart the lessons learned from the past history of warfare, as we are nine years removed from 9/11 and still engaged in two protracted insurgencies with many smaller proxy wars below the surface, we are forced to confront gaps in our educational and training institutions. What should be taught? When should it be taught? To whom should we teach? How do we learn? How do we capture lessons learned and compare and contrast them with past experiences? How do we overcome our own conceptual blocks to find better, creative solutions to intractable problems? These questions are mere secondary questions to the larger question,

What is Education?

General Martin Dempsey is working through this problem at the TRADOC level attempting to transform (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2010/02/the-army-capstone-concept-way/) the Army's learning environment. Before him, General David Patraeus provided us with a temporary solution- FM 3-24. Adam Elkus and Captain Crispen Burke wrestle (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2010/02/operational-design-promise-and/) with problem definition as they work to frame and define the scope of Wicked Problems. Major Rob Thorton sorts through these issues.as he attempts to write the doctrine for Security Force Assistance (http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/Repository/FM3071.pdf). The boys at CNAS are striving to adjust our Intelligence apparatus. Schmedlap is on a one man crusade (http://www.schmedlap.com/weblog/post.aspx?id=091230-1) to abolish the archaic "task, conditions, and standards," and countless others on this board work to affect change on the tactical level.

Most of us are products of an educational system developed in the early 1900's as a National Security concern to prepare young men for the Industrial Age and military service in a large, conscripted army. This process and structure is severely out of date and needs serious reform. Some politicians have recogonized this need, and we've had some failed measures of reform to include "No child left behind."

So, this thread is dedicated to discussing how we learn. What are the benefits of our current means and ways, and where should we go? What has worked best for you? Who is on the cutting edge of this process, and how can we learn from them? In some ways, this issue is one of National Security.

Looking forward to the discussion.

v/r

Mike

MikeF

02-17-2010, 07:32 PM

I'll start this out with something simple that us meatheads can understand:D.

Kettlebells, Combatives, Yoga, and Surfing

Ten years ago, if you had asked me about physical fitness, I would have swelled my chest, open my closet full of ripped fuel and creatine, and laughed at you while throwing more and more weight on the bar for my squats and benchpress. Some of my more intense friends (that later went on to the ranger regiment and SF (haha, you know who you are)) would try to convince you to wear muscle shirts and shave your legs..

Ten years ago, that worked, and I kicked butt. Now, after spending years patrolling with body armor, cramped inside the back of a tank, HMMWV, or Chinook, or just living in undesirable conditions, my body hurts. I can't just make it feel better by lifting more weights.

Ergo, we had to try some new ideas. Yoga and Kettlebells work the joints and tendons not just the muscles. Surfing is good for the soul, and combatives and boxing helped my younger soldiers learn to face violence outside of playing some video game on a Sony Playstation.

We learned to adapt like discovering rugby after years of playing football. This analogy holds to the realm of learning as well.

v/r

Mike

marct

02-17-2010, 08:11 PM

Mike,

Bravo for tackling a question most of us have been sidestepping - at least here :D.

I want to start by making a couple of observations. While a lot of my educational experiences derive from that Industrial Age model you mention (pioneered by Dewey, BTW), three of them weren't; and they have heavily influenced by thinking.

First, I grew up in a family where dinner conversation was quite wide ranging and, often, very "debate" oriented. My best friend once defined our dinner conversations as "feeding time at the shark pool". This meant that there was an incredible pressure to always be able to either back up what I was saying or to learn 9really quickly!) how to qualify it.

Second, and it's another family thing, both my parents (and a number of other relatives) were quite active in political causes of various and sundry types, so I grew up in an atmosphere where organizing on the ground politics was "normal", and a lot of discussions were surrounding the best way to analyze and communicate politically charged situations / messages.

Both of these were not what is normally called "education" but, as almost all studies will show, family "culture" is at least as important for outcomes as is the formal education system.

The final difference was that i went to a private school for three years in Toronto; part of what is called the Headmaster's League (Royal St. George's College (http://www.rsgc.on.ca/)). Years after I left, I was back on the campus getting a tour from the then Head Master, and I asked if the school was still the same. He looked at me and, with a collegial smile, said "Oh yes, we are still teaching the boys to rule". That experience still haunts me, because that was exactly what they were doing; none of the workers and conscripts, this was officers and CEOs. Scary stuff in many ways, but I certainly internalized a lot of what they taught, even if not in the manner they expected :D.

When I compare these three educational experiences with my formal, Industrial Age ones (high school, most of university), I find that what I learned in the latter is, maybe, 25% of what I learned from the former.

So, why the freakin' biographical stuff? Put simply, without knowing that background, most of what I say about education doesn't make much sense without it ;).

So, on to education and PME in particular.

First, as an ethical positioning, each and every officer and NCO who serves has chosen to serve (now at least) and, by that service, execute one of the core requirements of a society; the assurance of collective security. That, to my mind, implies a reciprocal contract on the part of society, which is to require that these people, in turn, have access to the best possible education (NOT training) for them to be citizens both after and during service.

Second, by education in this instance, I am referring to any formalized activities that encourage the learning by individuals of a) how to think in a critical manner, b) how to know the value limits of their thinking, c) learn as much about themselves as possible (which is a value limit we don't often recognize), and d) engage in "civilized discourse" and social action (i.e. don't go on a shooting spree when told you can't become a CEO right out of getting your MBA at 25....).

Third, and in this I am very Socratic, always "ask the man who knows". But, in the asking, make sure that you know enough to ask the right questions which, in my usual tangential manner, brings me back to Mike's point about "what to teach" and "when".

The first thing that always needs to be taught is the language of the discussion or, to be more accurate, enough of the grammar and vocabulary that you can order a beer and find a washroom (metaphorically.....). the other "first thing" that needs to be taught is the relevant "stories". Did you guys know that for most of it's existence, the Roman Empire's PME was based on stories? I'm not joking about this (if you're masochistic, read this paper (http://marctyrrell.com/uploads/TFCT.pdf)) and it happened for several excellent reasons.

First, reading is a pain (thus speaks the guy who reads 1-2 books / articles a day :wry:). In terms of internalizing a piece of knowledge, hearing it in a story with emotions attached is much more memorable (anywhere between 50% and 800% [yes, that's not a typo - eight hundred] according to Bateson). This, BTW, is one of the reasons why "fairy tales", at least in their original forms, tended to be so gruesome - they were designed to tie an emotion into an action sequence.

Second (sort of), learning the "language" is an iterative process. You can get it from either formal instruction or stories or immersion, just to name the major sources. Regardless of where you get it, you need it in order to make sense of what is being discussed, so it is a crucial component of an education. Think about it for a sec; if I started talking about "Like, you know, those dudes who, like, walk around with guns" instead of "infantry", how would you react to me? When I talk about "translating", this is a lot of what I am talking about.

Outside of the language and stories that underlie the discussion in the area of knowledge, "what" and "when" are, pretty much, irrelevant since any formalization of them will, automatically, be out of date by the time they are formalized and communicated. Think about "They are always fighting the last war" as an example. The what and when, in this instance, are an example of a poorly developed area of knowledge in the sense of there are wrong answers, but no right ones except, possibly, general principles.

Now, having said that, I am going to completely contradict myself with one absolutely glaring exception: what and when will be set by the organization and will act as gatekeepers for survival and promotion within the organization. This has absolutely nothing to do with the stated purpose of the organization but, rather, is solely dependent on internally constructed environment of that organization. Think about "The Japanese are our opponent, the Navy is our enemy" for an example. All too often, people who excel at fulfilling the function of an organization run afoul of the internally constructed environment of that organization (cf Mary Douglas, How Institutions Think (http://www.amazon.com/Institutions-Think-Frank-Abrams-Lectures/dp/0815602065/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1266437364&sr=8-1)).

This problem is a paradox that is apparent in pretty much every culture I've looked at, so I'm assuming it is a human constant. Or, in other words, and education needs to reinforce the meme of "do what you have to in order to do what needs to be done". And this paradox is crucial to what GEN Dempsey is now dealing with in, for example, the work on leader development.

slapout9

02-17-2010, 08:20 PM

We learned to adapt like discovering rugby after years of playing football. This analogy holds to the realm of learning as well.

v/r

Mike

See what you can find out about Combat Football which was started in the 82nd around late 1974 if I remember:D

marct

02-17-2010, 08:20 PM

I'll start this out with something simple that us meatheads can understand:D.

Translations, amn, it's all in the translations :D!

Ergo, we had to try some new ideas. Yoga and Kettlebells work the joints and tendons not just the muscles. Surfing is good for the soul, and combatives and boxing helped my younger soldiers learn to face violence outside of playing some video game on a Sony Playstation.

Yoga and surfing are also great ways to get to know yourself. Of course, surfing is out for me (Ontario just is atrocious for it!), but I use some yoga techniques, as well as adaptations of samurai training exercise.

We learned to adapt like discovering rugby after years of playing football. This analogy holds to the realm of learning as well.

LOL - glad your learning about a real sport :D! I played rugby for three years (and got all my major injuries in the final year). Wonderful game that teaches people how to be both violent and civilized at the same time. My last game, after about 10 minutes I had one of my fingers turned into a good example of bone chips, and the guy who did it helped me off the field and drove me to the hospital while play continued (bought me beers all evening, too ;)).

MikeF

02-17-2010, 09:00 PM

See what you can find out about Combat Football which was started in the 82nd around late 1974 if I remember:D

Slap,

Don't even get me started. Now, due to the political correctness of some command sergeant majors in the name of good order and discipline, a unit is not allowed to raise a guidon and talk smack while your boys pass another unit on Ardennes Street. It might hurt someone's feelings. God forbid we do something physical outside of ultimate frisbee or flag football.

We did most of our company PT back in the woods in Area J- combat focused on obstacle courses, long runs, ruck runs, getting muddy, and jumping over fences and structures.

BayonetBrant

02-17-2010, 09:05 PM

Something I just wanted to throw out as a point of conversation. There does need to be some clarity in terminology at some point. "Education" is probably expected to be some form of holistic type of intellectual improvement.

I would like to propose one delineation within the terminology, and that is the difference between "training" and "learning".

"Learning" would be new skill acquisition: I don't know how to knit, and therefore would need to learn how to knit. It's a new skill. Similarly, although I know a bit about statistics, there are still many things to learn, and although I know something about structural equation models, there's still more I could learn.

"Training" would be skill rehearsal: I'm am practicing something I already know. I've fired a lot of M16s/M4s. Going to the range isn't learning for me, it's training.

Now it's possible to train one thing while learning another - training squad patrolling while learning about cultural sensitivity or IED reaction drills.

I just wanted to throw out an idea to try and keep the vocabulary cleaned up a bit, rather than argue over how people are using certain synonyms for similar, but distinct, concepts.

Thoughts?

MikeF

02-17-2010, 09:07 PM

LOL - glad your learning about a real sport :D! I played rugby for three years (and got all my major injuries in the final year). Wonderful game that teaches people how to be both violent and civilized at the same time.

Naw, I started playing rugby back in 1997 when I decided not to wrestle or play football in college. Like my spring break trips to Guatemala, it just took me a while to fully understand the lessons that I learned.

Oh BTW, in my three years of rugby, we were 3-0 against the Royal Military College (RMC) although we could never beat Sandhurst, USNA, or Berkeley. However, in my time in Canada, I learned the distinction between American Molson and your Molson XXX :D.

MikeF

02-17-2010, 09:18 PM

marct

02-17-2010, 09:45 PM

Hi BB,

Something I just wanted to throw out as a point of conversation. There does need to be some clarity in terminology at some point. "Education" is probably expected to be some form of holistic type of intellectual improvement.

Totally agree on getting a common language ;). "Intellectual" improvement? Hmm, personally, I wouldn't limit it to to intellectual.

I would like to propose one delineation within the terminology, and that is the difference between "training" and "learning".

"Learning" would be new skill acquisition: I don't know how to knit, and therefore would need to learn how to knit. It's a new skill. Similarly, although I know a bit about statistics, there are still many things to learn, and although I know something about structural equation models, there's still more I could learn.

"Training" would be skill rehearsal: I'm am practicing something I already know. I've fired a lot of M16s/M4s. Going to the range isn't learning for me, it's training.

Hmm, much as I appreciate the way you've laid it out, I still would have to disagree with you.

First off, "training" and "learning" (despite PPT influence neologisms) are actually from different stances. "Learning" if from the stance of the receiver / interpreter, while "training" is from the "instructor's" stance. Having tried to learn how to knit, I know that what I need to do is rehearse; I just put knitting pretty far down the line of what I "need" to know.

Basically, what I'm saying is that "training" and "education" are both from the instructor stance, while "learning" is from the receiver stance. I can "learn" from either type of situation but, just because I am learning, doesn't mean that I am being either "educated" or "trained".

Now it's possible to train one thing while learning another - training squad patrolling while learning about cultural sensitivity or IED reaction drills.

Totally agree. It's possible to train in any subject while the student learns how to sleep with their eyes open as well :D.

Dropping the sillyness (yes, Wilf, it's one of THOSE days for me), we, as in any group of people, can decide what someone should be trained in. These are often called "learning objectives", which is all fine and dandy. However, baring certain fairly specific types of skills (e.g. repetitive tasks operating in a high predictive validity area of knowledge), we really can't exercise that much control over what our students actually learn.

I just wanted to throw out an idea to try and keep the vocabulary cleaned up a bit, rather than argue over how people are using certain synonyms for similar, but distinct, concepts.

Thoughts?

Totally appreciate it :D. While we play with terms, we are actually clarifying a common, group understanding of what we, as a group, mean by them at the conceptual level. One other point I just want to toss out is that I really doubt how distinct, at least in the either/or sense that is often associated with that word, many of these concepts are.

For example, I have taught (another word we might want to add into the mix), students to perform mechanical analytic sequences which they have been able to do perfectly in a variety of settings without being able to interpret what the implications of their results are. Now, I would call what they received (learned if you will) "training" even though my intention was "education" (in this instance, being able to extrapolate from the mechanical manipulations performed).

Cheers,

Marc

John T. Fishel

02-18-2010, 01:04 AM

Learning is from the student's/receiver's perspective while training and education are from the instructor's perspective - agree. However, in my mind, training addresses skills while education addresses concepts. I can train a student to speak Spanish, English, or statistics. But I cannot train a student to comprehend a foreign culture - I can only educate him about that culture. By now, however, you are probably saying B___ S___! Higher level Spanish involves reading Quixote; English, Shakespeare, and stats analyzing multple regressions of political attitudes or something. So, of course, all education includes training components but it jumps to higher levels. An absolutely rotten tool (that nevertheless has its uses:eek:) is Blooms Taxonomy where the lower levels tend to refer to training while the higher orders tend to refer to education.

Cheers

JohnT

Steve the Planner

02-18-2010, 04:47 AM

Mike:

Like you, I have been immersed elsewhere for a few weeks.

We start with the basic MIB problem: A person is smart; people are stupid.

So the first issue is whether we are discussing trying to educate an organization, or a person, or, more likely in the TRADOC application, persons who can contribute to the organizational knowledge & wisdom.

Reading the TRADOC pub gives a good picture of some conceptual frameworks far afield from my days as a TC---takes this tank, blow stuff up or hold this ground.

Problem is that if we use what we see today as a template for tomorrow, what we seem to be profoundly lacking in as a basic framework and understanding of societies, and societal systems, and the effective roles that military organizations can play in shaping and influencing them.

Tomorrow, in DC, is a conference on Post Conflict stuff (CSIS). Mark Weber from UNAMA is going to be there with others. UNAMA is drawing a very big distinction between the role of government and population servicing and reinforcement, and the role of the military. It does so at a time when the military is being forced (as a last resort tool) to try to effect and resolve substantial civilian deficiencies as part of its ever-broadening Mission.

If education is a structured process for conveying knowledge, wisdom, skills or capabilities, and the purpose is to fill some open gaps needed for the future, where do we find and how do we define those gaps in order to create a structured process to fill them?

With a baseline understanding that there is a big gap in US foreign engagements between what political leadership wants to accomplish, and what can be accomplished, the military is increasingly the service of choice, but is it the right service, and are these the right choices?

Off the top of my head, I can think of at least five courses I would love to give to the right folks just to explain the civilian frameworks and systems that underpin their supposed, and sometimes ill-defined mission objectives, but I couldn't begin to guess who, how, where (or why).

There is a general assumption that the volunteer military (and especially the reserves and guard units) come with a built-in civilian know-how, and to a great extent, that is true. But what I continually experienced is that many of those civilian cross-over experiences were like me as a Tank Commander trying to cross-over my ground-level tactical skills to a strategic theatre level (a bad fit)---lots of little decisions and actions that, in sum, amount to nothing productive.

What I believe (for my humble little slice of this pie) is that the right folks in the right places would do well to have, is the right higher order understanding of what and how to synthesize the many small decisions around strategic framework that has a greater opportunity for 1+1 equalling something at or greater than two.

But, in a military that has enough trouble finding time for on-going career and professional training (due to deployments), where and how does that pie-in-the-sky happen?

My version of educating to the gaps is, perhaps, a lot more self-learning, go and see, absorb and know, rather than teach/learn.

But, before I fall back into two more weeks of re-immersion into the primordial ooze, that's my two cents.

Steve

selil

02-18-2010, 05:17 AM

There is training and there is education. To understand the difference do you want your teenage daughter to receive sex training or sex education? This is how my first educational philosophy course as a doctoral student began.

I hate to link farm but I've written a lot (http://selil.com/?cat=52) about this topic.

Some highlights

The Socratic compass: Giving students directions not answers (http://selil.com/?p=197)
Guiding students to the questions that they can answer.

How do we get there from here? (http://selil.com/?p=177) (by my better half who is also a professor)
How does education define our society?

Education paradigm: How you get there may not be where you are going (http://selil.com/?p=173)
This article in many ways describes the issues as talked about above.

The dark ages: Modern anti-intellectualism and failure of the thinking man (http://selil.com/?p=162)
More on society and the anti-intellectualism that is fairly rampant.

What does the military want from the education system? (http://selil.com/?p=110)
This one should be of substantial interest.

When the TRADOC RFI was posted here I didn't have much nice to say about it and after writing five pages trashing it. Well I decided if I didn't have anything nice to say I shouldn't say anything. So I self censored. All of the elements being discussed in this thread (with the mild prod by marct) are fairly well known in the education field. I guess I think it is funny that a bunch of soldiers who complain about the malfeasance and arrogance of civilians mucking about in military affairs have no issues tromping about redefining higher education.

As marct alluded to a lot of what we know now as higher education was began by John Dewey (1907ish). His books are available free online and are guiding principles on how we teach and educate. Bloom a 1950s era educator is how most of our outcome based education programs began. There is also Gagne and a few others. If we really want to start talking about philosophical differences we will have open up the constructivist versus behaviorist approach to education. Basically constructivists believe that you can educate from principles to knowledge (grossly simplified), and behaviorist believe that factual iteration (memorization) is the way to knowledge.

I imagine the discussion will be lively.

Steve the Planner

02-18-2010, 05:38 AM

Sam:

Same issues on my end.

I had a small grad program in Planning and Policy. The program director loved to,once a month, find the public figure in the deepest trouble at the moment, invite them over to the Hopkins Club, get them drunk (back when people still did that stuff), and get all the dirt and intrigues behind the crisis of the moment.

Local politics is often dirty, nasty, and very personal, even when, as in Illinois, that local politics is carried onto a state or regional level. It's hard, complicated, challenging and dangerous work, and a highly specialized sphere in its own unique right.

My wife is an educator, and media specialist for a huge regional high school, so I know enough about your little professional education world to be dangerous, and more than I should about Dewey and his decimals.

I served on a lot of panels and committees on alternative school structures in the early-mid 2000s---urban school restructurings, charter school fights, alternative k-12 systems and strategies (magnets, alternate grade spans, decentralized schools, KIPPs, etc...). Nothing as bracing and "real" as going into a local community, or board of ed meeting, to delve into these kinds of issues with them. Yes, I've done those kinds of meetings where the walls of a gym are lined with police...(But I just do facility planning/organizational/finance stuff, not actual eduction (where the real politics of love and death reside).

It certainly would be fun to take some of our US diplomats into a few intense community meetings to make them realize what a safe and clean job they have (no heavy lifting).

Hard to get across to the uninititiated that, fighting aside, COIN is about that nasty local public community stuff, and conflicts are inherent in them---all by themselves,and especially at home.

Want to know about education? Call an educator.

Steve

BayonetBrant

02-18-2010, 02:14 PM

"Intellectual" improvement? Hmm, personally, I wouldn't limit it to to intellectual.
That's why I wasn't trying to define "education"

Hmm, much as I appreciate the way you've laid it out, I still would have to disagree with you.
That's what discussions are for!

First off, "training" and "learning" (despite PPT influence neologisms) are actually from different stances. "Learning" if from the stance of the receiver / interpreter, while "training" is from the "instructor's" stance. Having tried to learn how to knit, I know that what I need to do is rehearse; I just put knitting pretty far down the line of what I "need" to know.

Basically, what I'm saying is that "training" and "education" are both from the instructor stance, while "learning" is from the receiver stance. I can "learn" from either type of situation but, just because I am learning, doesn't mean that I am being either "educated" or "trained".
I'm going to re-iterate my stance with some different wording then, because I don't think training/learning has anything to do with which direction you are in the teacher-student relationship.
I am still standing by "learning" being "new skill acquisition" but will adjust training to being "skill rehearsal and refinement".
Hard lesson learned at NTC: don't put all the tank ammo on the same HEMMT in the emergency resupply at the CTCP. I know how to plan for tactical resupply and I know how to pre-plan ammo packages that meet weight/cube standards for trucks - I wasn't "learning" how to plan tactical resupply; I was training it. Part of that training was refining the skill to the point that you don't put all the tank ammo on one HEMMT, even if it fits.
Now, colloquially, in the field, we call this a "lesson learned" and that's fine for a discussion point out there. But if you want to finely slice the differences in how education works, you have to distinguish them somehow, just as Operation Terms and Graphics distinguishes "seize" and "secure".

Dropping the sillyness (yes, Wilf, it's one of THOSE days for me), we, as in any group of people, can decide what someone should be trained in. These are often called "learning objectives", which is all fine and dandy. However, baring certain fairly specific types of skills (e.g. repetitive tasks operating in a high predictive validity area of knowledge), we really can't exercise that much control over what our students actually learn.

We can, once you change the colloquial definition of "learn" to something more exact. Might we need to put a term in play to cover secondary/unintentional wisdom gained through the learning/training process? Probably. But over-expanding the definitions of existing terms will inevitably lead repetitive caveats of "and by x-term I mean as used in this fashion.

For example, I have taught (another word we might want to add into the mix), students to perform mechanical analytic sequences which they have been able to do perfectly in a variety of settings without being able to interpret what the implications of their results are. Now, I would call what they received (learned if you will) "training" even though my intention was "education" (in this instance, being able to extrapolate from the mechanical manipulations performed).
I think we could characterize that as a case of "learning" (how to extrapolate) while "training" (the rote manipulations). No?

BayonetBrant

02-18-2010, 02:43 PM

There is training and there is education. To understand the difference do you want your teenage daughter to receive sex training or sex education?

Given that my daughter isn't projected to arrive until 2AUG10, this was probably an analogy I could do without! :eek:

However, I am going to delve into the terminology in the spirit of "let no indefensible position go undefended!"

The differences between
sex training
sex education
sex learning

have nothing to do with "training sex"... the emotional pull of that statement comes from the word "sex" - instantly assumed to have carnal overtones.

I want her to "learn" about what sex is, but I want her to learn "healthy behaviors around sexuality" (which is really what "sex education" should be and is just the shorthand term for it). Once that's done, I want her to have the opportunity to "train" those behaviors in an appropriate (ie, classroom) setting, especially when those behaviors involve things "how to say 'no' to peer pressure" or how to properly care for herself.

"Sex education" is not about "how to have sex" and the extrapolation from "sex ed" to "sex training" is a cute semantic twist of words, but crosses several conceptual lines.

One of my MMC professors at South Carolina once said of "higher education" -
As an undergrad we tell you what to think
As a master's student we teach you how to think
It's not until the PhD level that was ask "so, what do you think?" *

My training/learning difference has developed mainly in my studies/research of using games/sims for training/learning and there's an article about it that I wrote for a wargaming magazine that should be appearing soon, if anyone cares enough to check it out. ( http://talk.consimworld.com/WebX?14@587.fmw3aZ6pNQv.40@.1dd388f5/1822 )

* caveat: my experience with Ohio State these past 6 years has led me to believe that they are unable to get beyond step 2 in the process, and they reach that step only occasionally and almost always by accident.

Steve Blair

02-18-2010, 02:49 PM

I guess I think it is funny that a bunch of soldiers who complain about the malfeasance and arrogance of civilians mucking about in military affairs have no issues tromping about redefining higher education.

Interesting observation, Sam. I see this in ROTC a fair amount, and it's always interesting.

Back to Marc's point, I can relate mostly from the student perspective (most of the stuff I teach here is really along the lines of moderating and facilitating map exercises and developing those exercises, so it's more of an interplay with students as opposed to structured "sit there and learn" stuff). The best professors I have had didn't tell you what to think...they were more interested in helping you discover what you thought about the material and why you might think that way. And some of the more interesting discussions revolved around methods...and how thought about history and historical events have shifted over the years. The worst courses were "learn what I want you to learn" driven and had an agenda that would have made Stalin proud (not necessarily in terms of ideology - although it was close - but more in terms of method).

John makes some interesting points as well.

One of my MMC professors at South Carolina once said of "higher education" -
As an undergrad we tell you what to think
As a master's student we teach you how to think
It's not until the PhD level that was ask "so, what do you think?" *

* caveat: my experience with Ohio State these past 6 years has led me to believe that they are unable to get beyond step 2 in the process, and they reach that step only occasionally and almost always by accident.

And that to me is one of the lingering and most malign influences of the 1960s on higher education. And I have heard professors of that same mindset bemoaning the fact that their masters students can't write coherent papers or essays. They always got defensive when I pointed out that they had some of those same students as undergraduates and obviously failed to prepare them for the demands of a masters program.

Simply because the system currently functions that way doesn't mean that it's ideal or that it accurately reflects what education *should* be, both for the teacher and the student.

marct

02-18-2010, 03:07 PM

Hi guys,

There is training and there is education. To understand the difference do you want your teenage daughter to receive sex training or sex education?

Yes, I always keep that one in mind even though my daughter isn't a teenager any longer ;).

I hate to link farm but I've written a lot (http://selil.com/?cat=52) about this topic.

Some highlights

The Socratic compass: Giving students directions not answers (http://selil.com/?p=197)
Guiding students to the questions that they can answer.

I always liked this one, Sam. Then again, I like Socrates, so it's not surprising.....

As marct alluded to a lot of what we know now as higher education was began by John Dewey (1907ish). His books are available free online and are guiding principles on how we teach and educate. Bloom a 1950s era educator is how most of our outcome based education programs began. There is also Gagne and a few others. If we really want to start talking about philosophical differences we will have open up the constructivist versus behaviorist approach to education. Basically constructivists believe that you can educate from principles to knowledge (grossly simplified), and behaviorist believe that factual iteration (memorization) is the way to knowledge.

The constructivist - behaviourist debate, at least from what I have seen of it, is as chimerical as most of the other dualisms pervading our modern academic debates; Nature - Culture, Mind - Body, etc. Personally, I find most of these debates to be no more than an excuse for excessive logorrhea. They are situated within a cultural matrix that demands oppositional dualisms as a means to avoid examining what is really going on.

Now that I'm got that out :wry:.....

Most of the way we conceptualize the "debate" is predicated on an incorrect acceptance of mind-body dualism (check out Bateson's Angel's Fear (http://www.amazon.com/Angels-Fear-Epistemology-Advances-Complexity/dp/1572735945/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1266504213&sr=8-1)). If we drop the dualism, as I think we should, then what we have is a variable membership function (actually, a fuzzy set membership value). Let me put this in the context of training vs education (another false dualism mind you ;)).

"Training", as most of us currently conceive it, is "physical" or, at least, primarily physical while "education" is generally perceived of as being "mental" or "intellectual". Really? If you look at most of the current neuro-psychological research on, say, learning music, one of the things you will find is that there are physical changes in the neural structures (specifically the creation of new neronal pathways and the myelinization of some of them). Education isn't separate from the physical, it just takes place in the neurons rather than in the muscles (which is the dominant sight for a lot of training).

One of the reasons why I think the constructivist - behavioiuralist debate is silly, is that they are both techniques for changing neuronal pathways. Furthermore, the way the debate is structured assumes (requires in fact) a standardized "student" which, to anyone who has taught, is somewhat laughable (i.e. there is a range of neuronal structuring amongst our students - we call this "learning styles"). Both stances may work, depending on the students.

One way to parse out what we are doing is to ask ourselves how much "freedom" do we wish our students to have in the exercise of their learned skills? If the answer is "not much", then we should aim at a more behaviouralist approach, and if it is "a lot" then at a more constructivist approach. And the initial decision, BTW, will depend on the area of knowledge, the "skill set" as it were.

Let me get back to this idea of "learning" for a minute. One of the things I realized quite early on, and it's one of the reasons I mentioned all that biographical data, was that learning takes place all the time, and that individual learning crosses all formal disciplinary boundaries based on internal analogs. It's the old "that reminds me of..." syndrome, and it operates because of the way our brains are organized. For example, I was trained in fencing when I was young, and I brought that with me when I was later trained in dancing and both of those feed into my singing which, in turn, feeds into my understandings of COIN.

When I wrote earlier that we can't control what people learn, this is the phenomenon I was referring to: association by analog. This very phenomenon is also critical in understanding how we construct our institutions, although that's probably the subject for another post ;).

02-18-2010, 03:58 PM

those who divide things into two categories and those who lie about it.

Consider a couple of things from the ancient Greeks;
techne (art/craft) is contrasted with episteme (knowledge/science) by Plato
sophia (wisdom) is contrasted with phronesis (practical wisdom/prudence) by Aristotle
Each of these early heavy hitters suggests that the path to the collections that fall under each term is not the same.

We could also compare/contrast theoria with praxis as ways of “knowing” God or sitting zazen with solving koans as ways of achieving enlightenment.

In English, I think it is worth noting that one learns “about” something but one trains “on” something. We also can note that English grammar and diction tell us that learning involves a relationship between a person and an object—“Larry learns logic.” while training involves a relationship between two persons—“Tom trains Toby.”

We may, with Rene Descartes among others, happen to accept the idea that we are born with innate ideas. We may, instead, agree with John Locke’s refutation of that position and believe our minds are blank slates. We can even take the Kantian line that our "understandings"are “hard-wired” in certain ways that allow (or force) us to make sense of the data presented to us. The beauty of this last position is that it is something of a synthesis: we are still blank slates in terms of content but have something like a syntax ( perhaps a Chomsky “deep structure”) or a file format (FAT32 or NTFS e.g.) to organize the content/lexicon/vocabulary that we acquire along the way.

BLAB (Bottom line at bottom)
Each of these metaphysical positions or presuppositions predisposes one to a certain solution set for the problem of how one figures out how to get along in the world. But, whatever way one comes down on the question of primacy of place, I trust we can all recognize that at least two different activities are involved and a complete solution requires the successful application of both.

marct

02-18-2010, 04:01 PM

One of my MMC professors at South Carolina once said of "higher education" -
As an undergrad we tell you what to think
As a master's student we teach you how to think
It's not until the PhD level that was ask "so, what do you think?" *

* caveat: my experience with Ohio State these past 6 years has led me to believe that they are unable to get beyond step 2 in the process, and they reach that step only occasionally and almost always by accident.

And that to me is one of the lingering and most malign influences of the 1960s on higher education. And I have heard professors of that same mindset bemoaning the fact that their masters students can't write coherent papers or essays. They always got defensive when I pointed out that they had some of those same students as undergraduates and obviously failed to prepare them for the demands of a masters program.

What I find fascinating about BB's quote is that it is really a fairly recent introduction to the academy showing up (variably) in the 1950's-60's. It is tied into a couple of important social changes that happened post-WW II: increasing credentialization, loosening of overt class boundaries, etc.

Simply because the system currently functions that way doesn't mean that it's ideal or that it accurately reflects what education *should* be, both for the teacher and the student.

Yup. Of course, Steve, that "should" is predicated on an idealization of the pre-WW II (more likely WW I) values of "education" ;).

This "should" idea is worth expanding on significantly since it relates to a whole slew of issues. Let me first expand it by analogy: we talk a lot about "ends" and "means". What is the desired end state of an education / training course / program / career? All of the discussions around pedagogical tactics and strategies rely on implicit ends, including "shoulds", but what are they?

For one thing, the choices made will inevitably impact the class structure of the society in question. Go back to Dewey and the Industrial Age education system he was pushing, and you will see that it lays the formal basis for a society where class is based on a combination of economic status and social positioning based on educational credentials (the infamous socio-economic status). Implicit, and by the 1960's it was explicit, this system is predicated on some variant of the Fordist production system where wealth is generated through the transformation of raw materials into consumer products. Does that sound like the type of society we have today? If it does, not only do you fail SOC 101, I also have some great waterfront acreage in Florida for sale ;).

Okay, let's shift it to who we are fighting. Would you train people in Napoleonic tactics? Unless you're a Napoleonic recreationist, I would hope not :D. How about other Industrial Age tactical systems - what we (inappropriately) call "Conventional Warfare" (it's inappropriate because it is a recent convention stemming from the Netherlands at the end of the 16th century). Um, yeah simply because other groups still use it, just not the ones we are currently fighting. Of course, the people we are currently fighting don't use it; they are using a totally different conceptualization of warfare, so we have to educate (and train) for that as well.

So, if we take as an operating assumption that both training and education have to be focused on both "conventional" and "non-conventional" forms of conflict, one of the first things we should be doing is analyzing exactly where the overlaps and disjunctures are, i.e. mapping out the total area of knowledge. The ACC and ALDS did this to a very limited degree, at least at the broad (pseudo)concept level, with details promised "later".

marct

02-18-2010, 04:07 PM

BLAB (Bottom line at bottom)
Each of these metaphysical positions or presuppositions predisposes one to a certain solution set for the problem of how one figures out how to get along in the world. But, whatever way one comes down on the question of primacy of place, I trust we can all recognize that at least two different activities are involved and a complete solution requires the successful application of both.

Yup. I was wondering when you would weigh in WM :D.

Without a (fairly) clear metaphysical model that, BTW, I would argue has to include those of our current and potential opponents, we are dead in the water.

Then again, just mention "metaphysics" and it scares the snot out of most materialists (the dominant metaphysical paradigm in the Industrial Age)....

MikeF

02-18-2010, 04:58 PM

Hard lesson learned at NTC: don't put all the tank ammo on the same HEMMT in the emergency resupply at the CTCP. I know how to plan for tactical resupply and I know how to pre-plan ammo packages that meet weight/cube standards for trucks - I wasn't "learning" how to plan tactical resupply; I was training it. Part of that training was refining the skill to the point that you don't put all the tank ammo on one HEMMT, even if it fits.

As a former tank company XO, I'm laughing, but as a cadet, I'd would of had no clue about what you're talking about. That's part of common-sense that comes with experience. I once had a commander that explained the we learn through one of two ways: 1. Mindless repitition, 2. Blunt Trauma. I think there's some truth to his thoughts.

The same thing goes for intuition. I think it first really hit me on my third tour. Instead of answer questions with "I think x,y, or z," I would just say that "something doesn't feel right." At the time, I couldn't understand or explain why I felt a certain way, but I seemed to have premonitions at certain times that an attack was coming or a tribal leader that seemed very friendly was playing me like a mark in a poker game. Later, back in school, I started researching more into psychology and the study of intution so now I'm better able to articulate those feelings and how they translate into my thoughts and analysis of a situation at times. At the same time, these "feelings" can be a conceptual block that distorts your reality if left unchecked or untrained.

So, here's where I'm going with this. Some would argue that common-sense and intution are gained through experience (i.e. wisdom) and trial and error. I disagree to a extent. I think it's possible to minimize the gap between the theory and practice. I think it's possible to teach our cadets and new LT's some of these intangible traits without them having to learn them the hard way in combat. That was the whole thought process behind developing ranger school back in the early 1960's- tough, realistic training of sleep and food deprivation to simulate combat.

But, how do we do this with the softer side of small wars? Gen Charailli started it back at Fort Hood in 2004. He had his officers work with city officials in Killeen (I think) so that they could get a grasp of what it takes to do nation-building.

I'll give one example of something that I'm considering and it involves anthropology. How do we give a crash course in anthropology so that our boys start gaining a way of understanding the complexities of different cultures? How do I impart what Anna Simons taught me on the anthropology of conflict and that of the combat advisor? How do I get them to read and process what MarcT writes and discusses in SWJ? Most likely, I can't do that. I'm not going to have the opportunity to send them to NPS prior to deployment or take a six-month sabatical to go study Mayan tribes in Guatemala. I gotta work this within my budget and time constraints.

I tried this technique as a commander back in early 2006, and it worked. I couldn't get my guys to read a lot. After The Sling and the Stone, they got burned out and didn't want to tackle the SF FID manuals or FM 3-24. At first, I was frustrated. They wouldn't read the books that might save there lives in combat, but they were obsessed with some book on dating (I think it was called the Little Black Blook). Anyways, some dude wrote a book on how to pick up any girl at any time. After a while, I realized this guy was on to something, and I could use his book as a way to train my boys. So, our informal training became comparing dating to small wars. Finally, I got their attention:eek:.

So, long post I know, as I got back and thought all of this through, I realized that despite all of our differences, people are people. We don't need to obtain cultural awareness; we simply have to spend time and get to know people. We don't do leadership engagements; we go and talk to people. In reality, the sunni sheiks that colluded with al Qaeda that I met had a lot in common with my southern-baptist country uncle in North Carolina. I just had to adapt my social skills to talk to them. A lot of this is learning how to actively listen. Other, more subtle tactics include sitting the way they do, holding the cigarette in the same manner, and mimicking their gestures.

I'm going to explore if this works. I tried it back in Cali by just getting out and talking to people- homeless guys, Salinas gang members, lawyers, and doctors. Just talking and trying to better my own skill sets. I'd like to take the complex issues of certain specialities in social science and see if I can convert them in to simple concepts for training. A "Good Enough" solution if you will.

Thoughts?

Mike

02-18-2010, 04:58 PM

[QUOTE=marct;93528]Yup. I was wondering when you would weigh in WM :D.QUOTE]

I subscribe to the idea that we will serve no bottom line before its time and finally decided, "it's time."

Metaphysics is not always about things, btw

Ken White

02-18-2010, 06:08 PM

marct

02-18-2010, 06:27 PM

Hi Mike,

Still processing most of this, but a few thoughts....

The same thing goes for intuition. I think it first really hit me on my third tour. Instead of answer questions with "I think x,y, or z," I would just say that "something doesn't feel right." At the time, I couldn't understand or explain why I felt a certain way, but I seemed to have premonitions at certain times that an attack was coming or a tribal leader that seemed very friendly was playing me like a mark in a poker game. Later, back in school, I started researching more into psychology and the study of intution so now I'm better able to articulate those feelings and how they translate into my thoughts and analysis of a situation at times. At the same time, these "feelings" can be a conceptual block that distorts your reality if left unchecked or untrained.

Very good point, Mike. Just to add to the mess of Greek terms WM tossed in, they (the Greeks) called this type of knowledge "thumos", what we used to call "gut knowledge", although most of the similar connotations disappeared in the early 20th century.

Training intuition, however, is tricky. I know quite a few systems that do it, but they are all fairly time intense. That said, I think they're worth it.

But, how do we do this with the softer side of small wars? ....

Anyways, some dude wrote a book on how to pick up any girl at any time. After a while, I realized this guy was on to something, and I could use his book as a way to train my boys. So, our informal training became comparing dating to small wars. Finally, I got their attention:eek:.

No reason it shouldn't work, Mike :D! That stuff I was writing earlier about how learning by/with analogy operates fits this example perfectly.

How do we give a crash course in anthropology so that our boys start gaining a way of understanding the complexities of different cultures? How do I impart what Anna Simons taught me on the anthropology of conflict and that of the combat advisor? How do I get them to read and process what MarcT writes and discusses in SWJ?

The short answer, Mike, is that you cheat. A lot of "teaching" is about shifting the perceptions of those you are trying to teach. So, don't start with "complexity", start with simplicity. I used to give my students, back before the PC crowd vetoed it, a really simple exercise - surprisingly similar to your COIN as dating :D. First, I'd give them a "field exercise": go out to a bar that you would normally go to and just watch people. Since I was generally dealing with 19-21 year olds, that meant that almost all their bars were "meat markets". Now, while you are watching, start looking for patterns of behaviour and how people "identify by display" (what do they wear, how do they handle body language, etc.). Pretty soon, anyone can pick up on the general patterns and develop stereotypes. Then I'd get them to draw a map of the layout of the bar they were looking at and see if they could track the flow of people and how the physical environment encouraged / discouraged certain types of action and interaction. I'd then get them to write up their observations and we would talk about them at the next class.

Now, that next class was crucial, because I wouldn't give them any "facts", I would give them the "names" / terms that we (Anthropologists) used to describe the interactions they (the students) had actually seen. Those terms became the basis for a lot of future discussions about things like gender roles, display, ritual, etc. Even worked for archaeology, too ;). So, really all you need is a couple of exercises that will give your folks experiences that are analogous to the skills they need in the field, and then name those experiences for them such that all the boring books (and my posts!) now have an experiential base for them.

Cheers,

Marc

selil

02-18-2010, 09:58 PM

Interesting quote I just read.

Training gives education its practical significance; the two are opposite ends of the same continuum of learning. Both demand creativity, rigor, and insight. Training tends to be repetitive, rote, and methodical. Its purpose is to provide swift, responsive, and reflexive action in a deadly environment. Education, on the other hand, is reflective, integrative, and pattern-seeking. Just as training deals with the lethality of warfare, education confronts the ambiguity.
James J. Schneider - Professor of Military Theory
The School of Advanced Military Studies
Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas

In the foreword.

Leonhard, R. R. (1998). The principles of war for the information age. New York: Presidio Press.

MikeF

02-18-2010, 10:54 PM

Great discussion so far. I'm still sorting through some of the comments. Each one is pretty deep.

Selil- thanks for posting those articles. They seem to flow with some of my thoughts, and you just articulated them better. The more I look, the more similarities that I see between the professor and the military officer. I really liked reading the article that your wife wrote. It is always pretty interesting to learn about the different ways that chidlren learn.

Mike

marct

02-18-2010, 11:11 PM

Great discussion so far. I'm still sorting through some of the comments. Each one is pretty deep.

So am I :D! I'll admit, this discussion would be, hmm, not necessarily "better" but, possibly, have more of a "flow" if we were doing it around a table, face to face. i guess it's just one of those frustrations I'm having to learn to live with :wry:.

selil

02-19-2010, 02:43 AM

I really liked reading the article that your wife wrote. It is always pretty interesting to learn about the different ways that children learn.

My professorial spousal accessory unit is one of scariest intellectuals a person might meet. Her bachelors degree is in anthropology. She has, a masters in history (women's anti-slavery movement), a masters in computer science (software systems component engineering), soon to have a PhD in technology (computer forensics implications of science and technology), and will likely be getting her Jurist Doctorate. She is a beginning ultra-marathoner. Worse though...<sly look> a Canadian called her a liberal.

School districts (corporations where we live) don't like us. She prepared an extensive literature review on twinning and education policy nationwide. She then got the leading experts on ISTEM (Indiana science, technology, engineering and math) who work for the Governor to evaluate the local teaching strategies. We make teachers nuts but our children test higher than their peers (2 to 3 grade levels). It is not talent, or genetics (unless the milkman was a mensan).

The strategy of education in our house is that the world is our school house. We offer options (that we can live with) that have to do with learning. We have over 4K books in the house and ANY of them can be read. Right now one of my ten year olds is reading a college text on computer security. It seemed interesting to him. The other is reading the HALO (game) series of books. Next week? Who knows. Museums are where history lives. Lessons in engineering are learned while clearing brush out of the back yard. We've been having a bunch of discussions about the kinetic impact and how the body is engineered regarding their activities in Tae Kwon Do. Math is the language the describes the world. We evaluate the statistics given on the news. I think marct was alluding to a similar experience when he was growing up.

When talking about educational philosophy I have a basic criteria (agility, endurance, strength, and wisdom). This is applied to walking, running, school, martial arts, reasoning, basically living. In my laboratory there is a sign hanging that says "cognitive endurance required". A philosophy is different than principles of living as suggested by Benjamin Franklin (he had 13, I have 5, honor, honesty, courage, courtesy, and respect). Words have power. Reflect on the meaning of them as verbs and visualize what it means to embody them and changes occur.

When looking at professional military education I don't see the flexibility I would like but then again the product is supposed to be specific. I don't think the military wants to see a bunch of fully self actualized dream heads walking around talking about the meaning of existence. The military as an organization wants the smartest life takers and heart breakers they can find or create. Then they argue about the definitions of heart breakers and life takers.

marct

02-19-2010, 01:50 PM

Hi Sam,

Worse though...<sly look> a Canadian called her a liberal.

Well, at least it's with a small "l" :D.

The strategy of education in our house is that the world is our school house. We offer options (that we can live with) that have to do with learning. We have over 4K books in the house and ANY of them can be read. Right now one of my ten year olds is reading a college text on computer security. It seemed interesting to him. The other is reading the HALO (game) series of books. Next week? Who knows. Museums are where history lives. Lessons in engineering are learned while clearing brush out of the back yard. We've been having a bunch of discussions about the kinetic impact and how the body is engineered regarding their activities in Tae Kwon Do. Math is the language the describes the world. We evaluate the statistics given on the news. I think marct was alluding to a similar experience when he was growing up.

Yup. We didn't have quite as many books when I was growing up; maybe 3k or so, but I was encouraged to read anything that caught my attention. At the same time, a lot of the dinner discussions would cut off with something like "ah, okay, go read Machiavelli's The Prince and we'll take this up again tomorrow". Because both my mother and grandmother had worked at the Royal Ontario Museum, I used to go there all the time, and I knew a lot of the curators and got to look at the stuff in storage.

I think that I probably had more exposure to the Arts than your kids are getting, Sam, but that's probably because my father had been a professional musician (before becoming a systems analyst and consultant), my mother taught acting, and my grandmother was a professional portrait painter who lived in a weird, inner-city Artists Colony :wry:.

When talking about educational philosophy I have a basic criteria (agility, endurance, strength, and wisdom). This is applied to walking, running, school, martial arts, reasoning, basically living. In my laboratory there is a sign hanging that says "cognitive endurance required". A philosophy is different than principles of living as suggested by Benjamin Franklin (he had 13, I have 5, honor, honesty, courage, courtesy, and respect). Words have power. Reflect on the meaning of them as verbs and visualize what it means to embody them and changes occur.

Sounds pretty similar, although mine is a touch more metaphysical.

When looking at professional military education I don't see the flexibility I would like but then again the product is supposed to be specific. I don't think the military wants to see a bunch of fully self actualized dream heads walking around talking about the meaning of existence. The military as an organization wants the smartest life takers and heart breakers they can find or create. Then they argue about the definitions of heart breakers and life takers.

While the "product" may be supposed to be more specific, there does seem to be a concern that it may be the wrong specificity or, if not "wrong", then a less than optimal one :wry:. I suspect that's why documents such as the ALDS have glomed on to the word "adaptability"; they don't really know what it means, but they will know it when they see it.

One of the reasons why I truly appreciate the pre-Dewey educational system is that it has an inherent metaphysics built into it that is opposed to the mass market, consumerism of the Fordist model. Basically, it requires people to be the best that they can be. The downside, of course, is that it can be "elitist" in the worst sense of the term. All the same, you can get away with being a "dream head[s] walking around talking about the meaning of existence" as long as, when the crunch came, you can act decisively. Remember, this is the same system that gave rise to the phenomenon of the "professional amateur"; someone with all the skills and aptitude to perform a role who does it for love or honour :wry:.

So, what type of a metaphysical model should PME develop over the next, say, 20 years?

selil

02-19-2010, 02:33 PM

So, what type of a metaphysical model should PME develop over the next, say, 20 years?

When you use the word metaphysical a circuit breaker in the back of my head goes "pop". I've been wrangling with different curricula models for quite awhile. Integrative, distributed, etc.. etc... They all seem to role the basic principles of industrial era education in new ways. I've got a couple things on my website about it, but basically any new model should have.

1) A new delivery mechanism has to be based on reasoning.
2) A new delivery mechanism has to be investigative (discovery) based.
3) .... has to be truly interdisciplinary (e.g. learn science through history).
4) .... has to have physical as well as mental aspects for real holistic views (we don't want muscle bound idiots, or floating brain pans).
5) .... has to include a merit based promotion system for knowledge, skills, and abilities attainment (evaluation and assessment is still needed).
6) .... has to adapt internally to environmental and societal changes without breaking (doesn't happen currently).
7) .... has to give up determinism for ... something?

Mortimer Adler in the 1980s suggested The Paideia Proposal, but that just took current education of the time and re-prioritized it. With TRADOC and most education systems they say "don't fix what works". Well, it sort of works sometimes, but it isn't nearly uncorking the potential of the students. If mediocre to sub-par is the goal we're there. If vastly superior capability is the goal we've a long way to go. Learner centered education systems currently appear to be narcissistic and elitist to a fault. They also require large amounts of resources. Neil Stephenson wrote a book about how learner centered education could effect society. I don't agree with several of his premises but it does beg the question of if not that, then what.

marct

02-19-2010, 03:16 PM

When you use the word metaphysical a circuit breaker in the back of my head goes "pop".

Thought it might :D.

Most of the time I've been playing with the problem with other academic colleagues, they have shied away from metaphysics as if it were the plague, even while they criticized certain aspects of the current model.

I've been wrangling with different curricula models for quite awhile. Integrative, distributed, etc.. etc... They all seem to role the basic principles of industrial era education in new ways. I've got a couple things on my website about it, but basically any new model should have.

1) A new delivery mechanism has to be based on reasoning.
2) A new delivery mechanism has to be investigative (discovery) based.
3) .... has to be truly interdisciplinary (e.g. learn science through history).
4) .... has to have physical as well as mental aspects for real holistic views (we don't want muscle bound idiots, or floating brain pans).
5) .... has to include a merit based promotion system for knowledge, skills, and abilities attainment (evaluation and assessment is still needed).
6) .... has to adapt internally to environmental and societal changes without breaking (doesn't happen currently).
7) .... has to give up determinism for ... something?

Interesting list, most of which I totally agree with. Hmm, let's see....

1 & 2. These two can be rolled together (along with some other stuff I'll touch on later), into a single concept where the delivery mechanism must be able to deliver different all "types" of knowledge (logos, gnosis, thumos).

3. Totally agree with. In fact, I would personally like to see "disciplines" shifted backwards to their original, mental / symbolic meaning (think "mental" or "religious" disciplines) and away from content areas. That would have the effect of matching "disciplines" with "learning styles".

4. Totally. I would also add in "performative" to the list, so integrating mind, body and "social". Think Musashi's Book of Five Rings (http://www.amazon.com/Book-Five-Rings-Miyamoto-Musashi/dp/1590302486/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1266591486&sr=1-1) or Castiglione's The Book of the Courtier (http://www.amazon.com/Book-Courtier-Baldassarre-Castiglione/dp/1458864332/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1266591403&sr=8-1-fkmr0); an integration of body, mind and "soul" as it were. BTW, I'm not pushing this one because I'm into performance arts, I'm pushing it because it complements and balances the others, which is one of the reasons I do it :D.

5. Granted that evaluation and assessment are still needed, but the form of them needs to be changed depending on the area of knowledge. So, for example, in areas of knowledge with high predictive validity, a "passing" grade needs to be near perfect; it's one of those "you can either do it or you can't at the moment" situations, where that "at the moment" is a crucial consideration.

"Promotion" is where we would have the most trouble, because it contains the implicit model of credentialization. Personally, I happen to like the medieval Guild model in Academia, but that can't be the solution, although I think it needs to be part of it. I'll have to think about this one for a bit.

6. Simpler to do when you are credentializing disciplines (as defined above) and areas of knowledge separately. The contents of the area of knowledge change, probably quickly, while the disciplines change slowly.

7. Non-deterministic adaptability in the Darwinian sense. Part of the problem with the modernist form of education is that it is predicated not only on a Fordist production model, but on the assumption that Spencer was right; and he wasn't. Maximal group survival is based on a) the amount of variation in the group and b) the ability of individuals in the group to rapidly move between immediately required selection criteria.

This last point, I think, is crucial to the future of PME since few other areas of social action have such an immediate operation of selection criteria (LE, and some others as well). So the area of knowledge, training and education both, would need to focus on a) multiple potentialities and b) rapid pattern recognition and shifting between framesets.

Mortimer Adler in the 1980s suggested The Paideia Proposal, but that just took current education of the time and re-prioritized it. With TRADOC and most education systems they say "don't fix what works". Well, it sort of works sometimes, but it isn't nearly uncorking the potential of the students. If mediocre to sub-par is the goal we're there. If vastly superior capability is the goal we've a long way to go. Learner centered education systems currently appear to be narcissistic and elitist to a fault. They also require large amounts of resources. Neil Stephenson wrote a book about how learner centered education could effect society. I don't agree with several of his premises but it does beg the question of if not that, then what.

Learner centered education, without internal discipline, will pretty much inevitably end up as elitist in the worst sense and narcissistic :wry:. The resource argument, I'm not so sure of. Certainly, if we rely on current models of resource production / distribution, you're correct, but that is a fairly recent (historically) development and there are a lot of alternatives (check out the Fourth Sector material on the economic value of volunteerism).

And on that note, I have to go prepare for an outreach concert at a couple of local schools (volunteer ;)).

Cheers,

Marc

MikeF

02-19-2010, 05:49 PM

So, what type of a metaphysical model should PME develop over the next, say, 20 years?

Marc, let me take a step back before we jump into that question. I want to consolidate some of your thoughts along with Selil and WM using the example of Mrs. Liles (I hope that she doesn't mind us bragging on her a bit.) Then, I want to elaborate on some of the ideas suggested by Steve the Planner, John T, BB, and Steve Blair. If I can put all this together, we may find how to do this and not have to ask the question of what should we be doing.

My professorial spousal accessory unit is one of scariest intellectuals a person might meet. Her bachelors degree is in anthropology. She has, a masters in history (women's anti-slavery movement), a masters in computer science (software systems component engineering), soon to have a PhD in technology (computer forensics implications of science and technology), and will likely be getting her Jurist Doctorate.

Some of the most brilliant minds that I've met and studied are generalists with exposure to a broad range of study. I've often wondered if the forced specialization in social sciences is hampering our learning, creativity, and progress. Same thing holds in branches. I've served in some elite armor and infantry units and worked with some great SF guys. But, sometimes, the same thinking and mentality that made us great in some wars (i.e. tanks during the Thunder Runs) hampered our ability to think critically in others (um, death before dismount).

School districts (corporations where we live) don't like us. She prepared an extensive literature review on twinning and education policy nationwide. She then got the leading experts on ISTEM (Indiana science, technology, engineering and math) who work for the Governor to evaluate the local teaching strategies. We make teachers nuts but our children test higher than their peers (2 to 3 grade levels). It is not talent, or genetics (unless the milkman was a mensan).

Welcome to the world of wicked problems. Almost any social reform is a wicked problem, and they quickly get political as stakeholders cling to the status quo processes, emotions and egos spark and clash, and money is involved. Tell her to drive on with the understanding sometimes just putting together the facts is not good enough. One has to learn how to mobilize, recruit, advertise, and influence. Wow, that's sounding very familiar. Oh yeah, it's phase one of Mao's guide to social revolution:D. Please don't make it an armed rebellion and start flying planes into public education offices :eek:.

The strategy of education in our house is that the world is our school house.

Well done. Your children will thank you one day.

When looking at professional military education I don't see the flexibility I would like but then again the product is supposed to be specific. I don't think the military wants to see a bunch of fully self actualized dream heads walking around talking about the meaning of existence. The military as an organization wants the smartest life takers and heart breakers they can find or create. Then they argue about the definitions of heart breakers and life takers. emphasis mine, MikeF

Sam, I disagree with the last two sentences. IMO, that's our problem, and it leads us to 1. Rush to failure. We forget the 5 P's (Prior Planning Prevents Poor Performance), and we don't do proper planning, reconnaissance, and intel-gathering to define the problem sets that we hope to change. 2. Leads to micro-management. For instance, we have a problem with too many civilians getting killed in A'stan. Solution- Place restrictions on the ground commander. That's a weak solution. There are better ways which I'm going to attempt to explain in my next article.

Ok, so the next step is discussing collaboration, aka "The Huddle," as a process of discovery, learning, and a pathway to better ideas. It's also very Socratic and akin to King Author's Round Table discussions.

Thoughts?

v/r

Mike

pup

02-19-2010, 06:11 PM

Very interesting discussion and one that I have spent some time dealing with for the last few years. I come from a different perspective then most of the posts on this page; in that I am an internet educated holder of an associate’s degree in general education; however I am also a CSM and responsible for training, educating and developing junior leaders for our army.

Since the discussion started with TRADOC I went back to the latest DRAFT of FM 7.0 Training for Full Spectrum Operations and looked at their definitions of training and education.

Paragraph 3-5 states;

"The Army Training System comprises training and education. Training is not solely the domain of the generating force; similarly, education continues in the operational Army. Training and education occur in all three training domains. Training prepares individuals for certainty. Education prepares individuals for uncertainty. Education enables agility, judgment, and creativity. Training enables action."

I don’t particularly disagree with the statement. Training prepares one to act, and education prepares one to adapt those actions to meet success. That makes sense to me. What does not make sense to me is the ways in which the army has separated the two. As an enlisted soldier and later as an NCO, I have been “Educated” in only 4 schools in the Army; PLDC, BNCOC, ANCOC and the USASMA. Every other TRADOC experience I have had has been focused on “training”. Likewise I was never “educated” in unit training. The Army accounts for this by specifying three domains of training, one of which is self-development. That catch all says that if you need to know it, it is your responsibility.

That brings me to paragraph 3-9 which states;

“Traditional training and education may not meet all the needs of an expeditionary Army. The Army is adapting training and education as appropriate to meet the conditions of today‘s operational environments. Developing new approaches may be necessary to ensure Soldiers and Army civilians are confident in their ability to conduct full spectrum operations anywhere along the spectrum of conflict with minimal additional training.”

The reason for this paragraph was to give the opportunity to develop approaches to training such as Outcome-Based Training and Education (OBTE) of which I am a firm believer. The core idea behind OBTE is that simply training on a skill or learning new knowledge is not sufficient to develop soldiers capable of success in full spectrum operations. One key aspect of FSO that everyone can agree on is that there is no certainty on which to train. Every event will be new, different and unexpected, and it will come at a rapid pace with little time to prepare. What is necessary for success in FSO are soldiers who have been developed, through their training and education, to be adaptable leaders who are confident, inventive and who hold themselves responsible for meeting the strategic commander’s intent.

To get back to the original question; “what is education” I would say that education is half of the requirement to prepare soldiers for Hybrid Warfare and FSO (as stated in A Leader Development Strategy for a 21st Century Army, 25 Nov 2009). Education cannot be separated from Training if we are attempting to develop soldiers who can adapt their training to meet the demands of the current conflicts. Education is understanding the skills that one is trained on and how they interrelate, vital to understanding how to adapt those skills to uncertainty later in life.

This brings me to another point that I would like to bring up about Training and Education in our Army. FM 7.0 states that the goal of training is mastery (paragraph 2-42). It then defines mastery as being able to perform the task intuitively without having to think about how to perform it, and being able to perform the tasks to standard regardless of the conditions.

I disagree with the first statement that mastery is not thinking. I think a true master is someone who understands the task to the level that he can adapt it to any situation. I think that is summed up in the second half of the statement about performing to standard in any condition. By linking mastery to uncertainty (unknown conditions) Education becomes necessary to being labeled a “master”. I then think that TRADOC needs to relook in FM 7.0 the ideas of Mastery to incorporate execution of the task to standard (training), and understanding the task (education) to the level that it can be adapted to any conditions.

marct

02-19-2010, 09:47 PM

Hi Mike,

Just some initial thoughts before I get in to more detail in my next post....

Marc, let me take a step back before we jump into that question. I want to consolidate some of your thoughts along with Selil and WM using the example of Mrs. Liles (I hope that she doesn't mind us bragging on her a bit.) Then, I want to elaborate on some of the ideas suggested by Steve the Planner, John T, BB, and Steve Blair. If I can put all this together, we may find how to do this and not have to ask the question of what should we be doing.

Mike, if the purpose of stepping back a bit is to reflect on the stuff already in play, I certainly have no problems with it. As I mentioned early, the "M" word tends to send people into a tizzy, as do the "E" (Epistemology) and "O" (Ontology) words ;). I raised it for a couple of reasons that, I believe, are actually quite pertinent.

First, you are absolutely correct about the 5 P's. The problem, though, is that to plan effectively, you have to know where you want to end up at a certain point in time, how much you are willing to spend to get there and how to get there; you need a map. Strangely enough, that gets you right smack into philosophy. What we consider to be the basic units of analysis, our nouns and verbs or map symbols if you want a cartographic analogy, are defined by our ontologies. These, in turn, are tested in the real world by how effective they are at achieving certain ends, and our test protocols are our epistemology. Underlying both of these is our basic assumptions about how "reality", where we live and operate, is constructed, and that is our metaphysics.

I'm not saying that we should dwell on it, just that we need to a) be aware of it, and b) think about the effects (2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th order) of what we propose, as well as the current, socio-cultural limitations on metaphysical assumptions.

Some of the most brilliant minds that I've met and studied are generalists with exposure to a broad range of study. I've often wondered if the forced specialization in social sciences is hampering our learning, creativity, and progress.

I've always thought that it did, especially after watching how some colleagues reacted when I started talking about "taboo" knowledge areas - like neuro-biology. And, while I have a definite preference for generalists - Renaissance (Wo)Men - it is absolutely critical that we have "specialists", otherwise we generalists wouldn't have anything to generalize about :D!

file:///C:/Users/Marc/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot-1.pngfile:///C:/Users/Marc/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot-2.png
Ok, so the next step is discussing collaboration, aka "The Huddle," as a process of discovery, learning, and a pathway to better ideas. It's also very Socratic and akin to King Author's Round Table discussions.

Well, outside of the fact that I'm sitting at my dining room table on my laptop with a glass of Merlot instead of a beer, isn't that what we are doing ;)? (Slightly) more seriously, what would you suggest? Personally, I would all be in favour of a week-long group get-together / retreat (preferably in the Caribbean!), but I doubt that we could get funding for it.

Cheers,

Marc

marct

02-19-2010, 10:07 PM

Hi pup,

Very interesting discussion and one that I have spent some time dealing with for the last few years. I come from a different perspective then most of the posts on this page; in that I am an internet educated holder of an associate’s degree in general education; however I am also a CSM and responsible for training, educating and developing junior leaders for our army.

Excellent! We need someone who will go "Uh, guys, do you realize you are about to walk over a cliff?" :D

Since the discussion started with TRADOC I went back to the latest DRAFT of FM 7.0 Training for Full Spectrum Operations and looked at their definitions of training and education.

Paragraph 3-5 states;

"The Army Training System comprises training and education. Training is not solely the domain of the generating force; similarly, education continues in the operational Army. Training and education occur in all three training domains. Training prepares individuals for certainty. Education prepares individuals for uncertainty. Education enables agility, judgment, and creativity. Training enables action."

I don’t particularly disagree with the statement. Training prepares one to act, and education prepares one to adapt those actions to meet success. That makes sense to me. What does not make sense to me is the ways in which the army has separated the two. As an enlisted soldier and later as an NCO, I have been “Educated” in only 4 schools in the Army; PLDC, BNCOC, ANCOC and the USASMA. Every other TRADOC experience I have had has been focused on “training”. Likewise I was never “educated” in unit training. The Army accounts for this by specifying three domains of training, one of which is self-development. That catch all says that if you need to know it, it is your responsibility.

You know, I was never taught how to teach either, but I've been doing it for 15 years now, so I am very familiar with the "self-development" domain :wry:. Part of the problem I had when I started teaching was this training / educating dichotomy. I rapidly realized that most of my students just weren't prepared for what and how I wanted to teach, so i had to adjust to a more training based model. "Frustrating", since I was teaching in a university, doesn't even come close to it!

By the second time I taught a class, I had come to the conclusion that my students had never gone through what I would call "Basic [Academic] Training" - they couldn't write, they didn't know how to read like a scholar, and their most frequent question was "Will this be on the exam?" I *think*, I'm not sure, that a rough equivalent would be you teaching at an SNCO school and having a bright student ask you how many men where in a rifle platoon.

Every since then, I have had to assume that my students didn't have "the basics" - and that has held true for classes from Intro To.... through to graduate level courses - so I have had to structure the courses to assume that they were missing. Occassionally, all of my students have had the basics, and I have been pleasantly surprised; rapidly reworking my lectures as I go :wry:.

To get back to the original question; “what is education” I would say that education is half of the requirement to prepare soldiers for Hybrid Warfare and FSO (as stated in A Leader Development Strategy for a 21st Century Army, 25 Nov 2009). Education cannot be separated from Training if we are attempting to develop soldiers who can adapt their training to meet the demands of the current conflicts. Education is understanding the skills that one is trained on and how they interrelate, vital to understanding how to adapt those skills to uncertainty later in life.

I would agree with that with one, minor, proviso - that the training include training in how to adapt. This, to me, seems to be one of the stumbling blocks.

This brings me to another point that I would like to bring up about Training and Education in our Army. FM 7.0 states that the goal of training is mastery (paragraph 2-42). It then defines mastery as being able to perform the task intuitively without having to think about how to perform it, and being able to perform the tasks to standard regardless of the conditions.

I disagree with the first statement that mastery is not thinking. I think a true master is someone who understands the task to the level that he can adapt it to any situation. I think that is summed up in the second half of the statement about performing to standard in any condition. By linking mastery to uncertainty (unknown conditions) Education becomes necessary to being labeled a “master”. I then think that TRADOC needs to relook in FM 7.0 the ideas of Mastery to incorporate execution of the task to standard (training), and understanding the task (education) to the level that it can be adapted to any conditions.

You know, the concept of "mastery" ties directly back to that old, Guild system I was talking about earlier: Apprentice, Journeyman, Master. "Masters" or "mastery" implies someone who has internalized an area of knowledge so well that they are not only licensed to make changes in it, they are noth capable and required to do so.

Years ago, back when the guild system was really operating, in order to gain recognition of "mastery" each candidate had to produce a "master piece" (NB: TWO words, not one). This was the piece of work upon which their mastery would be decided by other masters of the guild. In academia, we have a remnant of that still with the idea of defending a thesis / dissertation, but it has disappeared in most other areas.

Ken White

02-19-2010, 11:12 PM

I would agree with that with one, minor, proviso - that the training include training in how to adapt. This, to me, seems to be one of the stumbling blocks.Very important. It is easy to do yet is rarely done. Really good leaders will do it in subtle ways but too many will avoid it due to the subjectivity required in evaluating success. I believe it is mostly not done due to the fact training or educating to a sliding standard or a 'no right or wrong answer' solution make many uncomfortable. Shouldn't -- and it is absolutely NEEDED in warfighting! :cool:

Such a lack of 'objectivity' (and metrics...) definitely makes many in the US Army uncomfortable nowadays and I blame that largely on the Task, Condition and Standard training regimen. :mad:

That and the Congressional demand that the Army be able to show 'objectivity' in training and education to insure the supposed overseers that fairness reigns. :rolleyes:
You know, the concept of "mastery" ties directly back to that old, Guild system I was talking about earlier: Apprentice, Journeyman, Master. "Masters" or "mastery" implies someone who has internalized an area of knowledge so well that they are not only licensed to make changes in it, they are noth capable and required to do so.While I and many would agree with you, the bureaucracy would not -- having the unannointed (non-LTC and above command selectees) make changes to processes or products is definitely a 'No-Go.' :D

zenpundit

02-20-2010, 07:05 AM

Selil wrote:

School districts (corporations where we live) don't like us. She prepared an extensive literature review on twinning and education policy nationwide. She then got the leading experts on ISTEM (Indiana science, technology, engineering and math) who work for the Governor to evaluate the local teaching strategies. We make teachers nuts....

Actually, that would drive superintendents nuts, Sam.

Most university teacher training programs do not emphasize the epistemological methodology that has been demonstrated by research to work. Most teachers of science and nearly all elementary teachers are unqualified to teach science in any sense that resembles "science" as it is practiced in a lab. The conditions for teacher preparation in history or social studies border on the non-existent.

MikeF

02-20-2010, 12:13 PM

Hi pup,

Thank you for your comments. I can tell you that no piece of paper can ever define the wisdom that a GOOD sergeant major brings to the table.

Well, outside of the fact that I'm sitting at my dining room table on my laptop with a glass of Merlot instead of a beer, isn't that what we are doing ;)? (Slightly) more seriously, what would you suggest? Personally, I would all be in favour of a week-long group get-together / retreat (preferably in the Caribbean!), but I doubt that we could get funding for it.

Yes, Marc. We do it here everyday. What I'm trying to write about is how to expand that impact. Something Steve the Planner suggested has been bouncing through my head this week,

How do we make one plus one greater than two?

More on Monday. Off to the beach to watch my brother preach and attend my niece's bday party.

Mike

MikeF

02-20-2010, 12:24 PM

GEN Mattis weighs (http://www.defense.gov//News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=58025) in at the CNAS conference on Officer Development,

“I believe the single primary deficiency among senior U.S. officers today is the lack of opportunity for reflective thought,” he said. “We need disciplined and unregimented thinking officers who think critically when the chips are down and the veneer of civilization is rubbed off -- seeing the world for what it is, comfortable with uncertainty and life’s inherent contradictions and able to reconcile war’s grim realities with human aspirations.”

William F. Owen

02-20-2010, 01:28 PM

Gen Mattis

“I believe the single primary deficiency among senior U.S. officers today is the lack of opportunity for reflective thought,”
Sorry, but it's not the lack of opportunity, but the out right lack of effective thinking, even given the opportunity! Look at the garbage pumped out by those who have ample opportunity.

“We need disciplined and unregimented thinking officers who think critically when the chips are down and the veneer of civilization is rubbed off -- seeing the world for what it is, comfortable with uncertainty and life’s inherent contradictions and able to reconcile war’s grim realities with human aspirations.”
Again, I submit it's actually more effective to have done the thinking, before the "chips are down." Comfort with uncertainty comes from confidence. You can walk in the Valley of Death because you "fear no evil."
I fully agree that the problem comes from a lack of discipline. There simply is none in the thinking that informs most military debate. -

In fact, in some limited way, this forum represents some of the most rigourous thinking on the subject - yet no one here would be widely recognised as one of the "leading military thinkers."

Ken White

02-20-2010, 05:47 PM

Cessation of micromanagement by the incumbents, removal of the 'up or out' fallacy, ceasing to use personnel policies residual from WW I only suitable for mass Armies and more reasoned competition for promotion would provide more than ample opportunity for thought -- and for creative thought as well. All that is easily within the grasp of said incumbent senior US Officers.

Dumbing down training after Viet Nam had a terrible cost...:mad:

An Armed Force has to operate on trust. Deliberately undertrain and undereducate subordinates to keep them ignorant and compliant while 'saving money' and one will not be able to trust them out of one's sight. That will have predictable consequences on where one must place one's priorities and will cost more in the long term. :rolleyes:

Ski

02-20-2010, 08:15 PM

As much as I believe General Mattis is on the right track, I also believe the current personnel system cannot produce many officers, much less Generals, who have those traits.

If the personnel system, including the 20 year retirement mark, can be successfully reformed so one is not constrained by "key developmental" tours, "three R" tours and time specific command time, then perhaps more of the leaders General Mattis wants can emerge from the system.

We're products of the system, which has consistently focused on producing subject matter experts within a very narrow field (branch/functional area). The general education of an officer should begin well before commissioning. I've said here in the past that history should be a mandatory minor for all Army officers because you need to understand the past in order to understand why the present looks the way it does. When people do not understand the past, you get situations such as "well, the Baathists are gone, Saddam is hiding, now what the hell do we do..."

In fact, critical thinking must be done well before the committment of forces..some dudes named Clausewitz and Sun Tzu had some sort of writings on these subjects...understand the nature of the war you are about to embark on, know yourself and your enemy and you'll be victorious in a thousand battles.

The Army trains people very well, it does not educate people very well, nor does it really foster a spirit of intellectualism except in very select groups. This must change if Mattis' goal is ever to be reached (and I believe it's a worthy vision).

Ken White

02-20-2010, 11:59 PM

The Army trains people very well, it does not educate people very well, nor does it really foster a spirit of intellectualism except in very select groups. This must change if Mattis' goal is ever to be reached (and I believe it's a worthy vision).Only 'acceptably well' IMO -- and marginally acceptably at that. The fact that most in the Army are better trained than system design is a compliment to good leaders who transcend that system.

Aside from historical fact, I can look at a picture of action in Afghanistan or elsewhere today and see poor training evidenced. See the attached example of bunching, firing without aiming, firing on full auto for no reason (both those by an apparent Leader...), carrying MG ammo loose allowing belts to pick up debris and misalign cartridges in the links. No one take pictures of Command or Staff errors indicative of poor training but they abound also and few who return that I've talked to fail to have some sad -- and some hilarious -- stories illustrating that shortfall...

Other than that, I agree with your excellent post.

selil

02-21-2010, 03:00 AM

marct

02-21-2010, 03:43 AM

MikeF

02-21-2010, 12:47 PM

You know if the Army or Marines would pay. I'd follow a cadre out of bootcamp through their first deployments and chronicle in an anthropological educational system the process and systemic issues. My co-pi Dr. Tyrell and I would travel and train as internal observers using our own gray beard coterie to evaluate our concerns.

IMO, this type of involvement/interaction is one thing that we've missed out on since the country was not mobilized after 9/11. I'm not talking about Vietnam-era draft, but rather WWII style mobilization. As I studied psychological operations during WWII, the military had access to advertisement executives, circus managers, and Hollywood types that intuitively understood propaganda and deception. Furthermore, the university system worked hand-in-hand with the military to work through various problem sets.

Today, this involvement is limited to a handful of departments at NPS, the academies, and some ad-hoc organizations/people. Imagine if that changed, and all a MarcT or Selil had to do was submit a short letter of intent defining scope, cost, and purpose to use their expertise to help us.

I had the opportunity to participate in a couple of working groups at NPS (TRAC-Monterey and CORE Lab). Most of the projects we worked on are secret or classified, but y'all got to see some results like the Salinas gang project. I really think an expansion of these type of research teams and analysis groups into civilian universities would be mutually beneficial. In some cases, SF teams outsourced/tasked master's students to work problems for them. They could travel on-site, communicate via secure email, or talk in person once a week using a webcam. Throughout the course of a year, the master's student had his thesis and the SF team had answers.

I'd like this type of problem solving pushed down to the Marines and Army company commanders in patrol bases. We have the technology. They can use an Ipod phone application (currently being created by some Marines at NPS) to gather the survey data, push it back home station to a Selil or MarcT, and get immediate feedback via a Webcam. Most importantly, the subject matter experts can advise them on the questions and considerations that the commander simply doesn't know to ask or think about.

This is one collaboration solution harnessing the power of the internet. Another is far simpler. It just involves a commander taking the time to pass down his Operational Summaries DOWN the chain to his NCOs/PLs and asking them, "What do you think about this?"

v/r

Mike

selil

02-21-2010, 04:32 PM

Imagine if that changed, and all a MarcT or Selil had to do was submit a short letter of intent defining scope, cost, and purpose to use their expertise to help us.

I'll be honest I think this is actually possible. A combatant commander J3 had his adjutant approach me for possibly briefing them in person in theater. Now, since the conversation nothing has happened but as they say, "There is a war on". The topic was not "small wars" but "cyber wars" and whether it happens or not I was still surprised when they gave me the time of day.

I'll also say a institutional ethnography or learning ethnography would help TRADOC and others understand where they are and what they really need to get to where they are going. Currently I see TRADOC steering the ship of learning by looking at the wake.

marct

02-21-2010, 05:19 PM

I'll be honest I think this is actually possible. A combatant commander J3 had his adjutant approach me for possibly briefing them in person in theater. Now, since the conversation nothing has happened but as they say, "There is a war on". The topic was not "small wars" but "cyber wars" and whether it happens or not I was still surprised when they gave me the time of day.

I've had similar things happen, although more along the lines of "can I take you out for a beer and pick your brains...". Again, the topic wasn't "small wars", but.... I can definitely agree with the "surprised" reaction :wry:!

From what I have seen, this isn't an institutional mindset but, rather, and individual one; people tapping into their personal networks. I suspect that there is somewhat of an institutional paranoia operating here for, I'll admit, some very good reasons.

I'll also say a institutional ethnography or learning ethnography would help TRADOC and others understand where they are and what they really need to get to where they are going. Currently I see TRADOC steering the ship of learning by looking at the wake.

Hmmm, I would have said by looking at their sails, but I agree, there isn't much overt consideration of what their institutional environments actually are. I'm not sure how much of that stems from institutional paranoia (aka institutionally reinforced fear reactions), and how much stems from a "not made here" syndrome. There is also the fully understandable question of getting realistic responses verses getting responses that will keep the research / consulting money coming :wry: (see here (http://www.jstor.org/pss/973987) for a perfect example).

Sam, right now a top notch institutional ethnography would take 2-3 years to actually do, and another year to write up. You would need a team of about 5-6 people to do it, and it would break about half of the rules in the book to do it properly. It would also think it unlikely to get IRB approval, given how it should be done ("Oh, too dangerous for the researchers and the LEGAL implications!!!!"). And that is just the fieldwork component of it.

So what they are likely to get instead is extremely limited institutional ethnographies that are, honestly, pretty seriously skewed. That skewing, BTW, will stem from a lot of factors, but the biggest one will be a structural factor stemming from contracting and employment limitations. Unfortunately, I've seen this type of problem before when I've done this type of work; you will get people hired to "fix" individual problems where the "solution" has already been "found" and the consultant just acts as a shaman giving that "solution" an imprimateur. What you almost never get is an organization that says "These are our limitations; this is what we must do; look around and come up with ways for us to do it well".

MikeF

02-22-2010, 12:08 PM

I'll be honest I think this is actually possible. A combatant commander J3 had his adjutant approach me for possibly briefing them in person in theater.

I've had similar things happen, although more along the lines of "can I take you out for a beer and pick your brains...".

That's outstanding. Ten years from now, I think some of the ideas we're discussing on collaboration will be standardized and become routine processes. We're already seeing this in the private and to some degree the public sectors- just watch an IBM commercial where the teacher has his students interact with children in China via webcam.. It's just a matter of how long are we going to wait to take care of this comparative advantage that we possess with our intellectual capital.. GEN Patraeus used it at TRADOC to write FM 3-24 and in Iraq with his counsel of colonels.

In fact, in some limited way, this forum represents some of the most rigourous thinking on the subject - yet no one here would be widely recognised as one of the "leading military thinkers."

Wilf, I think you underestimate the amount of indirect influence SWJ has. Dave Dillege and Bill Nagle started a grassroots organization with an amazing idea- a website that has peer-reviewed "living" documents and a rigorous open-debate forum that allows for discussion based off the merit of one's arguments rather than rank/status. Are some "heavy-hitters" afraid to publish here and have their ideas challenged? Of course, but that does not take away from the fact that many reporters come here to write stories, many students come here to learn, and many practicisioners come here to explain. Additionally, the freedom of this site allows for social networking, and it allows academics and other writers to test ideas before they go to print. I think, over time, you'll see more books recognize SWJ in their acknowledgement pages.

v/r

Mike

marct

02-22-2010, 12:22 PM

Hi Mike,

That's outstanding. Ten years from now, I think some of the ideas we're discussing on collaboration will be standardized and become routine processes. We're already seeing this in the private and to some degree the public sectors- just watch an IBM commercial where the teacher has his students interact with children in China via webcam.. It's just a matter of how long are we going to wait to take care of this comparative advantage that we possess with our intellectual capital.. GEN Patraeus used it at TRADOC to write FM 3-24 and in Iraq with his counsel of colonels.

It's a touch more complex that that :wry:. Some of it is systemic as in the organizing principle of the system. Current PME and a lot of Higher Ed uses an Authority Ranking system as its base structural (relational) model, while what we are dealing with here is more of a reciprocity system. If you want an analogy from civilian life, it's the difference when you are looking for a job between just submitting a resume to a company (mail or online doesn't matter) and networking so that the job description and keywords are actually written with you in mind.

These structural, or relational if you prefer, systems are all based around the concept of distribution rather than around production. They have other characteristics that are tricky as well. For example, "trust" and "reputation" are the cornerstones of the system, unlike the current systems where position or office are the cornerstone. In reciprocity systems, you trust individuals; in Authority Ranking system, you trust offices and organizations; at least in our current ones.

Wilf, I think you underestimate the amount of indirect influence SWJ has. Dave Dillege and Bill Nagle started a grassroots organization with an amazing idea- a website that has peer-reviewed "living" documents and a rigorous open-debate forum that allows for discussion based off the merit of one's arguments rather than rank/status. Are some "heavy-hitters" afraid to publish here and have their ideas challenged? Of course, but that does not take away from the fact that many reporters come here to write stories, many students come here to learn, and many practicisioners come here to explain. Additionally, the freedom of this site allows for social networking, and it allows academics and other writers to test ideas before they go to print. I think, over time, you'll see more books recognize SWJ in their acknowledgement pages.

Totally agree with this assessment, Mike.

Cheers,

Marc