How to Think, Not What to Think at Leavenworth
How to Think, Not What to Think at Leavenworth by SWJ Editors.
Quote:
Inside the Pentagon’s Fawzia Sheikh reports (subscription required) that Ft. Leavenworth’s new commanding general, Lt. Gen. William Caldwell, wants to revamp how Army officers are educated.
Caldwell has decided to focus on developing leaders, increasing the interagency representation of certain officer courses offered by the Command and General Staff School and crafting strategic communications.
How to think, not what to think…
Asking the right questions
Sometimes just asking the right questions can make a big difference in the effectiveness of our forces.
How to think, not what to think...
From "The Leavenworth Staff College: A Historical Overview" by Dr. Christopher R. Gabel, Military Review 77(5), September-October 1997:
Quote:
The Leavenworth methodology for teaching problem-solving skills has remained constant since the 1890s when Swift introduced an educational technique known as the applicatory method, under which lecture, recitation and memorization gave way to hands-on exercises in analytical problem solving such as map exercises, war games and staff rides-all designed to teach students how to think, not what to think...
How to think, not what to think pt. II...
From "Preparing Field Grade Leaders for Today and Tomorrow" by BG Volney J. Warner and LTC (Ret) James H. Willbanks, Ph.D., Military Review, January-February 2006:
Quote:
A New Philosophy
To deal with the complexities and challenges of post-Cold War full-spectrum operations, CGSC has changed its educational philosophy. The institution has adjusted its approach from training students what to think to focus more on teaching students how to think. This approach emphasizes critical reasoning; creative thinking; complex problem solving; service and joint, interagency, and multinational competence; transformation; cultural awareness; and regional expertise.
Since the 1890s (as indicated by Dr. Gabel's article), CGSC changed its focus from "what to think to how to think." It doesn't hurt to remind CGSC of the focus, but the concept is certainly not new to CGSC...
Officers working on the Hill
A thought: when General Caldwell mentions giving serving officers experience working on Capitol Hill, isn't there a real danger of them learning Washington's lessons too well? By which I mean the budget game, the way in which the different services get their share of the pie, most often through big-ticket procurements that can farm out pork to Congressional Districts. I would think that getting officers more involved on the Hill may give them valuable experience "outside the box," but at the risk of dragging them further into the corrupt game that sees us spending hundreds of billions on weapons that won't help us in the wars we're fighting now, and most likely won't help us much down the road either.
Last year, I could not spell ILE Instructor...
But now I are one.
I am currently going through the FDP-1 ILE instructor training module, and have received some fascinating training material that is being presented to us. Here's a link to what we're learning:
http://teaching.berkeley.edu/bgd/collaborative.html
http://www-distance.syr.edu/andraggy.html
Collaborative Learning and Andragogy appear to be very promising methods of instruction, especially when directed toward Field Grade Officers in the US Army.
However, are their future raters ready for independent thinkers who are "raised" to collaborate instead of directing military planning and operations?