Effective Training....

**selil** · 08-09-2009

The issue you describe of aggregate skill attainment and near and far transference of skill is an issue across disciplines. There is a lot of literature discussing this topic. A few of the basics to acomplishing it are building model eliciting activities that force near transfer of knowledge. Skills attainment then can be measured. As an example when you move on foot to contact with the enemy does the soldier maintain situational awareness. Then when that same soldier moves to contact (gross example) with the enemy mounted in a tank do they maintain situational awareness. Situation changes, tactically different defensive posture, but similar cognitive consideration.

The issue with transference is also related to incorrect scope of skills versus knowledge. In situations where curriculum manifests as skills attainment to much balanced on the skill, the ability to transfer that skill is not transferable cognitively to other tasks. Industrial age education programs (almost everything) are created unfairly balanced towards skills. In the examples I could read (I don't have AKO) though the learning objectives are there they are examples of discrete skills versus knowledge.

If you wanted to increase adaptive learning outcomes and enhanced cognitive constructions (not just buzz words) then you need to have skill tasks unrelated to the primary task. As an example a model eliciting activity (I'm NOT an expert at these) would be to talk about plumbing and fixing leaks and then using that knowledge to patch up another bleeding soldier. These aren't easy to create. They do speed up skills attainment and deepen knowledge so it can be used creatively.

**Ken White** · 08-09-2009

Originally Posted by selil

...Situation changes, tactically different defensive posture, but similar cognitive consideration.

Biggest single problem with the current system. Task? Easy. Standard? Easy. Condition? Whoops!! that's the rub, the widely varying conditions. Good leaders and trainers know this and work around the book. Unfortunately, everyone isn't a good leader or trainer.

The issue with transference is also related to incorrect scope of skills versus knowledge. In situations where curriculum manifests as skills attainment to much balanced on the skill, the ability to transfer that skill is not transferable cognitively to other tasks. Industrial age education programs (almost everything) are created unfairly balanced towards skills. In the examples I could read (I don't have AKO) though the learning objectives are there they are examples of discrete skills versus knowledge.

Absolutely. That's problem 2; we get kids who do very well on the tasks on which they were trained but they cannot combine them well and don't hit with something they haven't had.

Hmm. That's not fair -- the kids cope and work their way through it, mostly. That's not good enough IMO. The system is letting them -- and units -- down.

...They do speed up skills attainment and deepen knowledge so it can be used creatively.

True. Good news is that they're working on it. (LINK), (LINK)..

I many never get my seven months but at least they're realizing all the flaws in the industrial model. That's progress.

**William F. Owen** · 08-09-2009

Have to admire Ken for cutting the Gordian Knot on this one, (or making another?

)
I'm still umming and errring over what and why to teach it, rather than how. The thing that seems to be true, is that once you have good individual skills, the rest come easy.

Testing skill and knowledge is not that hard. Working out why he/she needs to be able to do it, - and the accrued benefit is another.

**Ken White** · 08-09-2009

I took the easy part -- training on what is pretty much trained now, just do it a bit longer and hopefully with better trainers.

You've elected to go after the hard part; what should be trained -- and prove it!

I have no doubt in my mind that I've wasted a lot of time in training that I never used. I also know I did a very few things in combat that are not trained at all and a few more that were trained haphazardly in units by good and bad NCOs and Officers not all of whom knew what they were doing. I learned a lot on my own, some well and some nor so well. I also was a voracious reader -- many are not.

One problem lies in duty assignments. I was a Tanker, so-so, not bad at it. Then I went to a Reconnaissance Company; totally different skillsets, major acceleration required, much flapping of wings. A few years later, I left SF for an Airborne Infantry unit, deceleration, coast and still do good.

The Commonwealth Armies are in my observation better at training the basics and also pretty rigorous about forcing you to school before you do something new. In both cases, we were not that way though we have improved a bit. Regardless, sorting out what needs to be trained and how much would be highly beneficial.

**goesh** · 08-10-2009

- suspend some of the 'rights' of boots during basic, obey first, then think, its only what ... 9 weeks or so? I heard some kind of rumor a few years back about boots who could notify a DI if they were getting too stressed, surely to God that was a myth - avoid the high techery mindset in basic

**Ken White** · 08-10-2009

I've never agreed with that idea -- even though (or perhaps because) the USMC and Parris Island in 1949 had a lot that going on...

I agree with the stress early on but that can best be provided by challenging them to do much more than they believe they can and by forcing them to THINK -- it'll be a novel experience for some. Maybe most...

I've been through Boot Camp and three other courses where idle harassment and just doing what one was told were the norm. The intent was to provide stress, similar to combat -- it does not, it's just harassment to scare people into not asking questions because they take time to answer, makes life easier for the Instructor or Cadre. I've been through others that allowed, even encouraged, thinking and the Cadre mentored rather than 'smoked' people. No doubt in my mind in which type all us students learned more...

What if instead of making people afraid to ask questions, we encouraged them to ask -- and told them in peacetime and in training WHY we wanted them to do something. Then they'd learn (a) there was a good reason to do it; (b) to think it through themselves; and (c) to do what was told without explanrtions when there was no time for explanations...

That works and I never had a problem with it, peacetime or combat. For many years, I told a lot of young (and a few old) NCOs "I've never seen a pushup get a weapon clean or teach a kid what to do in a firefight."

Still haven't.