Effective Training....

[selil]

Ken,

I understand how you put that list together of topics for training, but how would you break it down into skills and learning objectives. In other words "shoot a rifle" becomes how many discrete learning objectives?

By the way I know that is a HUGE list but that is what you need to build the curriculum.

[Ken White]

In other words "shoot a rifle" becomes how many discrete learning objectives? ... By the way I know that is a HUGE list but that is what you need to build the curriculum.

There are actually three separate sets of pretty well researched documents. The post-WW II Army Subject Schedules have extensive lists of training objectives and even times required to teach an average class (generally far too long but can be worked); Army Training Plans from the same era which do that same for some subjects.

More current are today's Soldiers Manuals (LINK) which you'll notice cover ever MOS and skill level. Unfortunately, you'd need to log on to AKO to read any specific manual. However, that will show you how many there are.

Here's one that allows let you look at the way each task is structured, LINK. There are literally tens if not hundreds of thousands of these task and that first link shows they are available effectively as a curriculum and list of learning objectives for each skill and rank, PVT through SGM

That last one is to the common tasks that everyone in the Army is supposed to be able to perform to standard. If you scroll though them, you'll note that the quality is variable, I've seen some that were very well done, others that left much to be desired. Generally the more technical, the better because many of the generic military, non technical tasks are subjective in performance evaluation and thus leave some gaps.

Using your example, one never just shoots a rifle (and I know that was just a hypothetical and that you know what follows) -- it is always done for a reason and that reason can affect the way you shoot. Thus what has to be done is to link the necessary sub task together to produce and combination of task (learning objective) that achieve the desired result, the Outcome.

Thus what's needed is indeed a series of learning objectives that consolidate numerous tasks (Shooting, moving, communicating) into a working practical outcome. The flaw in the discrete Task method is it enables people to do the basics very well indeed -- but they have trouble combining skills to move to the journeyman level. What's required is not a curriculum but a program of instruction that is flexible, allows for rapid adjustment and modification, movement between class levels and melds skills starting at a very elementary level and progressively adds new skills and increased level of difficulty. It is training, not education. The old Army Subject Schedule approach produced the learning objectives (and a pretty good soldier) who was not particularly great at any task but could them all to an extent and didn't need a tremendous amount of training in the unit.

The new approach creates a kid who is really very, very good at performing those tasks in which he is trained(for most MOS, only about 40% in the Institution) but he cannot combine them well and those tasks left (about 60%)to the unit to train get done with a very wide variance in success. Many of those tabbed out to the unit are combat critical. We still get pretty good soldiers but it is very much first line leader in his first unit dependent. Combine the two systems and your concerns are more than met.

In the old days (Pre Viet Nam), it took about two to three years of peacetime service to produce a decently competent Infantryman. With the new system, my son and others tell me it takes about two to three years in peacetime to produce a decently competent Infantryman. In both cases, that can be significantly decreased by combat commitment, then it drops down to his initial training plus about three to six weeks of combat. However, in both war and peace that's too long. An additional three months of training in the basics can cut the combat time down to a few days and the peace time down to a few weeks (units are different than the training environment as you know).

[selil]

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]

...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]

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]

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]

- 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