The current Chief of Staff of the USAF, General CQ Brown has forced this thought process on the entirety of the United States Air Force. So far, he has backed his word with numerous cuts to weapon systems, equipment, and personnel. However, has the training environment for the USAF been considered in this at all? I mean, if we think about the future of the USAF, shouldn't a lot of that start with how we are training our force?
I'm not going to sit here and speak for the entirety of the USAF. However, I can speak for a small portion of the USAF and that is the part that I belong to, USAF Special Warfare.
At the lead for training for this entire ground combat force for the Air Force is the USAF Special Warfare Training Wing (SWTW), its subordinate group, and the various squadrons that train Tactical Air Control Party, Combat Control, Pararescue, and Special Reconnaissance specialties in their initial skills training.
From their website, the SWTW claims to, "...[select] and [train] the Air Force’s ground combat forces to meet the demand of the future battlefield." Their claim is to “push the limits of human performance and technology to build a stronger, smarter, more lethal force capable of solving the nation’s most complex military problems.” (www.specialwarfaretw.af.mil/About-Us/)
The odd thing for me about this is while visiting and reviewing the training directives of this institution, their practices are ancient with regards to teaching these airmen to be "smarter" and to "solve the nation's most complex military problems." In-fact, Air Education and Training Command's own Chief Learning officer state "The instructors have designed a learning environment to ensure the lessons taught are understood to create a strong foundation” during a visit in April 2022. She was then backed by the Special Warfare Training Group's Training Advisor, Dr. Karal Garcia who stated that: “SWTW instructors must be skilled in developing learners in realistic training environments, and therefore must have keen situational awareness. They must use that situational awareness, paired with good judgement to make appropriate instructional decisions about pedagogy and risk management within the curricular framework. Part of that good judgement is understanding how people learn and which instructional practices to use to facilitate learning.”
Okay John, so what is the issue? We have a couple of high-level learning experts saying that the SWTW is basically killing it. How can you possibly disagree with that?
Well, if you have read anything else up to this point you will know that I am passionate about how to train towards what both of these individuals are claiming that the SWTW accomplishes. First, let me start with a quick disclaimer. This post is not meant to degrade the stellar performance of the professional Airmen that are produced as a product of this institution. This is meant to be an instructional tool to open a dialogue about a complete overhaul on how we train these warriors to be a more professional force that, in the long run, could save precious resources (time and money) while simultaneously producing a more lethal product for the USAF and Joint Force.
To prove that a stellar product is being produced is simple as you can look at the legacy of valor produced by these Airmen that includes 2 Medal of Honor recipients, 11 Air Force Crosses, 78 Silver Stars, 652 Bronze Stars, 360 various medals with valor devices, and over 100 purple hearts. To say that the curriculum is not producing Airmen that perform under stress would be an understatement. However, the training curriculum is not efficient and is plagued with pedagogical instructional design versus an architecture that is suited for the adult learner.
Alright, so to the meat of this post...
Pedagogy has little to no place in training this batch of Airmen in the USAF. Each of these Airmen are specifically assessed and selected based on cognitive and non-cognitive traits of human performance which is rooted in decades of data collection. They have already been assessed and selected as "high-performers" or "potential for high-performance." Why would this learning institution consider pedagogy as any form of instructional practice for these adults?
That is not something that I can factually answer for you. Emotionally, I can tell you that it is because the current processes in place for instituting change and overhaul within AETC is completely broken. Some may argue that it is cost prohibitive as well. However, if we are truly wanting to follow the Chief's guidance on "accelerate, change, or lose" then we should look long and hard at how we are training our Airmen.
The average pipeline (training course) to create a Special Warfare Airmen is around 45-weeks. The longest of these courses is 71-weeks long and includes an entire EMT-P certification in addition to military training. If the SWTW and the various units that these Airmen are assigned to throughout the USAF adopt some updated training methodologies, they may, in-fact, create a more lethal operator skilled in critical thinking in complex environments, in a shorter amount of time.
Currently, the various squadrons that makeup the SWTW incorporate a traditional pedagogical mindset for their instructional design and architecture. That is, they will sit through a class that may incorporate some version of "death by PowerPoint" or maybe they encounter some eLearning through some sort of learning management system or computer-based trainer. They are then assessed via a written test, or, in rare cases, they are assessed with performance tasks outlined by a task, condition, and standard. The issue with this style of instruction is the amount of time that is wasted to get the adult learner (remember, a specifically assessed and selected adult) to start thinking at a higher level of learning sooner.
A simple design change to the curriculum could completely alter the timeline to training a more proficient professional. A curriculum that embraces scenario-based, problem-based, and cognitive apprenticeship styles of teaching and learning would find a rightful home within the SWTW. (See phasing PBL Into Your Own Practice)
Imagine yourself as a student entering your learning environment (notice I didn't say classroom) with an instructor that gives you a realistic scenario to start the training session off. He paints a picture for you of a reconnaissance team that is observing an enemy target area and they have critical data that needs to reach another element in order for the planned attack to be a success. The instructor then lines out exactly what tasks needs to be accomplished and then the rest of the session is focused on using the various tools to solve the problem.
The entire time, the visuals used are actual pieces of equipment that you can look at, touch, and even smell as you work through the problem set piece by piece with your instructor. This simple instructional design incorporates baseline knowledge of equipment with a realistic scenario for you as a learner. Following the scenario, each day you have to perform a task associate with the instruction that you received in that session (e.g. program the appropriate frequency into a radio).
Why will this work? Andragogy is learning designed around the adult-learner. It focuses on realistic and practical skills that can be immediately applied in the learner's environment. It encourages the learner to be fully involved in the learning process. Most importantly, when the instructor incorporates the recall of learning early and often on the instructed skills, the learner is more motivated to learn more about the subject so they can efficiently perform the tasks each and every time.
Is it really that simple John? Yes, it is really that simple... while the implementation would take some time to design scenarios and part-task training sessions for each and every training line-item, the resultant product would be worth it. (Keep the ends in mind)
The second question I would assume these experts would ask would be one based on evaluation. For that, it is simple as well. Performance-based task/condition/standard would be the center of the evaluation concept. No longer would we see "score 80% or greater on a written test." Instead, we would see "program the radio set with a single channel cypher-text frequency in accordance with the communications card within 2-minutes."
The difference is that we would be ensure that we incorporate realistic standards that can be trained throughout the lifecycle of training to eventually be performed "under combat/high-stress conditions."
The bottom-line is that we are training a group of professional Airmen that are consistently put into harms way with ancient training methods and no regard to modern training methodologies. Ultimately, we are wasting time and resources by continuing to train with pedagogical practices vice switching to a modernized andragogical way of design.
Comments