The operational environment is exceptionally complex with an expanding array of threats. Increased competitiveness is the norm. Recognizing that fact means that in order to prevail in future conflict we must first win in the competitive learning environment.
To that end, we are developing an Army Learning Concept to describe a 2015 learning environment that will be more effective in meeting the needs of our Soldiers and leaders. Derived from major themes of the Army Capstone Concept and the Army Leader Development Strategy, it will provide the basis for building and adapting our learning models and future information needs while ensuring we still deliver the high-quality content our Soldiers need and deserve.
The Army Learning Concept for 2015 will guide all Soldiers and leaders through a continuum of learning for the duration of their careers. We are going to cut the chaff and augment the most effective aspects of our current learning system while ensuring relevant and rigorous training and education is available and accessible, and not just on the institutional side of the Army. This is a shared responsibility between the operating and generating force as we lead the Army into a future characterized by its persistent learning environment.
SWJ Editor's Note: The U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command is conducting a Senior Leaders Conference this week. While invited, SWJ could not attend due to scheduling conflicts. That said, we've asked TRADOC to provide us short "snap-shots" from the SLC for posting here. General Martin E. Dempsey is TRADOC's Commanding General.
Comments
Interesting.
<b>"and not just on the institutional side of the Army. This is a shared responsibility between the operating and generating force as we lead the Army into a future characterized by its persistent learning environment."</b>
Generally, reform efforts to convert rigidly hierarchical institutions into more dynamic "learning organizations" involve a culture of professional reflection which takes two forms:
1. Individual professional reading and reflection.
2. *Regular* F2F/P2P interaction where colleagues honestly discuss and critique their own *performance* based on hard data with an eye to mutually improving collective practice and exploring/debating new approaches, techniques and theories.
This is a mix of a constructivist approach where analysis and assessment are collaboratively done and empricism which relies on valid and reliable data, where possible, in making judgments or forming questions. To work, it has to be a non-punitive process geared to improvement of everyone's performance, in order to encourage maximum trust, honest and objectivity in discussion and decision making.
Is anything like that contemplated in the Army Learning Concept (or, for that matter, already in place?).
To zenpundit...I agree with you fully about the two forms that you highlight as critical to success of such a venture. As a participant in the Army Learning Concept 2015 process and the associate dean of academics at the Army's staff college, I believe that we are touching the bases you mention. I spent last week on one of five panels discussing the issue of developing leaders. We looked in some depth at our education system and our personnel system, in the type of face to face and peer to peer discussion that you promote in order to provide some frank, honest feedback on where we are and where we need to go. Our panel had members of the Army's education community from all levels, members of the education communities of various foreign militaries, and civilian experts in a variety of academic disciplines. The results of those sessions will be fed into the ALC 2015 project, as will the results of many similiar sessions around the Army. At the staff college we work in an environment that is moving in a constructivist direction. By that I mean that we have finally gotten beyond what is "The" answer to allowing students to seek an answer through their own master of the content, the exploitation of the valuable experiences that they possess, and the ability to discuss the pertinent questions with their peers and their instructors. School solutions no longer exist here, as students are asked to make their own meaning and identify their own unique solutions. We have an increased focus on assessment, using both direct and indirect means to ascertain whether our students are getting to the outcomes we have identified as necessary. We are certainly not an institution where our students are totally self-directed, but we have carved out more freedom for them collaborate and provide us the necessary input so that we can improve the learning environment. This learning environment exists a number of places in our hierarchical military and the guidance we have from GEN Dempsey for the Army Learning Concept allows us to move in whatever direction will best produce the type of well prepared Soldier that is necessary in our military. I believe we are leveraging some of the best research in the civilian academic world, as well as having wide ranging discussions in the Army of the type you describe. Our final goal is to describe and implement a concept in the Army where we use the most appropriate learning models at the correct levels to meet the needs of our students. This will undoubtedly involve a variety of instructional modes, from distance learning to brick and mortar institutions. In the end, the far reaching conversations we are having will inform GEN Dempsey's decision on our future learning environment...an environment which, in my opinion, already contains many of the hallmarks you discuss above. Not too long ago I spent a weekend at USC attending a discussion between eminent constructivists and important members of the direct instruction community...it was my opinion after that experience that the Army's learning environment is closer to the constructivist field (once a soldier is out of initial military training) than most people would think. Our most important outcome here at the staff college is improving an officer's critical thinking skills; this is something that can best be done through the type of interaction and collaboration you suggest. Thanks for you interest in how we educate our Soldiers.
My understanding is that over the last year or so, the Team of Leaders (TOL) concept developed by General Frederic Brown (America's Army)has been implemented in EUCOM with a defining handbook, user's guide, and leader team exercise methodology. Brown's work for some time has focused on adaptability and linkage with commander leader teams with utility of information and knowledge management.
The need for the "horizontal" relation of leaders (of various types of expertise)seems most necessary in hyper complex diaster type or hybrid/irregular/4GW (pick your lablel) conflict events, yet I find little discussion. Is this concept incorporated within the 2015 "Thinking-Learning" process? If not, be interested in why not. (In all fairness, several articles focused on TOL can be found here: http://www.projectwhitehorse.com/ed7.htm)