Global Security and Intelligence Studies Volume 3, Number 1, Spring/Summer 2018 | Page 45

Global Security and Intelligence Studies
ysis coursework. These comments were offered in a Roundtable Discussion on
Teaching Intelligence Analysis at the International Association for Intelligence Education
(IAFIE) Conference in Charles Town, WV in May 2017 (see Kilroy 2017).
Stephen Coulthart, an Assistant Professor at UTEP, stated that with undergraduates
in his Intelligence Collection and Analysis course, he curates a classroom
environment that is as interactive as possible. This is done to help keep
students engaged. For example, he uses an exercise on HUMINT collection from
Lahneman and Arcos (2014). In terms of content, he focuses on learning about
intelligence analysis for 75% of the course (e.g., theory and substantive knowledge
of intelligence agencies) and 25% on analytical skills (e.g., Bottom Line Up
Front briefing and writing). In terms of intelligence analysis content, Coulthart
expects that students walk away from the course being able to discuss and define
intelligence analysis and how it fits into U.S. national security as well as identify
the key issues and debates in intelligence analysis. To test for this knowledge, he
uses mostly multiple choice along with some short answer questions split between
assessments done in and out of class. Coulthart’s approach toward graduate intelligence
analysis education is quite different from undergraduate intelligence analysis
education. It is informed by Schon (1990) which stresses the importance of providing
aspiring professionals with environments where they can fail, adopt, and
succeed repeatedly. In developing his syllabus for the course, he drew inspiration
from art studios where students are given difficult tasks and allowed to “fumble”
through them. Coulthart sees his role in this course less as an instructor imparting
knowledge and more as a coach/resource person helping students make sense
of each task. In terms of learning outcomes, he expects that students will possess
a basic understanding of the context of intelligence analysis (e.g., historical and
organizational) and basic intelligence analysis proficiencies (searching, validating,
organizing, analyzing, and communicating).
Brian Simpkins, who teaches at EKU, explains that each of the courses
which cover intelligence analysis employs different pedagogies determined by the
expected learning outcomes. For example, HLS 321W Critical Process, on-campus,
utilizes a lecture and laboratory format; each week has a lecture on the assigned
topic and students then are provided exercises or team simulations where
they must use the material covered in the lecture as they work on a major research
project. The online version of HLS 321W is a self-study course where the students
do the same simulations and exercises as on-campus students and also develop a
major research project. The course utilizes Elder and Paul’s (2016) framework. The
last 4–5 weeks of HLS 401 Intelligence Process, which focuses on intelligence analysis,
employs a Team-Based Learning format on-campus and online a self-study
format. HLS 403 Intelligence Analysis employs a seminar format with extensive
case-study work done individually and in teams. The online course is more selfstudy,
but still employs student team projects. HLS 825 Intelligence Analysis is
only taught online and is done in a self-study format with significant case-study
44