Military Review English Edition January-February 2014 | Page 69

HYPER-LEARNING

U.S. Army Spc. Josh Kruger, with the 55th Signal Company (Combat Camera), participates in the after action review during an exercise at
Fort Indiantown Gap National Guard Training Center, Pa., 3 May 2011. (U.S. Army, Spc. Kevin Hulsey)

“A Way” to Fourth Revolution
(4R) Implementation

Summary

Review training development and training support
required to advantage the new opportunities of “hyperlearning” and the growing challenges of cyber operational security dysfunction. Institutionalize shared
SKA formation by leader teams drawing on LTXs.
Encourage incessant practice of AARs and LTXs
across all borders. Reward cultures of shared ToL and
CTC development model practice.
The critical path will be incorporation of integrated
mutually-supporting CTC and ToL development
models in pre-command courses and officer and NCO
leader professional development policies and programs.

The Fourth Revolution “hyper learning” is
the convergence of two major forces. They are
effective learning to standard and generation of
high-performing leader teams across borders.
Both combine to promise profoundly positive
increases in U.S. national military readiness led
by America’s Army.
We described several important expanding
applications. You, the readers, will suggest,
share, and then apply better applications
for America’s Army. You—that is what The
Fourth Revolution “hyper learning” is all
about! MR

NOTES
1. Frederic J Brown, “Three Revolutions: From Training to Learning and
Team Building,” Military Review (July-August 2003): 56-61. For precedent Fourth
Revolution insights, see 60-61.
2. Ibid, 59-60.
3. EUCOM Teams of Leaders Coaching Guide. Diagram Leader-Team Exercise
(LTX Framework), EUCOM Stuttgart, Germany, 3 March 2009, 11.
4. Frederic J. Brown, “Leader Preparation to Support Rebuilding,” Military
Review (November-December 2013): 42.
5. The CTC process was perceived as “a bridge too far” in the early eighties
but the evident increase in readiness “sold” the process.
6. Websters Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language,
1989.
7. Ibid, 1586.
8. Brown, “Three Revolutions: From Training to Learning and Team Building,” 58.
9. Webster, 424.
10. Brown, “Leader Preparation to Support Rebuilding,” 6.
11. Webster, 174.
12. Process explained when discussing the “seat” in Brown, “Leader Preparation

MILITARY REVIEW

January-February 2014

to Support Rebuilding,” 9.
13. Not to be confused with the Operational, Institutional, and Self-development
Domains including Education, Training, and Experience of Army Leader Development,
Army Leader Development Strategy 2013 Way Ahead, VGT 3.
14. AR 5-22, The Army Force Management Proponent System, 25 March 2011.
Para 4f(1) Proponents “Execute force management responsibilities (requirements
definition, force development, combat developments, doctrine developments, training developments, materiel developments, leadership development, and education,
personnel developments, and facilities developments) relative to DOTMLPF for their
particular function or branch”.
15. Learner-Centric 2015 Learning Environment, VGT 4, Army Learning Model 2015
CAC LD&E 12/2012. Includes “Blended Learning” “Technology Based Delivery with Facilitator in the Loop,” all excellent Doctrine Tactics Techniques Procedures (DocTTP) but
incomplete as the primary focus is individual development and performance. See “The
Leader Challenge Approach,” Army, June 2013, 55-60. “What now Leader” represented
in Leader Challenge Workshops is one LTX “a way” addressing 4R learning process.
16. For an excellent discussion of the potential requirements for expanding
Leader Teams, see Gen. Keith Alexander, “The Army’s Way Ahead in Cyberspace,”
Army, August 2013, 23-25

67