Military Review English Edition November December 2016 | Page 107

TRANSFORMING TRAINING leaders to operate in a complex world. Commanders must become more than training managers; they must become training designers. They must understand and apply evidence-based practices to develop their formations. Through this approach, the Army will no longer rely just on the institutional Army (also known as the generating force) for education, as the training conducted in the operating force will allow for greater development of knowledge and understanding in all its soldiers and leaders. Thinking of unit training as more than just rehearsals will improve soldier and leader education throughout their careers. Notes 1. U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) Pamphlet (TP) 525-3-1, The U.S. Army Operating Concept, Win in a Complex World, 2020-2040 (Fort Eustis, VA: TRADOC, 2014). 2. Robert B. Brown, “The Army University: Educating Leaders to Win in a Complex World,” Military Review 95, no. 4 ( July-August 2015), 22. 3. Ibid., 19. 4. Ibid., 19–22. 5. This is certainly not a doctrinal statement, but commanders’ expectations that soldiers will arrive from professional military education (PME) knowing all they need to know have been evident over the past few years. An example is recent interactions between the Infantry School and operating force leadership from Stryker brigade combat teams. In several formal meetings and briefings, the operating force leadership has asked the school to provide more and better opportunities for individuals to learn the Stryker system before arriving to their unit. While this may be possible, it would require additional PME expansion, which may not be feasible. 6. Again, this perspective regarding soldiers viewing training merely as rehearsing is not doctrinal, but is based on personal experience during interactions between the institutional force (the Maneuver Center of Excellence) and leaders from the operational force. There was an expectation amongst operational leaders that the Maneuver Center of Excellence would create graduates that had all the skills necessary to perform in follow-on operational-force assignments with little to no additional development necessary. Those leaders saw unit training as “exercising” or “practicing” skills that individuals gained through PME. 7. While the tr aining domains are a doctrinal construct, the U.S. Army Human Resources Command also has several publications covering this topic, specifically in how it relates to career progression. 8. These time figures for PME are based on a chart developed by Armor Branch at Human Resources Command to depict career timelines. The information was presented to Maneuver Captain’s Career Course students in fall of 2015. 9. There are several training-related publications, but I would specifically like to point the reader to Army Doctrine Publication (ADP) 7-0, Training Units and Developing Leaders (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office [GPO], 2012) and its related series of manuals. 10. “8 Step Training Model,” Fort Benning graphic, accessed 6 September 2016, http://www.benning.army.mil/armor/ocoa/content/References%20and%20Guides/8%20Step%20Training%20 Model.pdf. 11. U.S. Army Combined Arms Center (CAC), “Enhancing Realistic Training White Paper: Delivering Training Capabilities for MILITARY REVIEW  November-December 2016 Operations in a Complex World” (white paper, U.S. Army CAC, Fort Leavenworth, KS, 26 January 2016), accessed 21 September 2016, http://usacac.army.mil/sites/default/files/documents/cact/ERT%20 White%20Paper%20-%20Signed%20(26%20JAN%202016).pdf. 12. It is difficult to cite a lack of something. Though “crawl, walk, run” is discussed throughout training doctrine, there is little else to shape training design in many of the doctrinal publications available for operating force commanders. 13. Richard E. Mayer, Applying the Science of Learning (Boston: Pearson Education, Inc., 2011), 18. 14. Richard E. Mayer, “Learning,” in Encyclopedia of Educational Research (New York: The Free Press, 1982), 1040–58. 15. Army Regulation 350-1, Army Training and Leader Development (Washington, DC: U.S. GPO, 2014), 239. 16. Ibid., 229. 17. Patricia L. Smith and Tillman J. Ragan, Instructional Design (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2005), 5. 18. Ibid., 26. 19. Ibid., 19. 20. Ibid. 21. Ibid. 22. TP 525-8-2, The U.S. Army Learning Concept for 2015 (Fort Eustis, VA: TRADOC, 20 January 2011). 23. Smith and Ragan, Instructional Design, 25. 24. Wallace Hannum, “B. F. Skinner’s Theory,” Learning Theory Fundamentals website, accessed 6 September 2016, http://www. theoryfundamentals.com/skinner.htm. 25. E-mail from Lt. Gen. Stephen Townsend to the XVIII Airborne Corps leadership and the Infantry School at Fort Benning, Georgia, 1 March 2016. 26. Paul Cobb, “Constructivism and Learning,” in International Encyclopedia of Educational Technology, 2nd ed., eds. Tjeerd Plomp and Donald P. Ely (Tarrytown, NY: Elsevier Science, 1996), 56–59. 27. Smith and Ragan, Instructional Design, 26. 28. Ibid., 25. 29. T. J. Schuell, “Cognitive Conceptions of Learning,” Review of Educational Research 56 (1986): 415. 30. Smith and Ragan, Instructional Design, 11. 31. Ibid., 26. 32. Ibid., 79. 33. Ibid., 80–81. 34. Ellen D. Gagné, Carol Walker Yekovich, and Frank R. Yekovich, The Cognitive Psychology of School Learning (Boston: Little & Brown, 1985). 35. Smith and Ragan, Instructional Design, 5. 36. Ibid., 9. 105