1. PISTOL FUNDAMENTALS Prepared by: Russell Sampson

2. Needs Assessment 1. What is the learning opportunity?  Small arms training is an important part of becoming a Military Police Officer 2. What is currently available?  Fleet sailors & high school personnel with little or no training that need training. 3. What should be available?  Small arms training classes during boot training. Intense training to help with preparation of shooting fundamentals and weapon safety. 4. Explain the gap analysis between what is available and what should be available.  Currently the military does not have enough military police personnel. Small arms training will be provided for all military new enlistment recruits planning to become military police officers.  What is your recommended solution for filling the gap?  Military should increase incentive pay for new recruits joining the military. This will help recruit stations recruit more military police personnel.

3. Instructional Goal and PBO’S Lessons provides shooting fundamentals for firing small arms. Shooters (A) will recognize (B) procedures for safe handling and employment of small arm (C) in accordance with Weapons Handling Standards Procedures and Guidelines (D) Shooters (A) will demonstrate (B) procedures for presenting and firing small arms (C) in accordance with the Small Arms Training and Qualification Manual (D) Shooters (A) will qualify (B) on on a service pistol (C) in accordance with the Small Arms Training and Qualification Manual(D)

4. Summative Assessment and Learning Outcomes WRITTEN TEST Shooters must pass a written exam which consists of a 25 questions Minimum passing score is 80% Test will show shooters understanding of shooting fundamentals and safety procedures Test shows basic knowledge prior to the performance test

5. Summative Assessment and Learning Outcomes PERFORMANCE TEST Shooters must qualify on a service pistol in accordance with the Small Arms Training and Qualification Manual Shooters must achieve a minimum passing score of 180 points with a possible high score of 240 points on the small arms targets Semiannual performance tests will be conducted to maintain a shooter’s skill level in small arms training

6. Learner Characteristics A basic small arms training class which consist of both male and female instructors will be working hands-on in a classroom environment Shooters require semiannual qualification to stay proficient with shooting fundamentals Most students in this school are behavioral learners Based on these characteristics, this small arms class will be a basic class The training will be presented in a manor that behavioral learners will be engaged in a safe learning environment

7. Learning Context Small arms training will be conducted in a safe training environment Qualification procedures for live fire will be conducted on a military base at a small arms firing range The class will be equipped with an instructor guide, training weapons, a computer, and projector for the primary instructor to facilitate training Dry-fire training will be conducted in a safe training environment Safe weapons handling will get the shooter to become involved with hands-on small arms training Small arms simulators will allow the shooter to become comfortable with the weapon before live-fire is conducted Live-fire training will be conducted on a small arms firing range

8. Delivery Modality Course will be taught in an integrated learning environment Course will be instructor led doing lectures and using computers Additional hands on training will be involved

9. Instructional Strategies The information taught will be specific to shooting fundamentals Lecture will be taught with the use of computers Shooters will learn safe weapon handling procedures through dry-fire practice Shooters will be tested on weapons comprehension before conducting live-fire evolutions Shooters will be coached on safe firing procedures while qualifying on a small arms range

10. Plan for Implementation The implementation of the course will take two months The delivery of the class will take one week (40 hours), eight hour days Class will start on November 5, 2014 on the military gun range Mr. Sampson will be the primary instructor for the course Student guides will be provided to students for class lecture and study All instructors will have a meeting on October 29, 2014 to discuss the implementation of the course All instructors will be notified by email and a phone call for a reminder

11. Instructional Resources In the training classroom there must be an unloaded weapon available for each student for hands on training One weapon for the primary instructor Students will need to bring writing supplies for notes Ammunition for weapons qualification will be provided Overhead projector Dry-erase board and Dry–erase markers Training aids Instructor and student guide

12. Formative Assessment  Students will be trained then tested on weapons disassembly and reassembly  Students will demonstrate proper weapon handling procedures and manipulation skills in a safe training environment setting  Students will have a 25 question multiple choice test scoring a minimum grade of 80%  Students will qualify on the pistol with minimum score of 180 points

13. Evaluation Strategies To ensure our instructional plan is effective surveys will be conducted after each class. The students and instructor will have separate surveys to fill out. Student surveys will be about the course materials, classroom environment, instructor and health welfare of students. Each student must pass a post test with a minimum score of 80%

14. Evaluation Strategies If 80% is not achieved the student or students will go thru remedial training and retests will be done. Students who do not score 80% on the retest will be sent back to the next class. Based on the all test scores, surveys and instructors assessment, we will take a look at the course and make improvements if needed.

15. Small Arms Fundamentals Survey  Please indicate your gender  Male  Female 2. Did you feel Comfortable handling weapons?  Yes  No 3. Instructors made this weapon course feel safe  Strongly Agree  Agree  Disagree 4. Were the course materials easy to understand  Strongly Agree  Agree  Disagree 5. How would you rate the over all satisfaction of this course?  Satisfied  Neutral  Somewhat dissatisfied  Very dissatisfied

16. Outcome Review To ensure the design goals, performance-based objectives (PBO), and learning outcome were achieved, multiple tools will be used. A comprehensive test will be given at the end of the course to see how well the information was retained and if the PBO were met. A rating scale will be used at the end of the course for students to fill out and giving a space to allow students to leave comments or suggestions about the course.

17. Outcome Review Rate Student 1 Excellent 2 Good 3 Needs Improvement 4 Did not complete Kept weapon on safe until ready to fire 1234 Identified weapon nomenclature 1234 Disassembled and Reassemble the weapon properly 1234 Cleaned the weapon properly 1234 Function checked the weapon to make sure it functioned properly 1234 Handled weapons safely 1234 Maintained muzzle awareness 1234 Loaded & Unloaded the weapon properly 1234 Holstered the weapon safely 1234 Drew the weapon from the holster safely 1234 Total Score: Instructor comments

18. Recommendations When implementing the course for the first time some problems or issues may come to light. During the initial class the course designer and the Commanding Officer will sit through the class. This will allow a complete evaluation of the flow of the course and materials being use. After observing the class, reviewing the students critics and reviewing the test results any future changes can be implemented if needed. We will continual testing analysis student critics, and instructor feed back will allow the course to be modified and updated over time.

19. References Brown, A., & Green, T.D. (2006). The essential of instructional design: Connecting fundamental principles with process and practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Stewart, B. L., Waight, C. L., Norwood, M. M., & Ezell, S.D. (2004 Summer). Formative and summative evaluation of online courses. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 5(2)101 Kelting-Gibson, L. M. (2005, September). Comparison of curriculum development practices Education Research Quarterly, 29(1) 26 Elsenheimer, J. (2006). Got tools? The blended learning analysis and expediter. Performance Improvement, 45(8),26. OPNAVINST 3591.1F 12 Aug 2009 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeGD7r6s-zU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhsMl-wb64o

20. USS COLE