1. Gregory C. Knight Post University This presentation prepared for EDU 505.90 taught by Professor Ajtum-Roberts

2. The U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC):  Established in 1973 – formalizing and codifying the Army education system.  Comprised of six major subordinate commands; 32 schools; Eight Centers of Excellence. (TRADOC 2014)  Army classroom instruction is historically focused on monolithic, lecture/instructor and presentation centric methods.  In 2011, TRADOC developed the Army Learning Concept 2015, identifying the need for changes in the Army education system.  MISSION STATEMENT: TRADOC develops, educates, and trains Soldiers, Civilians, and leaders; supports unit training; and designs, builds and integrates a versatile mix of capabilities, formations, and equipment to strengthen the U.S. Army as America’s Force of Decisive Action. (TRADOC regulation 10-5, p. 10)

3.  Trains over 500,000 service members a year within the Army education system – enlisted, officer and civilian.  In 2011,TRADOC drafted the Army Learning Concept 2015 (now the Army Learning Model 2015, or ALM 2015), identifying the need for changes in the Army education system.  The Army is currently in the midst of a transition from traditional methods of instruction to a learner centric model – “enabling career long learning – supports a learning Army”. (ALM 2015, p. 19)  Timely Army-wide implementation of new education technology remains elusive - ALM 2015 is in large part still conceptual.  Responsible for quality assurance throughout the Army education system. Establishes and enforces standards for Army training institutions.

4.  In 2011, TRADOC developed the Army Learning Concept 2015, identifying the need for changes in the Army education system – near term planning more than futuring.  Top down distribution of information – including programs and methods of instruction, presentations, exercises and procedures.  Limited feedback from the end users, the student Soldier.  Structured feedback bottom up from the Army Instructors and Training Institutions delivering the product.  Army classroom instruction is historically focused on monolithic, lecture/instructor and presentation centric methods.  Poor student classroom test results do not precipitate change.

5.  Use of scenarios in futuring exercises may identify the best practices for changing the Army classroom, providing leaders with the information required to make decisions to benefit the future student Soldier.  Factors influencing the direction of Army education:  Economy and Politics  Demographics  Education Technology  History  Challenges to the future Army classroom:  Comprehensive and timely implementation of plans  Maintaining stability in instructors/cadre  Ongoing education of instructors/cadre  Adapting classroom technology to adult learners  Opportunities for the future Army classroom:  Learner centric model  Adaptive and flexible delivery infrastructure  Lifelong/Career long learning  Recognize the experience of the student Soldier  Use of emerging educational technology  Change from instructor to facilitator

6. The Student Soldier Environmental Factors Internal Assumptions Previous Outcomes Intelligence Gathering Delivery to Stakeholders Identify champions to Follow up Assign to Proponents for distro Feedback from user level Forecasts Briefings Ownership Scanning Analyzing Scenarios What’s coming? Outcomes? Training Institutes Proponents Training Command Facilitators Metrics Impacts Feedback Testing Outcomes Adapting History Results Monitor

7.  The need for change in the Army classroom was identified by Houle, Burr, Hamilton and Yale’s Armed Services and Adult Education (1947).  51 implications identified in the Houle et al publication are an example of futuring for educating the military adult learner.  The Skelton Report (1989) identifies the need for change in the military classroom. Notes education technology and departing from passive methods of instruction.  Education technology complements teaching, it does not replace it. Proper implementation of technology is driven by student needs.  Despite 70 years separating identification of the need for change to present, the Army has only recently codified student centric and adaptive learning in ALM 2015.

8.  Anecdotal information projects FY 15 funding for Army education at 48% of FY14 levels.  Budget constraints will force a shift in Army education focus to courses deemed critical to the mission:  Initial qualification  Training required for continued service  Readiness training needed to retain deployable status  Special unit training  The identification, evaluation and purchase of education technology in the Army classroom requires continued funding.  Lack of funding will hinder the continued evolution of the Army classroom, may not stop development altogether but will lengthen the timeline for effective, organization-wide implementation.

9.  Study the past – such as the 51 implications identified in the Houle et al Armed Forces and Adult Education (1947)  Scan for future trends and use futuring tools to identify beneficial influences from outside the Army hierarchy, such as civilian educator expertise and technology.  Prioritize educational spending to initiate and sustain the tenets of Army learning as identified in ALM 2015.  Divest the entire Army Training Management system of as much old pedagogy as possible, as quickly as possible.  Implement a consistent rotation policy with Reserve Component units, ensuring experienced Soldiers become educators of the future.  Begin application of futuring models to the next version of ALM 2015 – focus on 10-20 years out.

10. Groff, L. & Smoker, P. Introduction to Future Studies Homepage. Retrieved from California State University, Dominguez Hills website: http://www.csudh.edu/global_options/IntroFSTopics.HTML#CharsFS http://www.csudh.edu/global_options/IntroFSTopics.HTML#CharsFS Houle, C., Burr E., Hamilton, T. and Yale, J. (1947). Armed Services and Adult Education. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education. Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Estrada, V., Freeman, A., and Ludgate, H. (2013). NMC Horizon Report: 2013 K-12 Edition. Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium. Peer, R., & Ivanov, S. (2013). Rethinking the Future of Learning: The Possibilities and Limitations of Technology in Education in the 21 st Century. International Journal Of Organizational Innovation, 5(4), 14-20.

11. Persyn, J., Polson, C., (2012) Evolution and influence of military adult education. New Directions For Adult & Continuing Education, 2012, 136, 5-16. Sobrero, P. (2004, June) The Steps for Futuring. Journal of Extension. 42, Retrieved from http://www.joe.org/joe/2004june/comm2.phphttp://www.joe.org/joe/2004june/comm2.php U.S. House of Representatives. (1989) Report of the Panel on Military Education. U. S. Government Printing Office. US Army Training and Doctrine Command. The Army Learning Concept for 2015. Fort Monroe, VA. 2011. World Future Society. (2014, March) Methods. In WFS Home: Futuring. Retrieved from http://www.wfs.org/node/404 Zacharakis, J., Van Der Werff, J., (2012) The future of adult education in the military, New Directions for Adult & Continuing Education, 2012, 136, 89-98.