The Army
Learning Model:
An Example of
Cognitive
Dissonance
By Keith H. Ferguson
ver the last five years since the U.S. Army Learning
Concept for 2015 identified the need for a new Army
learning model, redesigning training and education
practices has been a priority. For some, this has led to
some valuable redesigns of specific curricula and improved instructional practice. For many, this transition, although difficult, has paid dividends. For others, however,
it has been a “make-work” proposition because they were
doing what they had always done: preparing and delivering the best instruction at the right place to the right people at the right time.
One of the most important concepts of the new Army
Learning Model (ALM) was to change the focus in the classroom from instructor to student. This change put learners
in charge of their own performance and their participation
in class. Some think this is new when, in fact, it is not.
Student-centric instruction has always been a dominant
methodology in the Army. Most Army learning would be
considered training as opposed to education, because soldiers learned how to perform a certain job. Doing a job or a
certain procedure was the object of the instruction. Most
Army learning was task-based and ensured that it was
learner-centric when it could be, because the learner had to
perform that task to get the appropriate badge, identifier
or certification. Good Army instructors regularly provided
realistic, experience-based training.
A second concept of ALM was to move away from static
presentations—usually delivered via PowerPoint—and to
work in collaborative teams instead. Students working together to construct knowledge from their collective experiences was a better way of creating learner engagement as
well as reinforcing retention of the material. Too many instructors thought teaching was showing PowerPoints and
reading the lesson plan aloud.
How will ALM prevent this phenomenon from happening in the future? Unfortunately, it won’t. Poor performers
will still perform poorly as they transition from old
methodologies and strategies to new ones. ALM will do
nothing to make a poor instructor a better instructor. For
instructors to become better instructors, they need to be
educated and taught, just as in any other Army job.
ALM was supposed to make critical changes to Army instruction. It has definitely led to more work, more contracts, more reviews and more meetings, but what is the return on investment? Have Army training and education
been revolutionized? Some training has been updated as a
result of the new model, but updating training has always
been a common Army practice.
O
U.S. Army/T. Anthony Bell
Concerns
One concern that has arisen as a result of updating ALM
is that those in the profession of training development made
a verb out of it. They receive a course that needs some revi-
Pvt. Aaron Moran works on an interface board
at the Ordnance School at Fort Lee, Va.
November 2014 ■ ARMY 57
U.S. Army
The Army Learning Concept for 2015 was published in 2011. Right: Lt. Col. Tina Blom trains on new equipment
at a Deployed Digital Training Campus, or portable mini-schoolhouse, at Joint Base Langley-Eustis, Va.
sion and tell their colleagues that they are “ALM-ing” it.
Practically speaking, this means reading over a lesson, editing the slides (reducing the number), making some verb
changes and voilà—an ALM-ready lesson that any Army instructor can use. ALM implementation had loftier goals and
intentions, and they still can be accomplished.
One problem is in the vocabulary. Terms can mean one
thing to one group and be interpreted entirely differently by
another. One of those phrases is redesign a lesson. Those at
the higher echelons believe redesign means that an entire
course is evaluated. Redesign has meant that the Army has
gone through the long and sometimes tedious process of
ADDIE—analysis, design, development, implementation
and evaluation—to examine an old course in order to make
it into a new and better one. New strategies have been
adopted. New equipment has been taken into account. Philosophy and methodology have been revisited. Unfortunately, the goals of leaders are not always realized or understood by those at lower echelons. Those tasked with
teaching or developing don’t always apply the same stringent standards of course development as desired by leaders.
Another problem is that some developers believe that
ALM is a method for instruction rather than a strategy for
education. Completed and approved lesson plans often list
ALM under the method of instruction. This has serious implications for those who teach the lesson. This misunderstanding can interfere with appropriate instruction.
Keith H. Ferguson has been an educator for over 30 years and
currently is a staff and faculty instructor and developer for
Army Logistics University, Fort Lee, Va. He received his master’s degree from Plymouth State College in curriculum development, experiential education and assessment. He has been
involved in experiential education with the Army and at the
New Hampshire Police Standards and Training Council.
58
ARMY ■ November 2014
Unfortunately, many have not educated themselves on
ALM. Informal surveys taken at various locations around
the U.S. indicate that many who are developing education
for the future have not even read the Army Learning Concept 2015 document, formally known as U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) Pamphlet 525-8-2.
Many have read only summaries. As a result, they have
pieced together ideas from things that they have read and
heard from others. They have no understanding of the real
end state, concepts, processes, principle or procedures.
When asked why they have not read the full document,
common replies are “no time,” “too long” or “didn’t understand it.”
Lastly, an image problem exists. Many developer/writers and instructors see their time in these venues as career
dead ends. There is a pervasive, societal norm that says,
“Those who can do, do; those who can’t do, teach.” This
negative stereotype follows some who are teachers and developers and makes them become people who simply
“check the block.” Also, in many instances, the position is
one in which the incumbent will be for one to two years.
They do not see the need to invest too much effort, especially if they perceive it will not help them gain an advantage. They are following orders rather than their passions.
Solutions
A required ALM summit for all developers, writers and
instructors would go a long way toward solving implementation of ALM. Make sure that everyone knows what
ALM is and what it isn’t. This seminar should be developed the same way that training is designed: using the
ADDIE process.
A single seminar required for all developers and instructors would contribute to the creation of standardization of
lesson design and delivery. Creativity and unique, stimulat-
U.S. Army/Marie Berberea
U.S. Army/Stephanie Slater
Michael Haith, with U.S. Army Training
and Doctrine Command, introduces the
Army Learning Model 2015 during a
2012 conference at Joint Base LangleyEustis. Below: Pvt. Trevor Hazen works
a simulator at Fort Sill, Okla.
ing lessons would still be developed,
but instructors and developers would
have a shared understanding of the
theory and the vocabulary of ALM. It
would provide common ground for
the profession of teaching in the Army.
All writers, developers and instructors need to read TRADOC Pamphlet
525-8-2. This would be a prerequisite
for taking the required ALM summit.
Using some form of assessment, ascertain that everyone has read and understands the strategy for education
the Army has adopted. This is a crucial element.
Establish a separate, distinct MOS
that would identify writers, developers
and instructors. Every person can be
instructed in the technical skills and
knowledge, but not everyone is a good
fit for instructing or curriculum development. Writers, developers and instructors should have a passion for what
they do. Just as good soldiers are identified and rewarded
for their good soldiering, writers, developers and instructors should be identified and rewarded in the same way.
Once those premier educators are found, don’t rotate them
out on the normal rotational schedule used by the Army. At
the same time, identify those who cannot develop and
teach, and those who have lost their passion for the job, and
rotate them out.
Connect staff and faculties from all across the U.S. to do
an “Education Lessons Learned” course on a regular basis.
Debriefing and mining those who are stellar educators will
do a lot to provide inspiration, guidance and support as individuals encounter problems on the job. Many U.S. teachers gather together for professional development each year
at teacher workshops. This principle could be incorporated
for Army writers, developers and instructors.
Create a positive climate for educators. This is probably the
most difficult initiative. Climate change takes a long time, but
it can be done—even if it is done four or five students at a
time. Teaching and curriculum development are valuable vocations. Make sure that those who do this valuable work are
compensated and rewarded for excellence. Embrace the concept that “those who can, do; those who do best, teach the
rest.” Change the climate that says that teaching and development are dead-end jobs. It is important to the Army.
A 21st-century trained and educated Army is the goal.
ALM will help us get there, but it has to be done correctly. ✭
November 2014 ■ ARMY 59