Redesigning the FACCC: the deliberate versus rapid methodology.

The leadership of the FA Captain's Career Course (FACCC), Fort Sill, Oklahoma, recently created and implemented a bold initiative to redesign the course rapidly. The leadership stood down two FACCC classes to help in the redesign, used the expertise of other veterans and subject matter experts (SMEs) and redesigned the 20-week course in less than four weeks. (See the article "Rapid Redesign of FACCC--A Four-Week Process for Updating Courses for an Army at War" by Major Robert A. Krieg in this edition.)

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Redesigning a course the size of the FACCC and developing lesson plans using the deliberate (traditional) method would have taken months--maybe years. With the high operational tempo (OPTEMPO) of today's Army in the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT), that timeframe is unacceptable. Even if Army schools had enough qualified training developers and SMEs to redesign courses and create lesson plans using the deliberate redesign method, courses would be outdated before the training development work was completed.

In the rapid redesign process, the FACCC leaders not only updated the course's content quickly, but also updated the instructional methods used to teach the content. Today's FACCC incorporates the contemporary operating environment (COE), counterinsurgency operations (COIN) and lessons learned from operations in the Central Command (CENTCOM) theater. But it also uses instructional methods that better prepare FA captains to solve complex problems and perform complex tasks--the types of challenges leaders face in GWOT.

The deliberate course redesign process has served the Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) schools adequately when designing instruction for "well structured," simpler tasks. But new methods are required to teach leaders to be more agile and adaptable while performing the more complex, "ill-structured" tasks on CENTCOM's asymmetrical battlefield.

This article discusses the difference between designing instructional methods for well structured vice ill-structured tasks and the benefits gained from the latter and compares the deliberate and rapid course redesign processes. The rapid redesign process enables schools to better prepare Soldiers and leaders to perform in the COE.

Well Structured versus Ill-Structured Tasks. Well structured tasks are tasks performed, essentially, in one way. In comparison, ill-structured tasks are more complex tasks or problems that can be performed or solved in more than one way and are more difficult to assess.

An example of a well structured task is the disassembly and assembly of the M16A2 rifle. Except for allowing for deviation in some steps during assembly and disassembly, the clearing, disassembly, assembly and functions check of an M16A2 rifle are performed one way. This task is clearly observable, and performance can be assessed easily.

Decision making may be inherent in well structured tasks and is certainly a large part of ill-structured tasks. Whether it is a simple well structured task of employing a hand grenade or a complex ill-structured task of planning fire support, the instructional design concept is the same. If during instruction on the well structured task of employing a hand grenade, Soldiers are not given opportunities to decide when to use a particular throwing technique over another, their skills may be constrained. They may use an inappropriate technique in combat. Placing them in situations during training where they must determine which technique to use rather than being told only to demonstrate performance of each technique is appropriate and an example of immersive, authentic training.

Ill-structured tasks or problems can be solved in more than one way. For example, clearing a building includes specific procedures Soldiers must follow, but the variables for different types of buildings require the Soldiers' on-the-spot adjustments. Similarly, for convoy operations, decisions that must be made on-the-spot for what might be encountered during a convoy are endless. Training such tasks to established schoolhouse solutions or standards (as done for well structured tasks) can be too restrictive to the goal of maximizing learning to prepare for complex environments.

Leader tasks, such as planning fire support for major combat operations (MCO) and applying lethal and nonlethal targeting to Army operations, are more complex and filled with multiple variables. What a student knows about performing these tasks or solving these problems is not always visible. As a result, designing, training and assessing these ill-structured tasks are more difficult. The traditional deliberate course redesign model is not very effective in developing training for ill-structured tasks, yet most of the tasks needing training in the COE are complex, ill-structured tasks executed in an ambiguous environment.

Deliberate versus Rapid Redesign Processes. The figure contrasts the phases of the deliberate or traditional TRADOC redesign method with the rapid redesign process recently developed to redesign the FACCC. In the figure, the rapid redesign process has the Army operational process (plan, prepare, execute and assess) noted beside the respective terms for instructional design (analyze, design/develop, implement and assess). This draws a parallel to Major Krieg's discussion of his rapid redesign of FACCC using Army operational terms in his article.

In the deliberate redesign model, extensive analysis is conducted during a number of phases. In the Analysis Phase, a list of collective tasks is established after a mission analysis of doctrine. From those collective tasks, a job analysis is conducted to identify the various requirements in a specific enlisted or officer job. Military occupational specialty (MOS) or leader task performance at different skill levels are considered. Within each of those levels, a task list is compiled and approved. As part of the analysis, the performance required by the job's combat standard may be adjusted to a training standard for institutional training.

During the Design Phase, the outcomes or objectives are defined, e.g., terminal and enabling learning objectives. In the Development Phase, lesson plans that detail how to train and assess each specific task are created. Typically these are prescriptive and often presented in lecture format followed by practical exercises (PEs), giving the student opportunities to practice each task to standard. The intent is to give the student all the knowledge needed before performing the task. The last week of the course usually is reserved for putting students through a culminating exercise that requires them to demonstrate all or most of the tasks trained during the course.

In contrast, the rapid redesign model applied to the FACCC maximizes a new approach to developing and instructing a course. As the figure shows, the entire Design and Development Phase focuses on training technical content and problem-solving capabilities in varying authentic situations vice focusing on tasks trained to schoolhouse standards. Not only does the rapid redesign model take advantage of more appropriate methods to train ill-structured tasks (and enhances training for well structured tasks), it also shortens the time necessary to develop training materials significantly.

Through the application of an experiential model that encapsulates the best of multiple learning theories, learners can transfer vast amounts of information and data into actionable knowledge and skills. Immersing students in a simulated authentic environment maximizes learning, giving students the skills and experiences to make more effective decisions when performing ill-structured tasks in the future.

Immersing students in real-world situations (battlefield scenarios) improves the school's ability to train ill-structured tasks. These real-world situations already are filled with a multitude of tasks. Extensive analysis is not necessary. During the FACCC redesign, combat veterans contributed a wealth of knowledge in the Analysis Phase and in developing battlefield scenarios.

Lessons plans from combat scenarios must be carefully constructed to ensure that critical tactics, techniques and procedures (TTPs) and all the knowledge necessary to solve the problem are built in as resources that students must acquire or assimilate during the in-class research process. Progressing through the course, students are put in increasingly difficult situations in which to solve complex problems, called structured learning activities (SLAs). As such, students are challenged continuously to apply what they are learning as they solve the problems. The culminating exercise is not saved until the end--right before graduation.

Placing these problems in context deepens the students' understanding of the learning materials as instructors provide more complex data and situations.

In contrast to the deliberate model where instruction is presented up front, students are given or acquire information "just in time" in the rapid redesign model. They immerse themselves in solving problems and are provided information and concepts when they need to apply them.

These types of lessons can be built for novice learners as well as experienced learners. Determining when, where and how much information the students need at various stages in the training process must be taken into account. Instructor notes, although no less important in the deliberate redesign training, are especially important in detailing the instructor's role in the SLAs.

Assessment includes measuring the student's ability to complete tasks to standard but in the larger context of solving a real-world problem. For example, determining whether a fire direction officer (FDO) has the skills and knowledge to perform his job is often based on assessing his knowledge of specific tasks, such as manual and automated gunnery. Successfully passing exams that measure his ability to calculate manual gunnery problems allows the instructor to determine whether the student has achieved the standard specified in a terminal or enabling learning objective.

However, the desired performance should not end with assessing the student's ability to calculate manual gunnery but rather with assessing whether or not the FDO can determine why a round didn't land on the target. Computing manual gunnery solutions focuses on training individual well structured tasks to standard as opposed to the immersive method's focus on the "real" problem of field performance. Focusing on solving complex problems rather than focusing on achieving standards for each task keeps the emphasis on the battlefield objective. The FDO still must solve manual gunnery problems but only to give him a tool to apply within the context of solving the real problem of determining why the "steel" didn't hit the target.

Instructional design is complex. It is part art and part science. Any discussion of these two models in this short article cannot capture the complexity of considerations for designing and developing training that encompasses COE and COIN instruction.

However the rapid redesign model developed and applied to the FACCC emphasizes designing training to give leaders and Soldiers the ability to solve ill-structured problems in a real-world environment--better preparing them to perform complex tasks and make effective decisions that are typical of the challenges they will face in the COE.

Dr. Pamela L. Raymer is the Director of the Quality Assurance Office (QAO) and Staff and Faculty Division for the Field Artillery Center at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, who worked with the Field Artillery Captain's Career Course (FACCC) Small Group Instructors (SGLs) during their rapid redesign of FACCC. From an instructional systems design approach, she itemized the principles for developing training methods in the rapid redesign model to most effectively train Soldiers and leaders for the contemporary operating environment (COE). Dr. Raymer's last assignment was as the Director of QAO for the Armor Center at Fort Knox, Kentucky. She also was an Instructor at the University of Louisville for 13 years and currently teaches Management 5000 for two master's degree programs at Webster University. She holds an EdD in Supervision with a subspecialty of Training and Development from the University of Louisville, an MS in Instructional Systems Technology from Indiana University plus an MA in Counseling from Baylor University.

By Dr. Pamela L. Raymer

Overall Focus of Deliberate Design:
Train tasks to standard.

Analyze
* Mission Analysis
* Collective Task Analysis
* Job Analysis
* Individual Task Analysis
* Combat Critical Task Selection Boards
Focus: Individual Tasks

Design
* Task-Based Instruction
* Performance Objectives for Each Task
* Terminal Learning Objectives
* Enabling Learning Objectives
Focus: Task-Based Instruction

Develop
* Scripted "Stand-Alone" Lessons Plans
Focus: Prescriptive Lesson Plans

Implement
* Instructor-Focused Presentations Followed by Student Practical
  Exercises
* Measured Against Established Standards of Performance

Assess
* Assessment is continuous throughout the development process and after
  implementation.

Results: Schoolhouse Solutions (Predictability) Outputting Competent,
Structured Leaders

Overall Focus of Rapid Redesign:
Train technical content and problem-solving capabilities in varying
authentic contexts.

Analyze (Plan)
* Real-World Situations (RWS) from Combat Vets, Returning Units and
  Lessons Learned
Focus: Authentic Complex Problems (Battlefield Scenarios)

Design/Develop (Prepare)
* Structured Learning Activities (SLAs) of Real Problems from the
  Contemporary Operating Environment (COE), Counterinsurgency (COIN)
  Operations and Lessons Learned
* Collaborative Activities (Group Problem Solving)

Focus: Collection of RWS with Varying Conditions (Combat Variables)
Filled with Technical Content and Tactics, Techniques and Procedures
(TTPs)

Implement (Execute)
* Student-Focused Learning Activities
* Just-in-Time Content
* Measured by Instructor/Subject Matter Expert (SME) Against Applying
  the "Best" Solution that Considers Relevant Information Through
  Negotiation (Defending the "Best" Solution to Convince Others of its
  Merit)

Assess
* Assessment is continuous throughout the development process and after
  implementation.

Results: Multiple Appropriate Solutions (Ambiguity) Outputting
Competent, Confident, Critical-Thinking Adaptive Leaders

Deliberate (Traditional) Course Redesign as Compared to Rapid Course
Redesign