By Dr. Tom Clark:
Professional military education (PME) is about problem solving. Since PME lesson content is inert, overall success hinges on classroom conditions that strengthen problem-solving abilities. Educators use the curriculum continuum to influence classroom behaviors.
Visualize a continuum with four points.[1] At the first two points, the dominant view is “student eyes front,” think detailed command. Learning systems convey an image of consistent behavior with less capacity to adapt or innovate in dealing with unique problems. The prime concern is to Measures of Performance — observable, quantifiable factors such as scores.
Point One: Intervention: Command directives influence behavior to a narrow range of activities. Lessons tend to follow a scripted form. Imagine a noncommissioned officer conducting a class in the assembly / disassembly of a weapon. Curriculum defines what classroom activities “should look like.” Learning follows a “listen and learn” approach.
Point Two: Problem Solutions: Lesson developers establish clearly articulated objectives and substantial guidance about how to achieve objectives. Lessons convey an image of task oriented behavior to achieve concrete outcomes. Imagine discussion of a commander’s “directed course of action.” This is centralized problem solving for lesson developers and decentralized classroom execution.
Which Means: At either of these points, the most elegant curriculum is powerless to set learning conditions to develop the curiosity of adaptive problem solvers.
At the next two points, the emphasis is to engage minds, think mission command. Learning systems are more open and responsive in nature, being at ease with uncertainty. The prime concern is to Measures of Effectiveness — qualitative, meaningful factors linking classroom activities to real life situations.[2]
Point Three: Problem Bounding: A School sets objectives in general terms with porous information about boundaries and timelines. Lesson design enables capabilities to discover responses for problems that appear in irregular sequences with no clear relationship to experiences. Imagine a leader reaction course. Learners have a key role in defining objectives through action learning approaches.
Point Four: Selective Engagement: A College publishes an educational intent. Subsequently, a faculty leader describes learning outcomes while learners define details and select objectives. Imagine the “Lewis and Clark Corps of Discovery” setting out to create knowledge about the Northwest Territory! The focus is to develop leaders with the professional, moral, ethical, and cognitive capacities to improve the most challenging situations because adaptive problem solvers can lead anywhere.
Interestingly, the most mundane curriculum tends to build from continuum points three and four. The problem is that PME curriculum too often engages to develop adaptive problem solvers at points one and two — after hard problem reduction.
Therefore: The solution is to involve PME students in the joy and challenge of engaging complex problems closer to point four — in the original “Lewis and Clark” mold.
[1] Alberts, D.S. & Hayes, R.E. (2003). Power to the Edge: Command and Control in the Information Age. Washington, DC: CCRP Publications.
[2] Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
2 Comments on "A Curriculum Problem is the Curriculum Continuum"
On 4/13/2011 @ 8:14 AM, gbakian said:
Operational success stems from less prescriptive classroom conditions and scenarios which are more closely aligned with real-world situations that leaders are likely to find themselves in. The closer that classroom activities and problems replicate operational conditions the more likely that student officers will see the value and develop and retain the skill sets necessary to be successful. Miltary problem-solving never starts with a clean slate. The military problem-solver is always reaching back into his bag of past experiences, whether they be successes or failures, seeking a start point for the current problem he is faced with. Success with problems never before seen that we don’t have doctrine for that we don’t have a checklist or template for will be defined by those leaders who can successfully think their way through ambigous situations. As stated, learners clearly have to become more involved in the definition of pertinent details and selection of objectives in learning scenarios. Dr. Clark offers great food for thought by advocating a shift towards a curriculum that reflects Point Four: Selective Engagement. To get there it is necessary to break the current paradigm of educational philosophy, curriculum design and faculty development to nuture this type of learning outcome.
On 4/13/2011 8:14:15 AM, MAJ Jeremy Linney said:
The CADD’s “Doctrine Reengineering” plan to reduce the number of Army FMs from 432 to 17 and convert the remaining FMs to ATTPs, TMs, or TCs is a good first step, as is the plan to update them on a two-year cycle. There is an expectation, both here at CGSC and in the operational force, that recent ILE graduates bring current doctrine with them to the force. This is a realistic expectation and good model for distributing doctrinal knowledge to an operational force whose commanders are “busy out in the fight and don’t have time to do lots of reading.” The gap seems to be the education plan to incorporate the changes in doctrine in the operational force. How does CADD integrate with CGSC to develop a responsive and timely education plan to teach ILE Majors to adapt and incorporate new doctrine into the operational force? An entire graduating class of Majors is going to report to their units this summer, and many will be asked by their gaining commanders, “How do we incorporate the changes in FM 3-0, specifically the role of Mission Command as a War Fighting Function, into our staff process?” Unfortunately, we will not have an answer.
MAJ Jeremy F Linney ILE Class 11-01, SG16B