As I worked the last few days of my short stint as an assistant S3, I could hardly contain the enthusiasm for the plans I had envisioned for my platoon. On the training calendar were numerous Live Fire Exercises (LFX) and Field Training Exercises (FTX) lined up to support mentoring and development of the young soldiers in 1st Platoon, Assault Company, 1-8th Infantry Regiment, 3ABCT, 4ID. COVID-19 had other plans.
One week into my tenure as a Platoon Leader, the Novel Coronavirus brought our plans to a screeching halt. As I scrambled to establish meaningful training within this new environment, I leaned heavily on my experienced Non-Commissioned Officers (NCOs). However, there was a problem as none of them have ever faced anything like the disruption to operational tempo the pandemic created.
We quickly realized that we needed something new. The Army did not readily provide what we required. We needed a training program that could leverage technology and experience while providing meaningful work for soldiers confined to their barracks or homes. We knew we had to embrace design thinking; a core mental model taught to cadets in an introductory systems engineering class at West Point. What follows is a description of how we defined the problem, generated potential solutions, and built a prototype.
Designing Our Teaching Infrastructure
With all the training events postponed indefinitely, identifying the goals we must work towards became our first obstacle. Referencing the list of Mission Essential Tasks (METL) for our company as the overarching reference, we agreed it was more utilitarian to prepare for the upcoming validation events (e.g., Bradley Gunnery, Squad Live Fire, Company FTX at Pinion Canyon, and the Battalion’s rotation at the National Training Center). We identified the syllabus as the first essential piece to prevent the weekly training from becoming an ad hoc assortment of topics.
To further nest our material with the Battalion’s quarterly training guidance of readiness and lethality, we were able to reference the Combined Arms Training Strategy (CATS) for specific standards when teaching battle drills. Using the Army’s seven principles of training outlined in FM 7-0 Training as the doctrinal anchor, we focused on designing a model that “trained to standard, trained to sustain, and trained to develop agile leaders.” After reviewing the 8-Step Training Model, we realized that the model was the perfect tool to implement and improve our program. However, we could not follow the model sequentially as that did not allow for the flexibility required for our virtual program.
After identifying our goals, we needed to conduct “reconnaissance” to find the most effective distributed learning environment. After experimenting with Google Classroom, Skype, Zoom, and Google Drive, it became apparent that no one platform sufficed the depth, breadth, and operational security (OPSEC) requirements of our bespoke training. For instance, Google Classroom provided the easy formulation of tests, but could not accommodate the various schedules needed for a mechanized platoon. Zoom was user friendly but was not free and was banned for official business due to OPSEC concerns. The result is a combination of multiple platforms centered on the training schedules shared across the Platoon’s Google Share Drive.
Class Progression
Next was figuring out a proper pedagogical progression that leverages the NCOs’ combat experience and their professional military educations. Supplementing the doctrine-based classroom theory with how the theory is applied in the field created a more holistic understanding of concepts. Developing a syllabus that would be academically challenging without compromising teaching values pushed some NCOs to their intellectual limits.
Warfare is nebulous and comprised of many interconnected parts that together become a goliath of organized complexity. Like successfully solving any complex problem using basic rules, excelling in field exercises required a solid understanding of the basics. Referencing ATP 3-90.1 Armor and Mechanized Infantry Company Team we were able to piece together a mosaic of how our platoon fits into the battalion-at-large according to doctrine.
It became apparent the soldiers had an uneven understanding of how the dismounts and the mounted sections worked together. Filling that shortcoming became the impetus for spending the first few weeks teaching the fundamentals of a mechanized platoon. After spending about a week designing our syllabus, we faced the challenge of accustoming combat-seasoned NCOs to adopt patience and methods suited to an academic environment.
Training and Certify the Teachers (Team Leaders and Squad Leaders)
“Train the Trainer” is one of the key steps in the 8 Step Training Model. However, we did not have the luxury of the hands-on learning environment that is crucial in understanding many of the Army’s concepts. To ensure the quality execution of the classes, we rehearsed beforehand with each instructor. We then gave them feedback on teaching methods and content. We found that, on average, it took about 2 hours to prepare the classes and 1 hour to execute.
To maximize the balance between the soldier’s attention span and educational value, we analyzed the average attention span of a soldier relative to the content displayed on the slides. We also examined different graphical designs that would help to keep them engaged. To facilitate the continuous improvement of our program, we kept a running After Action Review (AAR) log of every class conducted. Twice a week we would conduct sync meetings where all the “teachers” shared the improves and sustains with each other.
In sum, we found that each technological platform offered a different facet. However, it is ultimately the motivation of the teachers that held the system together. There is no single technological panacea to creating an effective training program.
Initial Perspectives on the Effectiveness of the Program
To effectively deliver classes that is both engaging and informational, the teachers strived to provide scenario-based questions that provoked thought. We divided the class between teaching the information and asking scenario-based questions, 60 percent, and 40 percent, respectively. For example, one of our best classes thus far was a class on Tactical Combat Casualty Care (TCCC). We meticulously mentored our junior medic on public-speaking tips and revised his slides to be more engaging. The slides were only punctuated by the most salient points of TCCC then followed by open-ended discussion questions. Combining the NCOs’ combat experiences and Blackhawk Down, the Squad Leader was able to expand upon the possibilities that a soldier would encounter in training.
When asked about what the Squad Leaders thought about the experience, SSG Sam Jones appreciated the opportunity to develop his subordinates in nontraditional ways:
“Creating and conducting virtual and teleconference training has pushed my subordinate NCOs and myself to expand our toolbox. We have had to find new pathways and approaches to stay engaged and prepare for what comes next.” The result was a Squad Leaders who became better instructors at mentoring young NCOs how to teach.
Values of the Junior Officer and Command Climate in Facilitating Creative Training
Novice lieutenants are often discounted due to our lack of experience. However, through this experience, I have come to a new understanding of the intellectual preparations of the officer. The separate preparations the Army created for the Platoon Leader and the Platoon Sergeant became clear. We self-sorted into the roles we would play in executing this program. The Platoon Leaders delivered the most value if we focused on designing the program, the overall teaching methods, and the integration of technology.
The Platoon Sergeant, SFC Jeremie Ritchie, provided the real-life experience–and understanding of the platoon–to make the program approachable for soldiers. More specifically, SFC Ritchie helped me understand that Platoon Leaders cannot approach educating young soldiers like a professor would in the classroom. For example, he would provide feedback to the Squad Leaders on ways to make the class more approachable. He helped to clarify and condense arcane terms and concepts into succinct points. Furthermore, he also introduced the Squad Leaders to new tools to make teaching interactive. SSG Cruz Garcia, one of the Section Leaders, summed up the experience as an opportunity to develop young NCOs:
“The focus was to use a crawl, walk, and run method to bring new soldiers up to speed but will also enable the platoon to be prepared for upcoming training. We provided a training plan; they [young Team Leaders] built and taught the classes.”
Another important aspect of improving our program was proctoring our classes. In addition to the leadership observing the classes, the Squad Leaders also attended each other’s classes. The latter aspect was important in providing peer-to-peer feedback. Yet, regardless of how well we planned our training, my Company commander’s intentionally crafted command climate is instrumental in providing the disciplined initiative we needed.
Captain Max Underwood was an ROTC instructor, and undoubtedly his teaching experiences lent to the command climate he has created. He gives subordinates ample guidance and a clear explanation of his intent, but never micromanages. When asked about what his thought process is when designing his command philosophy, CPT Underwood succinctly summed it up as:
“Creating an environment that encourages initiative. A conjunctive byproduct is that this will create a team that can leverage its talent towards creative accomplishment of any assigned mission. However, to do this properly, you cannot be afraid of failure. Failure, naturally being nested within the adult learning model, is our best teacher. This remains true in any experiential learning environment. I had the privilege of being able to test some of these theories while serving as an APMS prior to command and during it. An understanding of the Adult Learning Model continues to prove beneficial, especially in self-assessment.”
I cannot overstate the importance of having an encouraging and open commander who is yet not overbearing and commandeering.
Operating within a trusted command environment, the platoon leadership was able to give guided autonomy to the instructors. Training and teaching are related concepts that yet differ in fundamental ways. We referenced the Adult Teaching and Leaning User’s Guide published by the Army University. We needed our program to engage the “cognitive domain” but also be anchored in an adult experiential learning model. What resulted was a “learner-centered” environment that “Focuses the attention on observing and improving learning.”
Figure 1. Shows the class schedule for one of the mounted sections.
Figure 2. shows the mounted syllabus that provides students with an overarching progression.
Figure 3. Shows the Squad Leader’s class syllabus that aims to facilitate critical and strategic thinking.
The Culture Change within Our Platoon as a Result of Creative Training
We are only on week four of our training program at the time of writing this. But the changes in intellectual curiosity and creativeness are already palpable. SGT Chris Friesz underscored the importance of soldiers being proficient in the field while also being inquisitive to new methods of teaching:
“During unfortunate times we found a way to train the soldiers and make them better at their craft. We made them more proficient as infantrymen, and grew and developed their skills and understanding of technology. This will make them more creative leaders, both in garrison and in combat .”
The Squad Leaders have all learned to embrace intellectual industriousness and develop a higher level of strategic thinking. SSG Kai Sorenson, one of the mounted Section Leaders who spearheaded the Bradley-oriented training, summarized the experience. He said it would continue to pay dividends long past COVID-19:
“Our comprehensive training system was designed by people who seek to improve the infantry culture and mold others into dedicated experts of our profession. What we do is not a job; it is a way of life.”
Two weeks into our training program, I realized that teaching tactical lessons alone was not enough. It failed to optimize the amount of time we had. With the help of the Platoon Sergeant, we created an intellectually challenging and discussion-based syllabus. We focused learning on the fundamentals of operational planning. We supplemented this with philosophical texts such as Just War Theory and excerpts from On War. Our soldiers and leaders trained their critical thinking. This was to reinforce the habits of becoming a critical thinker through dialectical methods.
––
The Army, through its schools, is excellent at teaching officers and NCOs how to become leaders within a structured environment. However, there is no roadmap on what junior leaders should do when an exogenous crisis strikes. After all, being a leader is much akin to being a coach. A successful coach would know how to combine real-life experiences with lateral thinking to adapt to new circumstances. The patterns of conflict across the world are migrating from defined battle lines to ambiguous multi-domain operations. The defining line of training between the field and home is also becoming increasingly blurred by technology.
Although the platoon was not in the same location, they harnessed the motivation and experience of their NCOs to make training effective. This experiment in teaching reminds us there is no excuse; not even a lack of available tools. It also reminds us that encouraging innovation and initiative can bring lasting benefits to our Army’s culture-at-large.
Subscribe to The Company Leader!