Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011

  • 1,045 views
Uploaded on

 

More in: Technology , Business
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
1,045
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. CULTURE KNOWLEDGE AND SURVIVAL LANGUAGE SKILL PRE- DEPLOYMENT TRAINING PROJECT Phase II Final Report Contract N00178-05-D-4527, under JHT TDL 129 15 March 2011 PREPARED FOR: PREPARED BY:Defense Language Office (DLO) Cognitive Performance Group, LLC Arlington, Virginia Orlando, Florida Copyright © 2011 Cognitive Performance Group i Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project Cognitive Performance Group
  • 2. Phase II Final Report CULTURE KNOWLEDGE AND SURVIVAL LANGUAGE SKILL PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING Contract N00178-05-D-4527, under JHT TDL 12 Prepared for the Defense Language Office Arlington, Virginia 15 March 2011 Prepared By: Cognitive Performance Group, LLC Orlando, FloridaCopyright © 2011 Cognitive Performance Group ii Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 3. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527 EXECUTIVE SUMMARYThe Department of Defense (DoD) has acknowledged the importance for Warfighters across theServices to communicate and negotiate with individuals from other cultures. To that end, bothculture knowledge and survival language pre-deployment training are offered. The objective ofthis project, Culture Knowledge and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training, was toprovide an objective assessment of pre-deployment training for survival language and cultureknowledge and skills.This project was carried out in two phases. The purpose of this report is to document Phase II ofthe project. Phase 1 results are briefly presented here to set the stage for the Phase II findings.The goal of Phase I of this two-part project was to develop an understanding of current solutionsin pre-deployment culture and survival language training, thus providing a baseline forunderstanding current training solutions and identifying best practices. Phase II involved thecollection of data to extend and confirm the findings of Phase I, to inform our understanding oflearner reactions to pre-deployment training, Kirkpatrick Level 1 assessment (―K1‖). Thisinformation was collected via site visits, interviews, training observations, and surveys.Additionally, the research team collected and analyzed reaction data across the Services, alongwith Kirkpatrick Level 2 assessment (―K2‖) data (e.g., learning outcomes) from one location, toidentify best practices, trends, and recommendations.In Phase I of the project, the research team performed assessments of each Service using surveys,direct observations of instruction, review of Knowledge Bases (websites), evaluation of trainingmaterials such as lesson plans, field guides, and videos, and interviews with training leaders,instructors, and developers. The major findings of Phase I were as follows:  Respondents consistently expressed that the time allocated for this training should be expanded. Warfighters view the training as critical to mission success and believe that additional time investment is necessary.  Overall, the culture knowledge training was rated higher in satisfaction, usefulness, and relevancy than the survival language training.  The research team found differences across the Services and ranks in the content of the culture and language training, the methods for presenting and assessing the training, and the training requirements driving the training solutions.  Members of the Marine Corps rated their culture and language training higher than their counterparts in the Army, Air Force, Coast Guard, and Navy. Participants in the Army rated their training more highly than their counterparts in the Navy and Coast Guard.Once more, the purpose of the Phase II effort was twofold: (1) to extend research conducted inPhase I through additional ―K1‖ surveys, interviews, material collection and site visits, and (2) toconduct a Kirkpatrick Level 2 assessment (―K2‖) for a single training provider and program ofinstruction in a selected Service branch in order to evaluate the increase in knowledge orCopyright © 2011 Cognitive Performance Group iii Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 4. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527capability as a direct result of the training. Survey (―K1‖) and assessment (―K2‖) results inPhase II revealed that:  A high percentage of trainees believed the most valuable aspect of culture training was learning about cultural norms and customs.  Those who had been previously deployed were more likely to see the value in transferring what they learned in culture training to the field.  Higher ranking service members perceived greater value in culture training than those of lower ranks. Higher ranking individuals had greater expectations of using such training in theater as opposed to lower ranking members.  Prior language experience and general cognitive ability were the best predictors of learning a new language, with prior language experience being strongest overall predictor. Overall, our qualitative and quantitative analyses in Phase II led us to uncover and create a table of desired best practices (depicted below) including methods, processes, and techniques that can be compared and leveraged across the Services. The best practices listed have either been observed through site visits and analysis, or are those which we deem are needed for all services.Copyright © 2011 Cognitive Performance Group iv Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 5. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527 Best Practices Across the Four Services Best Practice Service Rating Description Implication Recommendation Assessment / Army Med All Services utilize instructor Without assessment measures Embed knowledge checks within Measurement rating forms, and course beyond reaction level data, the classroom instruction and distance learning Navy Low satisfaction surveys, but few Services are not able to: (a) tools. Establish cutoff scores to certify a Marine Med actually test whether learning has ascertain if a student‘s knowledge student‘s course completion, rather than occurred during or after training. increased as a result of training, and simply ―checking the box.‖ Air Force Low (b) evaluate their training program. Peer Learning Army Med Hearing the importance of a certain Certain service members may have Set up sponsors, mentoring programs, or training curriculum or topic from a low motivation as they doubt the other processes (e.g. ―Tips to Air Navy Unk fellow service member in your unit necessity and application of Advisors‖) to share knowledge with those Marine Med can act as an impetus to stimulate training, and therefore may not be less experienced members who share learning in that content area. learning the material. similar missions and skill sets. Air Force Hi Training Army Med The handbooks, smart cards, Beyond information relevant to a Most of content is high quality and Materials/Content Navy High regional packets, PowerPoint specific Service, most content can available online or by request. Limit presentations produced by all of be shared across services to reduce classroom content to areas requiring direct Marine High the Services are valuable training redundant material. interaction bookended by generalized Air Force High resources. content accessible via distance learning.Culture & Language Army High Service culture websites should act This evidence alone indicates that Promote Service culture websites, make Websites Navy Low as a resource and repository for all the Service culture websites are classroom materials available online, culture and language needs. Most either not well known to the service enhance search functions, and consolidate Marine High utilize ―Google‖ for culture members, that they do not possess tools via JKO or similar site. Use the information rather than first seek the information members seek, or CAOCL website as an exemplar, followed Air Force Med their Service culture website. that they are not easily navigable. by the TRADOC Culture Center site. Instructional Method Army Med Using these techniques promotes Limiting the variability in Promote increased interaction between(role play, immersion, Navy Unk greater engagement and enhances instructional methods will prevent instructor and student across all programs. cultural meals, knowledge retention in the certain students from optimally Recommend greater efforts to integrate Marine Highfacilitated discussion) classroom through participation learning the material and create culture within language lessons, and vice Air Force High and experiential learning. disinterest in others. versa. Investigate immersive training solutions that can engage most learners through fixed site or on-line delivery. Copyright © 2011 Cognitive Performance Group v Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 6. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527Pre-deployment culture and language training is a Title X Service responsibility. Results fromthis research project inform us that: a pre-deployment training baseline has been establishedbased on Service documents and assessment of training solutions, that each Service has providedguidance and resources to accomplish culture and language pre-deployment training, and thatservice members are generally satisfied with the training and materials received.In sum, we recommend the following actions:  Identify and share best practices in culture knowledge training among the Services.  Offer a refresher course on culture and language training closer to deployment, or be reissued culture and language materials (or access to such materials) closer to their deployment date to prevent skill decay.  Determine how to transition the culture knowledge and language training to meet new mission requirements or expanded regions.  Support Service initiatives for career-long development of culture knowledge through policy and programs.  Determine whether these recommendations and best practices are pushed by the Department of Defense or pulled by the individual Services.Copyright © 2011 Cognitive Performance Group vi Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 7. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page #Chapter 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1 Background ................................................................................................................................. 1 Project Approach ......................................................................................................................... 1 Phase I Approach ..................................................................................................................... 4 Phase II Approach ................................................................................................................... 5 Training Requirements ................................................................................................................ 5 Department of Defense. ........................................................................................................... 6 Service Guidance and Directives ............................................................................................. 7 Report Contents ......................................................................................................................... 11Chapter 2. Analysis of Marine Corps Training ...................................................................... 12 Summary of Results .................................................................................................................. 12 Observations .............................................................................................................................. 13 Interviews .................................................................................................................................. 14 Instructor Interviews .............................................................................................................. 16 Student Interviews ................................................................................................................. 16 Training Content ....................................................................................................................... 18 Survey Data ............................................................................................................................... 18 Comparisons with Phase I Findings .......................................................................................... 19 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 19 Recommendations for Improvement ......................................................................................... 21Chapter 3. Analysis of Army Training ................................................................................... 22 Summary of Results .................................................................................................................. 22 Observations .............................................................................................................................. 23 Interviews .................................................................................................................................. 24 Student Interviews ................................................................................................................. 25 Instructor and Site Director Interviews ................................................................................. 25 Training Content ....................................................................................................................... 26 Survey Data ............................................................................................................................... 26 Comparisons with Phase I Findings .......................................................................................... 27Copyright © 2011 Cognitive Performance Group vii Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 8. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 27 Recommendations for Improvement ......................................................................................... 28Chapter 4. Analysis of Air Force Training ............................................................................. 29 Summary of Results .................................................................................................................. 30 Observations .............................................................................................................................. 30 Interviews .................................................................................................................................. 31 Training Content ....................................................................................................................... 32 Survey Data ............................................................................................................................... 32 Comparisons with Phase I Findings .......................................................................................... 33 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 33 Recommendations for Improvement ......................................................................................... 34Chapter 5. Analysis of Navy Training .................................................................................... 35 Summary of Results .................................................................................................................. 35 Observations .............................................................................................................................. 35 Interviews .................................................................................................................................. 36 Navy Materials ...................................................................................................................... 36 Army Materials ...................................................................................................................... 37 Marine Corps Materials ......................................................................................................... 39 Training Content ....................................................................................................................... 39 Survey Data ............................................................................................................................... 39 Comparisons with Phase I Findings .......................................................................................... 39 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 40 Recommendations for Improvement ......................................................................................... 40Chapter 6. Analysis of Training Evalutation .......................................................................... 42 Kirkpatrick Level 1 Analysis .................................................................................................... 43 Methodology.......................................................................................................................... 43 Results ................................................................................................................................... 46 Fort Carson Data Analysis ..................................................................................................... 54 Kirkpatrick Level 2 Analysis .................................................................................................... 56 Frequencies ............................................................................................................................ 57 Correlations ........................................................................................................................... 57 Multiple Regression Analysis ................................................................................................ 59Copyright © 2011 Cognitive Performance Group viii Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 9. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527 Discussion of Phase II Analysis ................................................................................................ 62 Kirkpatrick Level 1 Assessment Summary ........................................................................... 62 Kirkpatrick Level 2 Assessment Summary ........................................................................... 63Chapter 7. Implications & Recommendations ........................................................................ 66 Instructional Methods ................................................................................................................ 66 Trends ........................................................................................................................................ 70 Best Practices ............................................................................................................................ 72 Conclusion................................................................................................................................. 77References ..................................................................................................................................... 77Appendix A: Acronyms .............................................................................................................. A-1Appendix B: Index of Resources Reviewed ............................................................................... B-1Appendix C: Data Collection Demographics Form .................................................................... C-1Appendix D: Training Survey Form ........................................................................................... D-1Appendix E: Training Architecture Collection Matrix ................................................................E-1Appendix F: Learner Collection Guide........................................................................................ F-1Appendix G: Trainer Collection Guide....................................................................................... G-1Appendix H: Trip Report - CAOCL ........................................................................................... H-1Appendix I: Trip Report - Cherry Point ........................................................................................ I-1Appendix J: Trip Report - Camp Lejeune.................................................................................... J-1Appendix K: Trip Report - Fort Carson ...................................................................................... K-1Appendix L: Trip Report - Fort Belvoir ......................................................................................L-1Appendix M: Trip Report – McGuire AFB. .............................................................................. M-1Appendix N: Trip Report - Dr. Culture ..................................................................................... N-1Appendix O: Trip Report - DLIFLC ........................................................................................... O-1Copyright © 2011 Cognitive Performance Group ix Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 10. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527 LIST OF FIGURES Page #Figure 1. Key Leader Engagement non-verbal communication slides ........................................ 14Figure 2. Dari language training at Fort Carson .......................................................................... 24Figure 3. Sample Air Force culture training ................................................................................ 29Figure 4. Tactical Pashto training scenario .................................................................................. 38Figure 5. Tactical Pashto language training ................................................................................. 38Figure 6. Responses to best aspect of culture training ................................................................. 46Figure 7. Responses to sources used for culture information ...................................................... 47Figure 8. Responses to sources used for specific culture information ......................................... 47Figure 9. Responses to best previous culture training ................................................................. 48Figure 10. Responses to training that should be eliminated ........................................................ 48Figure 11. Responses to best sources for survival language ........................................................ 49 LIST OF TABLES Page #Table 1. Visits and Data Gathered by Service. .............................................................................. 2Table 2. The Four Levels of Kirkpatricks Evaluation Model. ...................................................... 3Table 3. Questions Used in Quality Composite for Culture ........................................................ 44Table 4. Questions Used in Quantity Composite for Culture ...................................................... 44Table 5. Questions Used in Transfer Composite for Culture....................................................... 44Table 6. Questions Used in Transfer Composite for Language ................................................... 45Table 7. Questions Used in Quality Composite for Language .................................................... 45Table 8. Questions Used in Quantity Composite for Language .................................................. 45Table 9. Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations of K1 Data .................................... 52Table 10. Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations of K1 Reaction Data, Fort Carson....................................................................................................................................................... 55Table 11. Application of Instructional Method............................................................................ 67Table 12. Best Practices Across the Four Services ...................................................................... 73Copyright © 2011 Cognitive Performance Group x Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 11. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION BackgroundThe nature of today‘s conflicts has placed individual Warfighters in the crucible, where theymust use their knowledge of regional culture as well as communication skills to accomplishtactical missions with potentially broad strategic implications. Current theaters of operationposition Warfighters into contexts where they must interact with other cultures. As such, there isan increasing demand on developing new skill sets that include learning about new cultures,cultural awareness, cross-cultural negotiations, perspective-taking, advising, and collaboratingwith multi-national groups. Today‘s current counterinsurgency operations require tacticalleaders and their units to demonstrate proficiency across cultural boundaries.As far back as 1943, the Department of Defense (DoD) was concerned with preparing our forcesto interact effectively with other cultures, as illustrated in a ―Naval Pocket Guide to Iraq‖ (U.S.Army Service Forces & Special Service Division, 1943). Interestingly, while requirements anddelivery format have drastically changed, the content of culture knowledge delivered to Sailorswas quite similar to what is being covered 70 years later. Now, more than ever, pre-deploymentculture and survival language training are required across ranks and Services.Despite this critical requirement, lessons learned indicate that military personnel have a limitedunderstanding of how culture influences the planning and execution of operations at every level.Operational experiences across various regions of the globe (e.g., Somalia, the Balkans,Afghanistan, and Iraq) have highlighted the ongoing, critical gaps in our capability to influenceand operate effectively within different cultures for extended periods of time. Inadequatesurvival language capability across the Services also limits the effectiveness of both units andindividuals. Although each of the individual Services has responded to this critical operationalneed by preparing members through a variety of training initiatives, taken as a whole, a gap inpre-deployment training persists (U.S. Department of the Army, December, 2009). Project ApproachTo address the extent and effectiveness of pre-deployment culture and survival language trainingacross the Services, a two-phase approach was undertaken. The research team identified andcollected information on the policies, programs, and processes that ensure cultural readinessacross the Services.The research team considered the following questions as a way to guide their efforts indeveloping a complete picture of the training baseline, and to inform each step in the analysisprocess:Chapter 1: Introduction 1 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 12. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527  What skills or knowledge are being trained?  Who is the training audience? (e.g., unit members, staff, leaders)  Where is training being conducted? (e.g., training centers, home stations, online)  How is training being conducted? (e.g., classroom lectures, field exercises, lanes, simulations, self-learning)  When is training being conducted?  Are service members satisfied with training?  Does the training work?Site VisitsFifteen site visits were conducted across the entire project to facilitate data collection. Table 1lists both Phase I and Phase II site visits and notes the types of data gathered during each.Table 1. Visits and Data Gathered by Service. Site Location/Date Accomplishments JFCOM Norfolk, VA Established contacts and support for project. (Joint Forces) September 1, 2009 Ft. Benning GA Gathered and analyzed documents. (Army) Jan 12-13, 2010 Conducted interviews. CACOM , Civil Affairs Pensacola, FL Administered survey (note that this trip was for another Command, supporting March, 2010 project, but we were able to gather some data) USSOUTHCOM Ft. Lewis WA Observed training, gathered and analyzed documents, (Army) March 1-2, 2010 and conducted interviews. Naval Expeditionary Little Creek, VA Conducted interviews. Culture Center April 15-16,2010 Gathered and analyzed documents. (Navy) Observed training. Air Force Culture and Maxwell AFB, AL Gathered and analyzed documents. Language Center May 1,2010 Gathered information and obtained access to training at (Air Force) Fort McGuire. Blackwater Training Center Moyock, NC Observed training. Gathered and analyzed documents. Training Team East Portsmouth, VA Conducted interviews. Training Center May 3-6, 2010 (Coast Guard) Defense Language Institute Monterey, CA Gathered culture and language materials for both Iraq (Army) July 19, 2010 and Afghanistan. Conducted interviews Defense Language Institute (DLI) administration (Dr. Donald Fisher and Steve Collins). McGuire Air Force Base Ft. Dix, NJ Observed training. Gathered course materials and (Air Force) July 26-28, 2010 documents. Conducted interviews with project manager, students, and instructors. Naval Air Warfare Center Orlando, FL Attended Cross-Cultural Communications Course. Training Systems Division August 9–12, 2010 Interviewed the main speaker, and collected materials. (Navy, civilian)Chapter 1: Introduction 2 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 13. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527 Site Location/Date Accomplishments Center for Advanced Quantico, VA Gathered information regarding the role CAOCL plays Operational Culture 14 September, 2010 in preparing and delivering pre-deployment culture and Learning (CAOCL) survival language training. Gathered culture/language materials. Obtained guidance on which locations would be best suited to observe training and collect data. Cherry Point Cherry Point, NC Observed Key Leader Engagement training which (Marines) November 14-16, 2010 covered some Pashto Language Training. Gathered and analyzed course materials. Conducted interviews with students and instructors. Collected survey data. Fort Carson Colorado Springs, CO Observed Campaign Continuity Language Training (Army) November 17-19, 2010 Detachment with focus on Tactical Dari. Gathered course materials which included textbooks and supplemental course materials. Conducted interviews with site director, instructors, and students. Fort Belvoir Fort Belvoir, VA Observed Cultural Awareness Training- Criminal (Joint Forces) December 7-9, 2010 Investigation Task Force (CITF) and collected survey data from students. Conducted interviews with instructors and students. Camp Lejeune Camp Lejeune, NC Observed CAOCL Tactical Afghan Culture Course. (Marines) December 15-16 Gathered and analyzed documents. Conducted interviews with studentsSurveysThe research team developed self-report assessment tools by applying Kirkpatricks TrainingEvaluation Model. Kirkpatrick‘s theory (1959, 1975, 1994) is arguably the most widely usedmodel for the evaluation of training and learning and is considered an industry standard acrossthe Human Resources and training communities. Table 2 illustrates the four levels of theKirkpatrick model, showing the types of data that are gathered at each level. Table 2. The Four Levels of Kirkpatricks Evaluation Model. Evaluation Evaluation description Examples of evaluation tools Relevance andLevel Type and characteristics and methods practicability 1 Reaction Reaction evaluation is ―Happy sheets‖, feedback Quick and very easy to how the delegates felt forms. Verbal reaction, post- obtain. Not expensive to about the training or training surveys or gather or to analyze. learning experience. questionnaires. 2 Learning Learning evaluation is Typically assessments or tests Relatively simple to set up; the measurement of the before and after the training. clear-cut for quantifiable increase in knowledge - Interview or observation can skills. Less easy for complex before and after. also be used. learning. 3 Behavior Behavior evaluation is Observation and interview Measurement of behavior the extent of applied over time are required to change typically requires learning back on the job assess change, relevance of cooperation and skill of line- - implementation. change, and sustainability of managers. change.Chapter 1: Introduction 3 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 14. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527 4 Results Results evaluation is Measures are already in place Individually not difficult; the effect on the via normal management unlike whole organization. business or systems and reporting - the Process must attribute clear environment by the challenge is to relate to the accountabilities. trainee. traineePhase I ApproachAt each site visit, the research team: (1) collected information on training requirements; (2)observed pre-deployment culture and survival language training events; and (3) interviewedtrainers, leaders, and trainees. This approach supported the development of a baseline of thecurrent pre-deployment culture and survival language training practices and also identified thebest practices for future culture training efforts.Trainee reaction data were collected via surveys, with the items written to assess Level 1 ofKirkpatricks Training Evaluation Model, as outlined above. The Kirkpatrick Level 1 assessment(―K1‖) items were classified for Phase I research into reactions involving the suitability,relevance, and transfer of culture and survival language training received.  Suitability refers to how the culture knowledge or survival language training addresses the learner‘s goals or training requirements.  Relevance is the degree to which knowledge or survival language training addresses an operation or mission requirement.  Transfer is the degree to which the learner believes that the culture knowledge or survival language training will be useful for accomplishing a mission or task.Several important trends were discovered in Phase I. In general, across the Services and grades,trainees were supportive of the pre-deployment culture and survival language training beingprovided. Additionally, while students were receptive to the survival language instructionportion of the training, all groups believed that additional time should be devoted to languageinstruction. The research team also found that those who rated their organizations more highly inteamwork, leadership, and benefits rated the pre-deployment training more highly as well.Although these and other important trends were discovered during Phase I of this project,preliminary findings could not yet be generalized across the Services to support policy-makingor proposed improvements. The relatively low number of site visits, when compared with all ofthe institutions, home stations, Mobile Training Teams (MTT), and similar venues that offer pre-deployment culture and language training, precluded such generalization. Additionalassessments were needed in order to formulate conclusions as to the nature and effectiveness oftraining on readiness and performance.Chapter 1: Introduction 4 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 15. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527Phase II ApproachThe purpose of Phase II was to extend and support the Phase I baseline data regarding the stateof pre-deployment culture and survival language training across the Services. Specifically,Phase II goals were twofold: (1) to extend research conducted in Phase I through continued sitevisits and K1 survey distribution; and (2) to conduct a (―K2‖) Kirkpatrick Level 2 assessment(i.e., learning evaluation) for a single training provider and program of instruction, in a selectedService branch. This would allow our research team to evaluate any resulting increase inknowledge or capability as a direct result of the training. Therefore, Phase II research wouldallow for a systematic, objective assessment of what is being trained, identify best practices andinvestment strategies for culture knowledge and survival language pre-deployment training, andoffer recommendations for future pre-deployment training.Moreover, Phase II research offers advantages beyond K2 assessment; it also adheres to thelatest DoD training initiatives (Office of the Under Secretary of Defense Personnel andReadiness, 2010). This Next Generation of Training report provides strategic guidance on howto adapt training and education strategy based upon lessons learned. Additionally, the objectiveof this project is aligned with the goals of the Capstone Concept for Joint Operations (Mullen,2009), wherein culture and language are major training areas upon which to focus. Section 4.10(4.10.1-4.10.4) addresses the need to ―markedly increase language, regional and culturalcapabilities and capacities,‖ specifically to:  Develop an education and training capability that contributes to a culturally aware and linguistically adept total force  Leverage technologies to develop linguistic and cultural training capabilities  Train foundational cultural skills (including empathy, cross-culture negotiations, self- reliance, securing basic needs in a foreign environment, adaptability, listening, and building trust)  Train personnel how to use interpreters effectively, develop course curriculum on reading culture-specific body language to judge effectiveness of statements, understanding and proper translation Training RequirementsAcross the Department, there is increased priority placed on the acquisition of culture knowledgeand language proficiency to meet the challenges of operating in complex, adaptive environmentslike those that comprise Irregular Warfare. Each Service has put in place guidance needed byleaders and trainers to improve Warfighters‘ ability to interact effectively with other cultures.The solutions include pre-deployment training activities as well as changes to the professionaldevelopment models.Chapter 1: Introduction 5 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 16. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527Department of Defense.We relied on two primary sources to frame our understanding the requirements for culturalcompetence: 1) Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) Report, February 2010 and the StrategicPlan for the Next Generation of Training for the DoD (Office of the Under Secretary of DefensePersonnel and Readiness, 2010).We initiated our research by examining the need for culture and language proficiency. Whilefew of the trainers we interviewed discussed the QDR (U.S. Department of Defense, 2010,February) or were aware of the Strategic Plan, we believe they are an important foundation forshaping Service actions and priorities for training regional culture and language capabilities. TheQDR sets the conditions for change. The QDR describes the complex operating environmentand points its readers to the profound demographic and social changes that are the result ofglobalization. The QDR seeks to re-balance objectives for counterinsurgency (COIN), stabilityoperations and counter-terrorism as well as building security capacity of partnership states. Wefound that the perceived shortfall in regional culture and language competencies is represented asan operational risk. These competencies are key enablers which contribute to near-term goals ofproviding security and stability within regions. The operational need includes the ability to workwith indigenous populations, where our Forces would develop the relationships and trustnecessary for influencing popular support across the lines of operations. Further, we found thatthe QDR has proposed that we shift the focus for improving the Force from investments intechnology to the development across the human dimension. The QDR places a premium onregional knowledge and language proficiency (QDR, p. 29). It also proposes career developmentand continuous learning that includes a specialization in a regional culture.Later in 2010 and in response the QDR 2010, the DoD issued its strategy for TransformationalTraining (TT) terming it a directive. As part of its transformation strategy, the Departmentestablished several training focus areas which would contribute to readiness and the ability torespond effectively to the complex, adaptive environment that was described in the QDR. Thestrategy identified the need to improve knowledge and capability for waging Irregular Warfare aswell as full spectrum operations. To accomplish these improvements, the Services were tomarkedly increase language, regional and cultural capabilities, train to use interpreters andinstitute mechanisms to prepare General Purpose Forces (GPF) quickly for new missions sets.Implicit in the TT Strategy is an understanding that the application of regional culture knowledgeand language proficiency are force multipliers that can be applied at the tactical through thestrategic levels of war to prevent, deter or win conflicts. And, while there is clearly a link to thecurrent operational environments, the need will persist and apply to other regions as we becomeengaged in security, stability and counter-terrorism operations around the globe.We believe that Department guidance for regional culture and language training has beencommunicated to the Services in both the QDR 2010 and the TT strategy.Chapter 1: Introduction 6 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 17. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527Service Guidance and DirectivesWe assembled the Service Guidance during the site visits or afterwards from the Serviceproponents. Our intent was to understand whether and how the Department‘s regional cultureand language training were being implemented during pre-deployment training across theServices. When we researched the Joint- and individual Service‘s Universal Task Lists (UTLs),we found culture general performance requirements had been identified and were included.Presence in the UTL means that these tasks would be trained as part of exercises that are used todemonstrate unit readiness. In this section, we will summarize Service Training Requirements.U.S. Marine Corps (USMC). We reviewed several documents provided by the Director, USMCCenter for Advanced Operational Culture and Language (CAOCL). These include the MarineCorps Vision and Strategy-2025 and Commandant Marine Corps message dtg 161827ZFeb2010,Culture and Language Pre-deployment Training Requirement (U.S. Department of Navy, n.d.).These documents provide the overarching structure for the training and were issued to leadersand trainers for implementation. In addition, we have considered the Marine Corps Order 3502.6dated 29 Apr 2010, Marine Corps Force Generation Process (U.S. Department of the Navy,2010, April). This document describes in detail the sequence and structure of pre-deploymenttraining.The imperatives for regional culture and language training are provided to the Corps along withthe Commandant‘s vision that all Marines will receive this training as a means of enabling theirperformance in uncertain, complex environments. The minimum operational requirements forregional culture and language are outlined for expeditionary force operations to any theater andregion. These requirements will be supported by Training and Readiness (T&R) manuals,MTTs, Computer-Based Instruction and Job Aids, all of which we observed.The CAOCL and the USMC Training and Education Command (TECOM) have embraced thisguidance and have provided training resources to support pre-deployment training objectives aswell as individual, self-directed learning. The requirement is for every Marine to understand(and apply) regional proficiency and knowledge of physical environment, economy, socialstructure, political structure, belief systems and history. Further, the elements of culture will beassessed during the planning process to ensure that aspects of operational culture are consideredin planning and operations. For language proficiency, all Marines will have language trainingwith specific individuals capable of communicating about force protection, survival and rapportbuilding phrases. Leaders require more refined speaking and listening skills for interactions withkey leaders.We believe from our interviews and the documentation we collected that the USMC hasprovided its leaders and trainers with ample guidance for preparing pre-deployment regionalculture knowledge and language training.Chapter 1: Introduction 7 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 18. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527U.S. Army (USA). In a similar manner, the Army has developed and issued its strategy forcontinuous development of regional culture and language skill development, though it pre-datesthe Department‘s guidance. The foundations of the Army‘s guidance are its ARFORGEN (ArmyForce Generation) process and FM 3-24 Counterinsurgency Operations. These documentsprovide a framework for preparing individuals and units for deployment. They describe thetenets of security and stability operations and significant contributions of cultural and languageproficiency to accomplishing mission tasks. For the Army pre-deployment training we willdescribe requirements for the Active and Reserve Components.The Army‘s Force Generation process is managed by U.S. Forces Command (FORSCOM).Forces are scheduled for deployment through a phased-process that moves units through Reset,Ready and Available stages. Pre-deployment training typically takes place during the Readystage at home station, or at a training center. U.S. FORSCOM uses the Army Guidance as wellas the requirements specified by the Combatant Commander (COCOM) to prepare and certifythe units for deployment.We reviewed the current FORSCOM Pre-Deployment Training Guidance (U.S. Army ForcesCommand, 2010, December) in Support of COCOMs, 012142ZDec2010 to learn what guidedthe Army‘s pre-deployment training including culture and language. The FORSCOM guidancerequires, ―… all required training listed in the message and the unit‘s collective mission essentialtask list as well as theater-specific identified tasks and information provided through leadersrecon…‖ be included in training plans.‖ The directive applies to Active and ReserveComponents.According to the FORSCOM Guidance, each Soldier is required to complete a computer-basedinstructional module that provides an awareness of ―fundamental values, beliefs, behaviors andnorms of that culture and differences with U.S. culture.‖ This abbreviated equivalent to the―HeadStart‖ program is accessible through the Defense Language Institute Foreign languageCenter (DLIFLC) website. There are also, language modules for common courtesy expressions,commands, questions, military terms and expressions of time. These are the minimumrequirements. Standards for this training were provided by the Chief of Staff in a 19 April 2010message. Also available on-line through DLIFLC is a requirement for a Rapport Buildingmodule for Soldiers and Army Civilians who deploy. Finally, there is a requirement for oneleader per platoon to receive advanced language training, a 16-week language training throughlanguage training centers (Carson, Drum, and Campbell; to be established Bragg, and Lewis).The Army also provides links to other language resources available through DoD and ProgramExecutive Office for Simulation, Training and Instrumentation (PEO-STRI).We also reviewed U.S. Army National Guard (ARNG) Training Guidance for Training Years10/11/12 (Appendix 4- Mandatory Training, Annex T- Operations), the guidance for pre-Chapter 1: Introduction 8 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 19. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527deployment culture and language training. We found the guidance to be consistent with theFORSCOM Guidance described above. However, there was a greater emphasis on individual,on-line learning resources. For ARNG language training, the minimum language requirement isto use DLIFLC language compact disc (CDs). Units could also coordinate for MTT, trainingaids or language Smart Cards. Finally, ARNG Soldiers were also able to access foreignlanguage coursed in Rosetta Stone language courses.We believe from our interviews and the information we collected that the USA has provided itsleaders and trainers with ample guidance for preparing pre-deployment regional cultureknowledge and language training. Although we did not a visit an ARNG Mobilization Site orArmory, the Reserve Component units are also implementing the FORSCOM and theater-specific guidance. A good deal more of the ARNG training leverages on-line resources, whichmight produce challenges in evaluating training outcomes.U.S. Air Force (USAF). The overarching strategy for USAF culture and language training isdescribed in the Air Force Expeditionary Operations Strategy. The Strategy provides aframework to organize, train, and equip Airmen prepared to rapidly deploy and effectivelyengage anywhere in the world. This Culture, Religion, and Language (CRL) Flight Planprovides authoritative guidance for the development of plans and programs to build cross-cultural capability in support of national security objectives, where regional culture knowledgeand language will enable more effective air operations.The USAF Flight Plan for Culture, Region and Language, May 2009 was prepared in response toQDR 2010, which also proposed a commitment to the development of cultural expertise. ThePlan was intended to produce across the Air Force a ―coalition mindset‖ characterized byeffective negotiations, communications and relations with joint and coalition partners. TheFlight Plan was also a precursor to the TT Strategy with a focus on full-spectrum operationalsettings.Current implementation of the Plan combines the delivery of individual pre-deployment culturetraining by MTTs as well as unit training. Language proficiency and regional expertise havebecome core competencies for the expeditionary Air Forces. These are typically delivered ininstitutional settings and are augmented with individual and professional developmentexperiences.While we did not assemble current documents outlining pre-deployment training goals, wepresume they do exist within the context of Air Expeditionary Operations and Training and theyare used to structure culture training and provide it to Air Force personnel.We believe from our interviews and the information we collected at the AFCLC that Air Forceleaders and trainers have training requirements to prepare regional culture knowledge andChapter 1: Introduction 9 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 20. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527language training. In our review of documents, we did not note explicit language about pre-deployment training. However, interviews at the AFCLC Expeditionary Warfare TrainingDivision revealed that their staff and training managers are fully cognizant of the guidance andhave responded with exemplary culture and language training provided by MTTs andinstitutions.U.S. Navy (USN). The overarching culture and knowledge training requirements statement isprovided by the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO), A Cooperative Strategy for 21st CenturySeapower, October 2007 (U.S. Department of Navy, 2007, October). The CNO presages thepremise found in the QDR 2010 about the impacts of globalization on nature of future conflictswhere U.S. military power might be employed. This competition for global influence requiresthat we participate in collective security and stability operations that involve a direct interactionwith other cultures in complex environments. He prescribes a new focus on how maritime forcesbuild trust and confidence through collective security requiring integration of maritime forceswith the other Services. This will require that Sailors (Marines and Coast Guardsmen) acquirecultural, linguistic and historic perspectives sufficient for building relationships withinternational partners. The Sea Services must become adept at forging these partnerships in Jointand Combined settings. He also foresees the need for junior personnel to develop the capabilityto interact with multinational partners and ―…improve regional and cultural expertise throughexpanded training, education and exchange opportunities.‖ (ibid, p. 19).Current guidance is consistent the Maritime Strategy, which is led by Chief of Naval OperationsInstructions (OPNAVINST) 3500.38B and MCO3500.26A, & U.S. Coast Guard CommandantInstruction (USCG COMDINST) 3500.1B (U.S. Department of the Navy, 2007, January).Under the current training requirements, the Sea Services are required to train on how toappreciate cultural differences and their impact on host nation perspectives. The requiredcompetencies include basic facts about the region and its culture (location, size, recent history,governance, religions, values, key individuals). Survival language training competenciesrequired include common greetings and words or phrases from the dominant language of theregion.Much of the individual replacement training for Sailors is provided at Army training sites. Navypersonnel attached to USMC formations participate with the Marine force.We believe from our interviews and the information we collected at the CLREC as well as theUSMC that Navy leaders and trainers have sufficient guidance to prepare pre-deploymentregional culture knowledge and language training. In our review of documents, we did not noteexplicit language about pre-deployment training. However, interviews at the CLREC revealedthat their staff and training managers are fully cognizant of the guidance and have respondedadmirably with culture and language training materials and MTTs.Chapter 1: Introduction 10 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 21. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527 Report ContentsThis Report delivers the Phase II findings. Chapters Two through Five describe the assessmentsfor each Service, detailing the Service-specific data gathered, the methods used to gather suchdata, the interviews conducted and observations made, the materials collected, and finally, theresults and research team‘s recommendations for effective pre-deployment culture and survivallanguage training. Chapter Six describes in detail both the K1 survey and the K2 surveyanalyses and results, and offers the research team‘s recommendations derived from the results.Chapter Seven concludes this report with a discussion of the major findings, trends, bestpractices, implications, and recommendations for the next stage of the project and beyond.The Appendices to this document include: a full acronym list (Appendix A); an index has beencompiled of every document and resource reviewed (Appendix B); a demographics collectionform (Appendix C); a training survey form (Appendix D); a training architecture collectionmatrix (Appendix E); a learner collection guide (Appendix F); a trainer collection guide(Appendix G), and individual trip reports (Appendices H-O). Additionally, a materials andresource database has been created, and will accompany this Final Research Report in the formof five interactive digital video discs.Chapter 1: Introduction 11 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 22. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527 CHAPTER 2. ANALYSIS OF MARINE CORPS TRAININGThis chapter provides an overview of Marine Corps pre-deployment culture and survivallanguage training. Specifically, this chapter covers site visits to the Center for AdvancedOperational Culture Learning in Quantico, Virginia, the Marine Corps Air Station in CherryPoint, North Carolina, and to the Tactical Afghan Culture Course at Camp Lejeune, NorthCarolina. This chapter also includes a description of the current pre-deployment culture andsurvival language training offered at these sites, observations from interviews and survey data,comparisons with Phase I results, and recommendations for improving or sustaining currentpractices.The first site visit was to the U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) Center for Advanced OperationalCulture Learning (CAOCL) in Quantico, Virginia, on 14 September 2010. The research teammet with the Director of CAOCL, Mr. George Dallas and his staff, conducted interviews, andcollected course materials. The purpose of this visit was to fully explore the role CAOCL playsin preparing and delivering pre-deployment culture and survival language training.The second site visit was to the USMC Air Station in Cherry Point, North Carolina, from 15through 18 November 2010. The research team observed Key Leader Engagement (KLE)training, which is sponsored by CAOCL, collected course materials, administered KirkpatrickLevel 1 assessment (―K1‖) surveys, and conducted several interviews. The primary purpose ofthis visit was to observe KLE training, which is provided to Battalion, Regimental, and MarineExpeditionary Force (MEF) forward Commanders prior to deployment to Afghanistan.The third site visit was to the Tactical Afghan Culture Course in Camp Lejeune, North Carolina,on 16, December 2010. The purpose of this site visit was to observe CAOCL training given to alarge Marine population. This training was given in a large theater to approximately 150Marines ranking E5 and below from several units.Presented below is a summary of the results, brief descriptions of the materials collected at eachsite, a synopsis of the interviews conducted at each site, followed by the results of the surveysadministered and, specifically, how the findings compare with the results of Phase I. The chapterconcludes with best practices and recommendations, based upon these results, offered to guidefuture training efforts for the USMC. Summary of ResultsResults were derived from data collected through training observation, survey administration,interviews, and the examination of course materials.  Overall, CAOCL provides effective course materials, a useful website, quality instructors, and content delivery.Chapter 2: Analysis of Marine Corps Training 12 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 23. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527  The CAOCL website can be used as an exemplar for the other Services. CAOCL continually updates and improves course content via feedback from Marines returning from deployment, employing native instructors who keep in touch with family and friends in their home country, and via input from the MCIA (Marine Corps Intelligence Agency) and the MCCLL (Marine Corps Center for Lessons Learned).  CAOCL-sponsored training is delivered in a highly-effective interactive and participatory style.  CAOCL instructors are able to engage students in perspective-taking.  Researchers were made aware that K2 data (e.g., learning) is being assessed and collected for certain courses. The research team could not determine to what degree this information was analyzed to allow instructors to train more targeted, measureable skills in a shorter period of time.  Without audience participation, instructor interaction, and varied instructional approaches, the students lose interest quickly  Beginning class with general Q&A appeared to be a helpful tool to engage the Marines and a method by which the trainer could adapt/tailor the training content if needed ObservationsThe Center for Advanced Operational Culture Learning takes a global perspective on culturetraining. That is, although Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and Operation Iraqi Freedom(OIF) are critical areas in which culture training plays a significant role, they are not the onlyareas of focus. The overarching goal of this type of culture training is to ensure that Marines areglobally prepared, regionally focused, and fully capable of effectively navigating the culturalcomplexities of the 21st century operating environments.The Center for Advanced Operational Culture Learning defines KLE training as ―the process forestablishing relationships at the strategic, operational, and tactical levels to effectivelycommunicate and gain cooperation of leaders that influence the population in the area ofoperation.‖ The research team observed CAOCL-sponsored KLE training at Cherry Point.Typically, a Commander or General chooses his staff to take part in this 40-hour training course.The course is presented to senior personnel, although there was some discussion of KLE beingoffered to more junior personnel, as missions are increasingly demanding that lower ranksengage with key leaders. There was no observed evaluation or assessment tool given to KLEparticipants at the conclusion of the course. Some examples of the course presentation slides areillustrated in Figure 1.Chapter 2: Analysis of Marine Corps Training 13 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 24. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527 Figure 1. Key Leader Engagement non-verbal communication slidesThe Tactical Afghan Culture Course observed at Camp Lejeune covered five major themes:appearance, social organization, cultural norms, traditions, and religion. The class began with aninformal question and answer session among the Marines to encourage participation and togauge the cultural knowledge base of the Marine units. Instruction then proceeded byincorporating elements of history into each of the five themes/sections as well as incorporatinganalogies with U.S. popular culture and common knowledge, specifically with regard to:  Tribal nature of Afghanistan compared to Native American tribes  Forced Islamic conversion of the Nuristanis compared to Crusades  Concept of revenge compared to Italian mafia (e.g. Sopranos)  Taliban pressures on locals compared to current Mexican drug cartelsWhile each Afghan ethnic group and tribe was mentioned, discussion lacked in covering thetactical cultural elements Marines sought such as how to specifically interact and extractinformation from each group. InterviewsInterviews at CAOCL were conducted with:  George M. Dallas, CAOCL Director  Captain Armando Daviu, SOUTHCOM Desk Officer for CAOCL  Mr. Rashed Qawasmi, Current Operation Officer for CAOCL  Dr. Kerry Fosher, CAOCL Research Center DirectorThe approach taken toward culture training for the Marines also emphasizes the five dimensionsof operational culture:Chapter 2: Analysis of Marine Corps Training 14 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 25. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527 1) Environment 2) Economy 3) Social organization 4) Political structures 5) Belief systemsThis framework is derived from the book, Operational Culture for the Warfighter: Principlesand Applications (Salmoni & Holmes-Eber, 2008), which was written by personnel fromCAOCL. A set of questions for each of the five dimensions is included in this resource, whichcan be used as a guide for Marines to conduct their own operational culture analysis. The USMCalso has a Training and Readiness Manual (U.S. Department of the Navy, April, 2009) thatspecifically addresses operational culture training requirements, and drives the course materialfor all programs of instruction, including the Key Leader Engagement course. Our research teamwas informed that TECOM will review and make revisions to the current Training andReadiness Manual 18-22 April 2011.In addition to pre-deployment training, CAOCL has instituted a career-long education andtraining effort for culture and language called the Regional, Culture, and LanguageFamiliarization (RCLF) program. The goal of this program is to ensure that each unit iscomposed of culturally skilled Marines with a diverse regional understanding as well as basiclanguage capacity. Essentially, CAOCL has divided the world into seventeen regions, and eachMarine shall study one region throughout his or her career. Education is provided through aseries of modules, and Marines are required to pass assessments at the end of each module inorder to progress. This long-term effort will establish a capability that allows Commanders torespond to any contingency by building a cadre of Marines who understand each of the 17regions of the world.Currently, pre-deployment culture and survival language training is delivered via a combinationof classroom instruction, computer-based instruction, and role-playing; however, no currenttraining standards exist across the board. This means that such training is provided at eachCommander‘s discretion, typically for General Purpose Forces (GPF), partners, mentors,advisors, and Marine Special Operations Command (MARSOC).To assess training effectiveness, CAOCL utilizes surveys, instructor rating forms, after-actionreviews (AARs), and in some instances, tests of declarative knowledge. Most of the USMC-wide training surveys, including the instructor rating forms, collect no more than K1 reactiondata. Such forms allow instructors to keep the content fresh by gauging trainee satisfactionlevels on which segments of the training were most valued by the Marines. Instructors alsomake use of AARs, which provide an informal type of assessment tool. Training content isupdated by questioning Marines who have returned from deployment, employing nativeinstructors who keep in touch with family and friends in their home country, and via input fromChapter 2: Analysis of Marine Corps Training 15 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 26. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527the MCIA and the MCCLL. An in-house research facility was also recently added under thedirection of Dr. Kerry Fosher, an anthropologist.The research team also conducted interviews at Cherry Point, with both of the instructors of theKLE training, Mr. Mohammed Qais and Mr. Emal Numan, as well as with four members of thetraining audience, both at Cherry Point and at Camp Lejuene, as discussed below.Instructor InterviewsAt Cherry Point, the primary instructor EmalNuman, and the secondary instructor, MohammedQais, both make use of PowerPoint presentations, “You give them the bullet points ofbut also enhance and supplement the material with how the society works, how peopletheir own personal experiences and insights, making think, the Afghan psyche. We giveclear to the students the differences between the two them that so when they are out in thecultures, Afghan and American. Assessments of the field, they expect flexibility.”students are mainly informal, in the form of --Instructor Interview Feedbackfeedback given during and after the role-playexercises. The role-play exercises allow theMarines to practice their newly-learned languageand culture skills. During and after the exercises, the instructors deliver personalized feedback,whereby they point out what went well, in addition to areas that need improvement.Both instructors expressed that language is the most difficult part of the overall training forstudents to grasp. With regard to learning about another culture, specifically, neither couldpinpoint one particular area of culture that is typically more difficult to grasp than the others.Rather, it is the way the instruction is delivered that matters.Both expressed that efficiency in training is paramount. Because there is a lot more material tocover than time allotted, the instructors must focus on broad areas of knowledge. This is whythey feel it is critical to prepare the Marines to expect the unexpected. Because they cannotproperly prepare ahead of time for every possible contingency situation, teaching that there areother perspectives, other world views, is what matters. As one of the instructors noted, ―Yougive them the bullet points of how the society works, how people think, the Afghan psyche. Wegive them that so when they are out in the field, they expect flexibility.‖Mr. Mohammed Qais was also the instructor for training provided at Camp Lejeune; however,the team was not able to conduct a second interview during that site visit.Student InterviewsChapter 2: Analysis of Marine Corps Training 16 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 27. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527All four students interviewed at Cherry Point felt that KLE training was an excellent way tounderstand another culture‘s perspective and all expressed that they would behave differentlytoward Afghans in the future as a direct result of this training. The students also highly valuehaving native instructors, as it fosters opportunities to interact and ask questions about how to actin culturally appropriate ways. One student remarked, ―This is the best training I’ve ever had… Ithink its good because of the interaction with the instructor.‖Because learning a new language is the most difficult part of the training, students expressed thatit should be more intensive, especially for leaders. They felt that more training time should bedevoted to learning language, especially for more senior ranks, as it is critical that leaders learnmore language than what can be imparted to them in merely a few hours of training.Beyond learning another language, the most challenging aspect of learning about another cultureis learning how to interact with a foreign population. Students in this class seemed to realize thatsuch interactions are critical to our counterinsurgency (COIN) efforts. As one interviewee noted,―Thats all about the hearts and minds and part of the COIN, a key part is how can we turn overour combat operations, our building operations, our security operations. How can we turn thoseover to Afghanis because if theyre doing it themselves, they take more pride, which means youhave to partner with them.‖With regard to KLE training, students expressed that this type of training is even more criticalfor GPF than for the higher ranking leaders, such as Commanders and Generals. In order toconvey the most vital information to the GPF, given the limited amount of time to train them,one student suggested, ―If you had to do it in a large group, let’s say you had only a day tocomplete this type of training, a Jirga in front of them - grab a few Marines out of the crowd, justgive them a basic overview, and let them participate.‖At Camp Lejeune, a total of two informal interviews with two Marines per interview wereconducted during the training. The interviews centered on potential best practices, what is mostvalued by the students, and what improvements could strengthen the program. Of the fourMarines interviewed, two had previously been deployed. Additionally, only one individual (whohad not yet deployed) had received culture training prior to this event. He stated that thistraining was far superior to what he had encountered in previous culture training. The twoMarines who had not yet deployed expressed a greater interest in the material than the twoMarines who had served in theater; however, the Marines with deployment experience hadminimal interaction with the locals.There were mixed feelings on the value of this course. The two previously deployed Marinesstated six hours of culture training was excessive and that they would probably not retain theinformation when they deployed again seven months later. The two Marines with nodeployment experience stated they believed the most valuable element of the training was asmall segment that focused on how to properly use your interpreters.Chapter 2: Analysis of Marine Corps Training 17 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 28. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527All four Marines at Camp Lejeune appreciated that the course was taught by a native Afghan,and acknowledged that the trainer was knowledgeable and engaging. When asked what, ifanything, they would change about the instruction, they stated that videos incorporated into thetraining would have kept them more engaged, and an additional instructor could offer anotherperspective. Training ContentMarine content received in Phase II were all CAOCL materials. We received and evaluatedseveral materials (for a full list, please see Appendices H, I, and J). The key materials were:  USMC Afghanistan booklet entitled ―Operational Culture for Deploying Personnel.‖ This booklet is divided into six dedicated sections the introduce and explain (1) ethnic tribes, (2) Islam, (3) social values, (4) how to work with Afghan civilians, (5) Holy War and the insurgent culture, and (6) how to work with the ANA  KLE Afghanistan CD. This compact disc (CD) includes all course materials on KLE, covering such topics as: Communicate through an Interpreter; Communicate Non- Verbally; Interact with a Foreign Population; Use Tactical Language, and includes PowerPoint slides as well the 1988 movie ―The Beast of War.‖  Culture and language chapter tests and final exams for OIF and OEF. These were learning measures with multiple choice and short answer questions covering tactical Afghan Dari as well as knowledge of religion, and knowledge of cultural dimensions.Overall, the content reviewed was up to date, relevant, and of high quality. CAOCL is one oftwo institutions we came across who were actually performing knowledge checks during theirtraining, although we were unable to ascertain from CAOCL how this data is being used (e.g.,how these tests were graded, if they had any bearing on class graduation or rank, if CAOCLkeeps records of these answers). Note: *A review of online courses (e.g. HeadStart, Rapport) wasnot done for this report, but will be provided in a separate document at a later date from NavalAir Warfare Center Training Systems Division (NAWCTSD). Survey DataK1 reaction data were collected in the form of surveys. The total sample size was 141, and ofthis dataset, 12 participants came from Marines at Cherry Point. Therefore, an in-depth analysisof the Marine only data would not be advised, given the small sample size. (For more in-depthanalyses across all the Services, please see Chapter Six for a full discussion of the results).Of the 12 Marine participants, it is noted that 11 of the 12 Marines had been previouslydeployed, and of those, eight participants had been deployed between two and six times, with anaverage of 3.56 deployments. The majority of participants (83.4%) were officers, ranked O2 andabove, with most in Combat Service Support or Logistics (67%), and the remainder in CombatChapter 2: Analysis of Marine Corps Training 18 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 29. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527Arms (33%). All participants perceived the quality of culture training (M = 4.39) and quality ofthe language training (M = 4.02) as valuable, on a scale of ―1‖ to ―5‖ (where 1 = StronglyDisagree and 5 = Strongly Agree). As in the other Services, the lowest rated aspect of thetraining was the quantity, or amount, of language training received (M = 2.33), confirming theinterview data, that the trainees did not feel there was enough time devoted to language training. Comparisons with Phase I FindingsFor Phase I of this project, survey data were collected from 51 Marines; however, as the samplesize in Phase II was only 12 Marines, caution is advised in interpreting these results, and inmaking comparisons with the results of Phase I.In Phase I, there seemed to be general dissatisfaction with the language portion of the trainingreceived (M = 2.98) by the 42 Marine participants who completed the survival language portionof the survey. Contrary to this finding, the Phase II Marines in the KLE training reported a highlevel of satisfaction with the quality of the language training received (M = 4.02).Results in Phase I further indicated that the Marines consistently felt there was not enough timedevoted to both pre-deployment culture training and survival language training. Again,participants were dissatisfied with the amount of language training received in Phase II (M =2.33); however, they were not dissatisfied with the amount of culture training received (M =3.78).Our Phase II results also suggest that despite the dissatisfaction with the amount of time spent onlanguage training, expectations to transfer what was learned in the language training weregenerally high (M = 3.76). This suggests that although participants would have liked to havemore intensive training on language, what they did learn was rated high in quality and likely toresult in transfer to the field.With regard to culture training in Phase I, all 51 participants indicated a positive view of thisportion of the training (M = 3.32). For the Phase II sample, all 12 Marines rated the quality ofculture training received highly as well (M = 4.39). Similar to their reactions to the languagetraining, the 12 Marines also expected to transfer what they learned in culture training to the field(M = 4.08). ConclusionsAs noted in the Phase I Final Report, the CAOCL website was found to be easy to use and thecontent was managed well. This site seems to be the most mature in comparison to the sitesmaintained by each of the other Services. Therefore, the CAOCL website can be used as anexemplar for other knowledge portal websites maintained by the other Services.Chapter 2: Analysis of Marine Corps Training 19 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 30. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527Course content is continually updated and improved via instructor reviews of the AARs ofpersonnel returning from Afghanistan. This seems like a simple, yet powerful, way to keep thetraining materials current and relevant. This practice implies that the instructors must take theinitiative in conducting such reviews of the materials. They must be flexible, motivated, andopen-minded enough to improve upon their method of instruction and the content of the courses.One of the best aspects of the KLE training, from the points of view of both the instructors andthe students, is the interactive and participatory style used throughout the class. Whetherteaching language or culture, the instructors regularly engage with the students, answeringquestions, offering insights, and in other ways personalizing the instruction for the students inthat particular class. The participatory role-play exercises were especially effective and highlyvalued.Beyond engaging and motivating the students via participatory and interactive techniques is theconsideration of what is the most important material to impart to students, given the timeconstraints involved. Through sharing experiences, and engaging in activities such asparticipating in a Jirga, instructors seem to motivate deeper learning and self-directed learning byproviding students with a basic understanding, or cultural awareness, that other different worldviews are as valid as their own. This type of perspective-taking often enables a cognitive shift inone‘s approach to other cultures, considered by some researchers to be a prerequisite to learningabout another culture and becoming cross-culturally competent (Hammer, Bennett, & Wiseman,2003).Perspective-taking is defined as ―the ability to see events as another person sees them‖ (p. 20,Abbe, Gulick, & Herman, 2007). As Triandis (1996) noted, perspective-taking does not comenaturally. It is natural, instead, to believe that the ways in which we perceive and understand theworld are the same ways that others perceive and understand the world. We assume reality isobjective, being the same for everyone, and often fail to realize reality is subjective; our mindsassign meaning to objective reality, depending upon our own unique perspective (U.S. PeaceCorps, 1997).Because it is not natural to take another person‘s perspective, this is something that we mustlearn. This kind of cognitive shift in awareness often begins with awareness of one‘s owncultural perspective. Differences in awareness or orientations toward other cultures, progress instages, from ethnocentrism to ethno-relativism (Hammer et al, 2003). In the first stage ofextreme ethnocentrism, people are completely unaware of any differences between cultures, andso fail to recognize the influence of their own culture on their own perceptions or values.Cultural awareness begins when people perceive cultural differences, but believe their ownculture to be superior, such as extreme patriotism or nationalism. This results in thecategorization of people from other cultures into stereotypical representations. The next level ofethnocentric orientation is where people are accepting of surface-level cultural differences, butstill assume that their own values, such as democratic ideals, are universally accepted acrossChapter 2: Analysis of Marine Corps Training 20 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 31. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527cultures. Learning that one‘s own values are not shared or appreciated by those from othercultures is believed to result in a cognitive shift, from an ethnocentric to an ethnorelativeorientation. This is how native instructors, who are able to relate to both cultures (i.e., Americanand Islamic) can impart the type of cultural awareness that allows this cognitive shift to takeplace. Recommendations for ImprovementAlthough the research team was made aware of certain K2 data being collected by the USMC,the team could not obtain information on how these data are being used to inform pre-deployment culture and survival language training. Therefore, the research team recommendsadding K2 learning assessments across the board to evaluate USMC programs, along with thetypically-used K1 reaction surveys.Given the available materials, it would not require much effort to add K2 measures to the coursecurriculum. K2 data could analyze and evaluate actual classroom/training performance in orderto measure learning or gains in knowledge. Such information could enable tailored feedback tobe provided, not only to the students to aid in further learning and motivation, but to the coursecontent developers and instructors as well, to guide and inform future training efforts. Such astep would result in significant impacts, ensuring that the limited amount of time allotted totraining would be used more effectively, and those facets of training that result in measurablelearning outcomes would be the focus of future training efforts.Another tool that is already in use, but is not being utilized to its full advantage for assessment, isthe use of role-play exercises. Such exercises offer a more practical way for instructors toevaluate learning, and may be more acceptable to students than exams of declarative knowledge.Therefore, the research team recommends that in addition to the informal feedback andevaluations already provided during and after the role-play exercises, instructors also formallyrate or grade the performance of participants. Doing this would allow more powerful andinformative K2 analysis.It must be kept in mind that although instructor grades or ratings may seem to be more subjectiveat face value than typical multiple-choice written exams, this type of evaluation may be moreacceptable to the students, given our interview data. As one student expressed, evaluations in theform of written tests may be counterproductive, discouraging real learning from taking place: ―Ifyou make me do it, I’ll remember forever … formal evaluation stresses people out …I would roleplay, role play, role play, because that’s the way they’re going to memorize it.‖Therefore, the research team recommends the U.S. Marine Corps adopt a blended approach ofwritten exams coupled with role-play exercises (and evaluations) in order to inform bothinstructors and course developers as to best practices for pre-deployment culture and survivallanguage training that will result in real and measurable learning outcomes.Chapter 2: Analysis of Marine Corps Training 21 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 32. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527 CHAPTER 3. ANALYSIS OF ARMY TRAININGThis chapter provides an overview of Army pre-deployment culture and survival languagetraining. Specifically, this chapter covers the site visits to Fort Carson, Colorado and FortBelvoir, Virginia, a description of the current culture and survival language pre-deploymenttraining, observations from interviews and survey data, comparisons with Phase I results, andrecommendations for improving or sustaining current practices.The Campaign Continuity Language Training Detachment pre-deployment language training isadministered at Fort Carson, Colorado. This 16-week training course is the result of apartnership between the operational Army and the Defense Language Institute (DLI) that beganin the early months of 2010. This training supports the deployment of Army personnel toAfghanistan by teaching Soldiers the basics of the Dari language and Afghan culture within anoperational context. The purpose of the Fort Carson visit was to observe pre-deployment Darilanguage training and obtain information via interviews from leadership, trainers, and membersof the training audience on their perspectives of training support.The Key Leader Cultural Awareness Training at Fort Belvoir provides culture training to a jointaudience. This training was conducted at the Criminal Investigation Task Force (CITF) facilitiesin cooperation with the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), acting as a Mobile Training Team(MTT). This training is geared to senior Non-Commissioned Officers (NCOs) and companylevel to field grade officers. The purpose of this visit was to observe culture training provided toa joint audience. This was not considered pre-deployment training, as only one individual in thegroup was planning on deploying within the next seven months. Nonetheless, the research teamhad a specific request to review this training. This was a two-day training event provided by anMTT.Presented below is a summary of the results, brief descriptions of the materials collected at eachsite, a synopsis of the interviews conducted at each site, followed by the results of the surveysadministered and, specifically, how our findings compare with the results of Phase I. Thischapter concludes with best practices and our recommendations based on our results, in order toguide future training efforts for the Army. Additionally, the research team was made aware thatas 1 October 2010, the Army issued an Executive Order requiring all service members andcivilians deploying to Afghanistan or Iraq to receive online culture and language training throughHeadStart 2 and Rapport training products. As mentioned previously, a review of such productswill be provided in a separate document at a later date from NAWCTSD. Summary of ResultsResults were derived from data collected through training observation, survey administration,interviews, and the examination of course materials.Chapter 3: Analysis of Army Training 22 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 33. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527Fort Carson Results  It is beneficial for instructors and students to speak only in Dari during class to simulate immersion.  Instruction that is not standardized will result in various levels of learning.  Instructors need to have a comprehension of and aptitude in English grammar, language and customs/culture in order to make learning Dari and Afghan culture maximally effective.Fort Belvoir Results  Cultural training can enhance the understanding of the Arab culture and does not necessarily have to be geared toward pre-deployment to have value.  Aspects of history and a better use of analogies should be incorporated at all levels for greater understanding of a particular culture. ObservationsThe research team observed the first course taught at the Fort Carson Campaign ContinuityLanguage Training Detachment (see Figure 2). The training is heavily focused on the Darilanguage, but provides a review of English grammar during the first week. There is also a 40-hour culture training component interspersed throughout the first eight weeks. There areapproximately 510 hours of instruction, with 470 hours devoted to language training and 40hours devoted to general culture.Language is taught each day, with a focus on learning concepts such as greetings, basic phrasesin the DLI handbook, and pronunciation. The morning sessions consist of reviewing homeworkand covering textbook lessons. Each afternoon, the students rotate to another instructor topractice role-playing scenarios in Dari. The scenarios allow students to practice either general ortactical conversation.The goal of this training is to have all students obtain a 0+ or above on the Oral ProficiencyInterview (OPI). More specifically, the student should be able to: 1. Meet and greet the local population, ask for and provide directions, and read and write simple road signs and instructions. 2. Engage in social small talk. 3. Understand and be able to recognize cultural and religious cues and convey them appropriately. 4. Perform security checks and collect simple intelligence information.Chapter 3: Analysis of Army Training 23 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 34. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527 Figure 2. Dari language training at Fort CarsonThe culture training at Ft. Belvoir was in-depth and far beyond that given to the GPF coveringtopics such as Arab media, Hezbollah, and offering a rich history lesson on that region of theworld. The majority of students were trained as analysts and interrogators, and consisted of fieldgrade and company grade officers from the Army, Navy, Air Force, as well as senior NCOs fromthese services. The cornerstone of this course was an in-depth study of the five pillars of Islam.This, along with Arab naming conventions provided a practical insight of the Arab mindset. Adiscussion of the differences between Arab media and Western media also provided the studentswith a greater understanding of culture in the Middle East.One-fourth of the course at Ft. Belvoir, specifically those sections instructed by the DIA, werenot perceived as beneficial, according to data gathered during the student interviews. Theinstruction was fast-paced and did not always match the materials provided, thus making itdifficult to retain concepts in the allotted time frame. However, other aspects of the training,including the descriptive use of U.S. analogies and in depth review of history, distinguish thistraining session as more effective from those the research team had observed to date. InterviewsSeven individuals were interviewed at Fort Carson: one site director, three instructors, and threestudents. The main areas of investigation concerned potential best practices, learningrequirements and objectives, how learning is evaluated, what is most valued by the students, andwhat improvements could be made to strengthen the program. Due to time restraints and asecure context, researchers at Ft. Belvoir were limited to brief informal interviews with oneinstructor and five service members. None of the interviews were allowed to be recorded.Chapter 3: Analysis of Army Training 24 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 35. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527Student InterviewsAt Fort Carson, all students reported they were satisfied with the pre-deployment culture andsurvival language training. Moreover, they believe this training will be essential on theirupcoming deployments. A recurring theme noticed throughout this visit among students,instructors, and the site director is that students with higher ranks tend to benefit more from thislanguage training detachment course. While discussing those best suited for the course, onestudent commented, ―If I was going to pick people from my platoon to come to the class, Iwouldnt pick anybody below E 4.‖In general, these students preferred being taught by one instructor as opposed to multipleinstructors. They felt that a close relationship with their instructor contributed to their overallsuccess in learning Dari. Students believed they benefitted the most from practicing tacticallanguage scenarios, which forces them to utilizevocabulary that will be needed in theater.The students at Ft. Belvoir were split among those who “If I was going to pick peoplevolunteered for the training and those who were required from my platoon to come to theto attend. Only one student at the training observed had class, I wouldnt pick anybodyorders for deployment in the next year. While the below E-4.”majority found the training valuable, most were unsure --Soldier Interview Feedbackhow they would use the knowledge in their current role.Instructor and Site Director InterviewsAt Fort Carson, the instructors displayed a strong interest in ensuring their students‘ success inlearning Dari. The instructors believe that class material should focus on exclusively teachingthe formal use of the language, as opposed to both formal and informal. The instructors reportedthat learning only the formal language would be more beneficial to the students as well asmaking the best use of class time. Instructors stated that more locals are familiar with the formallanguage and that teaching the informal version of Dari confuses the students and impedes theirprogress.At Ft. Carson, the site director identified Tactical Fluency, Cultural Awareness, FoundationalDari and Comprehension as the main components surrounding this training. He expressed thatthe main focus of this language training detachment is to ensure that the Soldiers have tacticalfluency in Dari when deployed. He is expecting that DLI will work towards a tactical final examfor students in order to better meet this requirement. Currently, there is discrepancy betweenwhat the students are expected to learn (tactical language skills) and what the OPI tests for(conversational Dari).Chapter 3: Analysis of Army Training 25 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 36. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527At Ft. Belvoir, an interview with the primary instructor informed researchers that the structure ofthe course is dictated by the U.S. Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) and there is aneed for more regional experts to teach. It was stated that many instructors simply readPowerPoint slides instead of engaging the classroom to prompt their thinking and understanding.The information in the course is very valuable but it should be tailored to the students (i.e., E-4‘sand below require more general training, whereas those in higher ranks can better appreciate andutilize more specialized and detailed information). Training ContentArmy content received in Phase II was collected only at Ft. Carson. We received and evaluatedseveral materials (for a full list, please see Appendix K). The key materials were:  Dari dictionary and phrasebook. These materials provide basic grammar rules, pronunciation, and simple phrases in Dari (shopping, emergency, healthcare, etc.). Additionally, a Dari to English and English to Dari dictionary is included.  Dari basic course introductory textbook. This textbook contains lessons on vocabulary, culture, pronunciation, grammar, writing, listening and activities in Dari. Scenarios for each lesson include topics such as people, numbers, seasons, time, the home, and the family.  Dari alphabet booklet. This booklet contains the entire Dari alphabet and pronunciation of symbols. It also contains a section on practice for writing Dari script.  Language Training Detachments (LTDs) course quizzes and tests. Short answer, matching, and fill in the blank questions were asked on listening, vocabulary, culture, grammar, and sentence translation. The topics covered sections from prior lessons such as: Personal belongings, In the Province, A Friendly Chat, A Medical Problem, and In the Afghan Army.The content reviewed pertained solely to language instruction, and while Soldiers were providedwith ample information and quality instructors, the materials themselves could be improved.Our research team noted that the structure, content, and organization of the books neededrevisions (e.g., content that should follow a certain lesson was located in unexpected places, andinstructors informed us that certain translations were not correct). Through the content could beimproved, the Army, similar to Center for Advanced Operational Culture Learning (CAOCL),did perform knowledge checks during their training. These tests were used to determine astudent‘s overall grade in the course as well as rank their proficiency in their language of study. Survey DataThe research team collected Kirkpatrick Level 1 assessment (―K1‖) reaction data via surveyadministration from 80 Soldiers. Of these participants, 58 Soldiers had been previouslydeployed (72%), with most of those having been deployed one time (67%). Soldiers wereChapter 3: Analysis of Army Training 26 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 37. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527ranked between E2 and E6, with the majority being E4 (55%). Most of the Soldiers (78%) werein Combat Arms, with 14% listing their duty position as being in Combat Service Support orLogistics, and the smallest percentage (8%) listing their duty position as Combat Support.The most highly rated aspect of training by Army personnel was the quality of language trainingreceived (M = 3.97), which like all other reactions, was rated ―1‖ to ―5‖ on a 5-point scale(where 1 = Strongly Disagree and 5 = Strongly Agree). The next highest rating was for thequality of culture training received (M = 3.84). The lowest rated aspect of the training was thequantity, or amount, of language training received (M = 3.01), meaning the participants did notfeel there was enough time devoted to language training. For more in-depth analyses across allthe Services, and the Army at Fort Carson in particular, please refer to the Analysis Chapter. Comparisons with Phase I FindingsIn Phase I, many of the Soldiers tended to value cultural awareness training over languagetraining. In comparison, the students at Ft. Carson who learned Dari and who utilized it in atactical training scenario felt it was very valuable. However, it should be noted that Ft. Carsonwas a specialized course devoted principally to language study.In both phases, the research team observed that while individual instructors set certain goals, notrue training standards have been created for culture and survival language training, thus leadingto varying requirements and an overall lack of standard metrics for the evaluation of skills.Additionally, with regard to the training conducted at Fort Belvoir, it seemed that learning wasmore related to the quality of the instructor than to the particular class being taught. Overall,students in both phases expressed concerns over the limited amount of time available for pre-deployment cultural and survival language training. ConclusionsWhen training a new language, it is imperative to spend a certain amount of time fully immersedin that particular language in order to force students to practice conversing and get beyond anyhesitancy they have regarding their words or using improper grammar. Setting aside a portion ofthe classroom time where no English is spoken was advocated by students, instructors, and thesite director.Different teaching styles may lend to more or less effective classrooms, as certain classroomswere clearly at higher learning levels than others in both the language training and culturalawareness training (i.e. those utilizing modeling, game play to encourage competition, andfacilitated discussion over lecture). Further, it is best not to rely on an instructor to be proficientat teaching merely because s/he possesses a particular background.Chapter 3: Analysis of Army Training 27 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 38. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527 Recommendations for ImprovementIt is important for each instructor to have a comprehension and aptitude in English grammar,language, and customs/culture in order to make learning Dari or Pashtun and Afghan culturemaximally effective. Perhaps further investigation into instructor certification could bewarranted in order to ensure teachers are fully competent in areas mentioned that go beyondfluency in the Dari language. An alternative to potentially altering instructor certificationqualifications may be to have two instructors per classroom: on Afghan native and on Americanfluent in Dari to ensure questions on grammar and use of analogies are made clear.Culture training cannot be ―one size fits all.‖ It must be tailored to the level of the trainingaudience. Even with tailored training, aspects of history and a better use of analogies at all levelswill promote greater understanding and retention. Finally, cultural awareness training should gobeyond ―pre-deployment‖ training—it can be valuable at any point in a career.Chapter 3: Analysis of Army Training 28 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 39. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527 CHAPTER 4. ANALYSIS OF AIR FORCE TRAININGThis chapter provides an overview of Air Force pre-deployment culture and survival languagetraining. Specifically, analysis covers a site visit to McGuire Air Force Base (AFB), New Jersey,a description of the current culture and survival language pre-deployment training, observationsfrom interviews and survey data, comparisons with Phase I results, and recommendations forimproving or sustaining current practices.The training observed at McGuire AFB was an Air Advisory pre-deployment training. Thistraining supports the deployment of members of the Air Force to Afghanistan and Iraq. Theprogram is composed primarily of volunteers that are both officer (O3-O5) and enlistedpersonnel (E4-E7) who will be deployed within the year. Airmen chosen for the course aretrained to replace their counterparts overseas in assessing, training, educating, advising, andassisting foreign personnel as they build their aviation capabilities. The figure below illustratesan Air Force training sample (see Figure 3).This is a 49-hour training program that is taught over a four-week period. The first two weeksfocus on culture and survival language training, and the latter two weeks are centered on combatreadiness skills. Figure 3. Sample Air Force culture trainingChapter 4: Analysis of Air Force Training 29 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 40. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527The research team conducted its site visit during the second week of training at McGuire AFB,during which the team:  Conducted nine interviews  Collected 41 surveys  Reviewed all course materials  Observed classroom instructionThe Culture and Language Center (CLC) was created at Air University in April 2006 toimplement the Air Force Chief of Staff‘s guidance aimed at improving Airmen‘s cross-culturalcompetence (3C) by developing their cultural, regional, foreign language, and negotiation skillsthrough the professional military education system. In 2007, the CLC became its own center.The vision of the Air Force Culture Language Center (AFCLC) is to create cross-culturallycompetent Airmen who effectively communicate, negotiate and relate to achieve Air Forceexpeditionary objectives and institutional goals. This report documents the research team‘sopinion on how well this vision is being met, based upon feedback received as well as theinstructional methods and materials provided to Airmen. Summary of Results  The Air Force uses up-to-date materials that extend beyond what was taught in the program of instruction.  Best practices include bringing Airmen to a culture meal and pairing them with the sponsors whom they will replace in theater.  Students reported that the training they received at McGuire AFB far exceeded previous culture training.  Currently, the Air Force is not in the practice of using knowledge tests to evaluate learning during or at the end of its courses. ObservationsThe 49 hours of instruction covers 30 hours of language, eight hours of general culture, fourhours of culture specific training, and seven hours of practical exercises. Outside of the practicalexercises, all instruction occurred in a classroom setting, where the student to teacher ratio didnot exceed 15:1. Expeditionary Warfare Training is provided through each of five subordinateunits consist of the 43rd Airlift Wing, Pope Air Force Base, N.C.; the 87th Air Base Wing, JointBase McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, N.J.; the 319th Air Refueling Wing, Grand Forks Air Force Base,N.D.; the 628th Air Base Wing, Joint Base Charleston, S.C.; and the 627th Air Base Group, JointBase Lewis-McChord, WA. Both the 87th Air Base Wing and the 628th Air Base Wing are theAir Force leads on Joint Bases that host AMC flying wings, along with other DoD partners. The43rd Airlift Wing and 627th Air Base Group enjoy unique partnerships with the U.S. Army,Chapter 4: Analysis of Air Force Training 30 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 41. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527while the 319th Air Refueling Wing supports the Department of Homeland Defense and AirCombat Command emerging missions.The teachers included military instructors, independent contractors, and native languageinstructors certified from Defense Language Institute (DLI). All instructors took ample timewith students, integrated language in culture classes and vice versa, and offered assistance duringclass, after class, and throughout the students‘ deployments. The energy and assistance offeredby the instructors was reciprocated through student engagement.Materials handed to students covered all classroom instructional documents, as well assupplemental material including tips and critical incidents from former Air Advisors who hadpreviously graduated the course. These materials included those from the Defense LanguageInstitute Foreign Language Center (DLIFLC), the Air Education and Training Command(AETC), the AFCLC, and U.S. Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC).The research team was also informed that all instructional materials are kept current byincorporating survey data gleaned from each course and having regular communication fromformer students currently serving in theater. In fact, the team discovered that materials andhandbooks are revised for each of the 11 courses taught during the year. InterviewsInterviews were conducted with four students, four “To this point, hands overinstructors, and one program manager. Interviews with head, head over heels, this hasinstructors and the program manager provided information been a lot better training than Iconcerning where the course requirements originated, as well received prior because we’veas varying instructional techniques and best practices used at had the time to do it and I’mMcGuire AFB (discussed in the Conclusions section). learning a lot.”However, student interviews provided the most valuable --Air Advisor Student Feedbackinformation for the research team. In addition to offeringinsights into what they deemed important and what they hadlearned to date, their responses reaffirmed early observationsthat the students were engaged with the instructors and with the material.All students reported that the training they are receiving in culture and survival language farexceeds any similar training they had previously experienced. One student was quoted assaying: ―To this point, hands over head, head over heels, this has been a lot better training than Ireceived prior because we‘ve had the time to do it and I‘m learning a lot.‖ The Air Advisorstudents most appreciated the native instructors, as well as the fact that the training is tailored tothe area to which they will be deployed. They further expressed the value of having instructorsChapter 4: Analysis of Air Force Training 31 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 42. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527accessible via email after the course ends who will respond to any additional concerns orquestions. Training ContentAir Force content received in Phase II was collected only at McGuire AFB. We received andevaluated several materials (for a full list, please see Appendix M). The key materials were:  Air advisor course textbook. This book provides an overview of all courses delivered within the 4-week training, including information such as lesson title, course developer, method, objectives, sample behaviors, and references.  Iraq culture smart card pamphlet. This pamphlet provides Airmen with the culture mindset of the region, vocabulary, greetings/phrases, landscape, religion, flags, ethnic group, dos and don‘ts, etc.  Iraq and Afghanistan full air advisor course CDs. This CD includes a copy of all course slides, language materials, additional readings, tips from current Air Advisors, critical incidents learned in theater.  Afghanistan expeditionary airmen field guide. This booklet prepares airmen to deploy to culturally complex environments, and offers a culture reference guide for Airmen to keep in their flight suit. Part 1 introduces the foundational knowledge one needs to effectively operate in any cross-cultural environment (culture general). Part 2 of the guide applies culture-general concepts across 12 domains (e.g., family and kinship, religion and spirituality, sex and gender, political and social relations) that will allow Airmen to relate, communicate, and negotiate.  DLI Dari basic and medical language survival guides. These language guides provide key phrases (in Dari and English and with phonetic spellings) needed for basic communication and in the medical field.Overall, our research team found a large proportion of the content to be up to date, relevant, andof high quality. We were especially impressed with the content within the Air Advisor courseCDs. The tips/advice from current Air Advisors and critical incidents shared from theater werequite valuable and informative. Our research team also noted that the DLI handbooks dispensedto students were all dated 2005, which raised questions on whether such information neededrevisions. Survey DataThe sample size of the Kirkpatrick Level 1 assessment (―K1‖) reaction survey data included 141participants across the Services, and of those participants, 45 were from the Air Force. Of those,most (91%) received pre-deployment culture and survival language training at McGuire AFB inJuly of 2010, in a course that lasted 49 hours, and the remaining participants received training atFort Belvoir in December 2010, in a course lasting only 16 hours.Chapter 4: Analysis of Air Force Training 32 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 43. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527Rank ranged from E4 to O5, with about half the participants being officers and half beingenlisted. Most of the Airmen (59%) reported being in Combat Service Support or Logistics, with34% listing their duty position as Combat Arms, while the remaining number (7%) were inCombat Support. The most highly rated aspect of training by Air Force personnel was thequality of culture training received (M = 4.37), which like all other reactions was rated ―1‖ to ―5‖on a 5-point scale (where 1 = Strongly Disagree and 5 = Strongly Agree), with the next highestrating being the quality of language training received (M = 4.32). The lowest rated aspect of thetraining was the quantity, or amount, of language training received (M = 3.33), meaning theparticipants did not feel there was enough time devoted to language training. For more in-depthanalyses across all the Services, please see the Analysis Chapter for a full discussion of theresults. Comparisons with Phase I FindingsDuring Phase I, the team made a site visit to the AFCLC. No classrooms or programs ofinstruction were observed in this phase, and therefore no direct comparison to instructionaltechniques or pre-deployment training can be made with Phase II information. However,comparisons between the materials, approach to, and processes of pre-deployment culture andsurvival language can be made. Given the relative short duration between Phase I and Phase II,there were no significant changes observed in Phase II. For instance, general culture materialssuch as field guides and handbooks were updated, but kept the same structure and retained muchof the same material.There were, however, two observations worth mentioning that appeared to have been alteredsince Phase I. First, from the Phase II data collected, the research team was given the impressionthat the main tool used to acquire language outside the classroom has shifted to Rapid Rote fromRosetta Stone. From anecdotal reports, Rapid Rote seems to be the preferred software as well.Second, the AFCLC website itself has been revised since Phase I. The website is now easier tonavigate and contains additional material not available in Phase I, although as noted in Phase I,no search function or capability is available. ConclusionsThe major finding concerning Air Force pre-deployment culture and survival language training isthe focus on 3C and regional training that is specific to deployment areas of operation. Basedupon the information received to date, the Air Force appears to have a strong system dedicated tohigh instructional standards and current material, leading to a handful of best practices thatshould be implemented across the Services. Three best practices observed at McGuire AFBwere sponsorship, cultural meal, and the materials delivered to the students.Chapter 4: Analysis of Air Force Training 33 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 44. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527  Sponsorship - Students were assigned sponsors (i.e., the person they will replace or overlap with in theater) within the first few days of the course, and were able to reach out immediately to their sponsors to obtain advice on their upcoming role and what in particular they should try to take away from the course. Knowing the individual they will relieve in place so far in advance is a valuable asset that should greatly accelerate the transfer of authority when these Airmen and Officers deploy. This particular practice was not observed for any other Service.  Cultural Meal - Students were taken to either an Afghan or Iraqi home or establishment (based upon their deployment) to experience firsthand the importance of breaking bread in those areas. The program manager at McGuire AFB described this experience saying: ―[To] eat out of a common bowl and sit on a stool or the floor … so its not so strange the first time they do it there [in theater]. Now is it still going to be awkward, oh yeah, but at least it wont be completely foreign. There are so many things that are going to be overwhelming – if we can remove some of those, thats the goal.‖  Materials - Culture and language courses for most Services consisted of hand-out electronic materials that included all PowerPoint slides shown in the classrooms. The course at McGuire AFB went an extra step by also providing audio files for language, tips from current and former Air Advisors who have gone through the course, and lists of critical incidents experienced from Air Advisors in theater. This additional content, combined with the practice of constantly revising the material to reflect the current fight in theater as well as issues or concerns raised from the last class make this a best practice to be followed. Recommendations for ImprovementWhile the Air Force possesses several strengths in terms of its pre-deployment culture andsurvival language instruction and materials, certain weaknesses are present. Primarily, the lackof formal evaluation at the culmination of the course prevents a true understanding of how muchknowledge was learned and retained. Several reaction level measures are dispensed to gaugegeneral satisfaction with the course, instructors, and material, but without evaluating thestudents, the program will be unable to gauge improvement.Beyond formal evaluations, the Air Force still appears to not take advantage of information fromJoint or other Service doctrine and/or materials. Though certain material must be centered onAir Force personnel, given their distinct roles, Air Force programs could see improvement byborrowing best practices from other Services and institutions engaged in culture and languagestudies.Chapter 4: Analysis of Air Force Training 34 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 45. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527 CHAPTER 5. ANALYSIS OF NAVY TRAININGThis chapter provides an overview of Navy pre-deployment culture and survival languagetraining. In Phase II, researchers were unable to make an official site visit to observe pre-deployment culture and survival language training. Despite this, the research team contacted theCenter for Language, Regional Expertise and Culture (CLREC), a branch that coordinateslanguage and culture program instruction for the Navy. This report details a description of thecurrent culture and language pre-deployment training solutions as well as recommendations forimproving or sustaining current practices.When line vessels are scheduled to deploy, the ship‘s complement is brought ashore beforedeployment to receive training provided by Mobile Training Teams (MTTs) or the ship‘straining officer. This approach is used because there are limited training facilities on board forlarge group instruction and the total ship‘s computing architecture does not provide for acollective instructor-led training network solution.According to the Naval Expeditionary Command Center‘s (NECC) Website, the Navy iscurrently operating under an initiative) to train Sailors with cultural competence and survivallanguage skills for their upcoming deployments (http://www.necc.navy.mil/). This initiative,called the Language, Regional Expertise and Culture (LREC) Strategy stresses the importance ofeffective communication, utilizing language and 3C to successfully complete irregular warfaremissions (U.S. Africa Command, 2011). Summary of Results  Center for Language, Regional Expertise and Culture‘s formal training programs typically include 12 hours of instruction spanning over two days. Language training programs typically last two weeks (60 hours of instruction).  Center for Language, Regional Expertise and Culture programs primarily utilize classroom instruction instead of online training products.  Center for Language, Regional Expertise and Culture uses Marine and Army training products, in addition to those designed exclusively for the Navy. ObservationsCulture-general training and the integrations of cultural awareness and military operationsabroad are the main points of CLRECs culture and language training initiatives. As one CLRECofficial stated, ―I also stress the tie between cultural awareness and military operations,underscoring that cultural awareness helps understand the human element in the operatingterrain, and that it can be the key to mission success.‖ Formal cultural awareness programsprovided by CLREC span over two days with approximately 12 hours of instruction for entry-level culture training. Formal language training programs span over two weeks with six hours ofChapter 5: Analysis of Navy Training 35 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 46. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527instruction per day. Training can also be extended to four weeks if the language is difficult tolearn. InterviewsInterviews and observations were not conducted for the Navy in Phase II. However, the researchteam retrieved ample training materials from CLREC in order to provide a brief comparison ofNavy training resources and products to other Services in the Armed Forces.The research team‘s communication with CLREC officials, in addition to follow up emails,yielded significant information about pre-deployment culture and survival language trainingprograms designed for the Navy. Above all, CLREC was forthcoming in providing informationfor the Navy, as well as other services, without reservation.Upon a formal email request from the Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division(NAWCTSD), the research team received The Senegal Operational Culture Awareness Training(OCAT) presentation. This training product, created by the Center for Information Dominancefor the Navy, comprises 49 slides outlining important cultural facts, including: Geography,Religious Influences, and Society and Norms. According to CLREC officials, The OCATproduct is often used for culture training along with products from other vendors. The OCAT forAfghanistan and Pakistan were included in the training products received through standard mailfrom CLREC.The research team additionally received ten training products through standard mail in responseto our training request. This information came very shortly after the request was made andincluded a large amount of material. However, CLREC did not provide information as to whichproducts would be best suited for each Sailor‘s needs. Listed below are the aforementionedproducts, along with a supplemental description of concepts covered in each product. It isimportant to note that the Navy is not the sole publisher of the following materials. Moreover,some of the materials provided below are products of other Services‘ culture centers.Navy Materials  Urdu Language Familiarization (Disk One and Two). This language training product includes extensive literature on Afghan culture as well as supplemental audio-enabled PowerPoint presentations covering the culture of Islam. Training materials for basic spoken and conversational Urdu, along with reading lessons at the intermediate and advanced levels, are included in this training product. Users can access the Urdu HeadStart component featured in this training product as a way to practice basic culture and language material.  Persian Dari Language Familiarization. This training product offers practice modules for both culture and language training. It also includes the Persian Dari HeadStartChapter 5: Analysis of Navy Training 36 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 47. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527 program and a supplemental Survival Kit that reinforce cultural awareness training and language practice concepts. Lessons and practice with Dari script, pronunciation, grammar, and vocabulary are provided. Glossaries and dictionaries are also included in this training product.  Pashto Language Familiarization. This training product provides cultural familiarization information along with access to Pashto HeadStart. Textbooks, workbooks, glossaries, and supplemental culture materials for basic and intermediate learners are also included in portable document format (PDF).  CLREC Cultural Awareness Training Product: Afghanistan-Pakistan. This training product provides cultural awareness training for Afghanistan and Pakistan. Audio files discuss cultural aspects such as Friday Prayer, Family Dinner, and Ramadan. Engaging PowerPoint presentations with audio and sequenced graphics explain the culture of Afghans and Pakistanis, and also the history and impact of the Taliban.  CL-150: Dari-Pashto-Urdu. This training product provides language lessons for Dari, Pashto, and Urdu. It also enables users to access any three of the following programs: Language Pro, Rapid Rote, and Talker.  Introduction to Islam. This training product focuses exclusively on cultural information about Islam and cultural etiquette through videos, audio files, and interactive PowerPoint presentations.Army Materials  Tactical Dari: Language & Culture; Tactical Pashto: Language & Culture. These training products offer both culture and language training in Dari and Pashto, respectively. This program is structured as an interactive videogame that helps personnel to understand cultural cues and improve their vocabulary. While language and culture skills are addressed, writing skills are not (see Figures 4 and 5).Chapter 5: Analysis of Navy Training 37 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 48. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527 Figure 4. Tactical Pashto training scenario Figure 5. Tactical Pashto language trainingChapter 5: Analysis of Navy Training 38 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 49. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527Marine Corps Materials  Afghanistan Culture Card. This training product is a small pocket card, which outlines important cultural information about Afghanistan such as Do‘s and Don‘ts, Religion, Pashtuns, and Cultural Mindset. Basic vocabulary, operational vocabulary, greetings and phrases, and weapons vocabulary are also provided on the back.  Pakistan Regional Culture Smart Card. This training product is a pocket reference that features information about culture, economy, history, and social etiquette. For language practice, there is a small section that provides helpful phrases in Pashto, located on the back. Training ContentNavy content received in Phase II was collected via mail. The section listed above provides adetailed description of all materials. Overall, our research team was impressed with the contentoffered in these materials, especially the layout and structure of the OCAT products.Additionally, our research team was pleased to discover how well the Navy leverages trainingproducts from other services. Survey DataThe K1 survey data collected from the Navy included a sample of only four participants out ofthe 141 participants across the Services. All four reported their duty position as being in CombatService Support or Logistics. Because of the small sample size, we are precluded from offeringa more in-depth analysis. However, it is noted that Navy personnel were pleased with the qualityof culture training received (M = 4.42), which like all other reactions, was rated ―1‖ to ―5‖ on a5-point scale (where 1 = Strongly Disagree and 5 = Strongly Agree). They also rated theirexpectations to transfer what they learned in culture training to the field quite highly (M = 4.41).However, the participants rated the quantity, or amount, of culture training received as being low(M = 2.08), meaning they felt that not enough time was devoted to culture training. For more in-depth analyses across all the Services, please see the Analysis Chapter. Comparisons with Phase I FindingsDuring Phase I, results indicated that the Navy regularly deploys for non-traditionalexpeditionary missions, oftentimes not to the same locations. When on land, typically only thesenior leaders interact with the local citizens. Therefore, a much larger effort has been made totrain on culture rather than language skills for the General Purpose Forces (GPF). When offered,language training is provided through the Defense Language Institute (DLI) based on a specifiedneed, and this is currently still the case. The research team found that although there werechecks on learning throughout the training in Phase I, there were no formal, standardizedChapter 5: Analysis of Navy Training 39 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 50. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527evaluations of performance. To date, there are still no formal evaluations of performance thatresearchers are aware of.The primary goal of the instruction at the NECC at Little Creek in Phase I was to create/maintaincultural awareness; ensuring personnel understand a regions or nations culture and appreciatehow cultural differences may influence their own and the hosts perceptions and actions. Thecontent of culture training that was observed by the research team during Phase I included:  Basic facts about the country and culture (i.e., location, size, neighboring countries, dominant language, facts about the Government and recent history, major personalities, religions)  Basic facts about the relationship between the country/region and the U.S.  Major do‘s and don‘tsPhase II analysis and review of materials suggests that all concepts observed during Phase I (i.e.,basic facts about country and culture, basic facts about the relationship between the country andthe U.S., and major do‘s and don‘ts) were also present in the materials obtained through CLREC.Moreover, the classroom-based culture training features noted in Phase I were also identifiedthrough analysis of material in Phase II, such as the use of engaging videos, allresident/instructor-led and facilitated lessons, as well as culture general and culture specificinformation. ConclusionsResearchers acknowledge that the materials received are only a small sample of what is offeredthrough CLREC; therefore, results and recommendations are limited to only those documentsand those materials accessible through CLREC‘s website. As such, the acquisition of thematerials from CLREC was highly valuable to our research efforts. It should be noted thatCLREC was particularly forthcoming in providing the research team with materials, and a bestpractice observed is how the Navy leverages culture and language training from the Marines andthe Army.Overall, the information provided to Sailors is quite impressive. They have access to manytraining products that train language and culture skills; however, given the significant amount ofinformation Sailors receive, they may experience difficulty locating the specific information theyseek at any point in time. Additionally, if Sailors want or need training outside what is providedin institutions or schoolhouses, they must make a formal request for such materials since they arenot hosted directly on the CLREC website. Recommendations for ImprovementThe research team was generally impressed with the content and amount of information providedin the training products made available for Navy personnel. However, some of the content withinChapter 5: Analysis of Navy Training 40 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 51. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527the pre-deployment culture and survival language training products contains redundancies. Thisfinding coincides with the responses received from military personnel across the Services. Dueto the time sensitive nature during which personnel are seeking to acquire this knowledge, it maybe helpful to mainstream the information by providing an outline for each training product thatdetails unique lessons or training aids not available on other training products.Chapter 5: Analysis of Navy Training 41 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 52. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527 CHAPTER 6. ANALYSIS OF TRAINING EVALUTATIONThe focus of this chapter is on the Phase II analysis and more specifically, on the surveys used toevaluate Kirkpatrick Level 1 assessment (―K1‖) reaction data as well as Kirkpatrick Level 2assessment (―K2‖) data (e.g. learning outcomes). As explained in the Introduction chapter ofthis document, the Phase I surveys were specifically written to assess K1 of KirkpatricksTraining Evaluation Model. The research team sought to extend the survey data collection inPhase II of this project by collecting K2 data in addition to K1 reaction data. To reiterate briefly,the levels of Kirkpatricks Training Evaluation Model are:  K1: Reactions - what the students thought about the training  K2: Learning - the resulting increase in knowledge or capability as a direct result of the training  K3: Behavior - the extent that capability improvement is transferred, or applied, to the job or in the field  K4: Results - the outcomes or results experienced by the organization as a direct result of the trainees performanceFor both Phases I and II, K1 data were collected via survey administration, with reactions toculture training assessed using 15 items, and reactions to language training assessed using 13items. The items were further classified for Phase I research into reactions involving thesuitability, relevance, and transfer of culture and survival language training received.As outlined earlier in the Chapter 1, suitability refers to how the culture knowledge or survivallanguage training addresses the learner‘s goals or training requirements; relevance is the degreeto which knowledge or survival language training addresses an operation or mission requirement;and, transfer is the degree to which the learner believes that the training will be useful foraccomplishing a mission or task. In order to dig deeper and to provide a richer analysis, thesurveys also included open-ended questions in addition to the closed, Likert-scale types of items.In general, across the Services and grades, learners supported the pre-deployment culture andsurvival language training that is being provided. Additionally, while students were receptive tothe survival language instruction portion of the training, all groups believed that additional timeshould be devoted to language instruction.Although these important trends were discovered during Phase I of this project, preliminaryfindings could not be generalized across the Services to support policy-making or proposedimprovements. The relatively low number of site visits in comparison to all institutions, homestations, Mobile Training Team (MTT), and similar venues that offer pre-deployment culture andlanguage training precluded generalizing such findings. Additional assessments were needed inorder to formulate conclusions as to the nature and effects of training on readiness andperformance.Chapter 6: Phase II Analysis 42 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 53. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527Phase II analysis addresses this need, the purpose of which is twofold: (1) to extend Phase Ithrough continued K1 survey distribution; and (2) to conduct a K2 for a single training providerand program of instruction in a selected Service branch. Kirkpatrick Level 1 AnalysisSurveys were distributed during four of the seven site visits to observe culture and survivallanguage training courses. K1 data (N = 141) were collected from students participating in thistraining at the following locations: McGuire Air Force Base (AFB), Cherry Point, Fort Carson,and Fort Belvoir. Because each Service had specific duty positions for deployment, the culturetopics and language instruction varied.The Pre-Deployment Culture and Survival Language Training survey (K1 survey), utilized inPhase I, was also used to collect K1 data for Phase II, with some slight changes to clarifywording (see Appendix D for the revised survey). Open-ended demographic items, includinginquiries into previous deployment experience, were also added. The survey consisted of a totalof 40 questions, divided into two sections: culture and survival language. After each site visit,the K1 surveys collected were entered into an analytical tool called Statistical Package for theSocial Sciences (SPSS) for analyses.MethodologyIn order to better understand as well as to differentiate the various trainee reactions, items fromthe K1 Survey were grouped together for analysis. In Phase I, items had been grouped accordingto suitability, relevance, and transfer of pre-deployment culture and survival language trainingreceived. Again, suitability refers to how the training addresses goals or training requirements,whereas relevance refers to how training addresses an operation or mission requirement. Theresearch team decided that these definitions possess a certain degree of overlap, and thatdistinctions among suitability and relevance may be too subtle and difficult for the respondent tomake.In Phase II, the Pre-deployment Culture Knowledge and Survival Language Training Surveyassessed trainee reactions to: (1) the Quality of culture and language training received; (2) theQuantity, or amount, of culture and language training received; and (3) the Expectations toTransfer, or use, what was learned in culture and language training.  Reactions were measured on a five-point Likert Scale, from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree.  Of the 97 participants who answered whether or not they had been previously deployed, 71 (73%) had been deployed at least once before.Chapter 6: Phase II Analysis 43 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 54. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527  Whether or not a participant had been previously deployed was related to their Expectations to Transfer culture training (r = .29, p < .01).  That is, those who had been previously deployed perceived a greater likelihood that they would transfer what they learned in culture training to the field.  Although caution is advised in over-interpreting these results, it should be noted that these results are consistent with those found in our Phase I analysis as well.Culture CompositesQuestions used in quality, quantity, and transfer composites for culture are listed in the followingtables (See Table 3, 4, and 5). Table 3. Questions Used in Quality Composite for Culture Quality# Question The timing of the culture pre-deployment training was at the right place in the train-up for deployment.1.2 (i.e., should it have been given earlier or closer to your deployment date)?1.5 I understand cultural learning objectives for pre-deployment training.1.14 Overall, I am satisfied with the pre-deployment culture training I received. Table 4. Questions Used in Quantity Composite for Culture Quantity# Question1.4 Portions of the culture pre-deployment training should be eliminated. (Reverse Coded)1.5.1 Learning about another culture takes too much time. (Reverse Coded)1.9 Pre-deployment culture training was about the right length of time. Table 5. Questions Used in Transfer Composite for Culture Transfer# Question1.1 The culture pre-deployment training I received will help me perform on the job.1.3 Job aids were provided to me after the culture training that I could take as my own use.1.11 Culture pre-deployment training is a high priority in my unit.1.12 I take the time to find out more about the culture in the area I will operate before I deploy.1.13 When I have a question about culture, I know where to find the answer.1.15 I have visited my Service Culture Center website for cultural information I need.Chapter 6: Phase II Analysis 44 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 55. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527Language CompositesListed in the following tables are the questions used in transfer, quality, and quantity compositesfor language (See Table 6, 7, and 8). Table 6. Questions Used in Transfer Composite for Language Transfer # Question 2.1 My survival language training was useful. 2.3 I find training aids like Rosetta Stone very useful. 2.3.1 I was provided language cards to help me with my language skills. 2.4 I plan to use my language cards while in theater. 2.5 I will use my survival language skills training while deployed. 2.9 When I have a question about culture or language, I know where to find the answer. I have visited my Service Culture Center website for information about survival language skills that I 2.13 need. 2.15 I expect to receive additional language training after I arrive in country. Table 7. Questions Used in Quality Composite for Language Quality# Question2.2 I understand survival language learning objectives for pre-deployment training.2.7 The survival language training is easy to complete.2.12 Overall, I am satisfied with the pre-deployment survival language training I received.2.14 The survival language training focused on the missions I will most frequently perform. Table 8. Questions Used in Quantity Composite for Language Quantity# Question2.6 There is not enough time available for survival language training.Chapter 6: Phase II Analysis 45 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 56. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527ResultsAll surveyed participants (N=141) in Phase II were asked open-ended follow-up questions inaddition to the Likert scale items listed above. The relevant results of the analysis of these dataare presented below.Open-Ended ResponsesStudents were asked, ―What was the best aspect of culture training received at this site?‖ Figure6 depicts a graphical representation of students‘ responses to this question. Of those whoresponded, 36% believe the information on cultural norms was one of the best aspects.Responses from this category included: ―do‘s and don‘ts,‖ Jirga role-playing, and Islamiccustoms. Additionally, 33% of students value having access to native instructors during thetraining. Learning and practicing the language were also highly regarded among the participants(18%). It should be noted that those responses categorized as ―All/ Everything‖ includedcomments such as ―all was helpful‖ and ―all was critical and should have been given to troopsearlier in campaign.‖ Responses categorized as ―Other,‖ for example, included such responsesas ―Iraqi history‖ and ―videos.‖ What was the best aspect of culture training received at this site? 7% Cultural Norms 18% 36% Practical Applications All/Everything 25% 7% Native Instructors 7% Language Other Figure 6. Responses to best aspect of culture trainingRespondents were also asked, ―Where do you usually find answers about culture?‖ Resultsshowed that 62% of the participants use general Internet searches, specifically Google, to gatherculture information. As an additional resource, 34% reported that they contact instructors,Subject Matter Experts (SMEs), or intelligence offices when seeking information about culture.The pie chart shown in Figure 7 illustrates responses to this question.Chapter 6: Phase II Analysis 46 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 57. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527 Where do you usually find answers about culture? 4% 34% Miitary Websites 62% People General Internet Searches Figure 7. Responses to sources used for culture informationA follow-up question asked participants, ―What is the best source of information about aculture?‖ Here, half the participants (50%) felt that locals or nationals (including theirinstructors) provide the best information about a specific culture. However, a large proportion ofrespondents (37%) indicated that general Internet searches yield the best cultural information.Figure 8 illustrates the student responses to this question. What is the best source of information about a culture? 5% Local/ National 9% 51% General Internet Searches 35% Military Websites/ Course Materials Other Figure 8. Responses to sources used for specific culture informationThe best cultural training was another open-ended item, specifically asking, ―What was the bestculture training you received previously? Where?‖ Of those who responded, 20% said the bestChapter 6: Phase II Analysis 47 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 58. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527culture training they received was while they were in theater, whereas 17% of respondentsbelieved Computer Based Training (CBT) was the best culture training they received. Figure 9illustrates the student responses to this question. What or where was the best culture training you received previously? In Theater 20% 49% Computer Based Training 17% (CBT) On the Job Training (OJT) 14% Other Figure 9. Responses to best previous culture training―What portion of training should be eliminated?‖ Of those who felt that some portion of thetraining should be eliminated, 31% felt that the redundancy of topics should be removed from thecourse, while others felt that any information that was not relevant to their duty position shouldbe removed (28%). Figure 10 illustrates the student responses to this question. What portion of training should be eliminated? Redundancy 31% 31% Information Unrelated to Duty Positon Less Writing 10% 28% Other Figure 10. Responses to training that should be eliminatedFinally, an open-ended item as to the language portion of the training asked, ―What was the bestsource of information about survival language?‖ Of those who responded, 38% thought thatChapter 6: Phase II Analysis 48 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 59. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527instructors provided the best information about survival language training, with class instructionand course materials falling closely behind (34%). Figure 11 illustrates the breakdown ofresponses to this question. What is the best source of information about survival language ? 6% Instructors 22% 38% Classroom Instruction/ Course Materials 34% On-line Other Figure 11. Responses to best sources for survival languageFrequenciesBranches of Military Service included:  Army (N = 80)  Air Force (N = 45)  Marine Corps (N = 12)  Navy (N = 4)Most (56%) of the participants received pre-deployment culture and survival language training atFort Carson (N = 80), whereas 41 participants received training at McGuire AFB (29.1%), andthe remaining participants in the sample received training at either Cherry Point or Fort Belvoir.The Length of Training (in hours) was entered as numerical data, ranging from 16 to 480 hours.There were only eight participants (6%) in the 16-hour group, whereas 80 participants (57%) atFort Carson were in the 480-hour group. The remaining participants were in the 30-hour group(N = 12) and the 49-hour group (N = 41). Therefore, the average Length of Training (M = 290)is skewed higher due to the large number of participants who took part in the 480-hour trainingcourse.Deployment Experience asked whether or not the participants had any previous deploymentexperience. This variable was coded as ―1‖ = ―Yes,‖ and ―0‖ = ―No,‖ so that any significantChapter 6: Phase II Analysis 49 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 60. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527positive correlations between this variable and the trainees‘ responses would indicate that thosewho were deployed perceived their training more highly than those who had not been deployed.Of the 97 participants who answered whether or not they had been previously deployed, 71(73%) had been deployed at least once before. The number of deployments ranged from onetime to six times for the 68 who responded to this follow-up question. Most (57%) had beenpreviously deployed only once, whereas 22% had been previously deployed twice, with 13%having been deployed three times, and so on.Current Rank of the participants ranged from E2 to O7. Most (N = 45) of the 136 participantswho responded to this item were at the level of E4 (33%), with 28 students at the level of E5(20%), with the remaining students distributed among the other levels.CorrelationsCorrelations between various demographic variables and the K1 reaction data were calculatedand significant findings are shown in Table 9 and summarized below.Branch of Service. Branch of Service was related to:  Training Location (r = -.65, p < .01)  Length of Training (r = -.94), p < .01)  Rank (r = .68, p < .01)  Quality of culture training received (r = .43, p < .01)  Expectations to Transfer culture training (r = .31, p < .01)  Quality of language training received (r = .28, p < .01)  Expectations to Transfer language training (r = .19, p < .05)In order to explore how Branch of Service was differentially related to trainee reactions, theresearch team analyzed the data using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), performing post-hoc pairwise comparisons to better understand these differences. Specifically, in our sample, Armypersonnel, on average, rated the quality of the training they received as lower than the other threeServices.Conversely, the Navy differed from all three other Services with regard to the quantity, oramount, of culture training received (p < .05). Specifically, Navy personnel had a more positiveview as to the amount of culture training received than the other branches of Service. Due to thesmall sample of Navy personnel (N = 4), however, caution is advised in over-interpreting thesefindings.Current Rank. In addition to its relationship with Branch of Service, Current Rank wasnegatively correlated with the Length of Training (r = -.79, p < .01). This suggests that thehigher the rank, the shorter the training duration in this sample. Rank was also related to:Chapter 6: Phase II Analysis 50 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 61. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527  Quality of culture training received (r = .39, p < .01)  Expectations to Transfer culture training (r = .28, p < .01)  Quality of language training received (r = .22, p < .05)This suggests that higher ranked service members perceived greater value in culture training, hadhigher expectations to transfer what they learned, and rated language training more highly thanthose in the lower ranks..Chapter 6: Phase II Analysis 51 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 62. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527 Table 9. Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations of K1 Data Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 111. Military 1.84 1.033 ______Service2 Pre- 2.39 .97 -.65** ______deploymenttraininglocation3. Length of 290. 218.45 -.94** .70** _______training (in 05hours)4. Previous .73 .45 -.06 -.22* -.031 _______DeploymentExperience5. Current 6.70 3.83 .68** -.52** -.79** .18 _______rank6. Cultural 4.07 .59 .43** -.33** -.45** .18 .39** _______Quality7. Cultural 3.52 .72 -.14 -.30** .07 .04 -.08 .31** ______Quantity8. Cultural 3.72 .50 .31 -.15 -.34** .29** .28** .50** .05 _______Transfer9. Language 4.09 .55 .28** -.28** -.25** .04 .22* .63** .38** .47** ________Quality10. Language 3.06 1.05 .12 -.12 -.06 .07 -.06 .11 -.13 .01 .10 _____Quantity11. Language 3.85 .47 .19* -.19* -.16 .10 .15 .51** .21* .55** .66** .17 ______TransferNote. *p < .05, **p < .01; N= 97-141. Military Service coded as 1= ―Army,‖ 2= ―Marines,‖ 3= ―Air Force,‖ 4= ―Navy,‖; Locations coded as 1= ―McGuire AFB,‖ 2= ―CherryPoint,‖ 3= ―Fort Carson,‖ 4= ―Fort Belvoir,‖ ; Previous Deployment coded as 0= ―No,‖ 1= ―Yes,‖; Current Rank coded as 1-9= ―E1-E9,‖ 10-16= ―O1-O7.‖Chapter 6: Phase II Analysis 52 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 63. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527Deployment Experience. Whether or not a participant had been previously deployed was relatedto their Expectations to Transfer culture training (r = .29, p < .01). That is, those who had beenpreviously deployed perceived a greater likelihood that they would transfer what they learned inculture training to the field. Although caution is advised in over-interpreting these results, itshould be noted that, these results are consistent with those found in our Phase I analysis as well.Length of Pre-Deployment Training. Length of Pre-Deployment Training was related to:  Quality of culture training (r = -.34, p < .01)  Quality of language training (r = -25, p < .01)  Expectations to Transfer what they learned in culture training (r = -.45, p < .01)These negative relationships indicate that those who received shorter training reported morepositive reactions with regard to the quality of the culture training, the quality of the languagetraining, and their expectations to transfer what they learned in the culture training.In more closely examining the mean differences between the training groups using ANOVA,followed by post-hoc comparisons, an interesting picture emerged. Here, the research teamfound that the reactions of those receiving 480 hours of training were significantly lower than theother groups (i.e., 16 hours, 30 hours, 49 hours) when rating both the quality of culture trainingreceived and the expectations to transfer culture training. However, those in the 16-hour groupwere less satisfied with the amount of culture training received than were the other three groups.Due to the small sample size of the 16-hour group, caution is advised against over-interpretingthese resultsLocation of Pre-Deployment Training. Location of Pre-deployment Training was related toseveral participant reactions:  Quality of culture training received (r = -.33, p < .01)  Quantity of culture training received (r = -.30, p < .01)  Quality of language training received (r = -28, p < .01)  Expectations to Transfer language training (r = -.19, p < .05)Given these results, the research team more closely examined the differential relationships acrosslocations, using ANOVA, followed by post-hoc comparisons. In this case, the research teamfound that reactions at Fort Carson, both to the quality of training as well as the expectations oftransferring such training to the field, differed significantly from those at the other threelocations (i.e., McGuire AFB, Cherry Point, and Fort Belvoir). Likewise, those who receivedtraining at Fort Belvoir, where the 16-hour training took place, differed from all three otherlocations with regard to the quantity, or amount, of culture training received. In both cases, theamount of culture training received was rated lower than it was by participants at the other threeChapter 6: Phase II Analysis 53 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 64. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527locations. Caution is again advised against over-interpreting these results due to the smallnumber of participants in the 16-hour training at Fort Belvoir.IntercorrelationsFinally, the research team examined how closely interrelated the different types of reactions wereto one another (i.e., quality, quantity, transfer). As the previous table reveals, the most highlycorrelated reactions were between the quality of culture training and the quality of languagetraining received (r = .63, p < .01). That is, participants who rated the quality of culture trainingmore highly tended to rate the quality of language training more highly as well. Also highlyrelated were the quality of language training received and the expectations to transfer languagetraining (r = .66, p < .01), suggesting that those who perceived the quality of the languagetraining more highly also had higher expectations of transferring this training once deployed.Fort Carson Data AnalysisLearning outcome data, K2, were provided by Fort Carson, thus fulfilling the Phase II K2analysis requirements. The research team also separately examined K1 reaction data from FortCarson. It should be noted that although the same participants took part in both the K1 datacollection and the K2 data collection at Fort Carson, due to the anonymity of the data, theresearch team is unable to link any of the participants in the two datasets (K1 and K2).FrequenciesOf the 80 participants from whom the research team collected K1 data at Fort Carson, 72% hadbeen previously deployed. Of those who had been previously deployed, 38 had been deployedonly once (47.5%). Rank ranged from E2 to E6, with 84% being at the level of E4-E5.CorrelationsTable 10 displays the descriptive statistics as well as the correlations between variousdemographic variables and the K1 reaction data for the Fort Carson sample. Several significantcorrelations were found between relevant demographic variables and reaction data. Caution isadvised against over-interpreting these results due to the small sample size.Chapter 6: Phase II Analysis 54 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 65. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527 Table 10. Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations of K1 Reaction Data, Fort Carson Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 81. Previous .73 .45 ______DeploymentExperience2. Current rank 4.19 .73 .51** _________3. Cultural 3.84 .59 .18 .25* _________Quality4. Cultural 3.56 .57 .05 -.07 .51** _______Quantity5. Cultural 3.58 .48 .32** .25* .49* .23* _______Transfer6. Language 3.98 .57 .08 .16 .64** .38** .52** _______Quality7. Language 3.01 1.02 .09 .14 .18 -.03 .03 .16 ______Quantity8. Language 3.79 .49 .13 .26* .59** .26* .55** .68** .32** ______TransfersNote. *p < .05, **p < .01; N= 77-80. Current Rank coded as 1-6 = ―E1-E6;‖ Deployment Experience coded as 0= ―No,‖ 1= ―Yes.‖Chapter 6: Phase II Analysis 55 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 66. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527Current Rank . Current Rank was related to several variables of interest:  Whether or not someone had been previously deployed (r = .51, p < .01)  The number of deployments that individual had undertaken (r = .48, p < .01)That is, those participants at Fort Carson who were higher in rank were more likely to have beendeployed and when they had been deployed, to have gone on more than one deployment.Additionally, those who were higher in rank had higher perceptions of the:  Quality of culture training received (r = .25, p < .05)  Expectations to Transfer culture training (r = .25, p < .05)  Expectations to Transfer language training (r = .26, p < .05)In post-hoc comparisons, however, mean differences were found only between ranks on theexpectations to transfer culture training (p < .05). That is, higher ranked Soldiers had greaterexpectations of transferring what they had learned to the field than those who were lower in rank.Deployment Experience. Whether or not a Soldier at Fort Carson had been previously deployedwas related to their expectations to transfer culture training (r = .32, p < .01). As in the K1dataset as a whole, those who had been previously deployed had greater intentions of transferringwhat they learned in culture training to the field. For this analysis, the research team alsoincluded the number of deployments; however, there was no significant relationship between thenumber of deployments and Soldier reactions.IntercorrelationsAs Table 10 also reveals, all Fort Carson K1 reactions were interrelated, with the exception ofthe quantity of language training received. This suggests that reactions to the amount oflanguage training received were treated independently from perceptions of the quality of trainingor the likelihood of transferring such training to the field. The strongest relationships were againfound between reactions to the quality of culture training received and the quality of languagetraining received (r = .64, p < .01), as well as between the quality of language training receivedand the expectations to transfer language training (r = .68, p < .01. Kirkpatrick Level 2 AnalysisKirkpatrick Level 2 assessment (K2) data were collected from Army personnel (N = 81) whoreceived pre-deployment culture and survival language training at Fort Carson. This site wasideal for this analysis due to the availability of several types of assessment tools used to measurelearning outcomes, as well as the availability of collected demographic data.Chapter 6: Phase II Analysis 56 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 67. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527Relevant demographic data included: Current Rank, Company, Classroom Number, MilitaryOccupation Specialty (MOS), and Highest Education Level (i.e., GED through graduate school).In addition to these demographic variables, other predictor and/or demographic variablesincluded the student‘s Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) Score, PreviousLanguage Experience, and previous Deployment Experience.Kirkpatrick Level 2 assessment learning outcomes were measured via: the OPI, which was codeddichotomously (see Table 11), the Final Course Grade (i.e., the average on quizzes, tests, andclass participation), and the DLI Composite Score, which score comprised three separateportions (i.e., speaking, listening, and reading).FrequenciesCurrent Rank of the participants ranged from E2 to E6, with most (80%) of the students at thelevel of E4 or E5. Of the 76 students who reported Highest Education level, the bulk of studentshad a high school education (68%), with 25% having had some college. MOS was reported by77 students, with 27% listing their MOS as ―Armor,‖ whereas ―Infantry‖ comprised 20%. Theother MOS categories were divided among nine other occupations such as Military Police andField Artillery.Analysis of the students‘ prior language experience indicated that of the 76 students whoreported their language proficiency, 47% spoke only English, 40% of the students reportedspeaking one additional language, 9% claimed to speak two other languages, and 4% claimed tospeak three other languages. When listing the other languages spoken, the main languagesspoken were Spanish, French, and German, with 17% of students indicating that they spokeSpanish, 11% indicating they spoke French, and 5% indicating German as their other language.The rest were combinations of these or included additional languages.CorrelationsThe relationships between relevant demographic variables, the ASVAB score, and the K2learning outcomes were explored via an examination of the correlation coefficients. Table 11displays the means and standard deviations, as well as the correlation coefficients between thesevariables. Several significant correlations were found and all relationships discussed below weresignificant at the .05 level. Any relationships not mentioned were not significant.Current Rank. Current rank was highly related to Deployment Experience (r =.52, p < .01).That is, the higher the student‘s rank in this sample, the more likely the student was to have beendeployed. Current rank, however, was not related to any of the outcome variables (e.g., learningoutcomes).Chapter 6: Phase II Analysis 57 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 68. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527Highest Education. Highest Education level was not significantly correlated with any otherdemographic variables or predictors, but it was positively correlated with several outcomevariables, namely the OPI Score (r = .28, p < .05) and the DLI Composite score (r = .23, p <.05), specifically with the Speaking portion of the Composite score (r = .23, p < .05). Theseresults indicate that students with higher education levels also had higher test scores whencompared to those with lower education levels.Prior Languages. Experience with other languages was related to:  Army Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) score (r = .41, p < .01)  Final Course Grade (r = .36, p < .01)  DLI Composite score (r = .37, p < .01)  Speaking portion (r = .29, p < .05)  Listening portion (r = .31, p < .01)This means that that those who spoke other languages tended to score higher on the ASVAB, andreceived higher final course grades as well as higher DLI scores on the speaking and listeningsections.Army Services Vocational Aptitude Battery Score. The ASVAB scores of those who were notdeployed were higher than the scores of those who had been deployed, as evidenced by thenegative correlation between ASVAB score and Deployment Experience (r = -.28, p < .05).The ASVAB Score was also positively related to several outcome variables:  OPI Score (r = .26, p < .05),  Final Course Grade (r = .38, p < .01)  DLI Composite score (r = .26, p < .05)  Reading portion (r = .29, p < .05)Caution is advised here as well, but given the nature of the ASVAB, as well as the final coursegrade (e.g., academic ability), and reading comprehension, this indicates that there may be acommon factor, possibly cognitive ability, at play here.Relationships Among Outcomes. The three main learning outcomes, as expected, were related toone another. Specifically, the OPI Score was related to:  Final Course Grade (r = .37, p < .01)  Defense Language Institute (DLI) Composite score (r = .26, p < .05)  Speaking portion (r = .36, p < .01)  Reading portion (r = .33, p < .01).Chapter 6: Phase II Analysis 58 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 69. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527That is, those who performed well on one outcome of learning tended to do well on otheraspects of learning.The Final Course Grade was related to:  All three components of the DLI Composite score (r = .51, p < .01)  Listening portion (r = .39, p < .01)  Speaking portion (r = .30, p < .01)  Reading portion (r = .69, p < .01)This suggests that whatever type of ability is responsible for a student doing well on the readingportion of the DLI exam may also be responsible for the student‘s final course grade.Finally, the DLI Composite Score was found to be highly correlated with its component pieces,and most highly with the speaking portion of the exam:  Speaking portion (r = .90, p < .01)  Listening portion (r = .64, p < .01)  Reading portion (r = 53, p < .01)Therefore, it appears that the Speaking portion was given the most weight in computing thecomposite score. However, the three portions making up the composite score, althoughsignificantly correlated with one another, do not seem to be redundant with, or overlapping, oneanother, with correlation coefficients ranging between .26 and .34 (see Table 11). Therefore,each piece of the DLI composite score may differentially be related to various predictors, bothdemographic and otherwise, and it is fair to treat them separately, as well as to examine themtogether, in the forthcoming analyses.Multiple Regression AnalysisExamining the relationships among different variables using correlation as above provides anexploratory view of the data. However, when one seeks more of explanatory approach towarddata analysis, multiple regression analysis is often used. Therefore, the analysis team used thismethod to model the relationships among the different variables in terms of the how much onevariable accounts for changes in another variable (i.e. variance), while taking into account all theother variables.The output generated by multiple regression analysis also includes beta weights, which areinterpreted as the relative impact (e.g., weight) of each predictor variable (e.g., demographics,ASVAB) on each outcome variable (e.g., test score). An R2 value is also included when usingmultiple regression, which is the summary of all the impacts of all the predictor variables in theequation, taken together.Chapter 6: Phase II Analysis 59 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 70. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527When generalizing findings from a smaller representative sample to the larger population ofinterest, the sample-derived R2 tends to overestimate the R2 of the population. Thus, reportingthe adjusted R2 is recommended, as this value will be adjusted downward based upon the samplesize (i.e., the smaller the sample size, the greater the reduction).Control VariablesControl variables allow for a better understanding of how the typical values of the learningoutcomes change when any one of the predictors is varied. The control variables used in thisstudy were Highest Education level and Deployment Experience. By entering these twovariables as controls, we were able to essentially level the playing field for all participants andremoved their influence, allowing us to more clearly see the unique influence of each of thepredictor variables. Using these control variables allowed our research team to answer thequestion: ―Beyond education level and previous deployment experience, do the followingpredictors impact the learning outcomes and if so, in what ways?‖Predictor VariablesThe predictors of interest chosen for regression analysis were Prior Language Experience and theASVAB Score. Other demographic (e.g., Rank, Classroom, etc.) were not correlated with thelearning outcomes, and therefore unable to be retained as predictor variables in subsequentanalyses.Oral Proficiency Interview (OPI) Score. Using Deployment Experience and Highest EducationLevel as control variables, OPI score was regressed onto Prior Language Experience and theASVAB score. Linear regression analysis revealed that both of the control variables,Deployment Experience (β = -.25, p = .038) and Highest Education level (β =.26, p = .029), weresignificant predictors of the OPI Score, with both variables accounting for 10% of the variance(Adjusted R2) in OPI Score. This means that both Deployment Experience and HighestEducation level predict OPI score. However, contrary to expectations, Prior LanguageExperience and the ASVAB score did not predict OPI score. The model was not significantwhen the two predictor variables of interest were added to the equation.Final Course Grade. Using Deployment Experience and Highest Education Level as controlvariables, Final Course Grade was regressed onto Prior Language Experience and the ASVABscore. Here, the two control variables, Deployment Experience and Highest Education level, didnot predict the Final Course Grade. However, when Prior Languages and the ASVAB Scorewere entered into the equation, together they accounted for 15% of the variance (Adjusted R2) inthe Final Course Grade, with R2 change = 17.5%. In examining the beta weights, however, itappears that while Prior Languages (β =.29, p = .022) was statistically significant in predictingthe Final Course Grade, the ASVAB Score (β =.22, p = .081) was not. Therefore, experienceChapter 6: Phase II Analysis 60 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 71. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527with prior languages had an impact on, or predicted, the student‘s final course grade, whereas thestudent‘s ASVAB score was not a significant predictor.Test Average and Quiz Average. As the Final Course Grade is a composite of both the averageof the quiz scores and the average of the test scores, the analysis team also treated these scores asseparate learning outcomes. This enabled the research team to determine the influence of thecontrol variables and the relevant predictors (Prior Language Experience, ASVAB score) oneach component of the final grade.Here, linear regression analysis revealed that none of the control variables or the relevantpredictor variables was statistically significant in predicting the final quiz average. However,both Prior Language Experience and the ASVAB score were significant predictors of the finaltest average. Specifically, Prior Languages (β =.31, p = .013) and the ASVAB Score (β =.26, p =.04) together accounted for 19% (Adjusted R2) of the variance in the final Test Average, with R2change = 21% of the variance in Model 2. This suggests that being experienced in a priorlanguage and doing well on the ASVAB both predict how well a student will perform on thetests.Defense Language Institute Composite Score. As noted previously, this score comprised threeportions: a reading portion, a speaking portion, and a listening portion. Using DeploymentExperience and Highest Education level again as control variables, the DLI Composite Scorewas regressed onto Prior Language Experience and the ASVAB score.The control variables, Deployment Experience and Highest Education level, did not predict theDLI Composite Score. However, Prior Language Experience and the ASVAB Score togetherwere significant predictors of performance on the DLI Composite exam, accounting for 18%(Adjusted R2) of the variance in the DLI Score, with R2 change = 18%.In examining the individual contributions of the predictors, however, it appears that while PriorLanguage Experience (β =.38, p = .003) was a statistically significant predictor of the DLIComposite Score, the ASVAB Score (β =.10, p = .41), was not. This means that knowing howwell a student did on the ASVAB will not allow one to better predict how well this student willperform on the DLI Composite exam, but knowing that the student is proficient in otherlanguages does inform the prediction of that student‘s DLI score.Defense Language Institute Speaking, Listening, and Reading PortionsAs the DLI Composite Score is made up of three separate portions, using DeploymentExperience and Highest Education level as control variables, the analysis team regressed each ofthe three DLI portions onto Prior Language Experience and the ASVAB score. This enabled theanalysis team to better determine the influence of the control variables and the relevantpredictors on each portion of the DLI Composite Score.Chapter 6: Phase II Analysis 61 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 72. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527Linear regression analysis confirmed that neither of the control variables was statisticallysignificant in predicting any portion of the DLI Composite Score. However, upon entering PriorLanguage Experience and the ASVAB Score into the equation, there was a significant change inR2 in the Speaking (11%), Listening (11%), and Reading (9%) portions, with both predictorsaccounting for 12%, 6%, and 4% (Adjusted R2) of the variance in each of these outcome scores,respectively.Upon examining the individual contributions of each of the predictors, it was found that theASVAB Score did not predict any of the three portions of the DLI Composite Score, eventhough the ASVAB Score and the Reading portion were significantly correlated with one another(r = .29, p < .05). This is one reason why regression is superior to simply examining correlationcoefficients. Regression takes into account the whole picture. Therefore, it seems that when theASVAB score is examined with the relevant demographic variables, it fails to reach significancein predicting the reading portion of the DLI Composite score.Prior Language Experience turned out to be the most robust predictor (β =.31, p = .015) of boththe Speaking portion of the DLI Composite as well as the Listening portion of the exam (β =.31,p = .021). Apparently, being proficient in languages in addition to English predicts one‘s abilityto perform well on the DLI exam as a whole, and especially on the Listening and Speakingportions of the exam. Discussion of Phase II AnalysisKirkpatrick Level 1 Assessment SummaryA high percentage of the students in our Phase II sample believe that the most valuable aspect ofculture training was learning about cultural norms and customs, which was facilitated by havingaccess to native instructors. Students also greatly valued applying their new culture knowledgeand language skills in a hands-on way, such as engaging in role-play exercises. These are bestpractices that the Services do well and should therefore continue to do.Of all the sources of information on culture and language, students express that local nationals(including their instructors) provide the best information, which also speaks well to the practiceof hiring local nationals to teach these courses.As the research team discovered in both phases of this project, those who had been previouslydeployed were more likely to see the value in transferring what they learned in culture training tothe field. It may be that those who have been previously deployed realize the value of usingwhat they learn in training and applying it in theater, whereas those who have never experienceddeployment do not have any idea how much they will need to apply what was learned.Chapter 6: Phase II Analysis 62 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 73. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527An important training implication that may be worthwhile to consider would be to engage thosewho have been deployed to share their experiences with those who have not yet deployed. Thiscould be accomplished via class discussion, or alternatively through a formal mentoringprogram, whereby more experienced Service members would be assigned a protégée. Mentoringprograms have been highly successful in other areas and an advantage of these programs is thatthey can also take place online in addition to face-to-face interactions.The results of Phase II further suggest that higher ranking service members perceived greatervalue in culture training, had higher expectations to transfer what they learned in culture training,and rated language training more highly than those in the lower ranks (i.e., E2-O7). That is, asone ascends in rank, one is more likely to perceive the value of training.. Although it could bespeculated that this finding is due to higher ranked officers having been previously deployed, thiswas not the case here. There was no significant relationship between rank and whether or notsomeone had been previously deployed (r = .18, n.s.). Therefore, rank is uniquely related toreactions to training, and is not due to its association with deployment experience. However, thetraining implications to take from this finding are identical to those elucidated above for previousdeployment.Kirkpatrick Level 2 Assessment SummaryThe K2 learning data collected at Fort Carson yielded some interesting findings. For instance,rank was not related to any of the learning outcomes. That is, contrary to expectations, given thereaction data noted above, higher ranking individuals in this sample did not perform better on theDLI exams or on the OPI, and also did not receive a higher final course grade at Fort Carson.Similarly, other demographic variables the research team explored, such as Classroom and MOS,were also found to be unrelated to any of the learning outcomes and were therefore, alsoexcluded from further analyses.By contrast, the highest education level achieved, although not related to any other demographicvariables, was related to the OPI and the DLI scores, specifically with the speaking portion of theDLI exam. Although the reason why this occurred is merely speculation at this point, such afinding suggests that achieving a higher education level may be associated with higher oralproficiency performance.The most significant predictor, proficiency in speaking other languages was highly related to theASVAB score, the DLI exam (both the speaking and listening portions), and the final coursegrade the student received. It makes sense that being familiar with one or more other languageswould predispose one to perform better on proficiency exams related to learning anotherlanguage.The ASVAB score was also related to previous deployment experience. Interestingly, those whohad never been previously deployed received higher ASVAB scores than those who had beenChapter 6: Phase II Analysis 63 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 74. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527deployed. Though speculation at this point, this may reflect a recent trend of younger Soldiersreceiving higher education levels than those in prior generations. How a student performed onthe ASVAB was also related to performance on all three learning outcomes: the OPI exam, theDLI exam (specifically the reading portion), and the final course grade. Given the nature of theASVAB, the final course grade, and the reading portion of the DLI exam, perhaps there is acommon factor, such as cognitive ability at play here. Cognitive ability has been shown to be themost robust predictor of performance, especially academic performance, so this is consistentwith the research (Schmidt & Hunter, 1998).Regarding the three portions of the DLI exam, it was interesting to note how highly correlatedthe speaking portion was to the DLI score as a whole, so that they appear somewhat redundant.It is not known if the course instructor assigns more weight to this portion of the DLI exam or ifthere is another reason why these two are so highly correlated, but this finding may warrantfurther investigation. However, the three portions comprising the composite score are notredundant with one another, so it is fair to treat them separately, as well as to examine themtogether.The three learning outcomes were all interrelated. Those who performed well on one outcome oflearning tended to do well on the others. Most highly related were the final course grade and thereading portion of the DLI exam. This suggests a common factor may be responsible for howwell a student performs in the course and on the reading portion of the DLI exam. Such afinding is a positive sign that each of the agencies responsible for the three learning outcomes isessentially measuring the same skill sets. If these learning outcomes had been unrelated, thiswould have implications for varying instructional techniques depending upon the exam orcourse. Such a positive finding should also alleviate any concerns that the program instructormay have about the possibility of other instructors teaching in a style that would encouragefavoritism towards a certain test for fear their evaluation hinges, or bears greater weight, on oneexam over the others.In-depth analysis was undertaken to assess the unique impacts of the various predictors (e.g.,demographics, ASVAB) on the learning outcomes. Multiple regression analysis goes beyondexamining simple one-to-one correlations, as it takes the whole picture into account. Here, theanalysis team was able to model the relationships among the different variables in terms of howmuch one variable changes another variable, while taking into account all the others. Byentering the control variables first (i.e., previous deployment experience and education level), theimpact of the two predictors (i.e., prior language experience and the ASVAB score) on learningoutcomes can clearly be differentiated. Given the results of the correlations, as noted above,these predictors held the most promise in being related to the different learning outcomes andpractically made sense as well. It must be noted, however, that because regression analysis goesdeeper than simply observing correlation coefficients, the previously-noted relationships changedsomewhat given the greater explanatory power afforded by this type of analysis.Chapter 6: Phase II Analysis 64 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 75. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527Using regression to examine the OPI score, the analysis team found that while both deploymentexperience and highest education level were important predictors of learning outcomes, whereasprior language experience and the ASVAB score were not. That is, when the control variableswere taken into account, these two predictors did not impact the OPI score, despite beingcorrelated one-to-one, as noted earlier.In examining the final course grade, however, prior language experience was the most robustpredictor of how well a student performed in class. Breaking apart this learning outcome, theanalysis team further discovered that both the ASVAB score and prior language predictedperformance on the course exams, but not on the quizzes.The impacts of the various predictors on the DLI exam score were next examined and here,unlike the OPI score, neither previous deployment experience nor highest education levelpredicted how well someone performed on the DLI exam. However, prior language experiencewas a strong predictor of performance on this exam, whereas the ASVAB was not.Furthermore, prior language experience turned out to be the most robust predictor of both thespeaking and listening portions of the exam. Apparently, being proficient in other languages, inaddition to English, predicts one‘s ability to perform well on the DLI exam as a whole, andespecially on the listening and speaking portions of the exam. Therefore, the foregoing results,taken as a whole, suggest that prior language experience and general cognitive ability (i.e. theASVAB) are the best predictors of learning a new language, with prior language experiencebeing the strongest overall predictor.Chapter 6: Phase II Analysis 65 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 76. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527 CHAPTER 7. IMPLICATIONS & RECOMMENDATIONSToday‘s military leaders are faced with the complex problems inherent in accomplishing theirmissions in culturally diverse contexts. In such contexts, small units and their leaders mustinteract directly with members of other cultures. Therefore, small unit members require theability to quickly and accurately comprehend information about other cultures and moreimportantly, must leverage what they know to build partnerships and relationships essential tomission success. Consequently, pre-deployment training is a critical part of this force generationprocess, whereby successful completion of training requirements indicates that Warfighters areprepared for the challenges of counterinsurgency (COIN) and irregular warfare.The goal of Phase I of this two-part project was to develop an understanding of current solutionsin pre-deployment culture and survival language training, thus providing a baseline forcomparison. Phase II involved the collection of data to extend and confirm the findings of PhaseI, to inform our understanding of learner reactions to pre-deployment training, Kirkpatrick Level1 assessment (―K1‖). This information was collected via site visits, interviews, trainingobservations, and surveys. Additionally, the research team collected and analyzed reaction dataacross the Services, along with Kirkpatrick Level 2 assessment(―K2‖) data (e.g. learningoutcomes) from one location, to identify best practices, trends, and recommendations.During site visits, the research team looked for methods, processes, and techniques that haveconsistently shown results superior to those achieved by other means. Moreover, evidence ofbest practices was provided through several different perspectives, those of learners, leaders, andtrainers. We present these best practices in two tables, the first focusing on methods provided forculture and language instruction, and the second comparing best overall practices by service,each with respective implications and recommendations. Between these tables, we also presentcurrent and upcoming trends for pre-deployment culture and survival language training. Instructional MethodsThe research team observed several different instructional methods (see Table 11, includinglecture, role-play and other practical exercises, immersion, and online courses, all of which maybe used to effectively accomplish culture or language learning objectives. When supported by aqualified instructor (i.e., steeped in the subject, trained to facilitate learning and providefeedback, and a good listener), the training audience seemed to gain from such an experience. Infact, the data suggested that the most highly related reactions were to the quality of culturetraining and the quality of language training received. That is, trainees who rated the quality ofculture training more highly tended to rate the quality of language training more highly as well,which speaks to a common theme across instructional methods.Chapter 7: Implications & Recommendations 66 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 77. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527 Table 11. Application of Instructional Method Application Instructional Checks on Learning Method Application and Goal Culture Language Instructor-Led Instructor is the sole disseminator of Instruction is chunked to level x x information. The instructor presents of learning within audience. information to the student systematically in this method. Limited reinforcement through student questions and Small group dialogue is supported by summaries of the materials. probes or questions to check on learning. An objective test to verify what was learned. Example: An instructor provides the students with a series of slides Goal is knowledge acquisition depicting life in Afghanistan. and comprehension. Lecture Content is delivered by a lecturer, who Limited reinforcement x becomes the sole disseminator of because training audience is information. required to listen. Few checks on learning. Normal A learner reaction survey evaluation is about the lecture, not the about the value of the learner. information or quality of Example: An authority provides a instruction. primer on the five pillars of Islam. Goal is knowledge acquisition and comprehension. Demonstration Students observe a procedure, Learning is reinforced x technique or event and are shown how through interaction with the to perform a task. instructor. A learner reaction survey Example: A video or online about the relevance or presentation of a Key Leader usability of the information. Engagement Goal is comprehension. Practical Role- Students or groups of students are Learning is reinforced x x Play Exercises given a problem and supporting through interaction, materials. Students assume roles participation and peer where they apply tacit and declarative learning. knowledge to solve problems. Students participate in activities A critique or after action guided by instructors that lead to a review (AAR). Goal is solution. application and analysis. Example: Students are presented with a situation involving tactical questioning and are asked to select a course of action. They are asked to present their solution to the class.Chapter 7: Implications & Recommendations 67 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 78. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527 Application Instructional Checks on Learning Method Application and Goal Culture Language Immersion Students are integrated into a context Learning is reinforced x where they assume roles that require through a video replay and them to interact with a culture or feedback from the coach. context under realistic conditions. A self-critique or team AAR. Example: Students enter a mock village and participate in a simulated Goal is application of skills, ―jirga‖ of village elders, where they analysis of performance, and must interact and influence the integration of abilities to outcome. support realistic performance issues. Individual or Students repeatedly perform learned Learning is reinforced by the x x Team Practice actions or procedures under the coach who provides feedback. supervision of a coach or instructor. A critique or AAR. Example: Students practice pronouncing a phrase in Dari that is Goal is application of the skill part of the tactical language lesson. in a realistic scenario. Independent Students are motivated to learn. They Instruction is structured and x x Study determine content, pace and timing of sequenced to guide learner instruction. through subject. Example: Student uses an online Learning is reinforced by tests course, like Virtual Cultural that check on learning at the Awareness Trainer (VCAT) Horn of end of each block. Limited Africa, to prepare for deployment. contact with a live instructor. Goal is comprehension, analysis and synthesis of information.Culture Knowledge. The available information that can be accessed on culture, politics andreligion is vast. There is also the challenge of making individuals aware of the resources thatapply to their requirements. That is, the information that Warfighters seek may be embedded ina stream of information that is provided through classroom and online sources.The survey in the Phase II sample revealed that students are satisfied with the culture trainingreceived. They believe the best aspects of this training are learning the cultural norms andhaving access to native instructors during the training. There is still much progress to be made,and culture training, as well as culturally-based language training will have an increased role andbecome an enduring requirement across the services. One of the biggest criticalities may in factbe how the importance of such training is stressed across the Services. This need was reiteratedwhen our research team spoke with Dr. Thomas Connell, also known as ―Dr. Culture‖ (AppendixChapter 7: Implications & Recommendations 68 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 79. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527N). When asked about the most difficult thing to train or get across to the trainees, Dr. Connellsaid it would be that this knowledge is actually ―important‖ to know. People do not understandthe criticality of cultural knowledge. He pointed out that the Services themselves must recognizeand place emphasis on these areas in order for its members to grasp the importance of suchtraining.We are able to report that the Services are taking the importance of culture and survival languagepre-deployment training seriously. These areas are being addressed at meetings such as theCulture Summit V, which took place March 1st – 3rd, 2011 in Sierra Vista, Arizona. TheSummit brings together military leaders, scholars, academics, international businessrepresentatives, non-governmental organization representatives, subject matter experts, trainers,and educators to discuss practical methods for building cross-cultural competence in the U.S.Army as well as examine the areas of culture that are currently the most popular topics of debateand conversation. Distinguished guest speakers from the U.S. military, academic institutions,international businesses, non-governmental organizations, and several notable researchers andauthors have been invited to ensure that this event will benefit the entire culture education andtraining community and all those who attend.Language Knowledge. Across the services, our research team observed several approachesutilized to teach language, all of which fell under multiple instructional methods mentioned inTable 11. This research team observed that the majority of language training provided for allservices is offered through self-study electronic software packages such as Rosetta Stone, RapidRote, Language Pro, and Rapport to name a few. Hands on classroom based languageinstruction is provided across each branch, although the number of hours dedicated to suchinstruction normally cannot offer proficiency even at the lowest levels (for instance, theinstruction at Ft. Carson expects students to reach a 0+ or 1 proficiency level after 16 weeks oflanguage training). For general purpose forces, instructors are given a limited amount of time toteach language, and therefore priority resides in understanding basic vocabulary, andpronunciation. Here, the rationale is if servicemen and women can properly pronounce the givenwords and phrases, they will be able to manage themselves in theater by reading aloud theirlanguage handbooks to locals.Given this, supplemental instruction that can be delivered at a pace tailored to each individualand that is available at all times should be the preferred technique for language instructions.Having said this, the Army and Marine Corps have begun efforts to bolster classroom basedlanguage training (Headquarters Department of the Army, January, 2011; U.S. Department of theNavy, April, 2009). For instance, upcoming revisions to the Army Culture and ForeignLanguage Strategy (ACFLS) has plans for Soldiers to rely primarily on the Defense LanguageInstitute Foreign Language Center (DLIFLC)s distributive learning products for languagemaintenance and improving proficiency. Additionally, the Army plans to incentivize Soldiers,both monetarily and non-monetarily, for demonstrated proficiency in select foreign languages.Chapter 7: Implications & Recommendations 69 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 80. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527At specialized courses such as the one mentioned at Ft. Carson, our research team observed atechnique whereby the native language instructor was supported by an assistant instructor, whoexplained the parallel English grammar rule. This additional resource established the relevanttactical context, enabled more contact with the instructor, and often clarified grammatical issuesquickly. In fact, it was the opinion of the students that the effectiveness of survival languagetraining improved when the instruction was preceded by a review of English grammar. Thisreview of grammatical rules allowed the learners to frame the instruction, providing essentialscaffolding for acquiring the newer knowledge, as well as setting conditions for acceleratedlearning.Setting these conditions for learning a new language cannot be undervalued. DLIFIC suggeststhat cross cultural competence implications are directly tied to language training, which is whythey use language as a vehicle to teach culture (Appendix O). They provided our research teamwith anecdotal evidence that military personnel who know a foreign language will be in a betterposition to gain a deeper understanding of a culture once deployed simply because they will becommunicating directly with people in the foreign culture. In the course of building rapport andrelationships, these individuals will be able to absorb many more cultural nuances than thosewho must rely on interpreters. Additionally, DLIFLC promoted that personnel who canunderstand the language have greater situational awareness, and thus are more effective, becausethey are able to make use of all of the communications cues that are provided in the operationalenvironment.Last, while not directly associated with language training, several questions surroundinginterpreters continued to be raised during interviews at each site visit. ―How do I pick a goodinterpreter?‖ ―How do I know my interpreter is translating the message just as I‘m saying it?‖Through observation and materials collected, only the Marine Corps Key Leader Engagement(KLE) training and the Air Force Air Advisor Course adequately discussed and answered thesetypes of questions. Both courses had slides and knowledgeable instructors that dedicated time tothis specific topic, discussing areas ranging from categorization (class I, II, and III interpreters),and assessing interpreter abilities, to structuring conversation, and how to use your interpreter asa cultural guide. While the proper use of interpreters may not have been an essential feature ofinstruction in more basic courses, it was an issue repeated raised throughout Phase II and shouldreceive attention in future programs. TrendsThe Services are adopting new policies for creating and sustaining regional expertise throughcontinued learning and professional development programs. These initiatives have put in placerequirements that affect how individuals acquire knowledge, skills, and abilities for culture.These shifts are reflected in the Strategic Plan for Next Generation Training for the DoD (Officeof the Under Secretary of Defense Personnel and Readiness, 2010), as well as in ServiceChapter 7: Implications & Recommendations 70 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 81. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527guidelines for culture and language training. These new directions reinforce the requirementsand impose structure. Because of the renewed emphasis on the development of 3C, theknowledge, skills, and abilities comprising 3C are also included in the standards for readiness.Mobile Training Teams (MTTs). Each of the Services included MTTs in its pre-deploymenttraining strategy. In the absence of rigorous evaluations or performance standards, MTTsoffered a standard, Service-approved training package, which was created in response toperformance requirements. The research team observed Marine and Army pre-deploymenttraining MTTs that were supported by the DLIFLC. The MTTs offered structured trainingprograms that were essential to achieving individual language proficiency along with someunderstanding of the cultural context.Skill Decay. As in most knowledge domains, language skills and culture knowledge decay overtime if they are not practiced or used. There was a significant gap between culture knowledgetraining and unit deployment. This is likely due to the current force generation processes and theavailability of resources, primarily time, as deployment approaches. We found that most pre-deployment culture and survival language training is occurring five to seven months beforedeployment. This means that most of this knowledge and many of the skills would likely havedecayed over time. Culture and language training need to occur closer to deployment.Alternatively, members might receive a refresher course closer to deployment, or be reissuedculture and language materials (or access to such materials) closer to their deployment date.Perspective-Taking. There is greater recognition within the Services of the importance foreffective interactions between local civilian leaders and junior tactical leaders. The goal of muchof the pre-deployment culture training is to enable the Warfighter to use perspective-taking togain the trust, respect, and support of the local population by leveraging knowledge of cultureand language. Perspective-taking is acquired by using culture knowledge and language skills tomake sense of and manage complex situations and can contribute to mission success. This typeof perspective-taking often enables a cognitive shift in one‘s approach to other cultures,considered by some researchers to be a prerequisite to learning about another culture (Hammer etal., 2003).Current pre-deployment training for culture knowledge does not allocate sufficient training timeto this type of experience for small unit members. Though we did not survey all pre-deploymenttraining events where KLE is practiced, we believe that deliberate practice and training shouldtake place later in the training cycle and involve a smaller training audience. The required skilland knowledge could be developed using deliberate practice, coaching, and case study methods.For instance, all Marines are required to participate in Combat Hunter training, which primesindividuals to observe and report on culture in context. Leveraging similar training or processesacross the services would be a value added multiplier for one‘s perspective taking skills.Chapter 7: Implications & Recommendations 71 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 82. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527 Best PracticesTable 12 lists best practices across the services. We have defined best practices as thosemethods, processes, and techniques that have consistently shown results superior to thoseachieved by other means. The best practices listed have either been observed through site visitsand analysis, or are those which we deem are needed for all services. Each best practice is ratedacross the services, with accompanying descriptions, implications, and recommendations.Following Table 12, a brief section is dedicated to each best practice, offering further insight intowhat issues should be addressed and how the services are attempting to meet these needs throughtheir individual training requirements.Chapter 7: Implications & Recommendations 72 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 83. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527 Table 12. Best Practices Across the Four Services Best Practices Across the Four Services Best Practice Service Rating Description Implication Recommendation Assessment / Army Med All Services utilize instructor Without assessment measures Embed knowledge checks within Measurement rating forms, and course beyond reaction level data, the classroom instruction and distance learning Navy Low satisfaction surveys, but few Services are not able to: (a) tools. Establish cutoff scores to certify a Marine Med actually test whether learning has ascertain if a student‘s knowledge student‘s course completion, rather than occurred during or after training. increased as a result of training, and simply ―checking the box.‖ Air Force Low (b) evaluate their training program. Peer Learning Army Med Hearing the importance of a certain Certain service members may have Set up sponsors, mentoring programs, or training curriculum or topic from a low motivation as they doubt the other processes (e.g. ―Tips to Air Navy Unk fellow service member in your unit necessity and application of Advisors‖) to share knowledge with those Marine Med can act as an impetus to stimulate training, and therefore may not be less experienced members who share learning in that content area. learning the material. similar missions and skill sets. Air Force Hi Training Army Med The handbooks, smart cards, Beyond information relevant to a Most of content is high quality and Materials/Content Navy High regional packets, PowerPoint specific Service, most content can available online or by request. Limit presentations produced by all of be shared across services to reduce classroom content to areas requiring direct Marine High the Services are valuable training redundant material. interaction bookended by generalized Air Force High resources. content accessible via distance learning.Culture & Language Army High Service culture websites should act This evidence alone indicates that Promote Service culture websites, make Websites Navy Low as a resource and repository for all the Service culture websites are classroom materials available online, culture and language needs. Most either not well known to the service enhance search functions, and consolidate Marine High utilize ―Google‖ for culture members, that they do not possess tools via JKO or similar site. Use the information rather than first seek the information members seek, or CAOCL website as an exemplar, followed Air Force Med their Service culture website. that they are not easily navigable. by the TRADOC Culture Center site. Instructional Method Army Med Using these techniques promotes Limiting the variability in Promote increased interaction between(role play, immersion, Navy Unk greater engagement and enhances instructional methods will prevent instructor and student across all programs. cultural meals, knowledge retention in the certain students from optimally Recommend greater efforts to integrate Marine Highfacilitated discussion) classroom through participation learning the material and create culture within language lessons, and vice Air Force High and experiential learning. disinterest in others. versa. Investigate immersive training solutions that can engage most learners through fixed site or on-line delivery. Chapter 7: Implications & Recommendations 73 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 84. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527Assessment. There was little meaningful assessment of the learning process or learning outcomesbeing conducted in the training we observed. The current methods of assessment do not appearto provide much input to the training developer, nor do they account for what is valued in theoperational settings where the knowledge, skills, and abilities are used. End-of-course critiquesare often limited to learner reactions that do not measure or inform the assessment of readiness,although they can provide some valuable insights, as the K1 reaction data showed. However, thedevelopment of formative and summative evaluation tools (i.e., K2 assessment) would betterindicate whether learning objectives are accomplished and how much learning is taking place.These measures would also aid in the development of instructional content and assessment ofinstructional methods. Alternative assessment strategies would include understanding what thelearners can do with what they know.Situational judgment tests might be appropriate for practice, immersive, and role-play trainingsolutions, where there is high degree of participation and the learning context is challenging andrich in detail. Given the available materials, it would not take much effort to add these types ofmeasures to the course curriculum. Data could then be analyzed and training performanceevaluated. Tailored feedback could be provided, not only to the students to aid in learning andmotivation, but to the course content developers and instructors as well, in order to guide andinform future training efforts. Such a step would have significant impact, ensuring that thelimited amount of time allotted to training would be used more efficiently, by focusing on thefacets of training that result in measurable learning outcomes. Assessment would not only be asource of feedback, but would be used to define trends and identify gaps.Such was the case in the assessment of learning outcomes at Fort Carson, as part of a pre-deployment survival language course (see Chapter 6 for more details). Here, in-depth statisticalanalyses evaluated the unique contributions of the various predictors (e.g., demographics, ArmedServices Vocational Aptitude Battery) in determining the learning outcomes. The results, takenas a whole, suggest that prior language experience and general cognitive ability are the bestpredictors of learning a new language, with prior language experience being the strongest overallpredictor of learning. Results such as these enable the Army improve future training efforts (e.g.,identify who should be selected for training, who should lead others, and how training may betailored to an audience).Currently, the Army and Marines incorporate some of their training with performance checks onlearning, though the practice and utilization of results is in need of improvement. The Marineshave plans to address improvements in assessment during their next meeting on their culturetraining and requirements manual, 18-22 April 2011. The Army also has listed specific stepstowards these ends in their latest AFCLS supplement (Headquarters Department of the Army,January, 2011), where they state that plans are set to oversee the standardization, testing,research and development, and evaluation of culturally-based language training, education andrelated services army-wide. Additionally, they address that pre- and post-deployment surveysChapter 7: Implications & Recommendations 74 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 85. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527and analyses shall be conducted to determine cultural knowledge and foreign languageproficiency gaps. While we are unaware of the intentions of the Air Force or Navy to createperformance assessments, we applaud the Marines and Army for taking action on what thisresearch team considers the most important need of all.Peer Learning. Sharing knowledge, both within and across the services is yet another bestpractice that must be addressed. As we discovered in our Phase II survey, those higher rankedand with deployment experience place greater value and have higher expectations to transferculture and language knowledge than those lower in rank and with no deployment experience.Additionally, those who had been previously deployed were also more likely to see the value intransferring what they learned in culture training to the field. It may be that those who have beenpreviously deployed realize the value of using what they learn in training and applying it intheater, whereas those who have never experienced deployment do not have any idea how muchthey will need to apply what was learned.Within the services, an important training implication that may be worthwhile to consider wouldbe to engage those who have been deployed to share their experiences with those who have notyet deployed. This could be accomplished via class discussion, or alternatively through a formalmentoring program, whereby more experienced Service members would be assigned a protégée.Mentoring programs have been highly successful in other areas and an advantage of theseprograms is that they can also take place online in addition to face-to-face interactions. We havelearned that the Army has plans to develop methodology and processes to track culture andculturally-based language training (Headquarters Department of the Army, January, 2011).Tracking individuals‘ culture training will allow trainers and instructors to identify the mostsuitable Soldiers who have culture training experience to act as potential mentors. Across theservices, there is a general need to share knowledge in the form of processes, methods,techniques, and where applicable, materials. Such actions can aid in reducing stovepipesbetween the services and may prevent redundant products from being produced.Training Material. While instructional style varies in terms of quality, the culture and languagecontent provided to all service members is of sound quality. The most important elementsconcerning the training material have now become relevance (i.e. that material reflects up-to-dateknowledge from theater) and access (i.e. making materials are available online). Severalmethods were used across the services to ensure training content was relevant with the currentfight. The Air Force regularly communicates with deployed Airmen to keep abreast of anychanges, and each service debriefs with service members when they return from theater. Othermeasures being taken to keep pace with the latest culture and language information areconsortiums and conferences on culture like the Culture Summit V mentioned earlier. Similarly,the Army also conducts a cultural knowledge consortium (CKC) to support culture and languageinstruction in all professional military education (PME) institutions and combat training centers.The CKC will provide relevant socio-cultural information derived from operations in allgeographic theaters. Rather than relying on outdated or generic information, instructors at PMEChapter 7: Implications & Recommendations 75 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 86. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527institutions, pre-deployment training centers, and home stations should acquire and use the latestinformation available, enhancing the relevance, credibility, and effectiveness of culture andlanguage education and training.Culture and Language websites. The Services have created and operate knowledge portals thatsupport pre-deployment knowledge requirements. There have been significant investments inonline knowledge management portals, which reflect adult learning models implemented inindustry and academia. However, a large proportion of respondents (37%) perform generalInternet searches ―Google it‖, when seeking additional cultural information, rather than goingfirst to their service‘s culture website (i.e. Center for Advanced Operational Culture Learning,U.S. Training and Doctrine Command, Center for Language Regional Expertise and Culture, AirForce Culture language Center). This evidence alone indicates that the service culture websitesare either not well known to the service members, that they do not possess the informationmembers seek, or that they are not easily navigable.Despite the traffic these websites receive, the quality and quantity of culture and languageresources available through the Service portals continue to grow. This is a trend that isconsistent within the private sector. The challenges for leveraging the online content moreeffectively are significant. The development of relevant, usable content that extends beyondPowerPoint presentations and course outlines is necessary. As noted previously, the Center forAdvanced Operational Culture Learning (CAOCL) website seems to be the most mature incomparison to the sites maintained by each of the other Services. Therefore, the CAOCLwebsite can be used as an exemplar for the other Services. For a full review of each culturewebsite, please refer to the Phase I report (Cognitive Performance Group, 2010).Once shared content is available, processes for maintaining and accessing materials through theportals are necessary. Course materials must be linked to learning management systems so thattraining can be certified and qualifications verified for online students. The payoff would bemulti-faceted, to include cost savings, more efficient delivery of content, and focused learningthat minimizes redundant or unnecessary training. The reaction data confirmed this; whenstudents were asked which part of training should be eliminated, over one-third of therespondents in Phase II believe that the redundancy of topics should be removed from thecourses. These needs are imminent considering the majority of the general purpose force willreceive cultural education, augmented by culturally-based language training delivered viadistributed learning (Headquarters Department of the Army, January, 2011).Within the Services, Commanders are generally greater proponents of online training than ofclassroom-based training, because classroom training takes time away from their schedules.While the value of face-to-face classroom training should not be understated, much of what istaught could be provided in an online setting. In fact, materials used in classrooms are regularlyfound in that particular Services culture center website either directly available for download(Army and Marine Corps) or via request (Navy and Air Force).Chapter 7: Implications & Recommendations 76 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 87. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527Instructional method / teaching style. This best practice has been discussed in detail in Table 11.The essential point being varied instructional styles aid in creating a more engaging classroomatmosphere. Depending upon the setting as well, instructors may be encouraged to utilize wordgames, class jeopardy, or student of the week programs to motivate students through healthycompetition. We also present a cautionary note for language instructors. It is important for eachinstructor to have a comprehension and aptitude in English grammar, language, andcustoms/culture in order to make learning Dari or Pashtun and Afghan culture maximallyeffective. Perhaps further investigation into instructor certification could be warranted in orderto ensure teachers are fully competent in areas mentioned that go beyond fluency in the givenlanguage. An alternative to potentially altering instructor certification qualifications may be tohave two instructors per classroom; for example, one Afghan native and one American fluent inthe Afghan language to ensure questions on grammar and use of analogies are made clear. ConclusionAside from assessment each Service has specific areas that call out for improvement.  The Army needs to improve its knowledge exchange / feedback, training content, and instructional methods (However, plans have been prepared for the new Army Culture and Foreign language Strategy (ACFLS) to address each of these areas, especially assessment).  The Navy needs to improve their knowledge exchange / feedback, culture website, and instructional methods.  The Marines need to improve knowledge exchange / feedback among their members.  The Air Force needs to improve their culture website.Pre-deployment culture and language training is a Title X Service responsibility. Results fromthis research project inform us that: a pre-deployment training baseline has been establishedbased on Service documents and assessment of training solutions, that each Service has providedguidance and resources to accomplish culture and language pre-deployment training, and thatservice members are generally satisfied with the training and materials received.In sum, we recommend the following actions:  Identify and share best practices in culture knowledge training among the Services.  Offer a refresher course on culture and language training closer to deployment, or be reissued culture and language materials (or access to such materials) closer to their deployment date to prevent skill decay.  Determine how to transition the culture knowledge and language training to meet new mission requirements or expanded regions.Chapter 7: Implications & Recommendations 77 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 88. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527  Support Service initiatives for career-long development of culture knowledge through policy and programs.  Determine whether these recommendations and best practices are pushed by the Department of Defense or pulled by the individual Services.Chapter 7: Implications & Recommendations 78 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 89. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527 REFERENCESAbbe, A., Gulick, L. M. V, & Herman, J. L. (2007). Cross-cultural competence in Army leaders: A conceptual and empirical foundation (U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, Study Report 2008-1). Arlington, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.Cognitive Performance Group. (2010). Culture knowledge and survival language skill pre- deployment training project: Stage 1 (Technical Report prepared for the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute under JHT TDL 129 Contract #N00178-05-D-4527) Orlando, FL: Author.Hammer, M. R., Bennett, M. J., & Wiseman, R. (2003). Measuring intercultural sensitivity: The intercultural development inventory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27, 421-443.Headquarters Department of the Army. (2011, January). Army culture and foreign language strategy [All Army Activities 014/2011, Executive Order No. 070-11]. Washington, DC: Pentagon Telecommunications Center.Kirkpatrick D. L. (1959). Techniques for evaluating training programs. Journal of American Society of Training Directors, 13 (3), 21-26.Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1975). Techniques for evaluating training programs (pp. 1-17). Alexandria, VA: ASTD.Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1994). Evaluating training programs. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.Mullen, M. G. (2009). Capstone concept for joint operations (Version 3.0). Washington DC: United States Department of Defense.Office of the Under Secretary of Defense Personnel and Readiness. (2010). Strategic plan for the next generation of training for the department of defense. Washington, DC: United States Department of Defense.Salmoni, S.A. & Holmes-Eber, P. (2008). Operational culture for the warfighter: Principles and Applications. Quantico, VA: United States Marine Corps University Press.Schmidt, F., & Hunter, J. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124(2), 262-274.Chapter 7: Implications & Recommendations 79 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 90. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527Triandis, H. C. (1996). The psychological measurement of cultural syndromes. American Psychologist, 51, 407-415.U.S. Africa Command. (2011). NECC leads the way in language and culture awareness training. Retrieved January 12, 2011, from http://www.africom.mil/getArticle.asp? art=5844.U.S. Forces Command. (2010, December). Predeployment Training Guidance in Support of Combatant Commands. (DTG: 012142ZDEC10).U.S. Army Service Forces & Special Service Division. (1943). A short guide to Iraq. Washington, D.C.: War and Navy Departments.U.S. Department of Defense. (2010, February). Quadrennial Defense Review Report. Retrieved from http://www.defense.gov/qdr/QDR%20as%20of%2026JAN10%200700.pdfU.S. Department of the Army. (2009, December). Army culture and foreign language strategy. Washington D.C.: Headquarters Department of the Army.U.S. Department of the Navy. (2010, April). Marine Corps Order 3502.6: Marine Corps Generation Process. Retrieved from http://www.usmc.mil/news/publications/ Documents/MCO%203502_6.PDFU.S. Department of the Navy. (2009, April). Operational culture and language training and readiness manual. Washington, DC: Headquarters United States Marine Corps.U.S. Department of the Navy. (2007, October). A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower. Retrieved from http://www.navy.mil/maritime/Maritimestrategy.pdfU.S. Department of the Navy (2007, January). Universal Naval Task List. Version 3.0. Retrieved from https://knxas1.hsdl.org/?view&doc=86343&coll=limitedU.S. Department of the Navy (n.d.). Marine Corps: Vision & Strategy 2025. Retrieved from http://www.usmc-mccs.org/aboutmccs/downloads/Strategy%202025%20- %20FINAL.pdfU.S. Peace Corps. (1997). Culture matters: The peace-corps cross-cultural handbook/workbook (Peace Corps Information Collection and Exchange T0087). Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Chapter 7: Implications & Recommendations 80 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 91. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527 APPENDIX A: ACRONYMSCopyright © 2011 CPG A-1 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 92. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527 Acronym/Term Definition 3C Cross-Cultural Competence AAR After-Action Reviews ACFLS Army Culture and Foreign Language Strategy AETC Air Education and Training Command AFB Air Force Base AFCLC Air Force Culture and Language Center AKO Army Knowledge Online ANOVA Analysis of Variance ARFORGEN Army Force Generation ARNG Army National Guard ASVAB Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery CACOM Civil Affairs Command CAOCL Center for Advanced Operational Cultural Learning CBT Computer-Based Training CD Compact Disc CENTCOM Central Command CITF Criminal Investigation Task Force CKC Cultural Knowledge Consortium CLREC Center for Language, Regional Expertise and Culture CLC Culture and Language Center CNO Chief of Naval Operations COCOM Combatant Commander COIN Counterinsurgency CPG Cognitive Performance Group CRL Culture, Religion, and Language DEOMI Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute DIA Defense Intelligence Agency DLI Defense Language Institute DLIFLC Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center DOD Department of Defense FORSCOM Forces Command GPF General Purpose Forces JFCOM Joint Forces Command K1 Kirkpatrick Level 1 Assessment K2 Kirkpatrick Level 2 Assessment K3 Kirkpatrick Level 3 Assessment KLE Key Leader Engagement LREC Language, Regional Expertise and Culture LTD Language Training DetachmentsCopyright © 2011 CPG A-2 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 93. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527 Acronym/Term Definition MARSOC Marine Special Operations Command MCIA Marine Corps Intelligence Agency MCCLL Marine Corps Center for Lessons Learned MEF Marine Expeditionary Force MOS Military Occupational Specialty MTT Mobile Training Team NAVAIR Naval Air Systems Command NAWCTSD Naval Air Warfare Center Training System Division NCO Non-Commissioned Officer NECC Naval Expeditionary Command Center OCAT Operational Culture Awareness Training OEF Operation Enduring Freedom OIF Operation Iraqi Freedom OJT On-the-job Training OPI Oral Proficiency Interview OPNAVINST Chief of Naval Operations Instructions PDF Portable Document Format PEO STRI Program Executive Office for Simulation, Training, and Instrumentation PME Professional Military Education QDR Quadrennial Defense Review RCLF Regional, Culture, and Language Familiarization SME Subject Matter Expert SOUTHCOM Southern Command SPSS Statistical Package for the Social Sciences SSG Staff Sergeant T&R Training and Requirements TECOM Training and Education Command TRADOC Training and Doctrine Command TT Transformational Training USA United States Army USAF United States Air Force USCG COMDINST United States Coast Guard Commandant Instruction USMC United States Marine Corps USN United States Navy UTL Universal Task List VCAT Virtual Cultural Awareness TrainerCopyright © 2011 CPG A-3 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 94. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527 APPENDIX B: INDEX OF RESOURCES REVIEWEDCopyright © 2011 CPG B-1 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 95. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527The following is a list of every resource reviewed and analyzed by the Research Team in PhaseII. Since the Research Team reviewed 156 documents in Phase I and dozens more in Phase II, itis not practical to include them all in the appendices. Instead, The Research Team has providedthis index. In the electronic version of the deliverable, the team also provided several interactivedvd‘s that when compiled, offer a singular database for culture and language materials offeredacross the Services. (Note: the electronic index also includes the acronyms list in a separateworksheet, for convenience, since many titles have acronyms.)For each resource reviewed, the following information is provided:  Organization – The organization or branch of the Service that supplied the document to the Research Team.  Site – Where or how materials were received.  Material – the title or name of the training resource.  Document Type – Whether the document is a journal article, technical report, project deliverable, field guide, class, lesson plan, or other type of training document.  Summary – A brief description of the document‘s purpose or contents.Copyright © 2011 CPG B-2 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 96. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527 Culture Materials Phase II Document Organization Site Material Summary Type Operational Culture for Alexandria, VA Outlines general operational culture information principles and how Marines the Warfighter: Principles Book (CAOCL) to apply them in the field. and Applications Applications and Alexandria, VA Operational Culture: Provides perspectives regarding operational culture and how it is Marines Book (CAOCL) Perspectives from the applied in the field. Field Alexandria, VA Appendix B: Culture Culture Operator Questions for each of the Five Operational Culture Marines PDF (CAOCL) Operators Questions Dimensions. Contains cultural questions regarding OIF and Operational Culture, Alexandria, VA CAOCL: OIF Tests assumptions and history in the middle east, religion and OIF, Kin Marines PDF (CAOCL) Chapters 2-9 Networks, gender and age, relationships and communication, operational culture and OIF, and culture shock Alexandria, VA Tactical Afghan Dari Marines PDF Correct Answers to the Tactical Afghan Dari Final Exam. (CAOCL) Final Exam Alexandria, VA Completed Instructional Marines Paper Handout Copies of students rating forms for their instructors. (CAOCL) Rating Forms ―Operational Culture for Deploying Personnel‖ prepares Marines to deploy to Afghanistan. After introducing the study of culture and understanding culture shock, Part 1 introduces the various ethnic CAOCL-USMC tribes, followed by Part II, which introduces Islam. Part III follows, Marines Cherry Point, NC Booklet Afghanistan booklet: whereby social values are explained. Part IV follows, where trainees learn to work with Afghan civilians. Part V explains the Holy War and the insurgent culture are explained. Finally, Part VI covers working with the ANA.Copyright © 2011 CPG B-3 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 97. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527 Culture Materials Phase II Document Organization Site Material Summary Type Includes course materials on KLE, covering topics such as "Communicate through an Interpreter"; "Communicate Non- Verbally";" Interact with a Foreign Population"; "Use Tactical Marines Cherry Point, NC KLE Afghanistan CD Language". Also includes PowerPoint slides as well as a movie clip from ―The Beast.‖ Course Evaluation forms for students are also included for both Culture and Language. Provides basic grammar rules, pronunciation, and simple phrases in Dari Dictionary & Army Fort Carson, CO Book Dari (shopping, emergency, healthcare, etc.). Additionally, contains Phrasebook a Dari to English/ English to Dari dictionary. Dari Basic Course: Contains answers to practice activities in the student copy. Lessons Army Fort Carson, CO Introductory Lessons A-Z Textbook include topics such people, numbers, seasons, time, the home, and Teachers Copy, 2005 the family. Dari Basic Course: Contains lessons on vocabulary, culture, pronunciation, grammar, Introductory Lessons A- writing, listening activities, and scenarios in Dari. Lessons include Army Fort Carson, CO Textbook Z topics such people, numbers, seasons, time, the home, and the Student Copy, 2005 family. DLIFLC Dari Basic Contains lessons on vocabulary, grammar, writing, listening Army Fort Carson, CO Language Textbook activities, and scenarios in Dari. Lessons include topics such as Student Copy, 2010 greetings, family, daily life, afghan army, and medical procedures. Contains the entire Dari Alphabet and pronunciation of symbols. Army Fort Carson, CO Dari Alphabet Booklet Also contains practice for writing Dari script. Describes course description, expectations, and breakdown of Army Fort Carson, CO DLIFLC Course Syllabus Paper Handout grading. Also, includes a complete course schedule and topics to be covered throughout the 16 week course.Copyright © 2011 CPG B-4 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 98. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527 Culture Materials Phase II Document Organization Site Material Summary Type Actual mid-term test administered to students in this course. Questions include listening, vocabulary, culture, grammar, and DLI Dari Basic Course Army Fort Carson, CO Paper Handout sentence translation covered in Lessons 4-10. The topics covered Test B included: Personal belongings, In the Province, A Friendly Chat, A Medical Problem, and In the Afghan Army. Contains useful survival and tactical verbs in Dari. Each verb shows Army Fort Carson, CO Common Verbs Paper Handout the infinitive, stem, and past verb forms for simple conjugation. Actual quiz administered to students in this course. Questions DLI Dari Basic Course Army Fort Carson, CO Paper Handout include listening, vocabulary, culture, grammar, and matching Quiz #8 scenarios covered in ―A Medical Problem‖ lesson. Actual quiz administered to students in this course. Questions DLI Dari Basic Course Army Fort Carson, CO Paper Handout include listening, vocabulary, culture, grammar, and matching Quiz #7 scenarios covered in ―A Friendly Chat‖ lesson. Outlines assignments, quizzes, and activities for the holiday week of Army Fort Carson, CO Week 13 Course Schedule Paper Handout 22 November- 24 November. Provides and overview of all courses provided within the 4 week Air Force Fort Dix, NJ Air Advisor Course Book Textbook training, including information such as lesson title, course developer, method, objectives, sample behaviors, and references. Paper Provides airmen with the dates and locations of when and where Air Force Fort Dix, NJ Full Course Schedule Handout classes will be held. Iraq Culture Smart Card Provides airmen with the culture mindset of the region, vocabulary, Air Force Fort Dix, NJ Guide for Cultural Pamphlet greetings/phrases, landscape, religion, flags, ethnic group, dos and Awareness don‘ts, etc. Includes a copy of all course slides, language materials, additional Air Force Fort Dix, NJ Air Advisor Course: Iraq CD readings, tips from current Air Advisors, critical incidents, etc.Copyright © 2011 CPG B-5 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 99. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527 Culture Materials Phase II Document Organization Site Material Summary Type Air Advisor Course: Includes a copy of all course slides, language materials, additional Air Force Fort Dix, NJ CD Afghanistan readings, tips from current Air Advisors, critical incidents, etc. Prepares airmen to deploy to culturally complex environments. Part 1 introduces the foundational knowledge you need to effectively operate in any cross-cultural environment (culture general). Part 2 of the guide focuses on 12 domains (e.g. family and kinship, religion Expeditionary Airman Air Force Fort Dix, NJ Booklet and spirituality, sex and gender, political and social relations, Field Guide economics and resources, time and space, language and communication, history and myth, sustenance and health, learning and knowledge, aesthetics and recreation, political and social relations) describing the specific region. Provides key phrases (in Dari and English and with phonetic Dari Basic Language spellings) needed for basic communication such as commands, Air Force Fort Dix, NJ Booklet Survival Guide warnings, instructions, greetings, directions, locations, general military, numbers, emergency terms, etc. Provides key phrases (in Dari and English and with phonetic Dari Medical Language spellings) needed for basic communication in the medical field. Air Force Fort Dix, NJ Survival Guide Booklet Areas covered within the guide include, surgical consent, trauma, February 2005 procedures, pain and medicine interview, surgical instructions, exam commands, etc. This language training product includes extensive literature on Afghan culture as well as supplemental audio-enabled PowerPoints covering the culture of Islam. Training materials for basic spoken Urdu Language and conversational Urdu, along with reading lessons at the Navy Via Standard Mail Familiarization CD intermediate and advanced levels, are included in this training (Disk One and Two). product. Users can access the Urdu HeadStart component featured in this training product as a way to practice basic culture and language material.Copyright © 2011 CPG B-6 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 100. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527 Culture Materials Phase II Document Organization Site Material Summary Type This training product offers practice modules for both culture and language training. It also includes the Persian Dari HeadStart program and a supplemental Survival Kit that reinforce cultural Persian Dari Language Navy Via Standard Mail CD awareness training and language practice concepts. Lessons and Familiarization practice with Dari script, pronunciation, grammar, and vocabulary are provided. Glossaries and dictionaries are also included in this training product. This training product provides cultural familiarization information along with access to Pashto HeadStart. Textbooks, workbooks, Pashto Language Navy Via Standard Mail CD glossaries, and supplemental culture materials for basic and Familiarization intermediate learners are also included in portable document format (PDF). This training product provides cultural awareness training for CLREC Cultural Afghanistan and Pakistan. Audio files discuss cultural aspects such Awareness Training as Friday Prayer, Family Dinner, and Ramadan. Engaging Navy Via Standard Mail CD Product: Afghanistan- PowerPoint‘s with audio and sequenced graphics explain the culture Pakistan of Afghans and Pakistanis, and also the history and impact of the Taliban. This training product provides language lessons for Dari, Pashto, and CL-150: Dari-Pashto- Navy Via Standard Mail CD Urdu. It also enables users to access any three of the following Urdu programs: Language Pro, Rapid Rote, and Talker. This training product focuses exclusively on cultural information Navy Via Standard Mail Introduction to Islam CD about Islam and cultural etiquette through videos, audio files, and interactive PowerPoint presentations.Copyright © 2011 CPG B-7 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 101. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527 Culture Materials Phase II Document Organization Site Material Summary Type These training products offer both culture and language training in Dari and Pashto, respectively. This program is structured as an Tactical Dari: Language Navy Via Standard Mail CD interactive videogame that helps personnel to understand cultural & Culture cues and improve their vocabulary. While language and culture skills are addressed, writing skills are not. These training products offer both culture and language training in Dari and Pashto, respectively. This program is structured as an Tactical Pashto: Language Navy Via Standard Mail CD interactive videogame that helps personnel to understand cultural & Culture cues and improve their vocabulary. While language and culture skills are addressed, writing skills are not. This training product is a small pocket card, which outlines important cultural information about Afghanistan such as Do‘s and Navy Via Standard Mail Afghanistan Culture Card Pamphlet Don‘ts, Religion, Pashtuns, and Cultural Mindset. Basic vocabulary, operational vocabulary, greetings and phrases, and weapons vocabulary are also provided on the back. This training product is a pocket reference that features information Pakistan Regional Culture about culture, economy, history, and social etiquette. For language Navy Via Standard Mail Pamphlet Smart Card practice, there is a small section that provides helpful phrases in Pashto, located on the back. Joint Forces Fort Belvoir Course Syllabus Paper Handout Hours provided for each subject and Instructors. Includes course materials on Cultural Awareness, covering such CITF Culture Training Joint Forces Fort Belvoir CD topics as Hezbollah, the Islamic Resurgence, Basic Islam, Arab PowerPoint naming conventions, Arab Media, and Arab Psyche.Copyright © 2011 CPG B-8 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 102. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527 Culture Materials Phase II Document Organization Site Material Summary Type Contains words and phrases that are appropriate for various Iraqi Public Affairs missions. The first page in each booklet provides a pronunciation DLI Monterey, CA Language Survival Guide Booklet guide for sounds that are not familiar in English. The rest of the July 2005 booklet presents each phrase in English, the phonetic spelling in English, and the phrase written in the foreign language. Contains words and phrases that are appropriate for various Iraqi Basic Language missions. The first page in each booklet provides a pronunciation DLI Monterey, CA Survival Guide Booklet guide for sounds that are not familiar in English. The rest of the July 2005 booklet presents each phrase in English, the phonetic spelling in English, and the phrase written in the foreign language. Contains words and phrases that are appropriate for various Iraqi Military Police missions. The first page in each booklet provides a pronunciation DLI Monterey, CA Language Survival Guide Booklet guide for sounds that are not familiar in English. The rest of the March 2005 booklet presents each phrase in English, the phonetic spelling in English, and the phrase written in the foreign language. Contains words and phrases that are appropriate for various Iraqi Medical Language missions. The first page in each booklet provides a pronunciation DLI Monterey, CA Survival Guide Booklet guide for sounds that are not familiar in English. The rest of the June 2005 booklet presents each phrase in English, the phonetic spelling in English, and the phrase written in the foreign language. Contains words and phrases that are appropriate for various Iraqi Civil Affairs missions. The first page in each booklet provides a pronunciation DLI Monterey, CA Language Survival Guide Booklet guide for sounds that are not familiar in English. The rest of the October 2005 booklet presents each phrase in English, the phonetic spelling in English, and the phrase written in the foreign language.Copyright © 2011 CPG B-9 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 103. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527 Culture Materials Phase II Document Organization Site Material Summary Type Contains words and phrases that are appropriate for various Air Crew Iraqi Language missions. The first page in each booklet provides a pronunciation DLI Monterey, CA Survival Guide Booklet guide for sounds that are not familiar in English. The rest of the December 2004 booklet presents each phrase in English, the phonetic spelling in English, and the phrase written in the foreign language. Contains words and phrases that are appropriate for various Iraqi Cordon & missions. The first page in each booklet provides a pronunciation Search/raid (Army) DLI Monterey, CA Booklet guide for sounds that are not familiar in English. The rest of the Language Survival Guide booklet presents each phrase in English, the phonetic spelling in March 2005 English, and the phrase written in the foreign language. Contains words and phrases that are appropriate for various Iraqi Weapons & missions. The first page in each booklet provides a pronunciation Ordnance Language DLI Monterey, CA Booklet guide for sounds that are not familiar in English. The rest of the Survival Guide booklet presents each phrase in English, the phonetic spelling in November 2005 English, and the phrase written in the foreign language. Contains words and phrases that are appropriate for various Iraqi Force Protection missions. The first page in each booklet provides a pronunciation DLI Monterey, CA Language Survival Guide Booklet guide for sounds that are not familiar in English. The rest of the August 2005 booklet presents each phrase in English, the phonetic spelling in English, and the phrase written in the foreign language. Contains words and phrases that are appropriate for various Iraqi Public Affairs missions. The first page in each booklet provides a pronunciation DLI Monterey, CA Language Survival Guide MP3 (CD) guide for sounds that are not familiar in English. The rest of the July 2005 booklet presents each phrase in English, the phonetic spelling in English, and the phrase written in the foreign language.Copyright © 2011 CPG B-10 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 104. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527 Culture Materials Phase II Document Organization Site Material Summary Type This CD presents audio files of speakers saying key phrases in Iraqi Civil Affairs English, followed by native speakers saying the phrases in the DLI Monterey, CA Language Survival Guide MP3 (CD) foreign language. This is a supplement to the small booklets listed October 2005 above. This CD presents audio files of speakers saying key phrases in Iraqi Basic Language English, followed by native speakers saying the phrases in the DLI Monterey, CA Survival Guide MP3 (CD) foreign language. This is a supplement to the small booklets listed July 2005 above. This CD presents audio files of speakers saying key phrases in Iraqi Medical Language English, followed by native speakers saying the phrases in the DLI Monterey, CA Survival Guide MP3 (CD) foreign language. This is a supplement to the small booklets listed June 2005 above. This CD presents audio files of speakers saying key phrases in Air Crew Iraqi Language English, followed by native speakers saying the phrases in the DLI Monterey, CA Survival Guide MP3 (CD) foreign language. This is a supplement to the small booklets listed December 2004 above. This CD presents audio files of speakers saying key phrases in Iraqi Military Police English, followed by native speakers saying the phrases in the DLI Monterey, CA Language Survival Guide MP3 (CD) foreign language. This is a supplement to the small booklets listed March 2005 above. Iraqi Weapons & This CD presents audio files of speakers saying key phrases in Ordnance Language English, followed by native speakers saying the phrases in the DLI Monterey, CA MP3 (CD) Survival Guide foreign language. This is a supplement to the small booklets listed November 2005 above.Copyright © 2011 CPG B-11 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 105. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527 Culture Materials Phase II Document Organization Site Material Summary Type This CD presents audio files of speakers saying key phrases in Iraqi Force Protection English, followed by native speakers saying the phrases in the DLI Monterey, CA Language Survival Guide MP3 (CD) foreign language. This is a supplement to the small booklets listed August 2005 above. Iraqi Cordon & This CD presents audio files of speakers saying key phrases in Search/raid (Army) English, followed by native speakers saying the phrases in the DLI Monterey, CA MP3 (CD) Language Survival Guide foreign language. This is a supplement to the small booklets listed March 2005 above. Iraqi Cordon & This CD presents audio files of speakers saying key phrases in Search/raid English, followed by native speakers saying the phrases in the DLI Monterey, CA (Marines)Language MP3 (CD) foreign language. This is a supplement to the small booklets listed Survival Guide above. March 2005 Consists ten modules, each including two Sound and Script and five Military Tasks. Sound and Script teaches the basics of the target language script. Each Military Task focuses on fifteen language drills based on a given topic or theme, such as greetings and introductions, or gathering intelligence. HeadStart also features over Urdu HeadStart 2 Version DLI Monterey, CA DVD 100 PDFs with writing drills that provide the user with the 1.0 opportunity to practice writing the target script. Other features include a writing tool, a sound recorder, a glossary, and cultural resources section. Headstart exposes users to 750 key terms and phrases, and provides them with important communication tools they need in preparation for deployment.Copyright © 2011 CPG B-12 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 106. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527 Culture Materials Phase II Document Organization Site Material Summary Type Consists ten modules, each including two Sound and Script and five Military Tasks. Sound and Script teaches the basics of the target language script. Each Military Task focuses on fifteen language drills based on a given topic or theme, such as greetings and introductions, or gathering intelligence. HeadStart also features over Chinese Headstart DLI Monterey, CA DVD 100 PDFs with writing drills that provide the user with the Version 1.0 opportunity to practice writing the target script. Other features include a writing tool, a sound recorder, a glossary, and cultural resources section. Headstart exposes users to 750 key terms and phrases, and provides them with important communication tools they need in preparation for deployment. PDF Directorate of Continuing Slides that outline strategies for effective continuing education DLI Monterey, CA (PowerPoint Education especially in regard to language and culture training. Slides) Language Training Map that shows all Language Training Detachments around the DLI Monterey, CA PDF Detachments world. Background: LTD Provides the current status of Language Training Detachments DLI Monterey, CA PDF Current Status within the U.S. Memorandum: Culture Memorandum outlining a request for general officer-level review and Language Pre- DLI Monterey, CA PDF and comments on the proposed EXORD for Culture and Language Deployment Training Pre-Deployment Training Standards. Standards PowerPoint presentation that provides information on evaluation DLIFLC/RA-Evaluation DLI Monterey, CA PDF services, site demographics, and current quiz scores of students in a Services LTD. AFPAK Hands DL Phase This PowerPoint provides an update of the program evaluation for DLI Monterey, CA PDF II: Status Update AFPAK Hands and the next anticipated steps. DLIFLC Presentation by PowerPoint presentation outlining current language and culture DLI Monterey, CA PDF Sandy Hughes training initiatives.Copyright © 2011 CPG B-13 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 107. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527 APPENDIX C: DATA COLLECTION DEMOGRAPHICS FORMCopyright © 2011 CPG C-1 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 108. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527Copyright © 2011 CPG C-2 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 109. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527 APPENDIX D: TRAINING SURVEY FORMCopyright © 2011 CPG D-1 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 110. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527 Pre-Deployment Culture and Survival Language TrainingThe purpose of this survey is to obtain your reactions to the pre-deployment culture and survivallanguage training you have just received. Please take a few minutes and complete these items.If you have questions about the meaning of the question, ask a facilitator.There are a few questions about you. There are 15 questions about culture training and 15questions about survival language training.Please circle the number that best describes your feeling about the question.Demographic questions:Current Rank: _______________________________Duty Position: _______________________________Where did you receive pre-deployment training? (e.g. Ft. Dix) ____________________When did you receive pre-deployment training? (e.g. July, 2010) ______________________How long did this training last? (e.g. 30 hours) _____________________________________*************************************************************************************These Questions Are about Pre-deployment Culture Training.Item Questions about Pre-deployment Culture No. Training. Response1.1 The culture pre-deployment training I Strongly Disagree Not Agree Strongly N/A Disagree Sure Agree received will help me perform on the job. 1 2 3 4 5 01.2 The timing of the culture pre-deployment Strongly Disagree Not Agree Strongly N/A Disagree Sure Agree training was at the right place in the train- 1 2 3 4 5 0 up for deployment. (i.e. should it have been given earlier or closer to your deployment date)1.2.1 Culture training should be provided earlier Strongly Disagree Not Agree Strongly N/A Disagree Sure Agree in the train up for deployment. 1 2 3 4 5 01.2.2 Culture training should be provided towards Strongly Disagree Not Agree Strongly N/A Disagree Sure Agree the end of the train up for deployment. 1 2 3 4 5 01.3 Job aids were provided to me after the Strongly Disagree Not Agree Strongly N/ACopyright © 2011 CPG D-2 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 111. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527Item Questions about Pre-deployment Culture No. Training. Response culture training that I could take as my own Disagree Sure Agree 1 2 3 4 5 0 to use.1.4 Portions of the culture pre-deployment Strongly Disagree Not Agree Strongly N/A Disagree Sure Agree training should be eliminated. 1 2 3 4 5 01.4.1 What portion should be eliminated? Please list:1.5 I understand cultural learning objectives for Strongly Disagree Not Agree Strongly N/A Disagree Sure Agree pre-deployment training. 1 2 3 4 5 01.5.1 Learning about another culture takes too Strongly Disagree Not Agree Strongly N/A Disagree Sure Agree much time. 1 2 3 4 5 01.6 What was the best aspect of culture training Please list: received at this site?1.7 What was the best culture training you Please list: received previously? Where?1.8 What type of culture pre-deployment Select 1: training was most useful to you?  classroom instruction  on-line or web instruction  live role players  exercises/training at home station  Combat Training Center or 29 Palms  None of the above1.9 Pre-deployment culture training was about Disagree Disagree Not Strongly Sure Agree Strongly Agree N/A the right length of time. 1 2 3 4 5 01.9.1 Pre-deployment culture training should be Strongly Disagree Not Agree Strongly N/A Disagree Sure Agree shorter. 1 2 3 4 5 01.9.2 Pre-deployment culture training should be Strongly Disagree Not Agree Strongly N/A Disagree Sure Agree longer. 1 2 3 4 5 01.10 How do you expect pre-deployment culture Select 1: training in CONUS compares to that  In theater culture training is better provided once you arrive in theater?  About the same  CONUS culture training is better  Not applicableCopyright © 2011 CPG D-3 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 112. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527Item Questions about Pre-deployment Culture No. Training. Response1.11 Culture pre-deployment training is a high Strongly Disagree Not Agree Strongly N/A Disagree Sure Agree priority in my unit. 1 2 3 4 5 01.12 I take the time to find out more about the Strongly Disagree Not Agree Strongly N/A Disagree Sure Agree culture in the area I will operate before I 1 2 3 4 5 0 deploy.1.13 When I have a question about culture, I Strongly Disagree Not Agree Strongly N/A Disagree Sure Agree know where to find the answer. 1 2 3 4 5 01.13. Where do you usually find answers about Please list:1 culture?1.13. The best source of information about a Please list:2 culture is:1.14 Overall, I am satisfied with the pre- Strongly Disagree Not Agree Strongly N/A Disagree Sure Agree deployment culture training I received. 1 2 3 4 5 01.15 I have visited my Service Culture Center Strongly Disagree Not Agree Strongly N/A Disagree Sure Agree website for cultural information I need. 1 2 3 4 5 0Copyright © 2011 CPG D-4 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 113. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527These questions are about Survival Language Pre-deployment Training.Item Items about Pre-deployment Survival No. Language Training. Response2.1 My survival language training was useful. Strongly Disagree Not Agree Strongly N/A Disagree Sure Agree 1 2 3 4 5 02.2 I understand survival language learning Strongly Disagree Not Agree Strongly N/A Disagree Sure Agree objectives for pre-deployment training. 1 2 3 4 5 02.3 I find language training aids like Rosetta Strongly Disagree Not Agree Strongly N/A Disagree Sure Agree Stone very useful. 1 2 3 4 5 02.3.1 I was provided language cards to help me Strongly Disagree Not Agree Strongly N/A Disagree Sure Agree with my language skills. 1 2 3 4 5 02.4 I plan to use language cards while in theater. Strongly Disagree Not Agree Strongly N/A Disagree Sure Agree 1 2 3 4 5 02.5 I will use my survival language skills Strongly Disagree Not Agree Strongly N/A Disagree Sure Agree training while deployed. 1 2 3 4 5 02.6 There is not enough time available for Strongly Disagree Not Agree Strongly N/A Disagree Sure Agree survival language training. 1 2 3 4 5 02.7 The survival language training easy to Strongly Disagree Not Agree Strongly N/A Disagree Sure Agree complete. 1 2 3 4 5 02.8 The best source of information about survival Please list: language training is:2.9 When I have a question about culture or Strongly Disagree Not Agree Strongly N/A Disagree Sure Agree language, I know where to find the answer. 1 2 3 4 5 02.10 What type of pre-deployment language Select 1: training was most useful to you?  Classroom instruction  On-line or web instruction  Live role players  Exercises/training at home station  Defense Language Institute materials  None of the above2.11 The best source of information about a Please list: survival language isCopyright © 2011 CPG D-5 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 114. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527Item Items about Pre-deployment Survival No. Language Training. Response2.12 Overall, I am satisfied with the pre- Strongly Disagree Not Agree Strongly N/A Disagree Sure Agree deployment survival language training I 1 2 3 4 5 0 received.2.13 I have visited my Service Culture Center Strongly Disagree Not Agree Strongly N/A Disagree Sure Agree website for information about survival 1 2 3 4 5 0 language skills training that I need.2.14 The survival language training focused on Strongly Disagree Not Agree Strongly N/A Disagree Sure Agree the missions I will most frequently perform. 1 2 3 4 5 02.14. The mission I will most frequently perform Please List:1 is:2.15 I expect to receive additional language Strongly Disagree Not Agree Strongly N/A Disagree Sure Agree training after I arrive in country. 1 2 3 4 5 0Thanks for completing this surveyCopyright © 2011 CPG D-6 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 115. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527 APPENDIX E: TRAINING ARCHITECTURE COLLECTION MATRIXCopyright © 2011 CPG E-1 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 116. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527Copyright © 2011 CPG E-2 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 117. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527 APPENDIX F: LEARNER COLLECTION GUIDECopyright © 2011 CPG F-1 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 118. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527DEOMIUnit MembersThe purpose of this section is to understand from the perspective of Unit Members at pre-deployment training sites and training centers what culture or survival language training isavailable and how the training affects their performance of mission essential tasks. Informationabout the training goals, training methods, and measurements used to inform performance shouldbe collected during the visit. When possible, the training should be observed. Collection Goals  Verify the requirements for culture and survival language pre-deployment training objectives are being met.  If culture and survival language pre- deployment training activities are unclassified, describe the type of training and whether training contributes to successful mission accomplishment.  Use the Collection Form to summarize the training goals and processes.  Assess whether the culture and survival language pre-deployment training is effective.Copyright © 2011 CPG F-2 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 119. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527 Interviews with Members of the Culture and Survival Language Pre- Deployment Training Audience _________________________________________________________ This section describes the interviews conducted with small unit members about cultural knowledge and survival language pre-deployment training. Of interest are soldiers, Marines, sailors, or airmen who recently received Culture and Survival Language Pre-Deployment training in order to learn their reaction to the culture training (K1, Kirkpatrick). The information will contribute to defining the baseline for the Culture and Survival Language Pre-Deployment training architecture from the training audience‘s perspective. I. Demographic Information DO: After a brief overview of the purpose of our visit, ask the participant to provide 5 demographic information. Review the information and ask clarifying questions as needed.MIN II. Overview (20 min) A. Overview: 5 SAY: We‘d like an overview, a general feel for the type culture or survival training you areMIN receiving and from your perspective whether the training is effective. B. Identification of Main Components of the Training:40 DO: Draw 5-6 circles on your note paper as the individual tells you about the major componentsMIN of the training. SAY:  Let‘s say each of these circles represents some aspect of culture or survival language as part of pre-deployment training you received. Which was the most difficult for you or your unit to accomplish?  Why did you consider this particular aspect of Culture and Survival Language Pre- Deployment training so challenging? How do you see you or your unit dealing with the challenge? Where or how did you learn these skills?  Do you feel this training has affected your feelings about people in the Middle East?  How will this training affect your behavior when deployed? DO: Capture this chart with a digital photo or on a piece of note paper. ASK: Would you describe culture or survival language training program from your perspective?  Was the training given tailored to a unit or to individuals? Copyright © 2011 CPG F-3 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 120. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527  How much culture or survival language training have you received since arriving here at the pre-deployment training site?  What type of individual or collective culture or survival language training was provided by your unit before coming to the pre-deployment training site?  Please describe what a typical training day has been like here.  How would you define the purpose of the cultural training?  Have you deployed before and interacted with the populace? If so, what were some of the challenges you faced relating to culture and language? Did this training address those areas?  What level of involvement or interaction do you believe you will have with the local populace while in theater? How comfortable are you this role now given the training you have received?  Did your unit define training objectives and standards before the training? If yes, where are those objectives? If no, who defined them for your unit? (Where are the requirements coming from?)  Which part of the culture or survival language training is most challenging (if more than one)? Why did you find it challenging?  What did you take away from the cultural training as most helpful or meaningful?This portion of the discussion is about survival language training. Would you describe how thesurvival language program addresses your job from your perspective as a member of thetraining audience?  Have you received any survival language training?  Does the language training offer practice or experience on how to communicate with a member of another culture? What specifically do you believe will be most beneficial when you work with the local population?  If yes… What are the key components of the instruction that are emphasized? What methods or means are used to teach these skills? Can you provide examples of what survival language training you found most helpful? How do you know it will be helpful in your deployment?  What methods do you use to update survival language skills? What tools or job aids were you provided to practice language skills?  Did you practice communicating through an interpreter during the training? What unique skills are required when using an interpreter?  Based on your experience, did the survival language training outcomes meet or exceed your expectations? Please explain?Copyright © 2011 CPG F-4 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 121. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527 C. Hypotheticals and other (10 min)10  If you could revise this training, what would you do differently?MIN  What would you advise your Commander to improve upon in culture pre-deployment training?  What would you advise your Commander to improve upon in survival language pre- deployment training?  What should trainers spend more time on? May I contact you if I have additional questions? Thanks! Copyright © 2011 CPG F-5 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 122. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527 APPENDIX G: TRAINER COLLECTION GUIDECopyright © 2011 CPG G-1 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 123. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527 Interview GuidesPart III describes the interviews with training developers or trainers who prepare culturalknowledge or survival language training materials, or who present culture or survival languagetraining at home station or pre-deployment training sites. This guide is about listening to theindividuals who are directly involved in culture and survival language pre-deployment training.We evaluate information from the trainer‘s perspective to assess the quality and type of culturalknowledge and survival language pre-deployment training they are providing to individuals andunits.DEOMITrainerThe purpose of this section is to understand from the perspective of Observer-Trainers/Controllers(OT/OC) at pre-deployment training sites and training centers what culture knowledge or survivallanguage training is available and how they assess the training contributes to a unit‘s performance.Information about the training goals, training methods, and measurements used to inform design oftraining should be collected during the interview. When possible, the culture knowledge or survivallanguage pre-deployment training should be observed. Collection Goals  Verify the requirements for culture and survival language pre- deployment training objectives are being met.  If culture and survival language pre-deployment training activities are unclassified, describe the type of training and whether training contributes to successful mission accomplishment.  Use the Collection Form to summarize the training goals and processes.  Assess whether the culture and survival language pre-deployment training is effective.Copyright © 2011 CPG G-2 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 124. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527 I. Demographic Information 5 DO: After a brief overview of the purpose of our visit, ask the participant to provideMIN demographic information. Review the information and ask clarifying questions as needed. II. Overview (20 min) A. Overview: 5 SAY: We‘d like an overview, a general sense for the type of culture or survival language pre-MIN deployment training you are providing to the units that come through the pre-deployment training site. B. Identification of Main Components of the Training:45 DO: Draw 5-6 circles on your note paper as the individual tells you about the major componentsMIN of the training. SAY: Let‘s say each of these circles represents some aspect of the role you play in the culture or survival language pre-deployment training here. Which is the most difficult for the unit to accomplish? Why did you consider this particular aspect of culture or survival language training development so challenging? How do you see yourself helping the unit deal with the challenge? Where or how did you learn these skills? DO: Capture this chart with a digital photo or on a piece of note paper. ASK: Would you describe culture or survival language training program from your perspective as a trainer? [Obtain information about the pre-deployment training.]  Please describe what a typical training day has been like here.  How would you define the purpose of the training? What should the training units know when they leave here?  Are training objectives and standards developed before the training? If yes, where are those objectives? If no, when are they developed?  Which part of the culture or survival language training is most challenging for the small units to grasp and master? Why do you believe they find it challenging?  What do most small units take away from the training as most helpful or meaningful? How do you know that? Copyright © 2011 CPG G-3 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 125. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527  What barriers, if any, stand in your way of delivering the best or most thorough training possible?  What training do you expect small units/individuals to have had before receiving the training here? Are the unit members typically as proficient on those knowledge, skills, or abilities as you would expect them to be? C. Hypotheticals (10 min)  If you could present cultural knowledge or survival language training again, what would10 you do differently? Why?MIN  How do you update this training to keep pace with operational experiences?  How would you advise someone to prepare for the trainer‘s role in a similar pre- deployment training site? Thanks Copyright © 2011 CPG G-4 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 126. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527 APPENDIX H: TRIP REPORT - CAOCLCopyright © 2011 CPG H-1 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 127. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527 DEFENSE LANGUAGE OFFICE Trip Report: Pre-deployment Culture and Survival Language USMC Center for Advanced Operational Culture Learning (CAOCL) Quantico, VA Prepared by Sandra Hughes, NAWCTSD, Orlando, FL Nic Bencaz, Cognitive Performance Group, Orlando, FL September 20, 2010Copyright © 2011 CPG H-2 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 128. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527 Trip ReportProject BackgroundThe Defense Language Office (DLO) sponsor proposed a quick turn-around field study tobaseline the current practices and approaches used by the Services for pre-deployment cultureand survival language training.Before engaging in a comprehensive assessment, the project team considered several methodsfor developing the pre-deployment culture and survival language training baseline including: 1) areview of the cultural training programs, 2) direct observation of the culture training in the field,and 3) capturing the experiences from the perspectives of training developers, trainers andmembers of the training audience through interviews and/or surveys.Purpose of the TripThe purpose of this trip was to meet with the director of U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) Center forAdvanced Operational Culture Learning (CAOCL), Mr. George Dallas, in order to understandthe full role CAOCL plays in preparing and delivering pre-deployment culture and survivallanguage training. In addition, it was our objective to obtain guidance on which Marine Corpslocations would be best suited for future site visits to observe training and collect data.OverviewThe mission of CAOCL, as the central Marine Corps agency for culture training, is to ensure thatas a force, Marines are globally prepared, regionally focused, and fully capable of effectivelynavigating the cultural complexities of the 21st century operating environments in support ofassigned missions and requirements. Marines are expected to acquire all the necessary culturaland communications skills to enable them to effectively navigate the ―cultural terrain.‖ Thismeans giving Marines the skills they need to operate in any current and potential operatingconditions in order to effectively target persistent and emerging irregular, traditional,catastrophic, and disruptive threats. The purpose of this report is to describe the informationcollected at CAOCL, in Quantico, VA on 14 September 2010.ParticipantsSandra Hughes, NAWCTSDNic Bencaz, CPGMethodThe approach called for an assessment of how CAOCL provides pre-deployment culture andsurvival language training to the Marine Corps.The assessment methodology included:  Conducted Interviews (not recorded): 1) George M. Dallas, CAOCL DirectorCopyright © 2011 CPG H-3 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 129. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527 2) Captain Armando Daviu, SOUTHCOM Desk Officer for CAOCL 3) Mr. Rashed Qawasmi, Current Operation Officer for CAOCL 4) Dr. Kerry Fosher, CAOCL Research Center DirectorThe data for the analysis will include field notes and materials, and not interview transcripts (as arecording was not deemed appropriate for this meeting). For this brief trip report, we havereviewed these field notes and materials in order to identify some major themes and initialimpressions about the instructional methods. An interim report will provide analysis and moredetails on this and prior site visits.Materials Collected included:  Center for Advanced Operational Culture Learning overview PowerPoint presentation slides covering the status and strategy of CAOCL since 2008  Two books by the Marine Corps University Press  Applications in Operational Culture: Perspectives from the Field  Operational Culture for the Warfighter: Perspectives and Applications  Sample culture and language exam questions given in classrooms  Sample Instructional Rating FormsField NotesA summary of information collected during the site visit to CAOCL follows. In a two hourmeeting with George Dallas, we described the nature of our project and our data collectionrequirements. Mr. Dallas briefed us on CAOCL‘s activities, philosophy, strategies, andprograms. Towards the end of the meeting, three other individuals Captain Armando Daviu, Mr.Rashed Qawasmi, and Dr. Kerry Fosher, CAOCL joined us. The focus of this part of themeeting was on arranging site visits.Mr. Dallas stressed that CAOCL takes a global perspective on culture training. While OEF andOIF are important, they are not the only areas of focus. CAOCL‘s approach to culture trainingis what they term ―Operational Culture.‖ Marines are asked to analyze a culture using aframework based on the five dimensions of operational culture (environment, economy, socialorganization, political structures, and belief systems) in order to improve operationaleffectiveness. The book, Operational Culture for the Warfighter; Perspectives and Applications(written by personnel from CAOCL and published by Marine Corps University Press) providessets of questions (for each of the five dimensions) that a Marine should try to answer to conductan operational culture analysis.Training for culture is emphasized over language by CAOCL, and language is primarily focusedon communication rather than becoming proficient in a given dialect. Language training forgeneral forces utilizes 600 words that are organized into 13 mission-focused blocks. CAOCLCopyright © 2011 CPG H-4 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 130. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527asserts that there are really only a set of 10 languages (with English being one of them) thatallow a person to communicate anywhere in the world. Key phrase cards are available in each ofthe 10 languages.Center for Advanced Operational Culture Learning‘s pre-deployment culture and survivallanguage training program is provided to 1) General Purpose Forces, 2)Partners/Mentors/Advisors, and 3) MARSOC (Marine Special Operations Command). Thetraining content covers culture-general information, culture- specific information, and keyphrases. It is delivered using a combination of classroom instruction, computer-basedinstruction, and role playing.Center for Advanced Operational Culture Learning has also instituted a career long educationand training effort for culture and language called RCLF or Regional, Culture, and LanguageFamiliarization program. The goal of this program is to ensure that each unit is composed ofculturally skilled Marines with diverse regional understanding and basic language capacity.Essentially, CAOCL has divided the world into 17 regions, and each Marine will study 1 regionthroughout his/her career. Education is provided through a series of modules or blocks, andMarines are required to pass assessments at the end of each in order to progress. This long-termtraining and education effort will establish a capability that will allow a Commander to respondto any contingency. It will also build a cadre of Marines who understand each of the 17 regionsof the world.Center for Advanced Operational Culture Learning assesses training through the use of surveys,instructor rating forms, after action reviews (AARs), and in some instances, post tests ofdeclarative knowledge. USMC-wide training surveys have been administered, in order to gatherreaction data (what Marines like, don‘t like, and what could be improved) and the results arecurrently being analyzed. Instructor rating forms are given after each class in order to keepcontent fresh and allow instructors to know what is valued most by the Marines. AARs are usedas a form of assessment following role playing where Marines are tasked to use both their newlylearned language and culture skills. Instructors film these sessions and review them with thestudents, pointing out what went well, in addition to areas that need improvement. Last, wefound that CAOCL does provide checks on learning following each class or major section ofinstruction. These tests are fill-in-the-blank and multiple choice format questions that are givena percentage grade. Currently, no pre- tests are given to establish a baseline for learning, andthough there are no consequences for poor performance. This is the first case (across theservices) that we have seen evidence of the use of post-training knowledge tests.Other Take-Aways.  No current standard for training across the board (at ―Commander‘s discretion‖)Copyright © 2011 CPG H-5 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 131. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527  Training is kept up to date through:  MCCLL (Marine Corps Center for Lessons Learned)  Questioning Marines who have returned from deployment  The use of native instructors who keep in touch with family and friends in country  MCIA (Marine Corps Intelligence Agency)  Center for Advanced Operational Culture Learning has recently started an in house research facility headed by Dr. Kerry Fosher, an anthropologist who is attempting to incorporate social and behavioral sciences into CAOCL‘s training.  The Marine Corps has a Training and Readiness Manual that specifically calls out Operational Culture training requirements.ConclusionThis trip was successful in that it served the purposes of: (1) giving us an overview of CAOCLtraining and (2) allowing us to gain access to Marine Corps training for observation and datacollection.Copyright © 2011 CPG H-6 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 132. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527 APPENDIX I: TRIP REPORT - CHERRY POINTCopyright © 2011 CPG I-1 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 133. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527 DEFENSE LANGUAGE OFFICE Trip Report: Key Leader Engagement Training (Marine Corps Air Station), Cherry Point, NC Prepared by: Sandra Hughes, NAWCTSD, Orlando, FL Nic Bencaz, Cognitive Performance Group, Orlando, FL Carol Thornson, Cognitive Performance Group, Orlando, FL November 30, 2010Copyright © 2011 CPG I-2 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 134. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527 Trip ReportProject BackgroundThe Defense Language Office ( DLO) sponsor proposed a quick turn-around field study tobaseline the current practices and approaches used by the Services for pre-deployment cultureand survival language training.Before engaging in a comprehensive assessment, the project team considered several methodsfor developing the pre-deployment culture and survival language training baseline including: 1) areview of cultural training programs, 2) direct observation of culture training in the field, and 3)capturing the experiences from the perspectives of developers, trainers and members of thetraining audience through interviews and surveys.Purpose of the TripThe purpose of this trip was to observe Key Leader Engagement (KLE) training at the MarineCorps Air Station in Cherry Point, NC, as well as to meet with and conduct interviews withtrainers, leaders, and students, in order to understand the full role such training plays in preparingand delivering pre-deployment culture and survival language training.OverviewThe KLE training was sponsored by the Center for Advanced Operational Culture Learning(CAOCL) in Quantico, VA. According to Mr. Rashed Qawasmi, the Current Operation Officerfor CAOCL, KLE training started in December of 2009. It is given to all battalion, regimental,and MEF forward commanders prior to their deployment to Afghanistan. The Commander orGeneral chooses his staff to take part in this type of training.The training consists of 40 hours, which can be provided either in one week or two weeks (e.g.,if the Commander chooses one week, then they will attend the classes Monday through Fridayfrom 8:00 am to 5 pm; if he chooses the two weeks, then they will attend half days each day fortwo weeks). The 40 hours consists of tactical language, cross-cultural awareness andunderstanding, the use of interpreters, non-verbal communications, and many practicalapplications throughout.Since the start of KLE training at CAOCL, 21 Commanders have been trained, and each one ofthose Commanders came to training with their Company Commanders (five), which means eachclass has six Marines per instructor. This is normally what is required, one instructor for everysix students.The following report describes the information collected at the KLE training at the Marine CorpsAir Station in Cherry Point, NC, from 15 through 18 November, 2010.ParticipantsSandra Hughes, NAWCTSDNic Bencaz, CPGCarol Thornson, CPGCopyright © 2011 CPG I-3 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 135. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527MethodThe assessment methodology includes:  Observing the KLE training course, including practical role-play exercises;  Administering surveys to members of the training audience;  Describing the purpose of the research to leadership, trainers, and members of the training audience;  Conducting Interviews (recorded):  Two instructors: Mohammed Qais and Emal Numan  Four members of the training audience:  BGEN Glenn Walters  1st LT Casey Chenoweth  HMCS Nathan Whiddon (USN)  SGT-MAJ PrutchThe data for the analysis includes interview transcripts, training observation forms, classmaterials, and field notes. CPG has transcribed the first three interviews and will summarize theresults and field notes below. The full analysis will be presented in a separate report.Materials Collected included:  Taped Interviews and Discussions  Completed K1 Surveys (N = 12)  Center for Advanced Operational Culture Learning CD on KLE Training (Afghanistan)  Center for Advanced Operational Culture Learning Afghanistan booklet (May 2009)The following is a description of these materials: Taped Interviews and Discussions: interview discussions included questions about requirements, major training components, challenges to training, typical training day, etc. Surveys: includes demographic questions, 15 questions on culture training, and 15 questions on survival language training received at the site. CD on KLE Training (Afghanistan): includes course materials on KLE, covering such topics as Communicate through an Interpreter; Communicate Non-Verbally; Interact with a Foreign Population; Use Tactical Language, and includes PowerPoint slides as well as a movie clip from ―The Beast.‖ Course Evaluation forms for students are also included for both Culture and Language.Copyright © 2011 CPG I-4 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 136. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527 CAOCL-USMC Afghanistan booklet: ―Operational Culture for Deploying Personnel‖ prepares Marines to deploy to Afghanistan. After introducing the study of culture and understanding culture shock, Part 1 introduces the various ethnic tribes, followed by Part II, which introduces Islam. Part III follows, whereby social values are explained. Part IV follows, where trainees learn to work with Afghan civilians. Part V explains the Holy War and the insurgent culture are explained. Finally, Part VI covers working with the ANA.Field NotesThe following is a summary of the field notes, including Training Observation notes andinterview notes which were collected during the site visit to Cherry Point. First, descriptions ofthe actual training course observed will be described. Next, an overview of the information frominterview discussions about culture and language training with the instructor and trainingaudience is included and conclusions are made.Training Course DetailInstructor Names: Primary instructor was Emal Numan . Mohammed Quais was the secondaryinstructor. Course Title: Key Leader EngagementClass size: 12 StudentsMajor Observations:  Instructors utilized PowerPoint slides to introduce the topic, and used personal experiences to show the importance of this training as well as practical applications to have the students practice what they learned.  Although this course is generally presented to fairly senior personnel, there is discussion of it being pushed to more junior personnel (e.g., Sergeants) because of the potential mission requirements for them to engage with key leaders in jurga settings.  60% of units lack an interpreter, so learning some language may be critical.  Basic Vocabulary (Survival Language) was covered for the first two hours on Day 2, whereby the instructor engaged each student in a drill and practice sort of fashion, correcting students‘ pronunciations as they took turns.  KLE Role Play took place on Day 2 as well, in order to reinforce the cultural training learned on Day 1.  The instructor first provided background information, then the students engaged in role-play, participating in a Jurga to practice cultural rituals, norms, etiquette, etc. while interacting with the interpreter and building rapport with the key leader (elder) who spoke only Pashto.  Feedback in the form of After Action Reviews (AARs) were provided by the instructor, whereby the instructor judged how the students applied the concepts they had learned on Day 1.Copyright © 2011 CPG I-5 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 137. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527  Specifically, the instructor observed and took notes for later feedback, as well as interjecting where appropriate to advise the students.  Positive feedback was given first, followed by pointing out where the students could improve their performance (e.g., introductions of the staff, making eye contact with the elder and not the interpreter, etc.).  The broad topic of Society/Culture was then introduced and covered, ―to teach Marines about Afghan society,‖ which topic included the five parts of people, norms, social organizations, traditions, and assumptions.  The instructor covered in detail the cultural differences between western cultures and the Afghani culture, not only from an academic perspective, but from his own personal experiences, growing up in Afghanistan, and then living in the U.S. for 20 years. As such, he was very adept at translating the different cultural norms and values from one culture to the other in a way that made sense to the students.  Languages were also discussed (e.g., Pashto, Dari, and English), as well as clothing (e.g., how clothing is modest for both men and women), and provided insights into why females must be completely covered (e.g., as a sign of respect and honor and not oppression).  The various ethnic groups and tribal histories were also discussed (e.g., Pashtoons, Tajiks, Hazara, Uzbeks, Nuristani, and Baluchi). A Facebook site was suggested as well as a YouTube search for ―Pashto Language Lessons.‖  Tribal structures were covered, with the various kin networks shown as represented by concentric circles, beginning with family loyalties in the center and working outward toward national/country and finally to ―outsiders.‖ Therefore, clan and tribal affiliations were described as coming before national affiliations.  History was also highlighted as a way to provide insight into various customs and norms (e.g., how the conquering Warlords routinely raped the women, dishonoring the families, leading to the modesty rules/laws, as a way to protect honor).Key Points (Take-Aways) from Training Observation Forms & Notes:  As part of Culture/Society, Emal discussed patriarchy at length, as well as the cultural values and norms of honor, martyrdom, and poverty, and roles these play in our efforts to win hearts and minds.  Insights were also provided as to the harsh economic realities, which were not previously considered by most students as motivating factors in insurgency:  The Taliban is willing to pay $300/month to work against the Coalition forces, an amount that is very difficult to refuse when one‘s family is in poverty/dishonor by children crying due to hunger).Copyright © 2011 CPG I-6 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 138. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527  Martyrdom in Afghanistan is understood as dying in battle (e.g., against the Russian invaders) and has nothing to do with the suicide bombers. This is a new, foreign, and imported Saudi interpretation which goes against the teachings of true Islam.  During this training, the students related that this type of instruction had a great deal of impact, aiding in their understanding of what Emal was conveying in a way that another type of instructor with a different background would not be able to convey.  For instance, at one point, Emal suggested that we must learn about their culture and use this knowledge as a tool or weapon, just as the Taliban use the Internet: ―Why not beat them at their own game? They‘re using our technology against us. Why not use their culture against them?‖  The instructor (Emal) was also very open to interacting with the students, and answered all types of questions, no matter how sensitive the topic.  For instance, the General questioned him on death and how it is viewed in this culture. The general asked if one were to accidentally run over and kill a child, why is it suggested that we offer monetary compensation to the family for such a loss, as this seems to us to be callous and mercenary in the values such a practice would suggest.  The instructor patiently explained to the students that first, in order to begin to ease the pain to the family of such a grievous loss, the entire village must be aware of how sorry the leader is that this happened, and this must be expressed first and foremost.  Financial assistance is offered later as the very least one can do, as a gesture, not to ―buy off‖ the family, because of the expenses associated with any death in the family.  Most of the time, the family will not accept any financial help, but the gesture should be made nonetheless – and it should be made publically.  However, as in our culture, the most important way to make amends is to show sympathy and compassion. Emal suggested the commander meet with the father of the child personally and publically, to hold his hand and show him the regret.  As in the earlier trip report, because this training is provided by CAOCL trainers, training was assessed through the use of instructor rating forms, provided after each class in order to keep content fresh and allow instructors to know what is valued most by the trainees.Interviews Five individuals were interviewed: one instructor and four students. The main areas we inquired about concerned potential best practices, how training and learning are evaluated in general, how this training could be improved, and what was found to be the most valuable and the most challenging aspects of the training.Copyright © 2011 CPG I-7 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 139. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527Student interviews  After learning another language, the most challenging aspect of KLE and cultural training was interacting with a foreign population. The criticality of this learning was expressed by two students as:  ―So crucial to train Marines on … past mistakes that we‘ve made in wars has actually made more trouble for us, more enemies if you want to look at it that way, more problems … just as if someone would invade the United States or try to help … it‘s vital … even smaller things we can do to improve relations which wins wars.‖  ―Thats all about the hearts and minds and part of the counterinsurgency, a key part is how can we turn over our combat operations, our building operations, our security operations. How can we turn those over to Afghanis because if theyre doing it themselves, they take more pride. Which means you have to partner with them.‖  All the students felt that KLE training, and Emal in particular, opened their eyes to another cultural perspective and aided in understanding ―why they do the things they do.‖  As such, following this type of training, the students expressed that they would behave differently toward Afghanis, in that they are more likely to ―respect their culture‖ as this was ―really the first time we‘ve had an instructor sit down and talk about the culture.‖  With regard to improving the training, more role plays were suggested by all of the students, how such a practice goes beyond mere memorization:  ―I would do that about four more times, different settings, different problems.‖  With regard to providing this type of training to the general purpose forces and not only to the higher ranking officers:  ―I think they‘re even more important than showing the generals this kind of training … they‘re wonderful kids but when their buddy is shot the day before, they‘re not going to have much compassion for the culture.‖  In this regard, in order to convey the most vital information to the general purpose forces:  ―If you had to do it in a large group, let‘s say you had only a day to complete this type of training … those little Afghan books … a Jurga in front of them, grab a few Marines out of the crowd, just give them a basic overview … simple things … it‘s so much on the leader and you have to take the time.‖Instructor interviews  One instructor was interviewed, Mohammed Qais, who has been doing this type of KLE training since March of this year, three weekly classes per month, on average.  Society/Culture are not normally part of KLE but were added as a way to provide background information.  Language is the most difficult part of the training, again.Copyright © 2011 CPG I-8 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 140. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527  On the culture side, it is not that any particular area is more difficult than others, but it seems to be the way that instruction is delivered that matters.  ―We make a more interactive culture. So they participate as we observe. We ask them questions; we welcome questions, so its more interactive and we ask built on their experience. … we build on what they know.‖  There do not seem to be any formal evaluations for this type of training, other than the instructor feedback forms:  ―We get instructor rating form at the end … And also when they come back from Afghanistan, we read the material, their after action reports and then see, okay what happened, did we prepare you enough? Did you see anything unexpected so we can cover for the next Marines?‖  As to a way to cover such a broad topic in a short amount of time, and what is most important to get across, the instructor expressed:  ―There is a lot more to culture than what we can cover in four days. So there are a lot of left out areas and a lot of unexpected situations or behaviors the Afghan shows that are unexpected, out of the norm. … you give them the bullet points of how the society works, how people think, the Afghan psyche. We give them that so when they are out in the field they expect flexibility.‖Overall Conclusions  All four students reported that the most challenging aspect of this type of training is learning the language.  One student expressed that ―you can understand the people and learn the culture but language, and a tricky language, we‘re not used to.‖  In this regard, it was suggested that ―more intensive language training‖ of about 40 hours would be ideal for leaders at this level, that this is ―crucial.‖  All students seemed to be extremely satisfied with KLE training, and Emal in particular, including those we did not interview but spoke with informally.  The General expressed this sentiment during the interview:  ―This is the best training I‘ve ever had. … I think its good because of the interaction with the instructor. This is not an American teaching us about Afghanistan. … Hes [Emal] an articulate one and its one whos thought about this. Hes obviously been trained on how to teach and how to get points across.‖  Insights were also provided as to the best ways to evaluate learning.  It was also suggested that evaluations in the form of written tests are counter-productive. If anything, they discourage real learning from taking place.  One Lieutenant summed up this sentiment as follows:  ―If you make me do it, I‘ll remember forever … formal evaluation stresses people out … you focus so much, is this in the notes and is this going to be on the test?‖  ―I would role play, role play, role play, because that‘s the way they‘re going to memorize it.‖Copyright © 2011 CPG I-9 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 141. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527―You say ‗exam,‘ literally, everything is cut off until you say it‘s on the test and then they writeit down and then they shut off and think about what they‘re going to do at night. I can tell youthat firsthand and from everyone I know … no one memorized it.‖Copyright © 2011 CPG I-10 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 142. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527 APPENDIX J: TRIP REPORT - CAMP LEJEUNECopyright © 2011 CPG J-1 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 143. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527 DEFENSE LANGUAGE OFFICE Trip Report: CAOCL Tactical Afghan Culture Course Camp Lejeune, NC Prepared by: Sandra Hughes: NAWCTSD, Orlando, FL Nic Bencaz: Cognitive Performance Group, Orlando, FL December 31st, 2010Copyright © 2011 CPG J-2 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 144. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527 Trip ReportProject BackgroundThe Defense Language Office (DLO) sponsor proposed a quick turn-around field study tobaseline the current practices and approaches used by the Services for pre-deployment cultureand survival language training.Before engaging in a comprehensive assessment, the project team considered several methodsfor developing the pre-deployment culture and survival language training baseline including: 1) areview of the cultural training programs, 2) direct observation of the culture training in the field,and 3) capturing the experiences from the perspectives of training developers, trainers andmembers of the training audience through interviews or surveys.Purpose of the TripThe purpose of this trip was to observe pre-deployment tactical Afghan culture training andobtain information via interviews from leadership, trainers, and members of the training audienceon their perspective of training support.OverviewThe tactical Afghan culture course was sponsored by the U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) Center forAdvanced Operational Culture and Language (CAOCL). The training observed on this site visitwas performed at Camp Lejeune, NC for the duration of six hours (this course is normally eighthours, but was condensed upon the request of the Commander). One instructor, Mr.Mohammed Qais, led the training in a theater to approximately 150 Marines ranking E5 andbelow.The following report describes the information collected at Cultural Awareness Trainingconducted at Camp Lejeune, NC, Dec 16, 2010.ParticipantsSandra Hughes, NAWCTSDNic Bencaz, CPGMethodThe assessment methodology included:  Observing tactical Afghan culture course Administered surveys to members of the training audience.  Conducting Interviews:  Due to time constraints and the nature of the instruction, four brief interviews (three Lance Corporals and one Private First Class) were performed during the training. These interviews were not able to be recorded.Copyright © 2011 CPG J-3 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 145. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527  Time was not allotted for surveys to be completed and therefore no surveys were collected at this site visit.  Materials – instruction was taught via PowerPoint slides. These slides were not handed out or made available during or immediately following the training. Our research team is in the process of acquiring the slides presented for this course.For this trip report, we have reviewed all relevant information mentioned herein in order toidentify some major themes and initial impressions about the instructional methods.Materials Collected included:  No materials collected to date (see comment above)Field NotesThe following is a summary of information collected during the site visit to Camp Lejeune.First, descriptions of the actual training courses observed will be described. Next, informationgleaned from interviews will be addressed. Finally, concluding statements on the state oftraining and recommendations will be conveyed.Training CourseInstructor Name: Mohammed QaisMajor Observations & Findings:  Mr. Qais covered five major themes in his instruction: Appearance, Social Organization, Cultural Norms, Traditions, and Religion  Instruction began with and informal question and answer session among the Marines to encourage participation and gauge the cultural knowledge based of the Marine units.  Instruction provided elements of history into each of the five themes/sections and incorporated analogies with U.S. popular culture and common knowledge  Tribal nature of Afghanistan compared to Native American tribes  Forced Islamic conversion of the Nuristanis compared to Crusades  Concept of revenge compared to Italian mafia (e.g. Sopranos)  Taliban pressures on locals compared to current Mexican drug cartels  While each Afghan ethnic group and tribe was mentioned, discussion lacked in covering the tactical cultural elements Marines sought such as how to specifically interact and extract information from each group.Copyright © 2011 CPG J-4 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 146. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527InterviewsA total of two interviews with two Marines per interview were conducted during the training.The main areas inquired about concerned potential best practices, what is most valued by thestudents, and what improvements could strengthen the program.Of the four Marines interviewed, two had previously been deployed. Additionally, only oneindividual (who had not yet deployed) had received culture training prior to this event. He statedthat this training was far superior than his previous culture training. The two Marines who hadnot yet deployed expressed a greater interest in the material than the two Marines who hadserved in theater; however, the Marines with deployment experience had minimal interactionwith the locals.There were mixed feelings on the value of the course. The two previously deployed Marinesstated six hours of culture training was excessive and that they would probably not retain theinformation when they deployed again 7 months later. The two Marines with no deploymentexperience stated they believed the most valuable element of the training was a small segmentthat focused on how to properly use your interpreters.All appreciated that the course was taught by a native Afghan, and acknowledged that the trainerwas knowledgeable and engaging. When asked what, if anything, to change about theinstruction, Marines stated they would like to see videos incorporated into the training along withone additional instructor. They stated these changes would help keep students alert and offeradditional perspectives to learn from.Overall Conclusions  Without audience participation, instructor interaction, and varied instructional approaches, the students lose interest quickly  While understanding the value of training, some sections of leadership do not understand why cultural training cannot be provided solely onlineBeginning class with general Q&A appeared to be a helpful tool to engage the Marines and amethod by which the trainer could adapt/tailor the training content if needed.Copyright © 2011 CPG J-5 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 147. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527 APPENDIX K: TRIP REPORT - FORT CARSONCopyright © 2011 CPG K-1 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 148. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527 DEFENSE LANGUAGE OFFICE Trip Report: Ft. Carson Campaign Continuity Language Training Detachment Fort Carson, CO Prepared by: Gabriella Severe: NAWCTSD, Orlando, FL Nic Bencaz and Lauren Catenacci: Cognitive Performance Group, Orlando, FL December 31st, 2010Copyright © 2011 CPG K-2 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 149. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527 Trip ReportProject BackgroundThe DLO sponsor proposed a quick turn-around field study to baseline the current practices andapproaches used by the Services for pre-deployment culture and survival language training.Before engaging in a comprehensive assessment, the project team considered several methodsfor developing the pre-deployment culture and survival language training baseline including: 1) areview of the cultural training programs, 2) direct observation of the culture training in the field,and 3) capturing the experiences from the perspectives of training developers, trainers andmembers of the training audience through interviews or surveys.Purpose of the TripThe purpose of this trip was to observe pre-deployment Dari language training and obtaininformation via interviews from leadership, trainers, and members of the training audience ontheir perspective of training support.OverviewThe Campaign Continuity Language Training Detachment pre-deployment language training isbeing administered at Fort Carson, Colorado. This sixteen week training course is the result of apartnership between the operational Army and the Defense Language Institute that began in theearly months of 2010. This site was chosen along with two other installations (Fort Campbelland Fort Drum) as pilot sites for AFPAK (a group of experts trained in Afghan and Pakistaniculture). This training supports the deployment of Army personnel to Afghanistan by teachingSoldiers the basics of the Dari language and Afghan culture within an operational context. Theprogram at Fort Carson is composed of one site director, seventeen contracted instructors (elevencore instructors, four culture instructors, one curriculum developer, one team leader), and 82Soldiers across five major platoons; including both senior (SSG) and junior level personnel(PV2) who will be deployed within seven months. Selection criteria for this training includeASVAB scores, DLAB, prior deployments, and prior language learning experience, althoughsome students personally volunteered to enroll in this course.The training is heavily focused on the Dari language, but provides a review of English grammarduring the first week and forty hours of culture training interspersed throughout the first eightweeks. There are approximately 510 hours of instruction.  470 hours language  40 hours culture generalLanguage is taught every day and focuses on learning concepts such as greetings, basic phrasesin the DLI handbook, and pronunciation. The morning sessions consist of reviewing homeworkand covering textbook lessons. Each afternoon, the students rotate to another instructor topractice role-playing scenarios in Dari. The scenarios allow students to practice either general orCopyright © 2011 CPG K-3 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 150. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527tactical conversation. Although this program is heavily weighted toward learning the Darilanguage, students are also provided with 40 hours of culture training during the first eight weeksof the course.The goal of this training is to have all student obtain a 0+ or above on the Oral ProficiencyInterview (OPI). More specifically, the student should be able to 1) meet and greet locals, askfor and give directions, read and write simple road signs and instructions; 2) engage in smallsocial talks; 3) understand and be able to recognize cultural and religious clues and convey them;4) perform security checks and collect simple Intel information. The team conducted its site visitduring the twelfth week of training and during the visit, the team implemented methodology thatwill be discussed further within the report.The purpose of this report is to describe the information collected at Campaign ContinuityLanguage Training Detachment, in Fort Carson, Colorado from November 17-19, 2010.ParticipantsGabriella Severe, NAWCTSDNic Bencaz, CPGLauren Catenacci, CPGMethodThe approach called for an assessment of how Fort Carson provides pre-deployment languagetraining (Dari) to individuals within the General Purpose Force.The assessment methodology included:  Observed Dari language training (e.g., grammar, scenarios, reading, and writing).  Administered surveys to members of the training audience.  Described the purpose of the research to leadership, trainers, and members of the training audience.  Conducted Interviews (recorded):  Site Director: Kyle Swanson  Trainers: Mr. Arwand, Mr. Maiwand, Mr. Sayed, and Mr. Karimy  Six members of the training audience  CPG has transcribed the interviews and summarize the results in narrative form.For this trip report, we have reviewed the field notes, interview transcripts, and materials in orderto identify some major themes and initial impressions about the instructional methods.Conclusions and recommendations reached reflect on training provided at Ft. Carson alone, andnot other language training detachments or site visits this research team has made.Copyright © 2011 CPG K-4 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 151. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527Materials Collected included:  Taped Interviews and Discussions  Surveys (78)  DLIFLC Dari Basic Course 2005, Student Copy  DLIFLC Dari Basic Course 2005, Instructor Copy  DFIFLC Dari Basic Language Campaign Continuity Language Training Program, 2010 Student Copy  Dari Dictionary and Phrasebook  Dari Alphabet Handout  DLIFLC Field Support Course Syllabus  Week 13 Class Schedule for Lesson 12  DLI Dari Basic Language Lesson L4-L10 Test  DLI Dari Basic Language Lesson 6 Quiz #7  DLI Dari Basic Language Lesson 7 Quiz#8  Helpful Verbs Handout  Course Grades Excel FileFollowing is a description of these materials:  Taped Interviews and Discussions: interview discussions included questions about requirements, major training components, challenges to training, typical training day, etc.  Surveys: includes demographic questions, 15 questions on culture training (may not have been applicable), and 15 questions on survival language training received at the site.  DLIFLC Dari Basic Course 2005, Student Copy- contains lessons on vocabulary, culture, pronunciation, grammar, writing, listening activities, and scenarios in Dari. Lessons include topics such people, numbers, seasons, time, the home, and the family.  DLIFLC Dari Basic Course 2005, Instructor Copy- contains answers to practice activities in the student copy (listed above). Lessons include topics such people, numbers, seasons, time, the home, and the family.  DFIFLC Dari Basic Language Campaign Continuity Language Training Program, 2010 Student Copy- contains lessons on vocabulary, grammar, writing, listening activities, and scenarios in Dari. Lessons include topics such as greetings, family, daily life, afghan army, and medical procedures.  Dari Dictionary and Phrasebook- provides basic grammar rules, pronunciation, and simple phrases in Dari (shopping, emergency, healthcare, etc.). Additionally, contains a Dari to English and English to Dari dictionary.  Dari Alphabet Handout- contains the entire Dari Alphabet and pronunciation of symbols. Also contains practice for writing Dari script.Copyright © 2011 CPG K-5 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 152. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527  DLIFLC Field Support Course Syllabus- describes course description, expectations, and breakdown of grading. Also, includes a complete course schedule and topics to be covered throughout the 16 week course.  Week 13 Class Schedule for Lesson 12- outlines assignments, quizzes, and activities for the holiday week of 22 November- 24 November.  DLI Dari Basic Language Lesson L4-L10 Test- actual mid-term test administered to students in this course. Questions include listening, vocabulary, culture, grammar, and sentence translation covered in Lessons 4-10. The topics covered included: Personal belongings, In the Province, A Friendly Chat, A Medical Problem, and In the Afghan Army.  DLI Dari Basic Language Lesson 6 Quiz #7- actual quiz administered to students in this course. Questions include listening, vocabulary, culture, grammar, and matching scenarios covered in ―A Friendly Chat‖ lesson.  DLI Dari Basic Language Lesson 7 Quiz#8- actual quiz administered to students in this course. Questions include listening, vocabulary, culture, grammar, and matching scenarios covered in ―A Medical Problem‖ lesson.  Helpful Verbs Handout- contains useful survival and tactical verbs in Dari. Each verb shows the infinitive, stem, and past verb forms for simple conjugation.  Course Grades Excel File- an excel spreadsheet containing all grades to date for students enrolled at this program. The site director will be sending the research team final course grades and OPI scores upon completion of the course (anticipated 17 December 2010).Field NotesThe following is a summary of information collected during the site visit to Fort Carson. First,descriptions of the actual training courses observed will be described. Next, information gleanedfrom interviews will be addressed. Finally, concluding statements on the state of training andrecommendations will be conveyed.Training CoursesInstructor Names: Arwand, Maiwand, Sayed, and KarimyClass size: approx. 5-10 studentsMajor Observations:  Instructors utilized a version of the DLIFLC Dari Basic Language book to introduce different topics such as, Afghans and their family, Afghan daily life, and medical procedures.  Scenarios have been implemented to enable the students to practice communicating in Dari on a certain topic.  Instructors have students listen to audio clips in Dari and then ask them questions about what they just heard.  Repetition is used to help students reinforce vocabulary and pronunciation.  Homework is assigned every day to allow students to practice sentence structure.Copyright © 2011 CPG K-6 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 153. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527  Weekly quizzes are administered to assess if students have mastered the pervious lesson.  Co-teaching was used in the classrooms later in the mornings and during the afternoons (one instructor taught from the book while the other wrote phrases on the board).Major Findings  Instructors are on a rotating schedule (switching from class to class).  Students have mixed feelings about the rotating of instructors because some say that it takes time to learn the different teaching styles and others like the exposure to the different accents.  Instructors prefer to have their own class because it makes it easier to cater to different learning styles (hinders learning).  The site director says that it helps identify instructors that are struggling and to encourage instructors to work as a team.  Forcing students to only speak in Dari in class (immersing them) helps them get more familiar with the language.  Instructors found it easier for students to learn another language only if they first understood English grammar.  Students who were deployed prior to taking this training course or are fluent in another language generally performed better in the classroom  While students believe the cultural portion of this course is crucial to successful interactions with Afghans, they believe that some information they received (e.g. what is the largest river in Afghanistan?) as not very useful.  Ranks E4 and higher appeared more motivated to continue practicing the language and locating additional learning tools outside of the classroom than lower ranking Soldiers  The DLIFLC Dari Basic Language book contains both the formal and informal of Dari. Among both students and instructors, there is debate on which would be most useful while deployed and therefore should be taught in the course.  Assessing student knowledge based on the OPI is not the best avenue because it assesses more global and not tactical language (working on developing a more tactical method of assessment).  Students become more engaged in class when having to compete (i.e., word games, Dari jeopardy, student of the week).  One hour study hall is mandatory for students who are not performing as well on weekly quizzes and for those not completing homework assignments.  There is a concern that instructors feel their performance rests on the students‘ final OPI grade more so than other measures of performance.Take-Aways for additional information:  Online access to five channels in Dari at www.glwiz.com  Able to listen to the news in Dari.Copyright © 2011 CPG K-7 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 154. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527  Rapid rote is viewed as the most valuable tool for language learning (aside from classroom instruction)  There are mixed feelings on the value of Rosetta Stone. Additionally, many Soldiers reported problems accessing the software online (through AKO).InterviewsSeven individuals were interviewed and recorded: one site director, three instructors, and threestudents. The main areas we inquired about concerned potential best practices, what learningrequirements/objectives are given, how learning is evaluated, what is most valued by thestudents, and what improvements could strengthen the program.Student interviewsStudents all reported that they were satisfied with the training they are receiving in this course onculture and survival language at Fort Carson, and they believe it will be essential for deploymentnext year. In general, the students prefer being taught by one instructor as opposed to rotatingamong all instructors. They feel that a close relationship with their instructor in addition tooverall stability contributes to their overall success in learning Dari. Students believed theybenefit most from practicing tactical language scenarios, which force them to utilize vocabularyneeded when in theater. In addition, most students also believe the course length could beextended in order to increase proficiency and their resultant scores on the OPI. Students plan tostay fresh by teaching their unit members when course ends.Instructor interviewsThe instructors seemed to have a strong interest in ensuring their students‘ success in learningDari. They invested much of their time and energy into encouraging their students to learn asmuch as possible, going above and beyond in making themselves available to the studentsoutside of class. The instructors believed that the class materials should focus on teaching theformal use of the language as opposed to both formal and informal use, as this would be moreuseful to the students and make the best use of class time. They also expressed the need for arevised edition of the text, as the current edition has some organizational issues that causeconfusion and take away from valuable class time.A recurring theme noticed throughout this visit among students, instructors, and the site directoris that students with higher ranks tend to benefit more from this language training detachmentcourse. While discussing those best suited for the course, one student commented, ―If I wasgoing to pick people from my platoon to come to the class, I wouldnt pick anybody below E 4.‖Site Director InterviewDuring our interview with Mr. Swanson, he identified the main components surrounding thistraining. Those components were:Copyright © 2011 CPG K-8 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 155. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527  Tactical Fluency  Cultural Awareness  Foundational Dari  Listening Comprehension  Reading/Writing SkillsMr. Swanson expressed that the main focus of this language training detachment is to ensurethat the Soldiers have tactical fluency in Dari when deployed. He is expecting that DLI willwork towards a tactical final exam for students in order to better meet this requirement.Currently, there is discrepancy between what the students are expected to learn (tactical languageskills) and what the OPI tests for (conversational Dari).Furthermore, Mr. Swanson stressed the need for military leadership to be present throughout thedetachment in order to increase motivation and ultimately, learning. Many students become shyor bashful when communicating in Dari, which ultimately hinders their fluency andcomprehension. Mr. Swanson has implemented strategies in order to increase motivation, suchas ―Student of the Week‖ recognition for outstanding performance on the weekly quiz.However, he believes that military leadership presence is needed from time to time in order tomotivate the students to come to class and participate.ConclusionThree general conclusions were arrived at from the site visit to Ft. Carson, CO. They are:immersive language training, agreement on language type, teaching styles and certification.These conclusions may or may not be generalizable for other pre-deployment language andculture courses.When training a new language, it is imperative to spend a certain amount of time fully immersedin that particular language in order to force students to practice conversing and get beyond anyhesitancies they have regarding fumbling their words or using improper grammar. Setting asidea portion of the classroom time where no English is spoken was advocated by students,instructors, and the site director.Learning formal and informal use of language initially impedes development. Currently,students are taught informal Dari, and once comfortable with this form, instruction shifts tolearning formal Dari. While both may be valuable, the Language Training Detachment directorsneed to come to a consensus on whether both forms of language are necessary.Different teaching styles may lend to more or less effective classrooms, as certain classroomswere clearly at higher learning levels than others. Options to improve this apparent dilemmamay involve standardized instruction in addition to materials or tailored training (i.e. groupingtogether students depending upon their proficiency levels).Copyright © 2011 CPG K-9 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 156. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527Effective instruction is not wholly related to style or an ability to motivate one‘s students. It isequally important for each instructor is a comprehension and aptitude in English grammar,language and customs/culture in order to make learning Dari and Afghan culture maximallyeffective. Perhaps further investigation into instructor certification could be warranted in orderto ensure teachers are fully competent in areas mentioned that go beyond fluency in the Darilanguage. An alternative to potentially altering instructor certification qualifications may be tohave two instructors per classroom: on Afghan native and on American fluent in Dari to ensurequestions on grammar and use of analogies are made clear.In conclusion, though we observed the first course taught at this location, the Ft. CarsonCampaign Continuity Language Training Detachment appears to be an impressive program withroom to improve. As it currently stands, this intensive program will be an asset to Soldiers whenthey deploy.This trip report has detailed an initial snapshot of culture and survival language training beingadministered at Fort Carson for Army Personnel. This snapshot was composed of interviews,observations, and training material given.Copyright © 2011 CPG K-10 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 157. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527 APPENDIX L: TRIP REPORT - FORT BELVOIRCopyright © 2011 CPG L-1 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 158. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527 DEFENSE LANGUAGE OFFICE Trip Report: Cultural Awareness Training Criminal Investigation Task Force (CITF) Ft. Belvoir, VA Prepared by: Sandra Hughes, NAWCTSD, Orlando, FL Nic Bencaz, Cognitive Performance Group, Orlando, FL Greg Lindsey, Cognitive Performance Group, Orlando, FL December 14, 2010Copyright © 2011 CPG L-2 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 159. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527 Trip ReportProject BackgroundThe DLO sponsor proposed a quick turn-around field study to baseline the current practices andapproaches used by the Services for pre-deployment culture and survival language training.Before engaging in a comprehensive assessment, the project team considered several methodsfor developing the pre-deployment culture and survival language training baseline including: 1) areview of cultural training programs, 2) direct observation of culture training in the field, and 3)capturing the experiences from the perspectives of developers, trainers and members of thetraining audience through interviews and surveys.Purpose of the TripThe purpose of this trip was to observe Cultural Awareness training conducted at Ft. Belvoir,VA, as well as to meet with and conduct interviews with trainers, leaders, and students, in orderto understand the full role such training plays in preparing and delivering pre-deployment culturetraining to the Criminal Investigation Task Force.OverviewThe Cultural Awareness training was conducted at the Criminal Investigation Task Force (CITF)facilities on Ft. Belvoir, VA. The training is led by Mr. David Zenian in cooperation with theDefense Intelligence Agency acting as a mobile training team.The training lasted 2 days (16 hours), and was provided in a classroom environment to a Jointaudience. The 16 hours consists of a in depth study of Islam, Arab/ Islamic Resurgence, ArabNaming Conventions, Overview of Afghanistan with a study of the Insurgency and Tribalism,Arab Media, and the influence of Hezbollah. The training audience consisted of Field Gradeofficers from USA, USN, USAF and senior NCOs from USN and USAF.The following report describes the information collected at Cultural Awareness Trainingconducted at the Criminal Investigation Task Force, Ft. Belvoir, VA, December 8-9, 2010.Participants  Sandra Hughes, NAWCTSD  Nic Bencaz, CPG  Greg Lindsey, CPGCopyright © 2011 CPG L-3 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 160. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527MethodThe assessment methodology includes:  Observing and participating in the Cultural Awareness training.  Administering surveys to members of the training audience;  Describing the purpose of the research to leadership, trainers, and members of the training audience;  Conducting Interviews:  One instructor: David Zenian  Informal interviews of the training audience:  3 Air force Captains  1 Air force NCO  1 Navy NCOThe data for the analysis includes, training observation forms, class materials, and field notes.Due to the secure setting of the training location, interviews were unable to be recorded.Additionally, the constrained time of the training prevented traditional thorough interviews.Materials Collected included:  Notes from Interviews and Discussions  Course Syllabus  Arab word definitions (i.e. Umma, Qur‘an)  Completed K1 Surveys (N = 12)  Powerpoint slides of all classes taught throughout the 2 daysThe following is a description of these materials: Interviews and Discussions: interview discussions included questions about requirements, major training components, challenges to training and recommendations for any changes. Course Syllabus: Hours provided for each subject and Instructors.Copyright © 2011 CPG L-4 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 161. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527 Training length Activity/Topic Instructor Day 1: Wednesday, December 8th, 2010 2 hours Islam David Zenian 1 hour Arab/Islamic Resurgence David Zenian 1 hour Road to 9/11 Documentary Film 1 hour Lunch 1 hour Arab Naming Conventions David Zenian 2 hours Inside the Arab Mind David Zenian Day 2: Thursday, December 9th, 2010 2 hours Afghanistan Overview: History, Geography, Human Terrain Tor Achekzai 2 hours Afghanistan: Insurgency, Tribalism Farhad Pazhwak 1 hour Lunch 2 hours Arab Media David Zenian 1 hour Hezbollah David Zenian Surveys: includes demographic questions, 15 questions on culture training, and 15 questions on survival language training received at the site. Powerpoint slides for all lessons: includes course materials on Cultural Awareness, covering such topics as Hezbollah, the Islamic Resurgence, Basic Islam, Arab naming conventions, Arab Media, and Arab Psyche.Field NotesThe following is a summary of the field notes, including Training Observation notes andinterview notes.Copyright © 2011 CPG L-5 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 162. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527Training coursesInstructor Name: David ZenianCourses: Islam, Arab Islamic Resurgence, Arab Naming Conventions, Inside the Arab Mind,Arab Media, and HezbollahClass size: 12 StudentsMajor Observations:  Mr. David Zenian was the key instructor for the 2 day course. He was very knowledgeable with each subject he taught and involved the students in the discussions that contributed greatly to the learning and understanding of the subject material. Mr. Zenian is of Armenian decent and worked as a foreign correspondent for UPI in the Middle East for over 20 years.  Instructor utilized PowerPoint slides to introduce the topic, and used personal experiences to show the importance of this training as well as involving the students in depth discussions of the materiel.  The students were all field grade officers from the USA, USN, and USAF with senior NCOS from the USN and USAF. The course material was appropriate for these level students.  A basic study of Islam and Arab Islamic resurgence was covered for the first three hours on Day 1. An in depth study of the 5 pillars of Islam was the cornerstone for this training. Mr. Zenian was extremely knowledgeable with this subject and led student discussions that enhanced the learning for the subject. This subject was followed by a 1 hour documentary titled ―Road to 9/11‖.  Arab Naming convention and Inside the Arab Mind classes were taught in the afternoon of Day 1.  The instructor first provided background for how Arab names are given and had a practical application with the class on putting their names in Arab. It provided a greater understanding of the importance of names in the Arab community.  Arab Media and the role of Hezbollah courses were taught the afternoon of Day 2 by Mr. Zenian. These provided and insight on how Arab media differs from others and how it is used by extremist. A short history of Hezbollah was given and Mr. Zenian explained the strength of their role throughout the Middle East.Training courseInstructor Name: Tor AchekziaCourses: Afghanistan Overview: History, Geography, Human TerrainClass size: 12 StudentsMajor Observations:  Mr. Tor Achekzia was the instructor for the 2 hour course. He is contracted through Booze Allen Hamilton (BAH) to DIA as an instructor. He is an Afghani- American andCopyright © 2011 CPG L-6 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 163. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527 previously taught at Kabul University. He left Afghanistan during the Taliban resurgence and worked at the US consulate in Karachi until he was admitted to the US.  Instructor utilized PowerPoint slides to introduce the topic, and used personal experiences to aid in the instruction.  The material covered mostly history and demographics of Afghanistan that was difficult to retain in the short time frame. The material did not cover any culture aspects that could aid a deploying soldier. It was basically material that can be obtained from the CIA‘s country studies.Training courseInstructor Name: Furhad F. PazivakCourses: Afghanistan: Insurgency and TribalismClass size: 12 StudentsMajor Observations:  Mr. Furhad Pazivak was the instructor for the 2 hour course. He is contracted through Booze Allen Hamilton (BAH) to DIA as an instructor.  Instructor utilized PowerPoint slides to introduce the topic, and used personal experiences to aid in the instruction.  This course covered all the major tribes throughout Afghanistan and the important role they play in the Afghan culture. It also covered the history and resurgence of the Taliban. He brought out the relationship of Saudi Arabia and the Taliban.  He involved the students in discussions than contributed to their learning. This was a very important course for anyone that is deploying to the region.  The subject was followed by a documentary ―Behind Taliban Lines‖ that provided live footage of the Taliban organization on a mission to organize, construct, emplace, and detonate a roadside bomb in Northern Afghanistan.  Feedback in the form of After Action Reviews (AARs) were provided by the instructor (Zenian), whereby the instructor judged the students understanding and value of the classes taught.Interviews Instructor (Mr. David Zenian) – conducted by Sandra Hughes. Key points from this interview:  Course structure is dictated by TRADOC  Need more regional experts to teach  One size does not fit all for cultural training (.i.e. O-4 needs different training that E- 4)  Instructors need to engage the class room more and prompt their thinking—don‘t just read powerpoint slides.Copyright © 2011 CPG L-7 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 164. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527 Student interviews - informal Interviews conducted during breaks in the instruction. Key Points:  There was close to an even split among those who volunteered for this training versus those required to attend  Only one student (out of 12) in the class had plans to deploy in the next 7 months  While the majority found the training insightful and valuable, most were unsure how they would use the newly learned information in their current roleOverall Conclusions  This training should not be considered ―pre-deployment‖ training. It was at was at a level too high for general purpose forces.  The instructor (Zenian) was also very open to interacting with the students, and answered all types of questions, no matter how sensitive the topic.  This training was valuable and suited very well to the level of the audience. In particular, the detailed use of analogies from instructors who have resided in the U.S. for some time now coupled with a background history lesson distinguished this particular training session from those we have observed to date. While general force populations may not have the time in their training schedule to receive similar training, aspects of history and a better use of analogies should be incorporated at all levels for greater understanding and retention.Copyright © 2011 CPG L-8 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 165. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527 APPENDIX M: TRIP REPORT – MCGUIRE AFB.Copyright © 2011 CPG M-1 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 166. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527 DEFENSE LANGUAGE OFFICE Trip Report: Pre-deployment Culture and Survival Language Air Advisor Training (McGuire AFB), Fort Dix, NJ Prepared by: Ms. Gabriella Severe, NAWCTSD, Orlando, FL Nic Bencaz, Cognitive Performance Group, Orlando, FL August 23, 2010Copyright © 2011 CPG M-2 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 167. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527 Trip ReportProject BackgroundThe DLO sponsor proposed a quick turn-around field study to baseline the current practices andapproaches used by the Services for pre-deployment culture and survival language training.Before engaging in a comprehensive assessment, the project team considered several methodsfor developing the pre-deployment culture and survival language training baseline including: 1) areview of the cultural training programs, 2) direct observation of the culture training in the field,and 3) capturing the experiences from the perspectives of training developers, trainers andmembers of the training audience through interviews or perhaps surveys.Purpose of the TripThe purpose of this trip was to observe pre-deployment culture and survival language trainingand obtain information via interviews from leadership, trainers, and members of the trainingaudience on training support.OverviewThe Air Advisory pre-deployment training is being administered at McGuire AFB located in FortDix, NJ. This training supports the deployment of members of the Air Force to Afghanistan andIraq. The program is composed primarily of volunteers that are both senior (O3-O5) and juniorlevel personnel (E4-E7) who will be deployed within the year. They are being trained to replacetheir counterparts overseas in assessing, training, educating, advising, and assisting foreignpersonnel as they build their aviation capabilities. This training program has a four weekduration, with the first two weeks focusing on culture and survival language training. Trainingon culture and survival language is taught over 49 hours in instruction. The last two weeks arecentered on combat readiness skills in case of hostile situations. The team conducted its site visitduring the second week as the airmen were going through courses geared towards culture andsurvival language training. During the visit, the team implemented methodology that will bediscussed further within the report.The purpose of this report is to describe the information collected at McGuire AFB, Air AdvisorTraining, in Fort Dix, NJ from July 26 -28, 2010.ParticipantsGabriella Severe, NAWCTSDNic Bencaz, CPGCopyright © 2011 CPG M-3 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 168. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527MethodThe approach called for an assessment of how Fort Dix/McGuire provides pre-deploymentculture and survival language training to individuals in Air Advisor positions.The assessment methodology included:  Observed culture and survival language training course (i.e., Arabic Language, Dari Language, Cross-Cultural Communication, Cross-Cultural Relationships, Middle Eastern Social Skills, Intro to Iraqi Culture, Intro to Afghan Culture, Negotiations)  Participated in an Iraqi and Afghan Cultural Meal  Administered surveys to members of the training audience  Described the purpose of the research to leadership, trainers, and members of the training audience.  Conducted Interviews (recorded):  Project manager: Jack Smith  Trainers: Kate Jordan, Javed Hakimyar, Arkan Alazzawi, and Col Jonathan Payne  Four members of the training audience  CPG will transcribe the interviews and summarize the results in narrative form.The data for the analysis will include interview transcripts, and field notes. The analysis will bepresented later in a separate report. For this brief trip report, we have reviewed only the fieldnotes in order to identify some major themes and initial impressions about the instructionalmethods. A later report will provide analysis and more details.Materials Collected included:  Taped Interviews and Discussions  Surveys (41)  Culture Smart Card (Iraq and Afghanistan)  Expeditionary Airman Field Guide (Iraq and Afghanistan)  Air Advisor Course Book (July 2010)  Air Advisor Course Book CD (includes slides presented for each course)  Air Advisor Course Schedule (4 weeks)  DLIFLC Dari Basic Language Survival Guide (Jan. 2005)  DLIFLC Dari Medical Language Survival Guide (Feb. 2005)  Cross Cultural Scenario work sheets (4)  Negotiation ―Offer Game‖ worksheet (3)  Afghan Ranks and Combat Uniforms Army of Afghanistan worksheetCopyright © 2011 CPG M-4 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 169. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527Following is a description of these materialsTaped Interviews and Discussions: interview discussions included questions about requirements,major training components, challenges to training, typical training day, etc.Surveys: includes demographic questions, 15 questions on culture training, and 15 questions onsurvival language training received at the site.Culture Smart Cards: provides airmen with the culture mindset of the region, vocabulary,greetings/phrases, landscape, religion, flags, ethnic group, dos and don‘ts, etc.Expeditionary Airman Field Guides: prepares airmen to deploy to culturally complexenvironments. Part 1 introduces the foundational knowledge you need to effectively operate inany cross-cultural environment (culture general). Part 2 of the guide focuses on 12 domains (e.g.family and kinship, religion and spirituality, sex and gender, political and social relations,economics and resources, time and space, language and communication, history and myth,sustenance and health, learning and knowledge, aesthetics and recreation, political and socialrelations) describing the specific region.Air Advisor Course Book: provides and overview of all courses provided within the 4 weektraining, including information such as lesson title, course developer, method, objectives, samplebehaviors, and references.Air Advisor Course Book CDs: includes a copy of all course slides, language materials,additional readings, tips from current Air Advisors, critical incidents, etc.Air Advisor Course Schedule: provides airmen with the dates and locations of when and whereclasses will be held.DLIFLC Dari Basic Language Survival Guide: provides key phrases (in Dari and English andwith phonetic spellings) needed for basic communication such as commands, warnings,instructions, greetings, directions, locations, general military, numbers, emergency terms, etc.DLIFLC Dari Medical Language Survival Guide: provides key phrases (in Dari and English andwith phonetic spellings) needed for basic communication in the medical field. Areas coveredwithin the guide include, surgical consent, trauma, procedures, pain and medicine interview,surgical instructions, exam commands, etc.Cross Cultural Scenario work sheets: provides several vignettes of how cultural interactionamong culturally distant individuals can be misunderstood, followed by question about whatwent wrong.Copyright © 2011 CPG M-5 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 170. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527Negotiation ―Offer Game‖ worksheet: a two player game that describes how perceptions offairness effect negotiations.Afghan Ranks and Combat Uniforms Army of Afghanistan worksheet: provides illustrations ofdifferent ranks within the specific region and provides English to Dari translations.Field NotesIn the following is a summary of information collected during the site visit to Fort McGuire.First, descriptions of the actual training courses observed will be described. Next, informationfrom discussions about culture and language training will be addressed. Finally, a few othertake-aways from the visit will be conveyed.Training coursesInstructor Name: Kate JordanCourse Title: Cross Cultural Communication/RelationshipClass size: approx. 40 StudentsMajor Observations:  Instructor utilized slides to introduce the topic, personal experiences to show the importance, and scenario worksheets to have students practice what was just learned  Asked students to ―read‖ her as an activity in the beginning of the course (i.e. what assumptions would they make about her based on hear appearance, dress, and jewelry) She explained a different interpretation, based on an eastern view  Covered appropriate touching, physical conversational distance, gestures, facial expression  Included a video ―Day in the Life. This was a military person‘s (named Meyer) story about being hosted by a person from the Middle East.  Provided paper-based scenarios of various interactions and allowed students to pair up to act out roles and discuss the questions provided at the end. Discussion included misinterpretations, confusion, issues, and how to handle the situations in a culturally appropriate way.  Included studies about the Cultural Adaptation Cycle from Harvard (built credibility)  Explained the differences between high/low context and individualist/collectivist cultures and how communication styles changes across eachInstructor Name: Arkan AlazzawiCourse Title: Middle Eastern Social SkillsClass size: approx. 40 StudentsMajor Observations:Copyright © 2011 CPG M-6 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 171. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527  Instructor used slides to introduce the material and active practice to keep audience engaged  Touching, gestures, and proper etiquette and posture at a dinner table were discussed  The history of certain customs were explainedInstructor Name: Arkan AlazzawiCourse Title: Introduction to Iraqi CultureClass size: approx. 20 StudentsMajor Observations:  Instructor used slides and active practice for the course  Explained the history of Islamic religion and compared the Qur‘an to the Torah and Gospels  Described traditions and customs (e.g., how marriages are performed and dissolved)  Explained the primary system used to transfer money (Hawala)Instructor Name: Javed HakimyarCourse Title: Introduction to Afghan CultureClass size: approx. 20 StudentsMajor Observations:  Training was classroom and PowerPoint based with lecture and video  Described how Afghan culture (including geography, history, tribes, and religion) influences inhabitant‘s attitudes and behaviorsInstructor Name: Reema DwarziCourse Title: Dari LanguageClass size: approx. 20 StudentsMajor Observations:  The course utilized slides, DLIFLC Language Survival Guides, and a dry erase board  Required students enunciate numerous words and phrases repeatedly  Required students to participate in active practice in front of the class  During the class, the instructor would pick on individuals to answer questions in Dari  Infuses some culture within the course, such as common practices in Afghanistan  Provided military ranks worksheet and discussed some discrepancies among the two cultures  Clarified what inappropriate gestures to avoid  Presented information about the life of interpreters and the way to train and use an interpreter effectivelyCopyright © 2011 CPG M-7 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 172. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527Instructor Name: Col Jonathan PayneCourse Title: Negotiations and Conflict ResolutionClass size: approx. 40 StudentsMajor Observations:  Instructor uses slides and worksheets  The students paired up to participate in the offer game  Explained the five styles of negotiation (insist, evade, comply, cooperate, settle)  Cross-cultural spin on negotiations and best tactics to implementMajor Findings  Tries to keep classrooms at a 1 to 15 ratio and if classrooms exceed that ratio, DLI will send additional instructors to accommodate the additional students  Students are given materials before courses begin and access to CBT about culture general information  Utilizes a level 1 Kirkpatrick survey after each course to solicit feedback from the students on how to make the specific class better  Working on a way to assess if students have learned the materials in order to gauge if the methods of training is effective. Plans to develop a language test first  Natives are used to teach language  There was overlap between culture and language because of the saying such as ―In-sha Allah‖ needed some cultural explanations  Provides a history of Islam course to help students better understand why people from that region perform certain customs (in line with their religious beliefs)  The last day of the training program, students participate in a 6 hour FTX. It is a fully immersive environment with role players where students are able to practice everything they were taught.  The technique in the language courses is to have students learn a little and practice a lot  DLI sends their linguist that will be deployed to the region to teach English through this training in order for them to get an understanding about the culture  Some instructors use index cards for students to write down their specific questions and try to incorporate them in the class  There are recommended readings for each course and some of the materials can be checked out from the on-site library (e.g., the Qur‘an in English)  Would like to add an additional course on ―how to teach an Afghan‖ because the western views of teaching/learning differs from the western notions  Some challenges to providing the best training is limited time, not enough practical exercises, and a lack of immersive training  The Air Advisor Course Book can be updated by Randolph Air Force Base quickly with a turn-around time of a week (books are printed for each upcoming class)Copyright © 2011 CPG M-8 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 173. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527  DLI sends the curriculum and instructors adjust the material to incorporate critical incidents and recent studies  Students are realizing the importance of culture and survival language training now more than before  Some resources available for students are sponsors in theater, instructor‘s emails, job aids, and Facebook to communicate with other advisors in theater  Training site received a curriculum review recently at Lackland Air Force Base, but would like to receive more feedback on their actual training programTake-Awaysecomy of the region.  Advanced distributed learning system (ADLS) located at https://golearn.csd.disa.mil is where the Airmen‘s computer based training (CBT) is located.  This computer-based training is not required of Air Advisors, though it was reported that approximately 90% of students completed the 4 hour training block prior to starting the Air Advisor course.  Community of Practice (COP) web site is where instructor materials are housed (web site)InterviewsNine individuals were interviewed: 1 program manager, 4 instructors, and 4 students. The mainareas we inquired about concerned potential best practices, what learningrequirements/objectives are given, how learning is evaluated, what is most valued by thestudents, and how content is revised to remain current.Student interviewsStudents all reported the training they are receiving in this course on culture and survivallanguage far exceeds any similar training they have previously gone through. One student wasquoted as saying: ―To this point hands over head, head over heels this has been a lot bettertraining that I received prior because we‘ve had the time to do it and I‘m learning a lot.‖ Theyappreciate the small teacher to student ratio, the practical exercises that force them to use theirnew knowledge, the way culture and language are integrated into both culture and languageclasses, and that training is tailored to the area they will be deploying to. They further expressedthe value of having instructors accessible through email after the course ends to respond to anyadditional concerns or questions.Instructor interviewsOn the surface, instructors all appear to be well qualified in the subject matter. This opinion wasonly reinforced after observing classes and interviewing the instructors. They are all eithercertified through DLI, or are individuals who have previously lived in the host nations and actedas translators. Further, given certain time constraints, instructors keep their course material veryclose to the requirements that are handed down from AETC (Air Education Training Command)Copyright © 2011 CPG M-9 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 174. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527and AFCLC (Air Force Culture and Language Center) in the course handbooks. Instructorsmake revisions to classes after each course is completed (there are 11 courses taught each year).Revisions are a product of feedback from current students, former students already down range,DLI, and formal discussions with other instructors.Teach a total of 49 hours on instruction.  30 hours are language,  8 hours culture general,  4 hours culture specific,  7 hours practical exercises (e.g., FTX, cultural meal)Language is taught every day for two weeks in short blocks focusing on greetings, basic phrasesin the DLI handbook, and pronunciation. Pronunciation is stressed in the training. It was statedthat if students can pronounce key words and letters correctly, they can communicate using theirhandbooks for backup.Culture is taught generally by introducing 3C (cross cultural competency) on culturalcommunications, relations, and negotiations. An instructor summarized 3C as ―Beingcomfortable with being uncomfortable.‖ Following this, instruction is then broken up to focus onthe specific area Airmen are deploying to. Some examples of social skills taught are how to givegifts, how to receive gifts, how to show respect for religious people who are praying, and whatare the appropriate actions for a funeral, wedding parties, or dinner.A recurring theme noticed throughout site visits was pointed out by one instructor specificallywhen discussing who gets the most out of the training: ―Interestingly, the more prior experiencethey have, usually the more engaged they are to talk about this stuff rather than the opposite. Ithink the more you are exposed to it, the more you realize you need it.‖Program manager interviewAside from providing background information and course materials mentioned previously, theprogram manager revealed insights into best practices that had been mentioned by bothinstructors and students alike. The best practices observed or discussed were:  Sponsorship > Students are assigned sponsors (i.e. the person they will replace or overlap with in theater) within the first couple days of the course, and are able to reach out right away to these sponsors for advice on their upcoming role and what in particular they should look to take away from the course.  Cultural Meal > Students are taken to either an Afghan or Iraqi home or establishment to: ―Eat out of a common bowl and sit on a stool or the floor … so its not so strange the first time they do it there [in theater]. Now is it still going to be awkward oh, yeah but atCopyright © 2011 CPG M-10 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 175. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527 least it wont be completely foreign. There are so many things that are going to be overwhelming if we can remove some of those thats the goal.‖  DLI sends their linguists to McGuire AFB for training > The researchers were made aware that DLI values the cultural and language training given at McGuire AFB so much that they send their own employees who are going to be teaching English in theater (to Iraqi of Afghan counterparts) to the course to train with the Airmen.  Crawl-Walk-Run approach > Culture and language instruction are taught in a classroom setting, followed by active practice with instructors, and then role playing in field exercises. ―A student may ask a question in language not about conjugating a verb but how do I act in this situation and the instructor is able to provide that. Then reinforce it during the culture lesson and then act it out during the practical exercises‖ConclusionThe Air Advisor Course at McGuire AFB appears to be a stellar program. The extensive trainingcan be attributable to the specific role of Air Advisors, and therefore training goes beyond thatwhich is dispensed for general forces. However, best practices from this institution should becalled out and potentially utilized at other stations where applicable.Despite praise given to this training course, this program of instruction lacks any type of formaltesting/evaluation – something that is planned for future courses. As the program manager put itbest, ―If Im not doing a consistent evaluation I dont know if introducing that new curriculumwas effective or it may have been less effective [if they students learned]‖ That is, they areunable to measure improvements, much less baseline performance without testing in place. Thisconclusion reinforces the need for a Kirtkpatrick level II test which shall be tested as adeliverable on this project.This trip report has detailed an initial snapshot of culture and survival language training beingadministered at McGuire AFB for Air Advisory Personnel. This snapshot was composed ofinterviews, observations, and training material given.Copyright © 2011 CPG M-11 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 176. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527 APPENDIX N: TRIP REPORT - DR. CULTURECopyright © 2011 CPG N-1 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 177. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527 DEFENSE LANGUAGE OFFICE Trip Report: Cross-Cultural Communications Course Orlando, FL Prepared by: Sandra Hughes, NAWCTSD, Orlando, FL September 15, 2010Copyright © 2011 CPG N-2 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 178. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527 Trip ReportThe purpose of this report is to describe the information collected at a four-day cross-culturalcommunications course in Orlando, FL, 9-12 August 2010.Purpose of the TripThe purpose of this trip was to attend a four day cross-cultural communications course andconduct an interview with Dr. Thomas Connell (―Dr. Culture‖) President of InterlinkConsulting Services, Inc., regarding pre-deployment culture and survival language training.OverviewThe Cross-Cultural Communications Course was administered in Orlando, FL from 09-12August, 2010.ParticipantsCarol Paris & Sandra Hughes, NAWCTSDMethodThe approach called for an assessment of the cross-cultural communications course.The assessment methodology included: a. Participated in presentations given by lecturers. b. Conducted Interviews (recorded):  Speaker: Dr. Thomas Connell i. CPG transcribed the interview and summarized the results in narrative form.The data for the analysis will include interview transcripts, and field notes.Materials Collected included:  Booklet of supplementary materials, ―Achieving Cross Cultural Competency, Russia-Eastern Europe, Asia, the Middle East, Latin America. Terrorism Awareness, and Travel Security‖  CD of supplementary materials, ―Interlink Consulting Services, Bonus Info Disk‖. This rich source of materials includes documents on how American culture contrasts with other cultures. It also includes numerous guides to specific countries (e.g. Afghanistan, Egypt, Japan, China, Mexico, Greece, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, Spain, etc.)Copyright © 2011 CPG N-3 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 179. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527Field Notes(Included here are notes from the portion of the class devoted to American culture, and theportion devoted to Middle Eastern Cultures. This should provide an idea of the training contentprovided throughout the four day class)Interlink is trying to trademark the term, ―Cross Cultural Competence.‖Interlink has been training NAVAIR employees since the late 1980sThis course focused on cultural underpinnings, the ―why‖ behind the ―what‖This training differs from pre-deployment training in several respects:  The civilians they train typically have less time interacting with the culture they are being taught to interact with, compared to the military.  The motivation of the internationals who will work with the U.S. personnel being trained is different. The civilians being trained are generally in foreign military sales. Thus, the internationals they are working with are motivated to work with them. In contrast, the military personnel deploying abroad may be seen as a threat. The internationals they encounter may not want to work with them (at best) or may be the enemy (at the most extreme)Culture can be thought of as collective programmingCharacteristics of American Culture:  Self-reliant  Individualistic  Personal Responsibility  Self-help  Family is primarily nuclear family  Future Focus  Religious freedom and freedom from religion  Guilt, not shameRule #1: When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at changeClassroom Notes from Lesson on Middle Eastern CultureDesert culture (How the environment shapes culture)  Extreme silence of the desert  People choose to picnic in the desert the way Americans flock to waterways for picnics  The environment requires survival in harsh circumstances. For example, every bit of a camel is used (hide, meat, milk, dung for fires, urine for shampoo)  When people move around a lot, the things that are important to them tend to be intangible (e.g., honor, not goods)  Desert people survive by being part of a group. Every member of the tribe is needed. Strong tribes can‘t be raided. Sons are essential to keep tribes strong. Warriors are important. The appearance of strength is key. Many sons = many warriors.Copyright © 2011 CPG N-4 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 180. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527  Honorable behavior promotes group cohesion and group survival  Avoiding shame. Blood feuds are a blight on the cultures in the Middle East. Shame comes from looking weak. Important to avoid blame or fault that makes one look weak. If your tribe is raided, you must go and kill someone from that tribe.  Hospitality is necessary for survival. Obligation to provide 3 days of food and shelter to visitors.  Eloquence is highly valued: Intangible that you can carry anywhere: poets, storytellers, people who remember the lineages are valued.History of Islam  Top Muslim Beliefs: monotheism, prophets and scriptures, judgment day, pillars of faith  Sunni/Shia split  Arab-Israeli disputeGaps between American and Arab values:  Individualism vs. Collectivism. There is no word with a positive connotation that means private (There is only loneliness and isolation)  Tribe or family is equal to U.S. retirement plan, transportation, elder care, social security  Religion in U.S. is a personal choice, faith and belief. In Arab culture, it is group identity.  Technology focus in U.S. and belief that we can influence the environment vs. belief in fatalism and predestination.  U.S. values youth, Arabs value age. They would consider a person who puts their parents in a nursing home a monster.  Directly resolving problems vs. using intermediaries and indirectness  Avoiding guilt vs. avoiding shame (concern about what others think)InterviewAn interview was conducted with Dr. Thomas Connell, known in the field as ―Dr. Culture,‖President of Interlink Consulting Services, Inc., regarding cross-cultural competence (3C), aswell as pre-deployment culture and survival language training.Dr. Connell begins by explaining a bit about his background. The Air Force Special OperationsSchool is where he officially began working with the Department of Defense (DoD) when hewas on active duty. Back then, there was only one course in all of the DoD for cross-culturalcommunications, which ran eight times per year. It was for all services, but was designedoriginally for Special Forces because they were having a difficult time training internationalmilitary people. All of the significant problems they were encountering were culturally-based. Itseems they were mainly training people of eastern cultures, but relating to them as if they wereAmerican. This was because the people spoke English fairly well, so it was natural forCopyright © 2011 CPG N-5 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 181. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527Americans to assume they were westernized. He worked on modifying the program for them.The Cultural Language Center at Maxwell AFB did not come about until much later and in Dr.Connell‘s experience, the Air Force was the least likely of all the services to provide culturaltraining. He notes, ―I can‘t tell you how often I run into, ‗they can figure that out when they getthere,‘ which is exactly the wrong thing to do.‖Later in the interview, Dr. Connell explains this further when he discusses how the nature of theAir Force is for people to fly in and drop off supplies, and fly back out again a day or so later.They did not see a need for 3C. However, even in this short amount of time, they oftenadversely affected missions. This was because they did not provide much cultural training,figuring that personnel would not be interacting with the locals, since they were not living therelike Soldiers or Marines. Often, the Air Force guys would fly in and in just a few days or evenhours, behave so offensively toward the indigenous people that they would undo months ofpainstaking rapport- and relationship-building efforts.When told of the cultural training and role-playing efforts going on at Ft. McGuire and Ft. Dix,Dr. Connell said that when you have military members training military members, there are―pluses and minuses to it.‖ What he has found is that due to the turnover in the military, whereevery two years, someone is being replaced, any type of training needs to be built from scratcheach time and so nothing gets accomplished that way and the training never improves. No one isreally invested in improving it in the military. He finds that being in the civilian business worldof training, there is a lot of course correction to make sure everyone is on target because of theamount of funds invested. There is a lot more effort on being relevant, as a result of this. Hedoes point out, however, that ―Nav Air does this really, really well.‖When asked how Dr. Connell knows when to update the training, he points out that because oneperson cannot be everywhere, he needs to rely on others who are experts in this field to keep himcurrent. He has ―352 people and they‘re all just drop dead authorities.‖ They meet every coupleof weeks, usually virtually over Skype or via emails. By doing this, he has a whole contingentupon whom he can rely for expertise, noting ―the people that I have are not only good on thesubject matter, but they are very closely connected to the military and DoD as well. Many ofthem are retired military. But they are also very, very good at what they do.‖The interviewer brought up the differences between business people who travel to othercountries for brief stays of only a week or so and the military who are deployed there for monthsat a time. Another difference is that military people need to be trained on how to extractinformation and intelligence from people of other cultures and to do so in a short period of time.In this regard, Dr. Connell noted the differences between Americans and other cultures, in thatwe are very task-focused. Our inclination is to sit down with someone and say up front that wewould like to get the information – ―where are the bad guys‖ – that sort of thing. However, thisCopyright © 2011 CPG N-6 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 182. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527would offend a tribal leader who would never sacrifice the safety of his own family by sharingsuch information. Therefore, one must ingratiate oneself into the fold and get to know the elder,slowly. He related the story of a Brigadier General who took off his armor to show trust andvulnerability. He drank tea all day with the elder, talked about children, families, and on and on,day after day. Only after a trusting relationship was securely established, did he bring up tryingto help the elder and his family by finding the insurgents and protecting the elder‘s people. Theanalogy Dr. Connell used was that building relationships with Arab people is like dating. Youdo not start off trusting and disclosing everything, but the process goes more slowly;relationships must be carefully built and trust developed over time.Dr. Connell also explained the concept of the ―ugly American,‖ which can apply to any countryor culture when someone does something very offensive. He explained the grave offense ofshowing the bottom of the foot to someone from an Arabic culture, how it is not as silly as weAmericans presume. In Arab cultures, it seems that the foot is the filthiest part of the humanbody. So, to show the bottom of the foot is the ultimate sign of disrespect and disdain. The wayhe explains it, it seems to be as bad as spitting in someone‘s face, as he related that it is evenworse than ―flipping somebody off - it‘s not even close - it‘s just so outrageous.‖ He notes thatthis is the type of ―silly, silly stuff from our perspective that really can destroy a greatrelationship. And it‘s all about relationships.‖On the subject of the types of customers Dr. Connell has trained, he states that he has trainedMarines and the Army, and that they put together the entire pre-deployment training program forthe Air Force, after meeting with the Deputy Secretary of the Air Force. This is where hediscusses the story of how Air Force personnel ―were doing things to the locals or the indigenousthat was [sic] ruining the relationships that had been established with everybody who was livingwith these people and staying there.‖ Therefore, he and his colleagues conducted a full five daysof Middle East training, including an hour of survival Arabic language, in the U.S., and thenanother five days in Jordan. After that, a new person was put in charge in the military and wasnot interesting in training cultural skills. Dr. Connell relates, ―they‘ll take care of it when theyget there or we don‘t have time for that, we have operational things we have to train them on.But really this is a core competency that is going to drive success and failure in many otherthings.‖In discussing the core competencies that would be most critical to train, Dr. Connell felt thenumber one priority to convey to trainees would be an understanding of Islam. This is becauseunlike the U.S., where even religious people only engage in religious activities once a week,Islam permeates every moment of their lives, from the minute they are born through the―programming‖ during their teen years – all of their lives. He notes that ―you cannot understandthe Arab mind or Arab world without understanding the part that Islam plays.‖ The entiresociety seems to be built on the teachings of Islam, according to Dr. Connell, from theCopyright © 2011 CPG N-7 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 183. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527male/female roles to the prayers five times/day. (Speaking of male/female relationships, he talksof how this interview would not be conducted in the Arab world, as the interviewer is female andwould need other males with her to protect her honor. She would also be covered up, except forthe eyes. Men and women are not allowed to be alone together, ever, unless they are married.)He relates the profound influence of Islam on the culture to how American culture is based onthe cowboy – the strong, individualistic, self-reliant values Americans honor to this day. But thecowboy era was hardly 100 years, whereas Islamic culture extends back in time for centuries.The second most important thing to train, according to Dr. Connell, would be the recent historyof the region, such as the development of the Islamic desert culture or the part Arab-Israelirelations play. Another very important understanding would be the ethnic breakdown of theculture, such as Shi‘a and Sunni differences. Dr. Connell talks about Sadaam Hussein and howwe, as Americans, believed he gassed his own people. But in his mind, he did not. They werenot his people but were akin to insects. Again, we impose our beliefs and values on the Arabmind. And this will not work, as ―to operate in this environment so [sic] you need to understandthis.‖Other competencies to train, according to Dr. Connell, would be background information on theregion, such as what causes mortality rates (e.g., in the U.S., this would be heart disease as thenumber one killer), as well as drinking traditions (e.g., if they drink alcohol, traditions arounddrinking tea), literacy rates, education levels, their overall pains and concerns. And finally, oneshould know of any ―cultural oddities.‖ He explains how in Korea, he wrote a poem to honor anelder Korean on his birthday and was instantly ―in‖ as a beloved friend or even family member.When asked about the most difficult thing to train or get across to the trainees, Dr. Connell saidit would be that this knowledge is actually ―important‖ to know. People do not understand thecriticality of cultural knowledge. He also stated that, ―the higher up you go in mostorganizations, the less cross-cultural knowledge is there.‖ He gave more examples of cross-cultural faux pas, and discussed how much time the military should devote to this type oftraining. That signals how important it is. At the JFK Special Warfare Center, for instance, theyonly received a 45-minute class. ―That‘s not enough to say this is important. Because if theorganization doesn‘t recognize it‘s important, such as Nav Air does, then why would they botherto take it seriously?‖When asked what should be taught in pre-deployment training, in particular, Dr. Connellresponded that for continuing military education, 3C should be “a regular part of professionalmilitary training. …. If the organization itself says this is important to the point where we arepulling you off other training to put you into this, we feel it‘s important and you need tounderstand this is important.‖ For pre-deployment, it would be more of a ―micro-burst ofCopyright © 2011 CPG N-8 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 184. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527information.‖ It is better than nothing but really needs to be done on a regular basis to beeffective, in his opinion.In contrast to others, he does not believe that language is as important to train as 3C is. It couldbe ―dropped in there on a very regular basis. Everyone can learn another language. Some of usstruggle, struggle, struggle with other languages, but you can be culturally fluent and you can beculturally competent and not be able to find your behind linguistically in a culture but you canstill function. … So, language is great but if we don‘t have time to learn about culture how areyou going to devote 18 months learning Arabic - that‘s monstrous…you can be culturallycompetent a lot easier, a lot more cost-effectively, than you can with language.‖Finally, with regard to the three tracks – language, 3C, and regional knowledge, Dr. Connellfeels that the best thing would be to ask returning personnel what they felt was the mostimportant thing to know – what they wished they had known before going. Of course, much willdepend on their jobs on deployment, if they were ―door kickers,‖ that sort of thing. He reiteratesthe differences in culture again – how 80% or more of the people living in Afghanistan did notknow that Afghanistan existed as a country. ―That is the level of person you‘re going to beworking with and sipping tea with and asking them about where the bad guys are and what can Ido for you here. It‘s going to be a different set of mental tools with them …but the regional withthe culture – that works well.‖ConclusionOverall, Dr. Connell provided good insight into the role of cross-cultural awareness and theimportance of perspective-taking with regard to 3C, especially when it comes to ―winning heartsand minds‖ and establishing relationships. His colorful examples bring home his pointsthroughout. Several other trainers from Interlink Consulting presented on their areas of regionalexpertise. The content was engaging throughout. The only constructive feedback NAWCTSDwould give the group was that in some cases, the presenters (who were scholars on theirrespective geographic regions) focused on history without necessarily tying these events to themodern behavior, assumptions, values, etc. of the people. This is something that would bedifficult for the trainees to do on their own.We believe Dr. Connell would be a good resource to have with regard to collecting data and forproviding input as an SME, among other roles.Additional Resources:www.interlinkconsulting.comwww.drculture.comCopyright © 2011 CPG N-9 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 185. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527 APPENDIX O: TRIP REPORT - DLIFLCCopyright © 2011 CPG O-1 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 186. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527 DEFENSE LANGUAGE OFFICE Pre-deployment Culture and Survival Language Defense Language Institute, Foreign Language Center (DLIFLC) Monterey, CA Prepared by: Ms. Sandra Hughes, NAWCTSD, Orlando, FL 26 July 2010Copyright © 2011 CPG O-2 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 187. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527 Trip ReportThe purpose of this report is to describe the information collected at Defense Language Institute,Foreign Language Center (DLIFLC), in Monterey, CA 19 July 2010.Purpose of the TripThe purpose of this trip was to obtain information on pre-deployment culture and survivallanguage training support from leadership at DLIFLC.ParticipantsSandra Hughes, NAWCTSDBackgroundThe DLO sponsor proposed a quick turn-around field study to baseline the current practices andapproaches used by the Services for pre-deployment culture training and survival languagetraining.Before engaging in a comprehensive assessment, the project team considered several methodsfor developing the pre-deployment culture and survival language training baseline including: 1) areview of the cultural training programs, 2) direct observation of the culture training in the field,and 3) capturing the experiences from the perspectives of training developers, trainers andmembers of the training audience through interviews or perhaps surveys.MethodThe approach called for an assessment of how DLIFLC supports pre-deployment culture andsurvival language training to individuals and units across the services.The assessment methodology included:  Described the purpose of the research to leadership at DLIFLC.  Participated in formal briefs and product demos at DLIFLC.  Met with: Dr. Donald Fischer, Provost; Claire Bugary, Deputy Chief of Operations; Steve Collins, Dean of Field Support for an overview of DLIFLC and for more details on LTDs.  Met with Kiril Boyadjieff, Language Science and Technology (LS&T) Dean of Curriculum Development. Saw Demos of DLIFLC‘s online products.  Discussed Language Training Detachments with Steve Collins Interviewed DLIFLC leadership regarding their role in pre-deployment language and culture training for the services. Interviews were recorded.  CPG has transcribed the interviews and summarized the results in narrative.Copyright © 2011 CPG O-3 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 188. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527The data for the analysis will include interview transcripts, and field notes. The analysis will bepresented later in a separate report. For this brief trip report, we have reviewed only the fieldnotes in order to identify some major themes and initial impressions about the instructionalmethods. A later report will provide analysis and more details.Materials Collected included:  Taped Interviews and Discussions  Language Survival Kits (LSKs)  A review of an Executive Order regarding a new standard for language and culture training for the Army.  Hard copies of briefing slides  Syllabus of 16-week Dari courseFollowing is a description of these materials.Taped Interviews and Discussions. One recording is Dean Collins discussing how DLIFLCsupports pre-deployment language and culture training. A second recording is an interview withDean Collins using the standard interview protocol and focusing on Language TrainingDetachments (LTDs). A third recording is a discussion with the Dean, The Provost, and otherson the overlap of language and culture training at DLIFLC.Language Survival Kits (LSKs) were also collected. These are provided for personnel to use incase they do not have access to a qualified linguist while deployed. The LSKs include pocketsize quick reference booklets accompanying audio CDs. They contain words and phrases thatare appropriate for various missions.The first page in each booklet provides a pronunciation guide for sounds that are not familiar inEnglish. The rest of the booklet presents each phrase in English, the phonetic spelling inEnglish, and the phrase written in the foreign language. Each CD presents audio files ofspeakers saying key phrases in English, followed by native speakers saying the phrases in theforeign language.Different versions of the booklet and CD were collected:  Basic Survival Guide (Pronunciation Guide, Greetings; Commands, Warning, and Instructions)  Public Affairs  Aircrew  Medical  Weapons and Ordnance  Cordon and Search  Force Protection  Naval CommandsCopyright © 2011 CPG O-4 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 189. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527  Military PoliceReview of EXORD. A hard copy of a review of an Execution Order (EXORD)-Culture andLanguage Pre-Deployment Training Standards was also collected. The draft document wasdated 27 May 10. The review of the Executive Order was issued by the Department of theArmy, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G3/5/7. The Executive Order establishes pre-deployment training standards for culture and language. The standard calls for a DLIFLCcomputer-based solution for providing culture and language training to all soldiers. It applies toall personnel, whether part of a unit deployment or deploying as individualreplacements/augmentees. The requirements in the EXORD are applicable for deployment to allcontingency theatres (currently Afghanistan and Iraq, but subject to different regions in thefuture). The courseware, called ―Rapport‖ is being adapted from current DLIFLC trainingmaterials (Head Start and Cultural Orientations, described later in the report) and will be madeavailable online by Oct 1, 2010. The courseware will take four to six hours to complete. It willinclude both a cultural orientation and instruction on basic language greetings, courtesies, andexpressions. Dari, Pashto, and Iraqi Arabic courseware will be provided. A record of thetraining will be entered automatically into Army Training Requirements and Resources System(ATRRS). For units that have access to a Language Training Detachment (LTD), thedetachment will provide training to at least 1 leader per platoon in lieu of the Rapportcourseware. The selection of personnel for this specialized training will be at the discretion ofthe Commander. The standard for this/these soldier(s) is to achieve an ILR level 0+ in speakingand listening, with a goal of 1 in oral communications. For units that do not have access toLTDs, commanders will designate at least one leader per platoon to complete the entire set ofmodules for Head Start, in lieu of the Rapport courseware. Head Start requires approximately100 hours to complete.Head Start is accessible via http://fieldsupport.dliflc.edu/products/HeadStart/index.html.Briefing Slides. The Briefing Slides cover the mission, vision, and overview of DLIFLC, howDLIFLC supports language professionals in the military, and how they support the generalpurpose forces.Dari Syllabus. This syllabus was provided to show the relationship between language andculture training. This will be discussed in the following section, on Field Notes.Field NotesIn the following is a summary of field notes, first addressing a discussion of the link betweenlanguage and culture training, and then notes from an interview and discussion of how DLIFLCCopyright © 2011 CPG O-5 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 190. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527supports pre-deployment culture and language training. Finally, I present a few other take-awaysfrom the visit, related to DLIFLC‘s online presence.Link between Language and Culture Training. One goal of this trip was to gain a betterunderstanding of how DLIFLC supports pre-deployment training related to language and culture..DLIFLC‘s advanced language training is explicitly tied to culture. For example, the descriptionon the syllabus of the 16 week Dari course provided by DLIFLC states:The focus of this course is to familiarize students with the basics of the Dari language and theAfghan culture within an operational context. The course is geared toward equipping studentswith language, cultural tools to help them make, establish, and maintain effective contact withlocal native speakers of Dari in Afghanistan.Additional evidence of the overlap of culture and language from the same Dari syllabus includesthe following two objectives (as stated in the syllabus):Engage in small social talks regarding life, family, and surroundings.Understand and be able to recognize cultural/religious clues and convey them to thecommanders.In addition to this specific example, discussions shed light on the bigger picture of the ways thatlanguage and culture training are bound to one another. Following is a summary of field notesfrom conversations about how DLIFLC training trains culture as well as language.Language training implicitly teaches students about culture as well as language. Trainers are nottranslating from English to the language being taught word-for-word. Instead, they are trainingappropriate ways to communicate in the foreign language, e.g., culturally appropriate ways toaddress people, express gratitude, make requests, and agree or disagree with someone. Forexample, French speakers use a formal form of address (vous) rather than an informal form ofaddress (tu) in certain situations—a distinction that English does not have. Thus, teachers helpstudents understand socially and culturally appropriate communication. In order to achievelanguage mastery, a student must master cultural norms as well as linguistic norms.There are also cultural competence implications that are tied to language training. Militarypersonnel who know a foreign language will be in a better position to gain a deeperunderstanding of a culture once deployed simply because they will be communicating directlywith people in the foreign culture. In the course of building rapport and relationships, theseindividuals will be able to absorb many more cultural nuances than those who must rely oninterpreters. DLIFLC also suggested that anecdotal evidence suggests that foreign counterpartsare far more likely to trust people who speak their language. Trust is emerging as a key concernin Irregular Warfare environments where gaining the cooperation of foreign civilians is critical.Copyright © 2011 CPG O-6 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 191. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527DLIFLC also suggested anecdotal evidence that knowing the language spoken in the operationalenvironment/foreign country reduces culture shock and stress, while improving effectiveness.Language understanding greatly reduces ambiguity and uncertainty when personnel areimmersed in environments with people speaking a foreign language. Personnel who canunderstand the language have greater situational awareness, and thus are more effective, becausethey are able to make use of all of the communications cues that are provided in the operationalenvironment.Advanced language training at DLIFLC uses language as a context to learn about culture. Forexample, advanced students are taught about the history of an area, using the foreign language.That is the instructor and students speak in the foreign language in their discussions abouthistory. It is interesting to note that people often think about a topic (e.g. in reflecting on it) inthe language in which they learned about it. For example, if an English speaking child is taughtmath in Germany, learning most of the concepts in German, she may process math problemslater in German, even though German is her second language.How DLIFLC Supports Pre-Deployment Culture and Language Training. Three primary waysthat DLIFLC supports Pre-Deployment Culture and Language Training are:1. Language Training Detachments2. Booklets and CDs Language Survival Kits (LSKs)2. Training Materials available online at http://www.dliflc.eduLanguage Training Detachments (LTDs) provide pre-deployment training that includes languagefamiliarization and area studies training. LTDs are available to support pre-deploymentlanguage and culture training for general purpose forces (for all four services). LTDs have beendeployed in diverse situations, showing their flexibility, e.g., with the Navy, on-board ships thatare deploying. In lieu of a task diagram, I asked the dean to describe the major focus areasprovided by the LTDs. Although they vary somewhat, since they are tailored to the unit‘s needs,generally the outline is as follows:How to meet and greet, establish rapportSimple sentence patterns or structure (chunking). How to make a declarative statement, ask aquestion, etc.Mission-related vocabulary and scenariosDays of the week, telling time, etc.Cultural aspects of the region (e.g.,Religion, Ethnic tensions, Women‘s roles, Children).Despite some variability, all blocks of instruction include culture. According to the Dean, themost difficult part for people to grasp is anything that smacks of rote learning (like numbers anddays of the week). If it doesn‘t seem meaningful or directly tied to the mission, it is painful.Copyright © 2011 CPG O-7 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 192. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527According to people who‘ve received the training, role playing is one of the most helpfulcomponents of the training. Three pilot locations are using LTDs: Ft. Campbell, Ft Carson, andFt. Drum. Seven to eleven more locations are planned for FY11.Some of the barriers to training that the dean discussed included resistance to language learning.Language training takes time and because of that it is expensive as wellOther Take-Aways. DLIFLC‘s web portal (http://www.dliflc.edu) contains a wealth of valuableculture and language training that is available to anyone. DLIFLC would like to have aconspicuous link on Army Knowledge Online and Joint Knowledge Online in order to improveawareness and access.Following is a short description of some of the products available on the site that are used tosupport pre-deployment and deployment learning about culture and language.Cultural Orientations is one of a number of products available online. Separate modules on over50 countries are provided. Cultural Orientations is self-paced, interactive material coveringlanguage exchanges that are coupled with an objective and practical look at daily life in differentcontexts. Topics include country profiles (geography, history, Government, economy, media,ethnic groups), religion, traditions, family life and differences in the lifestyles of urban and ruralpopulations. These lessons include multiple choice assessments.HeadStart consists of ten modules, each including two Sound and Script and five Military Tasks.Sound and Script teaches the basics of the target language script. Each Military Task focuses onfifteen language drills based on a given topic or theme, such as greetings and introductions, orgathering intelligence. HeadStart also features over 100 PDFs with writing drills that provide theuser with the opportunity to practice writing the target script. Other features include a writingtool, a sound recorder, a glossary, and cultural resources section. HeadStart exposes users to 750key terms and phrases, and provides them with important communication tools they need inpreparation for deployment.Countries in Perspective is another product available online. It provides cultural details on 42countries. For each country a Country Profile section contains basic facts about the targetcountry, followed by selected themes organized under the major headings of Geography,History, Economy, Society and Security. Each study concludes with an achievement test typeassessment module. Although all of the themes are related to culture in some way, the sectionson Society are most relevant. These include details on ethnicities, languages spoken, religion,gender issues, national holidays, cuisine, dress, folk tales, art, and sportsCopyright © 2011 CPG O-8 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 193. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527InterviewsThree interviews were conducted with Steve Collins, Dean of Field Support and ContinuingEducation. In the first interview, Dean Collins provided an overview of DLIFLC and how itsupports pre-deployment language and culture training. During the second interview with DeanCollins, the standard interview protocol was used to focus on Language Training Detachments(LTDs). A third interview/discussion was held with Dean Collins as well as with the Provost,Dr. Donald Fischer, and Claire Bugary, Deputy Chief of Operations.The main areas of inquiry concerned potential best practices, learning requirements or objectives,major training components, challenges to training, and best practices for providing valuableinstruction during pre-deployment language and cultural training, as well as the integration oflanguage and culture.The Dean provided some background information, as outlined in the Field Notes, and also notedthat only recently has cultural and language training been taken seriously as necessary forgeneral purpose forces. Previously, these capabilities were only emphasized in SpecialOperations and other elite units.The various ways training is delivered were discussed. The Dean explained how MobileTraining Teams (MTTs), made up of instructors who travel to various locations (e.g., bases,posts) to teach language and culture, are used. Along with MTTs, virtual classrooms arebecoming more common, where students from various locations around the world can learntogether over the Internet, via the broadband language training systems (BLTS). The mosteffective way to teach, according to the Dean, is to use a hybrid methodology, where there issome in-class instruction and some distance learning, as this leverages the advantages of bothtypes of methods.Language Training Detachments (LTDs) are becoming more prevalent, as outlined in the FieldNotes. There are 23 different activities at 21 different locations and another 11 are on their waythis year. These detachments provide pre-deployment training that includes languagefamiliarization and regional studies training. As thoroughly explained in the Field Notes, LTDsare available to support pre-deployment language and culture training for general purpose forces.The Dean brought up the 09 Lima Program, the Army‘s program to recruit proficient speakers ofneeded languages, such as Arabic, to serve in the military. About half are not U.S. citizens butafter going through Basic Training, they are on the fast track to citizenship, with many gainingsecurity clearances to work with classified information. The subject of interpreters came up laterin the interviews, where the Dean noted that many times, interpreters are not properly trained orprepared. This is an intense and very difficult skill to learn and ―just because you know thelanguage doesn‘t mean that you can be an interpreter or translator.‖ Both the interpretation andthe translation sides of the equation offer unique challenges and require different skill sets. TheDean speculates that personality plays a major role. Interpreters must be able to ―think off theCopyright © 2011 CPG O-9 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 194. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527cuff, they‘re comfortable in their own skin, they‘re extroverted.‖ On the other hand, someonewho goes ―into vapor lock in an interpretation setting because they‘re trying to think of the exactword, they‘re not comfortable doing circumlocution, their memorization skills are not very goodand they‘re constantly asking the principal to say again or repeat,‖ would not do very well at all.A primary goal of these interviews was to understand how the DLIFLC integrates language andculture and that you can be cross-culturally competent and not competent in language skills. TheDean noted that over 100,000 Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines have been through pre-deployment training and that major problems invariably arise out of the lack of culturalunderstanding, which is why it is imperative that we train culture along with languages. Culturalmisunderstanding issues often arise and come to light through learning another language, andteaching language offers a unique opportunity to teach the cultural values that underlielanguages. For instance, the English language does not have formal and informal ways ofaddressing people, nor do words have a gender. The lack of formality is reflective of our culture,where everyone is equal, while in Middle Eastern and other cultures, elders and those of higher―rank‖ are more highly regarded. Likewise, we strive to treat men and women equally. Twoswitch gears in another culture and realize that females must be treated very different from malesrequires a different mindset entirely. This is why any discussion of language invariablynecessitates cultural understanding; therefore, learning another language is a good vehicle tolearning about another culture.In the second part of his interview, the Dean began by going over the five different areas thattraining typically covers, from ways to break the ice and establish rapport to chunking, or patternrecognition, as outlined in detail above, in the Field Notes section. He repeatedly emphasizedthat in order for students to learn, they must be given a meaningful context to aid transfer fromshort term memory to long term memory. Providing context also increases motivation, althoughhe realizes that instructors cannot always convey the importance of the material in a way thatwill connect with students. Without conveying the importance, however, students will tune out.For example, the Dean noted, ―I think the worst offender[s] in that are the special ops guysbecause they have no reluctance at all telling you this is BS.‖The Dean mentioned that a well-known debate in the field of basic language acquisition andcultural courses has to do with whether to focus on global proficiency or achievement-basedlanguage training. The former has more to do with basic education, and seems more akin togeneral cross-cultural competence (3C). The latter is task-specific training for a particularpurpose - key phrases for a certain job, for instance - whereby the final learning objectives(FLOs) are clearly delineated. The line between the two is not clearly drawn and as such, thereis much debate and disagreement between instructors and experts in the field as to which is betterto emphasize.With regard to training objectives and standards, the Dean discusses Mobile Training Teams(MTTs). Although the instructors are provided with a syllabus, it is imperative that they remainCopyright © 2011 CPG O-10 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 195. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527open and flexible in their approach. No matter how many times they prepare ahead of time withthe point of contact, there are always surprises upon arrival and one must adapt. Students areoften at a different level than expected; therefore, one suggestion is to talk to the class to figureout how much to teach and at what level. He advised this should be tempered with commonsense ―because Soldiers being Soldiers, they would be very happy if … they did less.‖With regard to the helpfulness of end-of-course student evaluations, the Dean opines that themost helpful feedback comes from inquiring about the three things that students would suggestimproving the course, and the three things they liked most, and liked least, about the course.From this, they have learned that scenario-based instruction that incorporates culture as well asthe tasks they are likely to do is the most helpful. The very worst thing for Soldiers is to be toldto sit in a classroom for hours at a time. They need to get up and role-play, perform tasks, andinteract with one another. The instructor is merely a facilitator, as opposed to a lecturer,observing and providing hints to students on correct performance.Out of all the training he has seen over the years, the best course of instruction the Deanobserved was at Fort Leavenworth, during a 48-hour course for officers learning Iraqi dialect.Role-play was used, whereby Soldiers played American commanders, military police, engineers,and different local citizens, with no scripts. All dialog was improvised using the Iraqi dialect,given a certain critical situation in which to act and a problem to solve. ―They come awayfeeling like they‘ve accomplished something and they can work in an unnatural, unrehearsedsituation because they‘ll throw little curve balls at each other every once in a while.‖During a discussion of the barriers to effective training, the Dean noted that there are manychallenges, not the least of which is attendance, which is often fractured and inadequate. Asnoted above, no matter how much the instructor prepares, there will be surprises and they mustbe able to ―shift gears rapidly.‖Working with interpreters presents another set of challenges for service members. Theinstructors do touch on the difficulties involved with this. He points out that many times,instructors had previously been interpreters themselves. There are DVD handouts provided inthis regard. When questioned about the trust issue, and whether or not interpreters are conveyingaccurate translations, he points to the YouTube video by the BBC showing either blatantincompetence or purposeful mistranslation in Afghanistan between an American commander andvillage elder, which is very disturbing. This is why it is critical that someone on the team knowssome of the language, other than the interpreter, so they can sit back and listen to the translationsto be sure mistranslations is not occurring. He points out that cultural knowledge andcompetence are important for interpreters as well, and that ―interpreters interpret not justlanguage but culture.‖Discussions with Dean Collins, along the Provost, Dr. Donald Fischer, and Claire Bugary,Deputy Chief of Operations, followed. These discussions were mainly about the reasons whyCopyright © 2011 CPG O-11 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 196. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527learning language is integral to learning about another culture, and vice versa. The participantsseemed to feel that just as you would never teach language and leave out teaching culture, theidea of teaching 3C and not teaching foreign language skills is just as ludicrous to them, thoughthey concede that it could be a matter of pride, given that they teach languages. As an example,if someone is a Level 2 plus in language skills, this means that s/he is ―able to read between thelines, being able to understand cultural innuendo, understand humor, understand argumentation,cultural idioms and language idioms.‖ Language and cultural skills go hand-in-hand in this way;in essence, you can‘t have one with the other.With regard to the advanced language courses, context is critical, because ―language is themedium of [sic] which we‘ll learn these topics of economics, politics, geography, society and soforth.‖ Therefore, the students are taught these other topics in the foreign language, and notEnglish, so that they learn the language ―almost as an afterthought.‖ There is also somediscussion on speculating how all the data from classes that they have gathered might be used toexamine the factors leading to various learning outcomes. For example, they notice that certaininstructors consistently have different outcomes – what is it about them that leads to this? Or,why do certain types of students learn better than others?The interviewer went on to share some of the findings and purpose of this project, how it isbased on the 40 competencies or learning objectives found in training 3C, starting with thegeneral idea that values differ from one culture to another. The role of conceptual knowledgewas discussed, as well as procedural knowledge – how learning a skill such as how to negotiatewould be procedural knowledge. She mentioned the debate regarding which factors are trainableskills and which are personality based, such as the motivation and willingness to engage,openness, and the low need for cognitive closure. To which, one of the participants agreed thatmost Soldiers are generally lacking in those tendencies. This is why they do familiarizationtraining to reduce xenophobia. ―The usual Soldier we get [is] somebody who‘s probably nevertraveled abroad in his life, high school graduate. So we talk about cultural empathy.‖ Culturalempathy was then discussed more along the lines of perspective-taking, ameliorating thetendency to make automatic value judgments, which can help accomplish missions and ―savelives.‖ It may also make it less frustrating for the individual if they understand otherperspectives.Finally, there was some discussion on how American and northern European cultures are verydirect and want to get right to business and not waste time, but high context cultures such as theMiddle East and Mediterranean cultures take their time to socialize and get to know one another,to establish relationships first. Someone pointed out that the military is even more extreme inthis respect than the American culture in general; they are more time sensitive and punctual, andmore direct and to the point, further alienating people whose mindset is the opposite.ConclusionCopyright © 2011 CPG O-12 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project
  • 197. Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527Dean Collins makes a good case for why language is a good vehicle to teach culture. Perhapseven a rudimentary understanding of the basic patterns of another culture‘s language is the bestway to emphasize the differences in perspectives, leading to a more open-minded and acceptingattitude when it comes to learning about other aspects of culture. This trip report has detailed aninitial snapshot of DLIFLC‘s contribution to pre-deployment culture and language training,based on briefings, demos, training materials, and interviews.Copyright © 2011 CPG O-13 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project