CULTURE KNOWLEDGE AND                       SURVIVAL LANGUAGE SKILL PRE-                       DEPLOYMENT TRAINING PROJECT...
Phase II Final Report          CULTURE KNOWLEDGE AND         SURVIVAL LANGUAGE SKILL         PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING      ...
Phase II Final Report                                                                                       Contract #: N0...
Phase II Final Report                                                                                       Contract #: N0...
Phase II Final Report                                                                                                     ...
Phase II Final Report                                                                               Contract #: N00178-05-...
Phase II Final Report                                                                                                     ...
Phase II Final Report                                                                                                     ...
Phase II Final Report                                                                                                     ...
Phase II Final Report                                                                                                     ...
Phase II Final Report                                                                               Contract #: N00178-05-...
Phase II Final Report                                                                                Contract #: N00178-05...
Phase II Final Report                                                                                        Contract #: N...
Phase II Final Report                                                                                      Contract #: N00...
Phase II Final Report                                                                               Contract #: N00178-05-...
Phase II Final Report                                                                               Contract #: N00178-05-...
Phase II Final Report                                                                               Contract #: N00178-05-...
Phase II Final Report                                                                               Contract #: N00178-05-...
Phase II Final Report                                                                               Contract #: N00178-05-...
Phase II Final Report                                                                               Contract #: N00178-05-...
Phase II Final Report                                                                               Contract #: N00178-05-...
Phase II Final Report                                                                               Contract #: N00178-05-...
Phase II Final Report                                                                               Contract #: N00178-05-...
Phase II Final Report                                                                               Contract #: N00178-05-...
Phase II Final Report                                                                               Contract #: N00178-05-...
Phase II Final Report                                                                               Contract #: N00178-05-...
Phase II Final Report                                                                               Contract #: N00178-05-...
Phase II Final Report                                                                               Contract #: N00178-05-...
Phase II Final Report                                                                               Contract #: N00178-05-...
Phase II Final Report                                                                               Contract #: N00178-05-...
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

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

1,145

Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,145
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Transcript of "Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011"

  1. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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

×