Measuring Noncommissioned Officer Knowledge and Experience to Enable Tailored Training

Abstract

Tailoring training can improve effectiveness and efficiency. However, before informed decisions regarding tailoring Army institutional training can be made, instruments which predict performance must be available. To that end, instructors from the Infantry Advanced Leaders Course at Fort Benning, GA were interviewed to determine which course criteria exhibited large variation in student performance. Based on those interviews, two criteria were chosen: land navigation and troop leading procedures Four types of predictors were constructed for each criterion. The first type was predictive judgments of Soldier criterion performance. The second type was demographic items. The third type was self-report items concerning specific, criterion-relevant experiences. The fourth type was prior knowledge tests. For each criterion, prior knowledge alone significantly predicted performance. The different nature of the criteria has implications for both the construction of prior knowledge tests and how prior knowledge tests can be used to predict performance. Ways in which these results can be translated into user-friendly tools for course managers, instructors, and other relevant personnel are illustrated.

Measuring Officer Knowledge and Experience to Enable Tailored Training

“…This also caused the deployment variables to be excluded, replicating a pattern seen in our prior (Schaefer et al, 2010) and current (Schaefer, Blankenbeckler, & Brogdon, 2011) research. There were no significant relationships between the criterion and dates of deployment, location of deployment, duty position, or primary mission.…”

“…Further, the fact that the two subgroups were different on not only instruments devised by our research team, but also in how the SGI predictions relate to prior knowledge and criterion performance argues against attributing these subgroup differences to sampling error. These recommendations overlap considerably with those in the companion report on predicting noncommissioned officer (NCO) course performance (Schaefer, Blankenbeckler, & Brogdon, 2011) as there are similarities in the findings. The recommendations are given in the subheadings which follow.…”

Bridging the Gap Between Adaptive Training Research and Army Practice

“…However, our research (Schaefer, Bencaz, Bush, & Price, 2010;Schaefer, Blankenbeckler, & Brogdon, 2011;Schaefer, Blankenbeckler, & Lipinski, 2011) indicates that predicting poor performers on the basis of pretests in military courses is difficult. This may be due to criteria composed of different, interacting knowledge or skill areas.…”

“…For example, assessment procedures in mastery courses are also often more formal than in nonmastery courses. Formal methods are more accurate (Schaefer, Blankenbeckler, & Brogdon, 2011;Schaefer, Blankenbeckler, & Lipinski, 2011) but also take more time. Empirical assessment of tradeoffs between time and accuracy may be warranted.…”

Defining Tailored Training Approaches for Army Institutional Training

“…The term is used somewhat ambiguously within the research literature itself. In some instances, prior knowledge seems to mean something like general domain knowledge, not necessarily knowledge that will be directly or explicitly tapped on some criterion (e.g., the ability grouping literature often uses a general measure of domain achievement) or something akin to prerequisite knowledge (Schaefer, Blankenbeckler, & Brogdon, 2011). In other cases, prior knowledge is tied clearly and obviously to criterion performance (Schmidt & Hunter, 1986).…”