Military Language Instructor Trainer

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY

MONTEREY BAY

CAPSTONE PROPOSAL

Submitted in partial satisfaction of requirements of the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE in

Instructional Science and Technology

Joel Christopher Simmons

April 5, 2014

Capstone Approvals: (At least one advisor and capstone instructor should approve)

______

Advisor Name Signature Date

______

Capstone Instructor Name Signature Date

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Introduction 3

Background 3

Problem Description 3

Target Audience 4

Literature Review 5

Solution Description 6

Goals 6

Objectives 6

Proposed Solution 6

Media 7

Challenges and Constraints 8

Methods and Procedures 8

Resources 9

Timeline 10

References 13

Introduction

Background

Although many of military service members selected to a tour of duty as a Military Language Instructor (MLI) learned a foreign language at the Defense Language Institute (DLI), their role in this academic environment requires knowledge of unique administrative processes and software systems. As a mentor and teacher, the MLI is expected to guide military members through learning a foreign language, but also be very familiar with DLI rules and requirements that may affect them. However, no formal training program exists to teach MLIs how to carry out the administrative processes at DLI.

Problem Description

MLI performance and knowledge items are outlined in the Job Qualification Standard (JQS). Per DLI Regulation 600-2, MLIs must complete 32 JQS core tasks no later than 180 days from assignment to a language school (US Dept of Army, 2010, p. 9). These JQS tasks range from the trainee demonstrating the use of certain DLI software systems to stating pertinent knowledge items. According to the regulation, an experienced MLI mentor evaluates the trainee’s competency of these core tasks, and then certifies core task completion on the JQS.

In reality, MLI trainees typically work from job aids, known as Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), in order to learn and carry out the core tasks in an on-the-job (OJT) work environment. The assigned mentor typically “signs off” on satisfactory performance of the task typically without any formal or standardized evaluation process. Without consistent input and direction from the mentor, the MLI trainee will fail to meet the 180-day qualification deadline and likely become improperly trained in the core tasks.

The performance gap between actual time to complete the core tasks and the 180-day requirement can be identified by reviewing the date an MLI was assigned to work in a language school and the date of completion of the core tasks on the JQS. In particular, MLIs who did not qualify in the core tasks in the 180 days required by regulation will be interviewed prior to project development to identify reasons behind the performance gap.

Target Audience

A military linguist is typically assigned to MLI duty after previous successful assignments in the career field and has from 4 to 20 years of military service. MLIs have excellent foreign language skills, management expertise, and interpersonal skills. Like most people who join the military, MLIs come from a wide variety of educational, employment, and cultural backgrounds.

MLIs tend to be very intelligent, adaptable, and willing to learn and master new ideas and concepts. They are able to learn new technology quickly and know techniques to use this technology to achieve required results in the military linguist field. However, MLIs are likely to have varied backgrounds when it comes to carrying out certain MLI tasks, such as student counseling, and likely possess little to no previous experience with DLI administrative processes.

The average MLI must teach 10 hours per week, with an additional 10 to 15 hours spent in preparing to teach. In addition to teaching requirements, MLIs spend a large part of each day carrying out routine administrative tasks, conducting student counseling, and working with their civilian instructors. There is no formal, classroom training for MLIs, and most core tasks are currently learned on-the-job. Therefore, the proposed instructional product must be flexible enough to allow trainees access at the time and location most suitable for them. If the required training time for this instructional project began to intrude on time needed for MLIs to effectively teach, or was only available at their desks, their motivation and desire to become more quickly qualified would likely decrease.

DLI leadership would likely welcome an instructional project that increases training efficiency and decreases the time it takes for an MLI to demonstrate competence in the core tasks. Most MLIs are only assigned to DLI for three to four years, with an estimated year of the total assignment spent away from the position with other training requirements such as annual language refresher courses, military professional education courses, and personal leave.

Literature Review

As there is no formal classroom training in place to train MLIs in administrative aspects of their jobs, applicable research and studies that address learning in an OJT, particularly in a military environment, are useful in the development of this instructional project. In their work of transitioning an classroom training program to an OJT environment, Coleman, Collins, and Stiff (2003) provided good examples of the role and design of instructional materials in such a situation. While the DLI environment is not exactly the same as the operational environment described in their work, Coleman et al. (2003) recommend in an OJT environment to use simple graphics, animations, or simulations rather than complex and detailed materials. They also stress to use focus on the training tasks instead of the instructional materials. Also useful in this research was recommendations on how to prepare a military workforce for a transition from the traditional training program to an OJT program. Coleman et al. (2003) noted that their program was marketed well ahead of its implementation, with interviews and surveys with experts supporting their goal. Similar strategies will have to be used in changing the current paper-based MLI JQS training system.

Solution Description

Goals

The purpose of this instructional project is to teach newly assigned MLIs core tasks required of their position: 1) use the Student Training and Administrative Tracking System (STATS) to input student absence data from a Form 806; (2) perform counseling using a Form 864 to place student on academic status; and, (3) provide assistance to a teaching team in the preparation of a student disenrollment package. These three core tasks pertain to major student actions while in language school: absence accountability, student academic counseling, and student disenrollment. Although there are more core tasks listed in the MLI JQS, the tasks covered in this instructional project are among the most important for the MLI to perform accurately and in a timely manner.

Objectives

The learning objectives of this instructional project are:

Objective 1: Given a completed Form 806, the MLI trainee will use STATS to select

student name and class, and input absence date and code.

Objective 2: Given a completed Form 864, conduct a mock counseling addressing the

requirements of the academic status, criteria of exiting the academic status, and any

student questions or concerns.

Objective 3: Given DLI regulation, review a disenrollment package to ensure completeness and that timeline requirements are met.

Proposed Solution

An interactive, self-paced approach to the instructional material will best satisfy learner needs. As the MLI trainee will normally already be assigned to the job prior to receiving any formal training, the instructional project will be designed to support learning in an OJT environment, with a focus on the training tasks rather than the instructional materials (Coleman, Collins, & Stiff, 2003).

The instructional project should be presented in a format where each of the core tasks correspond to a stage in the ‘life-cycle’ of a typical language class, from the first day until graduation, rather than organized by core task topic area as they are in the current MLI JQS. Presenting the instructional content in this way would also prove useful for use of the instructional project might as a job aid.

MLI trainees gain motivation to complete the training by completing the core task requirements on the way to achieving final designation as an MLI. Provided the training can be delivered in an expedient and concise manner, MLIs will also gain confidence in their daily work as they see a direct transfer from what they learned from the instructional project to real-life situations.

In order to report current status and training completion to the MLI Management Office (MLIMO) and language schoolhouse leadership, the instructional project will adhere to SCORM standards and use features within DLI’s Sakai Learning Management System (LMS).

Media

Modules within the instructional project will be broken down into self-paced lessons, with each containing introductory videos, example forms, ‘Show Me’ and ‘Try Me’ software demonstrations for STATS and relevant forms, and links to references and pertinent regulations. All media will be incorporated into the instructional project using Adobe Captivate.

All media should be compliant on both MacOS and Windows 7 platforms, as the DLI-issued MacBook laptops have dual-boot operating system capability.

Challenges and Constraints

There are several constraints on the instructional project to consider. Some DLI and language school leadership may see little reason to switch from the paper-based, MLI mentor-protégé, method of training in the core tasks to a computer-based training application. Resources such as time and finances are a constant constraint in the development of any instructional product within the Department of Defense. In addition, DLI CTO network security and software application development policies and regulations would have to be met, as well as SCORM standards for using the instructional project on DLI’s Sakai LMS.

Perhaps one of the greatest challenges will be developing training material that is applicable across all of the DLI language schoolhouses. While the core tasks are the same for all MLIs, each language schoolhouse may have slight variations in the process of carrying out the core task. Identifying these differences will require a great deal of time in data collection and consulting of the SMEs, the language schoolhouses’ Deans, Associate Deans, and Chief Military Language Instructors.

Methods and Procedures

Dick and Carey’s instructional systems design model will be followed for this instructional project. Modules and lessons will correspond to the performance objectives and subordinate tasks identified through instructional analysis of MLI core tasks of absence accountability, student counseling, and student disenrollment.

Through the identification of subordinate skills and performance objectives, appropriate module and lesson assessment items will be developed. Next, Gagne’s Nine Events of Instruction will be applied to the content of each lesson within the module, with content design taken from storyboards and scripts.

Instructional materials are for the most part already available and easily adapted to the design of the project. Some material will have to be developed to teach new subordinate tasks identified after instructional analysis. Formative and summative evaluation can take place within the project, with responses recorded by DLI’s Sakai LMS.

The steps to complete the project as currently identified are:

1) Conduct needs assessment with DLI MLI Management Office (MLIMO) to identify performance gap in qualification timeline

2) Approval from MLIMO to interview schoolhouse SMEs and MLIs for needs/learner analysis

3) Interviews with SMEs and current MLIs for needs/learner analysis

4) Conduct goal and task analysis

5) Develop instructional content, assessment items, and evaluation items; SCORM

integration on DLI Sakai

6) Develop instructional materials and presentations

7) Provide instruction to small group

8) Conduct formative evaluation with schoolhouse SMEs

9) Revise instruction

10) Provide instruction project for field use

11) Conduct summative evaluation

Resources

As the instructional project will be designed to be a self-paced interactive learning module, there is no need for a dedicated trainer or training space. Basic instructional materials can be readily gathered from SOPs, which MLIs currently use. Additional content, such as related video and images, will have to be developed to correspond to the learner-centered, self-paced design of the instructional project.

Costs would be minimal with only purchasing of Adobe Captivate for design and publishing of the interactive learning module. The instructional project will use current DLI resources such as Sakai for its LMS platform. MLIs are already issued MacBook laptops, which they can use to access the DLI campus wireless network and the DLI Sakai portal.

Time will be a precious resource in the successful completion of the instructional project. A thorough needs assessment and proper instructional analysis must be conducted, and a sizeable group of stakeholders – from the MLIMO to current MLIs – will have to be consulted at key stages of the development of the project in order for it to gain acceptance as a training resource across DLI.

Technical skills required to complete the project will mainly be in Adobe Captivate interactive learning module design and development. In addition, knowledge of how SCORM is integrated within Sakai LMS, and whether this is currently available on DLI Sakai, is necessary. Some assistance may be required from external DLI Sakai support staff in order to understand SCORM integration and how it works with the Adobe Captivate ILM software.

Timeline

Timeline for the analysis, design, development, formative evaluation, implementation, and summative evaluation will be approximately seven months. The table below lists the preliminary major milestones and projected timeline for development of a MLI Trainer proof-of-concept.

Milestones / Deliverables / Est. Due Date
Phase 1 – Planning
X / 1.1 Form project concept / · Project idea final draft / 10/31/2013
X / 1.2 Finalize project proposal / · IDD v 0.1 / 12/17/2013
X / 1.3 Solicit project stakeholders (MLIMO/SMEs) / · Brief project outline/general scope
· Solicit expertise/input / 4/23/2014
1.4 Meet with project advisor (Phase 1 overview) / · IDD v 0.2
· Preliminary Capstone Proposal / 5/16/2014
Phase 2 – Analysis Phase
2.1 Brief stakeholders on project details / · Project launch briefing (PPT)
· IDD v 0.3 / 5/30/2014
2.2 Organizational needs analysis / · Document review
· Interviews
· Resources/constraints report
· Findings report / 6/15/2014
2.3 Learner and environment analysis / · Learner survey data
· Learner needs assessment
· Findings report / 6/30/2014
2.4 Refine task analysis and objective statements / --- / 7/3/2014
2.5 Meet with project advisor (Phase 2 overview) / · IDD v 0.4 / 7/14/2014
Phase 3 – Design/Development/Evaluation
3.1 Define learning module design guidelines / · Style sheet
· Storyboards
· Technical specifications / 7/17/2014
3.2 MLI Trainer v 1.0 / · Sample feedback
· Revision report / 8/19/2014
3.3 Module 1 v 1.1 / · Formative evaluation
· Revision report / 8/26/2014
3.4 Meet with project advisor (Phase 3 overview) / · Phase 3.0 D/D/E Report
· IDD 0.5 / 9/1/2014
Phase 4 – MLI Trainer Field Test
4.1 Implement MLI Trainer Field Test / · MLI Trainer v 0.1
· Field Test participant list / 9/8/2014
4.2 Conduct mid-Field Test sensing session / · User feedback report
· Debug report
· MLI Trainer v 0.2 / 9/18/2014
4.3 Project Presentation / · Project Progress Report / 9/20/2014
4.4 Conduct Field Test evaluation survey / · User feedback report
· MLI Trainer v 1.0 / 9/30/2014
4.5 Meet with project advisor (Phase 4 overview) / · IDD v 0.6 / 10/7/2014
Phase 5 – MLI Trainer Implementation and Summative Evaluation
5. 0 Present MLI Trainer development after action report (AAR) / · AAR briefing (PPT)
· AAR (digital copy)
· IDD v 1.0 / 10/14/2014
5.1 Implement MLI Trainer 1.0 / · Orientation training / 10/21/2014
5.2 Conduct 1-month summative evaluation / · Evaluation report / 11/21/2014
5.3 Meet with project advisor (Phase 5 overview) / · Project report and findings / 11/28/2014
5.4 Present project / · Project Presentation / 1/15/2015