this is the text of an info paper I wrote for our Deputy Commandant to send to the 3 and 4 star generals in charge of Army leader education and training. It describes the motivation for and purpose of our inquiry into “the education gap of force generation”, and lays out a methodology and strategy for accomplishing the mission. Upon close examination, you would recognize all the elements of Participatory Action Research and a collaborative inquiry in the action research tradition. It’s easier to get the project moving and going thru the PAR and AR steps without getting bogged down in the “naming”, so I intend to get irresistable momentum built and introduce the concepts as required and as we go.
Force Generation Curriculum Project:
Educational gap: based on feedback from the DC, the field, and our current students and faculty, we have identified “Leading Army units through the Force Generation Process to build ready units” as one of our most important educational gaps in the field.
Results of initial curriculum analysis:
1. All departments teach on some aspects of the Force Generation process, but we need to do more in AOWC to get our officers to the “Apply” level of learning.
2. Existing curriculum can be integrated and leveraged for part of the solution, but we need more attention to and information on the Reset phase, and on integrating the insights of supporting organizations.
3. A Terminal Learning Objective for AOWC that incorporates “Force Generation”, that is developed through Enabling Learning Objectives and the appropriate standards which includes insights from all departments, fully integrated through the ongoing AOWC Working Group will lead us to an integrated solution, and follow our own Accountable Instructional System (AIS)
Force Generation. Research Questions:
What we want to learn:
by focusing on the specific topic of “force generation” within the CGSC curriculum, we want to answer the following questions:Our top level questions are:
1. What do Army Majors (and sister service equivalents) need to know about Force Generation?
2. What are the qualities of the educational environment that will best support their learning? translation: How can we best create the conditions for learning? How sho9uld we teach it?))Our supporting questions: (these are what we are asking of all the stakeholders to help construct our group knowledge)
1. Who are you and what do you know about Force Generation?
2. What does your organization do in Force Generation?
3. What do you think Majors need to know?
4. What can you contribute to our knowledge base?
5. What can majors do with your knowledge?
6. What are your questions about force generation? (we want everyone to learn)
7. What would you do with the answers and why is it important?
8. Who else should be part of our team?Initial stakeholder list:
· Students
· DLRO faculty
· CD & Faculty of other departments
· Army staff: G1, G3, G4, G8, ACSIM
· AMC
· HRC
· JFCOM
· FORSCOM
· CASCOM
· CALL
· BCTP
· 1/1 HBCT (partnership with field unit entering reset & train/ready pools)
· Senior Warrant Officers at proponent schools
· IT support staff (for digital learning environments)
· BCKS forums (watering holes for interesting ARFORGEN conversations)
Methodology: Co-operative inquiry with all stakeholders in the Force Generation process, focusing on support to the education of field grade officers attending CGSC
Initial actions (already underway):
1. Establish POC at each stakeholder and begin staff work to answer initial supporting questions
2. Announce to all stakeholders we will have a 3 day workshop in May at Ft Leavenworth to review all supporting question inputs and then craft an answer to the top level questions
3. Begin planning for said conference
4. Identify wiki solution for an adaptive knowledge base that will support ongoing curriculum and reach back capability for FORGEN (done: Blackboard, in the reachback area)
5. Integrate concept of threaded Force Gen lesson theme into AOWC WG process with 1st order estimate of hours required (done: 10)
6. Plan for an AAP to catch any spillover from conference and this inquiry that will not fit within AOWC curriculum.
7. Develop project management framework to monitor progress and include in DLRO SigActs routinely (LTC Judy, LTC Hart)
8. Draft DC info summary describing FORGEN initiative (Mr Long)
Expected outcomes:
1. Quality staff recommendation for AOWG FORGEN curriculum and an AAP for “spillover” material
2. An interdepartmental “application” level curriculum fully integrated through the AOWC Working Group process
3. An inquiry- based research process that models the principles of group-learning in real time, which can serve as an example for other inquiries in important topics
4. An infrastructure that supports student learning while in attendance, and after graduation as a reachback
5. A knowledge base that focuses on support of our student and faculty population, and wehich synthesizes quality research & knowledge from Army staff and support organizations
6. A documented staff process that will support our ongoing accreditation and scholarship standards