Culture knowledge and survival language skill pre-deployment training: Phase II (2011). by never what

CULTURE KNOWLEDGE AND SURVIVAL LANGUAGE SKILL PREDEPLOYMENT 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) Arlington, Virginia

Cognitive Performance Group, LLC Orlando, Florida

Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project Cognitive Performance Group

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, Florida

Copyright ÂŠ 2011 Cognitive Performance Group Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project

Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Department of Defense (DoD) has acknowledged the importance for Warfighters across the Services to communicate and negotiate with individuals from other cultures. To that end, both culture knowledge and survival language pre-deployment training are offered. The objective of this project, Culture Knowledge and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training, was to provide an objective assessment of pre-deployment training for survival language and culture knowledge and skills. This project was carried out in two phases. The purpose of this report is to document Phase II of the 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 solutions in pre-deployment culture and survival language training, thus providing a baseline for understanding current training solutions and identifying best practices. Phase II involved the collection of data to extend and confirm the findings of Phase I, to inform our understanding of learner reactions to pre-deployment training, Kirkpatrick Level 1 assessment (―K1‖). This information was collected via site visits, interviews, training observations, and surveys. Additionally, the research team collected and analyzed reaction data across the Services, along with Kirkpatrick Level 2 assessment (―K2‖) data (e.g., learning outcomes) from one location, to identify 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 training materials 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 in Phase I through additional ―K1‖ surveys, interviews, material collection and site visits, and (2) to conduct a Kirkpatrick Level 2 assessment (―K2‖) for a single training provider and program of instruction in a selected Service branch in order to evaluate the increase in knowledge or Copyright © 2011 Cognitive Performance Group Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project

iii

Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527

capability as a direct result of the training. Survey (―K1‖) and assessment (―K2‖) results in Phase 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.

Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527

Best Practices Across the Four Services Best Practice Assessment / Measurement

Peer Learning

Training Materials/Content

Culture & Language Websites

Instructional Method (role play, immersion, cultural meals, facilitated discussion)

Service Army

Rating Med

Navy

Low

Marine

Med

Air Force

Low

Army

Med

Navy

Unk

Marine

Med

Air Force

Army

Med

Navy

High

Marine

High

Air Force

High

Army

High

Navy

Low

Marine

High

Air Force

Med

Army Navy

Med Unk

Marine

High

Air Force

High

Description All Services utilize instructor rating forms, and course satisfaction surveys, but few actually test whether learning has occurred during or after training.

Implication Without assessment measures beyond reaction level data, the Services are not able to: (a) ascertain if a student‘s knowledge increased as a result of training, and (b) evaluate their training program.

Recommendation Embed knowledge checks within classroom instruction and distance learning tools. Establish cutoff scores to certify a student‘s course completion, rather than simply ―checking the box.‖

Hearing the importance of a certain training curriculum or topic from a fellow service member in your unit can act as an impetus to stimulate learning in that content area.

Certain service members may have low motivation as they doubt the necessity and application of training, and therefore may not be learning the material.

Set up sponsors, mentoring programs, or other processes (e.g. ―Tips to Air Advisors‖) to share knowledge with those less experienced members who share similar missions and skill sets.

The handbooks, smart cards, regional packets, PowerPoint presentations produced by all of the Services are valuable training resources.

Beyond information relevant to a specific Service, most content can be shared across services to reduce redundant material.

Most of content is high quality and available online or by request. Limit classroom content to areas requiring direct interaction bookended by generalized content accessible via distance learning.

Service culture websites should act as a resource and repository for all culture and language needs. Most utilize ―Google‖ for culture information rather than first seek their Service culture website.

This evidence alone indicates that the Service culture websites are either not well known to the service members, that they do not possess the information members seek, or that they are not easily navigable.

Promote Service culture websites, make classroom materials available online, enhance search functions, and consolidate tools via JKO or similar site. Use the CAOCL website as an exemplar, followed by the TRADOC Culture Center site.

Using these techniques promotes greater engagement and enhances knowledge retention in the classroom through participation and experiential learning.

Limiting the variability in instructional methods will prevent certain students from optimally learning the material and create disinterest in others.

Promote increased interaction between instructor and student across all programs. Recommend greater efforts to integrate culture within language lessons, and vice versa. Investigate immersive training solutions that can engage most learners through fixed site or on-line delivery.

Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527

Pre-deployment culture and language training is a Title X Service responsibility. Results from this research project inform us that: a pre-deployment training baseline has been established based on Service documents and assessment of training solutions, that each Service has provided guidance and resources to accomplish culture and language pre-deployment training, and that service 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.

Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 1.

Page # 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 ......................................................................................................................... 11 Chapter 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 ......................................................................................... 21 Chapter 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 .......................................................................................... 27 Copyright ÂŠ 2011 Cognitive Performance Group Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project

vii

Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527

Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 27 Recommendations for Improvement ......................................................................................... 28 Chapter 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 ......................................................................................... 34 Chapter 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 ......................................................................................... 40 Chapter 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 ................................................................................................ 59 Copyright ÂŠ 2011 Cognitive Performance Group Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project

viii

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 ........................................................................... 63 Chapter 7.

Implications & Recommendations ........................................................................ 66

Instructional Methods ................................................................................................................ 66 Trends ........................................................................................................................................ 70 Best Practices ............................................................................................................................ 72 Conclusion................................................................................................................................. 77 References ..................................................................................................................................... 77 Appendix A: Acronyms .............................................................................................................. A-1 Appendix B: Index of Resources Reviewed ............................................................................... B-1 Appendix C: Data Collection Demographics Form .................................................................... C-1 Appendix D: Training Survey Form ........................................................................................... D-1 Appendix E: Training Architecture Collection Matrix ................................................................E-1 Appendix F: Learner Collection Guide........................................................................................ F-1 Appendix G: Trainer Collection Guide....................................................................................... G-1 Appendix H: Trip Report - CAOCL ........................................................................................... H-1 Appendix I: Trip Report - Cherry Point ........................................................................................ I-1 Appendix J: Trip Report - Camp Lejeune.................................................................................... J-1 Appendix K: Trip Report - Fort Carson ...................................................................................... K-1 Appendix L: Trip Report - Fort Belvoir ......................................................................................L-1 Appendix M: Trip Report – McGuire AFB. .............................................................................. M-1 Appendix N: Trip Report - Dr. Culture ..................................................................................... N-1 Appendix O: Trip Report - DLIFLC ........................................................................................... O-1

Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527

LIST OF FIGURES Page # Figure 1. Key Leader Engagement non-verbal communication slides ........................................ 14 Figure 2. Dari language training at Fort Carson .......................................................................... 24 Figure 3. Sample Air Force culture training ................................................................................ 29 Figure 4. Tactical Pashto training scenario .................................................................................. 38 Figure 5. Tactical Pashto language training ................................................................................. 38 Figure 6. Responses to best aspect of culture training ................................................................. 46 Figure 7. Responses to sources used for culture information ...................................................... 47 Figure 8. Responses to sources used for specific culture information ......................................... 47 Figure 9. Responses to best previous culture training ................................................................. 48 Figure 10. Responses to training that should be eliminated ........................................................ 48 Figure 11. Responses to best sources for survival language ........................................................ 49

LIST OF TABLES Page # Table 1. Visits and Data Gathered by Service. .............................................................................. 2 Table 2. The Four Levels of Kirkpatrick's Evaluation Model. ...................................................... 3 Table 3. Questions Used in Quality Composite for Culture ........................................................ 44 Table 4. Questions Used in Quantity Composite for Culture ...................................................... 44 Table 5. Questions Used in Transfer Composite for Culture....................................................... 44 Table 6. Questions Used in Transfer Composite for Language ................................................... 45 Table 7. Questions Used in Quality Composite for Language .................................................... 45 Table 8. Questions Used in Quantity Composite for Language .................................................. 45 Table 9. Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations of K1 Data .................................... 52 Table 10. Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations of K1 Reaction Data, Fort Carson ....................................................................................................................................................... 55 Table 11. Application of Instructional Method............................................................................ 67 Table 12. Best Practices Across the Four Services ...................................................................... 73

Copyright ÂŠ 2011 Cognitive Performance Group Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project

Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527

CHAPTER 1.

INTRODUCTION

Background The nature of today‘s conflicts has placed individual Warfighters in the crucible, where they must use their knowledge of regional culture as well as communication skills to accomplish tactical missions with potentially broad strategic implications. Current theaters of operation position Warfighters into contexts where they must interact with other cultures. As such, there is an increasing demand on developing new skill sets that include learning about new cultures, cultural awareness, cross-cultural negotiations, perspective-taking, advising, and collaborating with multi-national groups. Today‘s current counterinsurgency operations require tactical leaders and their units to demonstrate proficiency across cultural boundaries. As far back as 1943, the Department of Defense (DoD) was concerned with preparing our forces to 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 and delivery format have drastically changed, the content of culture knowledge delivered to Sailors was quite similar to what is being covered 70 years later. Now, more than ever, pre-deployment culture and survival language training are required across ranks and Services. Despite this critical requirement, lessons learned indicate that military personnel have a limited understanding 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 influence and operate effectively within different cultures for extended periods of time. Inadequate survival language capability across the Services also limits the effectiveness of both units and individuals. Although each of the individual Services has responded to this critical operational need by preparing members through a variety of training initiatives, taken as a whole, a gap in pre-deployment training persists (U.S. Department of the Army, December, 2009).

Project Approach To address the extent and effectiveness of pre-deployment culture and survival language training across the Services, a two-phase approach was undertaken. The research team identified and collected information on the policies, programs, and processes that ensure cultural readiness across the Services. The research team considered the following questions as a way to guide their efforts in developing a complete picture of the training baseline, and to inform each step in the analysis process:

Chapter 1: Introduction Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project

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 Visits Fifteen site visits were conducted across the entire project to facilitate data collection. Table 1 lists 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 JFCOM (Joint Forces) Ft. Benning (Army) CACOM , Civil Affairs Command, supporting USSOUTHCOM Ft. Lewis (Army) Naval Expeditionary Culture Center (Navy) Air Force Culture and Language Center (Air Force) Blackwater Training Center Training Team East Training Center (Coast Guard) Defense Language Institute (Army)

Location/Date Norfolk, VA September 1, 2009 GA Jan 12-13, 2010 Pensacola, FL March, 2010

Accomplishments Established contacts and support for project.

WA March 1-2, 2010 Little Creek, VA April 15-16,2010

Observed training, gathered and analyzed documents, and conducted interviews. Conducted interviews. Gathered and analyzed documents. Observed training. Gathered and analyzed documents. Gathered information and obtained access to training at Fort McGuire. Observed training. Gathered and analyzed documents. Conducted interviews.

Maxwell AFB, AL May 1,2010 Moyock, NC Portsmouth, VA May 3-6, 2010 Monterey, CA July 19, 2010

McGuire Air Force Base (Air Force)

Ft. Dix, NJ July 26-28, 2010

Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division (Navy, civilian)

Orlando, FL August 9–12, 2010

Gathered and analyzed documents. Conducted interviews. Administered survey (note that this trip was for another project, but we were able to gather some data)

Gathered culture and language materials for both Iraq and Afghanistan. Conducted interviews Defense Language Institute (DLI) administration (Dr. Donald Fisher and Steve Collins). Observed training. Gathered course materials and documents. Conducted interviews with project manager, students, and instructors. Attended Cross-Cultural Communications Course. Interviewed the main speaker, and collected materials.

Chapter 1: Introduction Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project

Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527 Site Center for Advanced Operational Culture Learning (CAOCL)

Location/Date Quantico, VA 14 September, 2010

Cherry Point (Marines)

Cherry Point, NC November 14-16, 2010

Fort Carson (Army)

Colorado Springs, CO November 17-19, 2010

Fort Belvoir (Joint Forces)

Fort Belvoir, VA December 7-9, 2010

Camp Lejeune (Marines)

Camp Lejeune, NC December 15-16

Accomplishments Gathered information regarding the role CAOCL plays in preparing and delivering pre-deployment culture and survival language training. Gathered culture/language materials. Obtained guidance on which locations would be best suited to observe training and collect data. Observed Key Leader Engagement training which covered some Pashto Language Training. Gathered and analyzed course materials. Conducted interviews with students and instructors. Collected survey data. Observed Campaign Continuity Language Training Detachment with focus on Tactical Dari. Gathered course materials which included textbooks and supplemental course materials. Conducted interviews with site director, instructors, and students. Observed Cultural Awareness Training- Criminal Investigation Task Force (CITF) and collected survey data from students. Conducted interviews with instructors and students. Observed CAOCL Tactical Afghan Culture Course. Gathered and analyzed documents. Conducted interviews with students

Surveys The research team developed self-report assessment tools by applying Kirkpatrick's Training Evaluation Model. Kirkpatrick‘s theory (1959, 1975, 1994) is arguably the most widely used model for the evaluation of training and learning and is considered an industry standard across the Human Resources and training communities. Table 2 illustrates the four levels of the Kirkpatrick model, showing the types of data that are gathered at each level. Table 2. The Four Levels of Kirkpatrick's Evaluation Model. Level 1

Evaluation Type Reaction

Learning

Behavior

Evaluation description and characteristics Reaction evaluation is how the delegates felt about the training or learning experience. Learning evaluation is the measurement of the increase in knowledge before and after. Behavior evaluation is the extent of applied learning back on the job - implementation.

Examples of evaluation tools and methods ―Happy sheets‖, feedback forms. Verbal reaction, posttraining surveys or questionnaires. Typically assessments or tests before and after the training. Interview or observation can also be used. Observation and interview over time are required to assess change, relevance of change, and sustainability of change.

Relevance and practicability Quick and very easy to obtain. Not expensive to gather or to analyze. Relatively simple to set up; clear-cut for quantifiable skills. Less easy for complex learning. Measurement of behavior change typically requires cooperation and skill of linemanagers.

Chapter 1: Introduction Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project

Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527 4

Results

Results evaluation the effect on business environment by trainee.

is the or the

Measures are already in place via normal management systems and reporting - the challenge is to relate to the trainee

Individually not difficult; unlike whole organization. Process must attribute clear accountabilities.

Phase I Approach At each site visit, the research team: (1) collected information on training requirements; (2) observed pre-deployment culture and survival language training events; and (3) interviewed trainers, leaders, and trainees. This approach supported the development of a baseline of the current pre-deployment culture and survival language training practices and also identified the best practices for future culture training efforts. Trainee reaction data were collected via surveys, with the items written to assess Level 1 of Kirkpatrick's 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 being provided. Additionally, while students were receptive to the survival language instruction portion of the training, all groups believed that additional time should be devoted to language instruction. The research team also found that those who rated their organizations more highly in teamwork, 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-making or proposed improvements. The relatively low number of site visits, when compared with all of the institutions, home stations, Mobile Training Teams (MTT), and similar venues that offer predeployment culture and language training, precluded such generalization. Additional assessments were needed in order to formulate conclusions as to the nature and effectiveness of training on readiness and performance.

Chapter 1: Introduction Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project

Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527

Phase II Approach The purpose of Phase II was to extend and support the Phase I baseline data regarding the state of 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 site visits 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 selected Service branch. This would allow our research team to evaluate any resulting increase in knowledge or capability as a direct result of the training. Therefore, Phase II research would allow for a systematic, objective assessment of what is being trained, identify best practices and investment strategies for culture knowledge and survival language pre-deployment training, and offer recommendations for future pre-deployment training. Moreover, Phase II research offers advantages beyond K2 assessment; it also adheres to the latest DoD training initiatives (Office of the Under Secretary of Defense Personnel and Readiness, 2010). This Next Generation of Training report provides strategic guidance on how to adapt training and education strategy based upon lessons learned. Additionally, the objective of 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 cultural capabilities 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, selfreliance, 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 Requirements Across the Department, there is increased priority placed on the acquisition of culture knowledge and language proficiency to meet the challenges of operating in complex, adaptive environments like those that comprise Irregular Warfare. Each Service has put in place guidance needed by leaders 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 professional development models.

Chapter 1: Introduction Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project

Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527

Department of Defense. We relied on two primary sources to frame our understanding the requirements for cultural competence: 1) Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) Report, February 2010 and the Strategic Plan for the Next Generation of Training for the DoD (Office of the Under Secretary of Defense Personnel and Readiness, 2010). We initiated our research by examining the need for culture and language proficiency. While few 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 for shaping Service actions and priorities for training regional culture and language capabilities. The QDR sets the conditions for change. The QDR describes the complex operating environment and points its readers to the profound demographic and social changes that are the result of globalization. The QDR seeks to re-balance objectives for counterinsurgency (COIN), stability operations and counter-terrorism as well as building security capacity of partnership states. We found that the perceived shortfall in regional culture and language competencies is represented as an operational risk. These competencies are key enablers which contribute to near-term goals of providing security and stability within regions. The operational need includes the ability to work with indigenous populations, where our Forces would develop the relationships and trust necessary for influencing popular support across the lines of operations. Further, we found that the QDR has proposed that we shift the focus for improving the Force from investments in technology to the development across the human dimension. The QDR places a premium on regional knowledge and language proficiency (QDR, p. 29). It also proposes career development and 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 Transformational Training (TT) terming it a directive. As part of its transformation strategy, the Department established several training focus areas which would contribute to readiness and the ability to respond effectively to the complex, adaptive environment that was described in the QDR. The strategy identified the need to improve knowledge and capability for waging Irregular Warfare as well as full spectrum operations. To accomplish these improvements, the Services were to markedly increase language, regional and cultural capabilities, train to use interpreters and institute 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 knowledge and language proficiency are force multipliers that can be applied at the tactical through the strategic levels of war to prevent, deter or win conflicts. And, while there is clearly a link to the current operational environments, the need will persist and apply to other regions as we become engaged in security, stability and counter-terrorism operations around the globe. We believe that Department guidance for regional culture and language training has been communicated to the Services in both the QDR 2010 and the TT strategy.

Chapter 1: Introduction Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project

Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527

Service Guidance and Directives We assembled the Service Guidance during the site visits or afterwards from the Service proponents. Our intent was to understand whether and how the Departmentâ&#x20AC;&#x2DC;s regional culture and language training were being implemented during pre-deployment training across the Services. When we researched the Joint- and individual Serviceâ&#x20AC;&#x2DC;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 to demonstrate unit readiness. In this section, we will summarize Service Training Requirements. U.S. Marine Corps (USMC). We reviewed several documents provided by the Director, USMC Center for Advanced Operational Culture and Language (CAOCL). These include the Marine Corps 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 leaders and trainers for implementation. In addition, we have considered the Marine Corps Order 3502.6 dated 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-deployment training. The imperatives for regional culture and language training are provided to the Corps along with the Commandantâ&#x20AC;&#x2DC;s vision that all Marines will receive this training as a means of enabling their performance in uncertain, complex environments. The minimum operational requirements for regional culture and language are outlined for expeditionary force operations to any theater and region. 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 this guidance and have provided training resources to support pre-deployment training objectives as well as individual, self-directed learning. The requirement is for every Marine to understand (and apply) regional proficiency and knowledge of physical environment, economy, social structure, political structure, belief systems and history. Further, the elements of culture will be assessed during the planning process to ensure that aspects of operational culture are considered in planning and operations. For language proficiency, all Marines will have language training with specific individuals capable of communicating about force protection, survival and rapport building phrases. Leaders require more refined speaking and listening skills for interactions with key leaders. We believe from our interviews and the documentation we collected that the USMC has provided its leaders and trainers with ample guidance for preparing pre-deployment regional culture knowledge and language training.

Chapter 1: Introduction Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project

Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527

U.S. Army (USA). In a similar manner, the Army has developed and issued its strategy for continuous development of regional culture and language skill development, though it pre-dates the Department‘s guidance. The foundations of the Army‘s guidance are its ARFORGEN (Army Force Generation) process and FM 3-24 Counterinsurgency Operations. These documents provide a framework for preparing individuals and units for deployment. They describe the tenets of security and stability operations and significant contributions of cultural and language proficiency to accomplishing mission tasks. For the Army pre-deployment training we will describe 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 Ready stage at home station, or at a training center. U.S. FORSCOM uses the Army Guidance as well as the requirements specified by the Combatant Commander (COCOM) to prepare and certify the units for deployment. We reviewed the current FORSCOM Pre-Deployment Training Guidance (U.S. Army Forces Command, 2010, December) in Support of COCOMs, 012142ZDec2010 to learn what guided the Army‘s pre-deployment training including culture and language. The FORSCOM guidance requires, ―… all required training listed in the message and the unit‘s collective mission essential task list as well as theater-specific identified tasks and information provided through leaders recon…‖ be included in training plans.‖ The directive applies to Active and Reserve Components. According to the FORSCOM Guidance, each Soldier is required to complete a computer-based instructional module that provides an awareness of ―fundamental values, beliefs, behaviors and norms of that culture and differences with U.S. culture.‖ This abbreviated equivalent to the ―HeadStart‖ program is accessible through the Defense Language Institute Foreign language Center (DLIFLC) website. There are also, language modules for common courtesy expressions, commands, questions, military terms and expressions of time. These are the minimum requirements. Standards for this training were provided by the Chief of Staff in a 19 April 2010 message. Also available on-line through DLIFLC is a requirement for a Rapport Building module for Soldiers and Army Civilians who deploy. Finally, there is a requirement for one leader per platoon to receive advanced language training, a 16-week language training through language 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 Program Executive Office for Simulation, Training and Instrumentation (PEO-STRI). We also reviewed U.S. Army National Guard (ARNG) Training Guidance for Training Years 10/11/12 (Appendix 4- Mandatory Training, Annex T- Operations), the guidance for preChapter 1: Introduction Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project

Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527

deployment culture and language training. We found the guidance to be consistent with the FORSCOM Guidance described above. However, there was a greater emphasis on individual, on-line learning resources. For ARNG language training, the minimum language requirement is to use DLIFLC language compact disc (CDs). Units could also coordinate for MTT, training aids or language Smart Cards. Finally, ARNG Soldiers were also able to access foreign language coursed in Rosetta Stone language courses. We believe from our interviews and the information we collected that the USA has provided its leaders and trainers with ample guidance for preparing pre-deployment regional culture knowledge and language training. Although we did not a visit an ARNG Mobilization Site or Armory, the Reserve Component units are also implementing the FORSCOM and theaterspecific guidance. A good deal more of the ARNG training leverages on-line resources, which might produce challenges in evaluating training outcomes. U.S. Air Force (USAF). The overarching strategy for USAF culture and language training is described in the Air Force Expeditionary Operations Strategy. The Strategy provides a framework to organize, train, and equip Airmen prepared to rapidly deploy and effectively engage anywhere in the world. This Culture, Religion, and Language (CRL) Flight Plan provides authoritative guidance for the development of plans and programs to build crosscultural capability in support of national security objectives, where regional culture knowledge and language will enable more effective air operations. The USAF Flight Plan for Culture, Region and Language, May 2009 was prepared in response to QDR 2010, which also proposed a commitment to the development of cultural expertise. The Plan was intended to produce across the Air Force a â&#x20AC;&#x2022;coalition mindsetâ&#x20AC;&#x2013; characterized by effective negotiations, communications and relations with joint and coalition partners. The Flight Plan was also a precursor to the TT Strategy with a focus on full-spectrum operational settings. Current implementation of the Plan combines the delivery of individual pre-deployment culture training by MTTs as well as unit training. Language proficiency and regional expertise have become core competencies for the expeditionary Air Forces. These are typically delivered in institutional settings and are augmented with individual and professional development experiences. While we did not assemble current documents outlining pre-deployment training goals, we presume they do exist within the context of Air Expeditionary Operations and Training and they are 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 Force leaders and trainers have training requirements to prepare regional culture knowledge and Chapter 1: Introduction Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project

Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527

language training. In our review of documents, we did not note explicit language about predeployment training. However, interviews at the AFCLC Expeditionary Warfare Training Division revealed that their staff and training managers are fully cognizant of the guidance and have responded with exemplary culture and language training provided by MTTs and institutions. U.S. Navy (USN). The overarching culture and knowledge training requirements statement is provided by the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO), A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower, October 2007 (U.S. Department of Navy, 2007, October). The CNO presages the premise found in the QDR 2010 about the impacts of globalization on nature of future conflicts where U.S. military power might be employed. This competition for global influence requires that we participate in collective security and stability operations that involve a direct interaction with other cultures in complex environments. He prescribes a new focus on how maritime forces build trust and confidence through collective security requiring integration of maritime forces with the other Services. This will require that Sailors (Marines and Coast Guardsmen) acquire cultural, linguistic and historic perspectives sufficient for building relationships with international partners. The Sea Services must become adept at forging these partnerships in Joint and Combined settings. He also foresees the need for junior personnel to develop the capability to interact with multinational partners and ―…improve regional and cultural expertise through expanded training, education and exchange opportunities.‖ (ibid, p. 19). Current guidance is consistent the Maritime Strategy, which is led by Chief of Naval Operations Instructions (OPNAVINST) 3500.38B and MCO3500.26A, & U.S. Coast Guard Commandant Instruction (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 to appreciate cultural differences and their impact on host nation perspectives. The required competencies include basic facts about the region and its culture (location, size, recent history, governance, religions, values, key individuals). Survival language training competencies required include common greetings and words or phrases from the dominant language of the region. Much of the individual replacement training for Sailors is provided at Army training sites. Navy personnel 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 the USMC that Navy leaders and trainers have sufficient guidance to prepare pre-deployment regional culture knowledge and language training. In our review of documents, we did not note explicit language about pre-deployment training. However, interviews at the CLREC revealed that their staff and training managers are fully cognizant of the guidance and have responded admirably with culture and language training materials and MTTs.

Chapter 1: Introduction Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project

Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527

Report Contents This Report delivers the Phase II findings. Chapters Two through Five describe the assessments for each Service, detailing the Service-specific data gathered, the methods used to gather such data, the interviews conducted and observations made, the materials collected, and finally, the results and research teamâ&#x20AC;&#x2DC;s recommendations for effective pre-deployment culture and survival language training. Chapter Six describes in detail both the K1 survey and the K2 survey analyses and results, and offers the research teamâ&#x20AC;&#x2DC;s recommendations derived from the results. Chapter Seven concludes this report with a discussion of the major findings, trends, best practices, 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 been compiled of every document and resource reviewed (Appendix B); a demographics collection form (Appendix C); a training survey form (Appendix D); a training architecture collection matrix (Appendix E); a learner collection guide (Appendix F); a trainer collection guide (Appendix G), and individual trip reports (Appendices H-O). Additionally, a materials and resource database has been created, and will accompany this Final Research Report in the form of five interactive digital video discs.

Chapter 1: Introduction Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project

Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527

CHAPTER 2. ANALYSIS OF MARINE CORPS TRAINING This chapter provides an overview of Marine Corps pre-deployment culture and survival language training. Specifically, this chapter covers site visits to the Center for Advanced Operational Culture Learning in Quantico, Virginia, the Marine Corps Air Station in Cherry Point, North Carolina, and to the Tactical Afghan Culture Course at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. This chapter also includes a description of the current pre-deployment culture and survival language training offered at these sites, observations from interviews and survey data, comparisons with Phase I results, and recommendations for improving or sustaining current practices. The first site visit was to the U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) Center for Advanced Operational Culture Learning (CAOCL) in Quantico, Virginia, on 14 September 2010. The research team met with the Director of CAOCL, Mr. George Dallas and his staff, conducted interviews, and collected course materials. The purpose of this visit was to fully explore the role CAOCL plays in 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 15 through 18 November 2010. The research team observed Key Leader Engagement (KLE) training, which is sponsored by CAOCL, collected course materials, administered Kirkpatrick Level 1 assessment (―K1‖) surveys, and conducted several interviews. The primary purpose of this visit was to observe KLE training, which is provided to Battalion, Regimental, and Marine Expeditionary 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 a large Marine population. This training was given in a large theater to approximately 150 Marines ranking E5 and below from several units. Presented below is a summary of the results, brief descriptions of the materials collected at each site, a synopsis of the interviews conducted at each site, followed by the results of the surveys administered and, specifically, how the findings compare with the results of Phase I. The chapter concludes with best practices and recommendations, based upon these results, offered to guide future training efforts for the USMC.

Summary of Results Results 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 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project

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

Observations The Center for Advanced Operational Culture Learning takes a global perspective on culture training. 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 only areas of focus. The overarching goal of this type of culture training is to ensure that Marines are globally prepared, regionally focused, and fully capable of effectively navigating the cultural complexities of the 21st century operating environments. The Center for Advanced Operational Culture Learning defines KLE training as ―the process for establishing relationships at the strategic, operational, and tactical levels to effectively communicate and gain cooperation of leaders that influence the population in the area of operation.‖ 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 being offered to more junior personnel, as missions are increasingly demanding that lower ranks engage with key leaders. There was no observed evaluation or assessment tool given to KLE participants at the conclusion of the course. Some examples of the course presentation slides are illustrated in Figure 1.

Chapter 2: Analysis of Marine Corps Training Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project

Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527

Figure 1. Key Leader Engagement non-verbal communication slides The Tactical Afghan Culture Course observed at Camp Lejeune covered five major themes: appearance, social organization, cultural norms, traditions, and religion. The class began with an informal question and answer session among the Marines to encourage participation and to gauge the cultural knowledge base of the Marine units. Instruction then proceeded by incorporating elements of history into each of the five themes/sections as well as incorporating analogies 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 cartels

While each Afghan ethnic group and tribe was mentioned, discussion lacked in covering the tactical cultural elements Marines sought such as how to specifically interact and extract information from each group.

Interviews Interviews 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 Director

The approach taken toward culture training for the Marines also emphasizes the five dimensions of operational culture: Chapter 2: Analysis of Marine Corps Training Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project

Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527

1) 2) 3) 4) 5)

Environment Economy Social organization Political structures Belief systems

This framework is derived from the book, Operational Culture for the Warfighter: Principles and Applications (Salmoni & Holmes-Eber, 2008), which was written by personnel from CAOCL. A set of questions for each of the five dimensions is included in this resource, which can be used as a guide for Marines to conduct their own operational culture analysis. The USMC also has a Training and Readiness Manual (U.S. Department of the Navy, April, 2009) that specifically addresses operational culture training requirements, and drives the course material for all programs of instruction, including the Key Leader Engagement course. Our research team was informed that TECOM will review and make revisions to the current Training and Readiness Manual 18-22 April 2011. In addition to pre-deployment training, CAOCL has instituted a career-long education and training effort for culture and language called the Regional, Culture, and Language Familiarization (RCLF) program. The goal of this program is to ensure that each unit is composed of culturally skilled Marines with a diverse regional understanding as well as basic language capacity. Essentially, CAOCL has divided the world into seventeen regions, and each Marine shall study one region throughout his or her career. Education is provided through a series of modules, and Marines are required to pass assessments at the end of each module in order to progress. This long-term effort will establish a capability that allows Commanders to respond to any contingency by building a cadre of Marines who understand each of the 17 regions of the world. Currently, pre-deployment culture and survival language training is delivered via a combination of classroom instruction, computer-based instruction, and role-playing; however, no current training standards exist across the board. This means that such training is provided at each Commanderâ&#x20AC;&#x2DC;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-action reviews (AARs), and in some instances, tests of declarative knowledge. Most of the USMCwide training surveys, including the instructor rating forms, collect no more than K1 reaction data. Such forms allow instructors to keep the content fresh by gauging trainee satisfaction levels on which segments of the training were most valued by the Marines. Instructors also make use of AARs, which provide an informal type of assessment tool. Training content is updated by questioning Marines who have returned from deployment, employing native instructors who keep in touch with family and friends in their home country, and via input from Chapter 2: Analysis of Marine Corps Training Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project

Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527

the MCIA and the MCCLL. An in-house research facility was also recently added under the direction of Dr. Kerry Fosher, an anthropologist. The research team also conducted interviews at Cherry Point, with both of the instructors of the KLE training, Mr. Mohammed Qais and Mr. Emal Numan, as well as with four members of the training audience, both at Cherry Point and at Camp Lejuene, as discussed below.

Instructor Interviews At Cherry Point, the primary instructor Emal Numan, and the secondary instructor, Mohammed Qais, both make use of PowerPoint presentations, “You give them the bullet points of but also enhance and supplement the material with how the society works, how people their own personal experiences and insights, making think, the Afghan psyche. We give clear to the students the differences between the two them that so when they are out in the cultures, Afghan and American. Assessments of the field, they expect flexibility.” students are mainly informal, in the form of --Instructor Interview Feedback feedback given during and after the role-play exercises. The role-play exercises allow the Marines to practice their newly-learned language and 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 for students to grasp. With regard to learning about another culture, specifically, neither could pinpoint 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 to cover than time allotted, the instructors must focus on broad areas of knowledge. This is why they feel it is critical to prepare the Marines to expect the unexpected. Because they cannot properly prepare ahead of time for every possible contingency situation, teaching that there are other perspectives, other world views, is what matters. As one of the instructors noted, ―You give them the bullet points of how the society works, how people think, the Afghan psyche. We give them that so when they are out in the field, they expect flexibility.‖ 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 Interviews

Chapter 2: Analysis of Marine Corps Training Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project

Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527

All four students interviewed at Cherry Point felt that KLE training was an excellent way to understand another culture‘s perspective and all expressed that they would behave differently toward Afghans in the future as a direct result of this training. The students also highly value having native instructors, as it fosters opportunities to interact and ask questions about how to act in culturally appropriate ways. One student remarked, ―This is the best training I’ve ever had… I think it's good because of the interaction with the instructor.‖ Because learning a new language is the most difficult part of the training, students expressed that it should be more intensive, especially for leaders. They felt that more training time should be devoted to learning language, especially for more senior ranks, as it is critical that leaders learn more 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 culture is learning how to interact with a foreign population. Students in this class seemed to realize that such interactions are critical to our counterinsurgency (COIN) efforts. As one interviewee noted, ―That's all about the hearts and minds and part of the COIN, a key part is how can we turn over our combat operations, our building operations, our security operations. How can we turn those over to Afghanis because if they're doing it themselves, they take more pride, which means you have to partner with them.‖ With regard to KLE training, students expressed that this type of training is even more critical for GPF than for the higher ranking leaders, such as Commanders and Generals. In order to convey 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 to complete this type of training, a Jirga in front of them - grab a few Marines out of the crowd, just give them a basic overview, and let them participate.‖ At Camp Lejeune, a total of two informal interviews with two Marines per interview were conducted during the training. The interviews centered on potential best practices, what is most valued by the students, and what improvements could strengthen the program. Of the four Marines interviewed, two had previously been deployed. Additionally, only one individual (who had not yet deployed) had received culture training prior to this event. He stated that this training was far superior to what he had encountered in previous culture training. The two Marines who had not yet deployed expressed a greater interest in the material than the two Marines who had served in theater; however, the Marines with deployment experience had minimal interaction with the locals. There were mixed feelings on the value of this course. The two previously deployed Marines stated six hours of culture training was excessive and that they would probably not retain the information when they deployed again seven months later. The two Marines with no deployment experience stated they believed the most valuable element of the training was a small segment that focused on how to properly use your interpreters. Chapter 2: Analysis of Marine Corps Training Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project

Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527

All 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, if anything, they would change about the instruction, they stated that videos incorporated into the training would have kept them more engaged, and an additional instructor could offer another perspective.

Training Content Marine content received in Phase II were all CAOCL materials. We received and evaluated several 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 NonVerbally; 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 of two institutions we came across who were actually performing knowledge checks during their training, 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 CAOCL keeps records of these answers). Note: *A review of online courses (e.g. HeadStart, Rapport) was not done for this report, but will be provided in a separate document at a later date from Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division (NAWCTSD).

Survey Data K1 reaction data were collected in the form of surveys. The total sample size was 141, and of this dataset, 12 participants came from Marines at Cherry Point. Therefore, an in-depth analysis of the Marine only data would not be advised, given the small sample size. (For more in-depth analyses 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 previously deployed, and of those, eight participants had been deployed between two and six times, with an average of 3.56 deployments. The majority of participants (83.4%) were officers, ranked O2 and above, with most in Combat Service Support or Logistics (67%), and the remainder in Combat Chapter 2: Analysis of Marine Corps Training Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project

Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527

Arms (33%). All participants perceived the quality of culture training (M = 4.39) and quality of the language training (M = 4.02) as valuable, on a scale of ―1‖ to ―5‖ (where 1 = Strongly Disagree and 5 = Strongly Agree). As in the other Services, the lowest rated aspect of the training was the quantity, or amount, of language training received (M = 2.33), confirming the interview data, that the trainees did not feel there was enough time devoted to language training.

Comparisons with Phase I Findings For Phase I of this project, survey data were collected from 51 Marines; however, as the sample size in Phase II was only 12 Marines, caution is advised in interpreting these results, and in making comparisons with the results of Phase I. In Phase I, there seemed to be general dissatisfaction with the language portion of the training received (M = 2.98) by the 42 Marine participants who completed the survival language portion of the survey. Contrary to this finding, the Phase II Marines in the KLE training reported a high level 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 time devoted 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 on language training, expectations to transfer what was learned in the language training were generally high (M = 3.76). This suggests that although participants would have liked to have more intensive training on language, what they did learn was rated high in quality and likely to result in transfer to the field. With regard to culture training in Phase I, all 51 participants indicated a positive view of this portion of the training (M = 3.32). For the Phase II sample, all 12 Marines rated the quality of culture training received highly as well (M = 4.39). Similar to their reactions to the language training, the 12 Marines also expected to transfer what they learned in culture training to the field (M = 4.08).

Conclusions As noted in the Phase I Final Report, the CAOCL website was found to be easy to use and the content was managed well. This site seems to be the most mature in comparison to the sites maintained by each of the other Services. Therefore, the CAOCL website can be used as an exemplar for other knowledge portal websites maintained by the other Services.

Chapter 2: Analysis of Marine Corps Training Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project

Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527

Course content is continually updated and improved via instructor reviews of the AARs of personnel returning from Afghanistan. This seems like a simple, yet powerful, way to keep the training materials current and relevant. This practice implies that the instructors must take the initiative in conducting such reviews of the materials. They must be flexible, motivated, and open-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 and the students, is the interactive and participatory style used throughout the class. Whether teaching language or culture, the instructors regularly engage with the students, answering questions, offering insights, and in other ways personalizing the instruction for the students in that particular class. The participatory role-play exercises were especially effective and highly valued. Beyond engaging and motivating the students via participatory and interactive techniques is the consideration of what is the most important material to impart to students, given the time constraints involved. Through sharing experiences, and engaging in activities such as participating in a Jirga, instructors seem to motivate deeper learning and self-directed learning by providing students with a basic understanding, or cultural awareness, that other different world views are as valid as their own. This type of perspective-taking often enables a cognitive shift in one‘s approach to other cultures, considered by some researchers to be a prerequisite to learning about another culture 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 come naturally. It is natural, instead, to believe that the ways in which we perceive and understand the world are the same ways that others perceive and understand the world. We assume reality is objective, being the same for everyone, and often fail to realize reality is subjective; our minds assign meaning to objective reality, depending upon our own unique perspective (U.S. Peace Corps, 1997). Because it is not natural to take another person‘s perspective, this is something that we must learn. This kind of cognitive shift in awareness often begins with awareness of one‘s own cultural perspective. Differences in awareness or orientations toward other cultures, progress in stages, from ethnocentrism to ethno-relativism (Hammer et al, 2003). In the first stage of extreme ethnocentrism, people are completely unaware of any differences between cultures, and so 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 own culture to be superior, such as extreme patriotism or nationalism. This results in the categorization of people from other cultures into stereotypical representations. The next level of ethnocentric orientation is where people are accepting of surface-level cultural differences, but still assume that their own values, such as democratic ideals, are universally accepted across Chapter 2: Analysis of Marine Corps Training Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project

Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527

cultures. Learning that one‘s own values are not shared or appreciated by those from other cultures is believed to result in a cognitive shift, from an ethnocentric to an ethnorelative orientation. This is how native instructors, who are able to relate to both cultures (i.e., American and Islamic) can impart the type of cultural awareness that allows this cognitive shift to take place.

Recommendations for Improvement Although the research team was made aware of certain K2 data being collected by the USMC, the team could not obtain information on how these data are being used to inform predeployment culture and survival language training. Therefore, the research team recommends adding K2 learning assessments across the board to evaluate USMC programs, along with the typically-used K1 reaction surveys. Given the available materials, it would not require much effort to add K2 measures to the course curriculum. K2 data could analyze and evaluate actual classroom/training performance in order to measure learning or gains in knowledge. Such information could enable tailored feedback to be provided, not only to the students to aid in further learning and motivation, but to the course content developers and instructors as well, to guide and inform future training efforts. Such a step would result in significant impacts, ensuring that the limited amount of time allotted to training would be used more effectively, and those facets of training that result in measurable learning outcomes would be the focus of future training efforts. Another tool that is already in use, but is not being utilized to its full advantage for assessment, is the use of role-play exercises. Such exercises offer a more practical way for instructors to evaluate learning, and may be more acceptable to students than exams of declarative knowledge. Therefore, the research team recommends that in addition to the informal feedback and evaluations already provided during and after the role-play exercises, instructors also formally rate or grade the performance of participants. Doing this would allow more powerful and informative K2 analysis. It must be kept in mind that although instructor grades or ratings may seem to be more subjective at face value than typical multiple-choice written exams, this type of evaluation may be more acceptable to the students, given our interview data. As one student expressed, evaluations in the form of written tests may be counterproductive, discouraging real learning from taking place: ―If you make me do it, I’ll remember forever … formal evaluation stresses people out …I would role play, role play, role play, because that’s the way they’re going to memorize it.‖ Therefore, the research team recommends the U.S. Marine Corps adopt a blended approach of written exams coupled with role-play exercises (and evaluations) in order to inform both instructors and course developers as to best practices for pre-deployment culture and survival language training that will result in real and measurable learning outcomes. Chapter 2: Analysis of Marine Corps Training Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project

Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527

CHAPTER 3. ANALYSIS OF ARMY TRAINING This chapter provides an overview of Army pre-deployment culture and survival language training. Specifically, this chapter covers the site visits to Fort Carson, Colorado and Fort Belvoir, Virginia, a description of the current culture and survival language pre-deployment training, observations from interviews and survey data, comparisons with Phase I results, and recommendations for improving or sustaining current practices. The Campaign Continuity Language Training Detachment pre-deployment language training is administered at Fort Carson, Colorado. This 16-week training course is the result of a partnership between the operational Army and the Defense Language Institute (DLI) that began in the early months of 2010. This training supports the deployment of Army personnel to Afghanistan by teaching Soldiers the basics of the Dari language and Afghan culture within an operational context. The purpose of the Fort Carson visit was to observe pre-deployment Dari language training and obtain information via interviews from leadership, trainers, and members of the training audience on their perspectives of training support. The Key Leader Cultural Awareness Training at Fort Belvoir provides culture training to a joint audience. This training was conducted at the Criminal Investigation Task Force (CITF) facilities in cooperation with the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), acting as a Mobile Training Team (MTT). This training is geared to senior Non-Commissioned Officers (NCOs) and company level to field grade officers. The purpose of this visit was to observe culture training provided to a joint audience. This was not considered pre-deployment training, as only one individual in the group was planning on deploying within the next seven months. Nonetheless, the research team had a specific request to review this training. This was a two-day training event provided by an MTT. Presented below is a summary of the results, brief descriptions of the materials collected at each site, a synopsis of the interviews conducted at each site, followed by the results of the surveys administered and, specifically, how our findings compare with the results of Phase I. This chapter concludes with best practices and our recommendations based on our results, in order to guide future training efforts for the Army. Additionally, the research team was made aware that as 1 October 2010, the Army issued an Executive Order requiring all service members and civilians deploying to Afghanistan or Iraq to receive online culture and language training through HeadStart 2 and Rapport training products. As mentioned previously, a review of such products will be provided in a separate document at a later date from NAWCTSD.

Summary of Results Results were derived from data collected through training observation, survey administration, interviews, and the examination of course materials.

Chapter 3: Analysis of Army Training Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project

Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527

Fort Carson Results   

It is beneficial for instructors and students to speak only in Dari during class to simulate immersion. Instruction that is not standardized will result in various levels of learning. Instructors need to have a comprehension of and aptitude in English grammar, language and customs/culture in order to make learning Dari and Afghan culture maximally effective.

Fort Belvoir Results  

Cultural training can enhance the understanding of the Arab culture and does not necessarily have to be geared toward pre-deployment to have value. Aspects of history and a better use of analogies should be incorporated at all levels for greater understanding of a particular culture.

Observations The research team observed the first course taught at the Fort Carson Campaign Continuity Language Training Detachment (see Figure 2). The training is heavily focused on the Dari language, but provides a review of English grammar during the first week. There is also a 40hour culture training component interspersed throughout the first eight weeks. There are approximately 510 hours of instruction, with 470 hours devoted to language training and 40 hours devoted to general culture. Language is taught each day, with a focus on learning concepts such as greetings, basic phrases in the DLI handbook, and pronunciation. The morning sessions consist of reviewing homework and covering textbook lessons. Each afternoon, the students rotate to another instructor to practice role-playing scenarios in Dari. The scenarios allow students to practice either general or tactical conversation. The goal of this training is to have all students obtain a 0+ or above on the Oral Proficiency Interview (OPI). More specifically, the student should be able to: 1. Meet and greet the local population, ask for and provide directions, and read and write simple road signs and instructions. 2. Engage in social small talk. 3. Understand and be able to recognize cultural and religious cues and convey them appropriately. 4. Perform security checks and collect simple intelligence information.

Chapter 3: Analysis of Army Training Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project

Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527

Figure 2. Dari language training at Fort Carson The culture training at Ft. Belvoir was in-depth and far beyond that given to the GPF covering topics such as Arab media, Hezbollah, and offering a rich history lesson on that region of the world. The majority of students were trained as analysts and interrogators, and consisted of field grade and company grade officers from the Army, Navy, Air Force, as well as senior NCOs from these services. The cornerstone of this course was an in-depth study of the five pillars of Islam. This, along with Arab naming conventions provided a practical insight of the Arab mindset. A discussion of the differences between Arab media and Western media also provided the students with a greater understanding of culture in the Middle East. One-fourth of the course at Ft. Belvoir, specifically those sections instructed by the DIA, were not perceived as beneficial, according to data gathered during the student interviews. The instruction was fast-paced and did not always match the materials provided, thus making it difficult to retain concepts in the allotted time frame. However, other aspects of the training, including the descriptive use of U.S. analogies and in depth review of history, distinguish this training session as more effective from those the research team had observed to date.

Interviews Seven individuals were interviewed at Fort Carson: one site director, three instructors, and three students. The main areas of investigation concerned potential best practices, learning requirements and objectives, how learning is evaluated, what is most valued by the students, and what improvements could be made to strengthen the program. Due to time restraints and a secure context, researchers at Ft. Belvoir were limited to brief informal interviews with one instructor and five service members. None of the interviews were allowed to be recorded.

Chapter 3: Analysis of Army Training Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project

Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527

Student Interviews At Fort Carson, all students reported they were satisfied with the pre-deployment culture and survival language training. Moreover, they believe this training will be essential on their upcoming deployments. A recurring theme noticed throughout this visit among students, instructors, and the site director is that students with higher ranks tend to benefit more from this language training detachment course. While discussing those best suited for the course, one student commented, ―If I was going to pick people from my platoon to come to the class, I wouldn't pick anybody below E 4.‖ In general, these students preferred being taught by one instructor as opposed to multiple instructors. They felt that a close relationship with their instructor contributed to their overall success in learning Dari. Students believed they benefitted the most from practicing tactical language scenarios, which forces them to utilize vocabulary that will be needed in theater. The students at Ft. Belvoir were split among those who volunteered for the training and those who were required to attend. Only one student at the training observed had orders for deployment in the next year. While the majority found the training valuable, most were unsure how they would use the knowledge in their current role.

“If I was going to pick people from my platoon to come to the class, I wouldn't pick anybody below E-4.” --Soldier Interview Feedback

Instructor and Site Director Interviews At Fort Carson, the instructors displayed a strong interest in ensuring their students‘ success in learning Dari. The instructors believe that class material should focus on exclusively teaching the formal use of the language, as opposed to both formal and informal. The instructors reported that learning only the formal language would be more beneficial to the students as well as making the best use of class time. Instructors stated that more locals are familiar with the formal language and that teaching the informal version of Dari confuses the students and impedes their progress. At Ft. Carson, the site director identified Tactical Fluency, Cultural Awareness, Foundational Dari and Comprehension as the main components surrounding this training. He expressed that the main focus of this language training detachment is to ensure that the Soldiers have tactical fluency in Dari when deployed. He is expecting that DLI will work towards a tactical final exam for students in order to better meet this requirement. Currently, there is discrepancy between what the students are expected to learn (tactical language skills) and what the OPI tests for (conversational Dari).

Chapter 3: Analysis of Army Training Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project

Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527

At Ft. Belvoir, an interview with the primary instructor informed researchers that the structure of the course is dictated by the U.S. Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) and there is a need for more regional experts to teach. It was stated that many instructors simply read PowerPoint slides instead of engaging the classroom to prompt their thinking and understanding. The information in the course is very valuable but it should be tailored to the students (i.e., E-4‘s and below require more general training, whereas those in higher ranks can better appreciate and utilize more specialized and detailed information).

Training Content Army content received in Phase II was collected only at Ft. Carson. We received and evaluated several materials (for a full list, please see Appendix K). The key materials were: 



 

Dari dictionary and phrasebook. These materials provide basic grammar rules, pronunciation, and simple phrases in Dari (shopping, emergency, healthcare, etc.). Additionally, a Dari to English and English to Dari dictionary is included. Dari basic course introductory textbook. This textbook contains lessons on vocabulary, culture, pronunciation, grammar, writing, listening and activities in Dari. Scenarios for each lesson include topics such as people, numbers, seasons, time, the home, and the family. Dari alphabet booklet. This booklet contains the entire Dari alphabet and pronunciation of symbols. It also contains a section on practice for writing Dari script. Language Training Detachments (LTDs) course quizzes and tests. Short answer, matching, and fill in the blank questions were asked on listening, vocabulary, culture, grammar, and sentence translation. The topics covered sections from prior lessons such as: Personal belongings, In the Province, A Friendly Chat, A Medical Problem, and In the Afghan Army.

The content reviewed pertained solely to language instruction, and while Soldiers were provided with ample information and quality instructors, the materials themselves could be improved. Our research team noted that the structure, content, and organization of the books needed revisions (e.g., content that should follow a certain lesson was located in unexpected places, and instructors informed us that certain translations were not correct). Through the content could be improved, the Army, similar to Center for Advanced Operational Culture Learning (CAOCL), did perform knowledge checks during their training. These tests were used to determine a student‘s overall grade in the course as well as rank their proficiency in their language of study.

Survey Data The research team collected Kirkpatrick Level 1 assessment (―K1‖) reaction data via survey administration from 80 Soldiers. Of these participants, 58 Soldiers had been previously deployed (72%), with most of those having been deployed one time (67%). Soldiers were Chapter 3: Analysis of Army Training Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project

Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527

ranked between E2 and E6, with the majority being E4 (55%). Most of the Soldiers (78%) were in Combat Arms, with 14% listing their duty position as being in Combat Service Support or Logistics, and the smallest percentage (8%) listing their duty position as Combat Support. The most highly rated aspect of training by Army personnel was the quality of language training received (M = 3.97), which like all other reactions, was rated ―1‖ to ―5‖ on a 5-point scale (where 1 = Strongly Disagree and 5 = Strongly Agree). The next highest rating was for the quality of culture training received (M = 3.84). The lowest rated aspect of the training was the quantity, or amount, of language training received (M = 3.01), meaning the participants did not feel there was enough time devoted to language training. For more in-depth analyses across all the Services, and the Army at Fort Carson in particular, please refer to the Analysis Chapter.

Comparisons with Phase I Findings In Phase I, many of the Soldiers tended to value cultural awareness training over language training. In comparison, the students at Ft. Carson who learned Dari and who utilized it in a tactical training scenario felt it was very valuable. However, it should be noted that Ft. Carson was a specialized course devoted principally to language study. In both phases, the research team observed that while individual instructors set certain goals, no true training standards have been created for culture and survival language training, thus leading to varying requirements and an overall lack of standard metrics for the evaluation of skills. Additionally, with regard to the training conducted at Fort Belvoir, it seemed that learning was more related to the quality of the instructor than to the particular class being taught. Overall, students in both phases expressed concerns over the limited amount of time available for predeployment cultural and survival language training.

Conclusions When training a new language, it is imperative to spend a certain amount of time fully immersed in that particular language in order to force students to practice conversing and get beyond any hesitancy they have regarding their words or using improper grammar. Setting aside a portion of the classroom time where no English is spoken was advocated by students, instructors, and the site director. Different teaching styles may lend to more or less effective classrooms, as certain classrooms were clearly at higher learning levels than others in both the language training and cultural awareness training (i.e. those utilizing modeling, game play to encourage competition, and facilitated discussion over lecture). Further, it is best not to rely on an instructor to be proficient at teaching merely because s/he possesses a particular background.

Chapter 3: Analysis of Army Training Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project

Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527

Recommendations for Improvement It is important for each instructor to have a comprehension and aptitude in English grammar, language, and customs/culture in order to make learning Dari or Pashtun and Afghan culture maximally effective. Perhaps further investigation into instructor certification could be warranted in order to ensure teachers are fully competent in areas mentioned that go beyond fluency in the Dari language. An alternative to potentially altering instructor certification qualifications may be to have two instructors per classroom: on Afghan native and on American fluent in Dari to ensure questions on grammar and use of analogies are made clear. Culture training cannot be ―one size fits all.‖ It must be tailored to the level of the training audience. Even with tailored training, aspects of history and a better use of analogies at all levels will promote greater understanding and retention. Finally, cultural awareness training should go beyond ―pre-deployment‖ training—it can be valuable at any point in a career.

Chapter 3: Analysis of Army Training Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project

Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527

CHAPTER 4. ANALYSIS OF AIR FORCE TRAINING This chapter provides an overview of Air Force pre-deployment culture and survival language training. Specifically, analysis covers a site visit to McGuire Air Force Base (AFB), New Jersey, a description of the current culture and survival language pre-deployment training, observations from interviews and survey data, comparisons with Phase I results, and recommendations for improving or sustaining current practices. The training observed at McGuire AFB was an Air Advisory pre-deployment training. This training supports the deployment of members of the Air Force to Afghanistan and Iraq. The program is composed primarily of volunteers that are both officer (O3-O5) and enlisted personnel (E4-E7) who will be deployed within the year. Airmen chosen for the course are trained to replace their counterparts overseas in assessing, training, educating, advising, and assisting foreign personnel as they build their aviation capabilities. The figure below illustrates an Air Force training sample (see Figure 3). This is a 49-hour training program that is taught over a four-week period. The first two weeks focus on culture and survival language training, and the latter two weeks are centered on combat readiness skills.

Figure 3. Sample Air Force culture training

Chapter 4: Analysis of Air Force Training Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project

Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527

The research team conducted its site visit during the second week of training at McGuire AFB, during which the team:    

Conducted nine interviews Collected 41 surveys Reviewed all course materials Observed classroom instruction

The Culture and Language Center (CLC) was created at Air University in April 2006 to implement the Air Force Chief of Staff‘s guidance aimed at improving Airmen‘s cross-cultural competence (3C) by developing their cultural, regional, foreign language, and negotiation skills through the professional military education system. In 2007, the CLC became its own center. The vision of the Air Force Culture Language Center (AFCLC) is to create cross-culturally competent Airmen who effectively communicate, negotiate and relate to achieve Air Force expeditionary objectives and institutional goals. This report documents the research team‘s opinion on how well this vision is being met, based upon feedback received as well as the instructional methods and materials provided to Airmen.

Summary of Results    

The Air Force uses up-to-date materials that extend beyond what was taught in the program of instruction. Best practices include bringing Airmen to a culture meal and pairing them with the sponsors whom they will replace in theater. Students reported that the training they received at McGuire AFB far exceeded previous culture training. Currently, the Air Force is not in the practice of using knowledge tests to evaluate learning during or at the end of its courses.

Observations The 49 hours of instruction covers 30 hours of language, eight hours of general culture, four hours of culture specific training, and seven hours of practical exercises. Outside of the practical exercises, all instruction occurred in a classroom setting, where the student to teacher ratio did not exceed 15:1. Expeditionary Warfare Training is provided through each of five subordinate units consist of the 43rd Airlift Wing, Pope Air Force Base, N.C.; the 87th Air Base Wing, Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, N.J.; the 319th Air Refueling Wing, Grand Forks Air Force Base, N.D.; the 628th Air Base Wing, Joint Base Charleston, S.C.; and the 627th Air Base Group, Joint Base Lewis-McChord, WA. Both the 87th Air Base Wing and the 628th Air Base Wing are the Air Force leads on Joint Bases that host AMC flying wings, along with other DoD partners. The 43rd Airlift Wing and 627th Air Base Group enjoy unique partnerships with the U.S. Army,

Chapter 4: Analysis of Air Force Training Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project

Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527

while the 319th Air Refueling Wing supports the Department of Homeland Defense and Air Combat Command emerging missions. The teachers included military instructors, independent contractors, and native language instructors certified from Defense Language Institute (DLI). All instructors took ample time with students, integrated language in culture classes and vice versa, and offered assistance during class, after class, and throughout the students‘ deployments. The energy and assistance offered by the instructors was reciprocated through student engagement. Materials handed to students covered all classroom instructional documents, as well as supplemental material including tips and critical incidents from former Air Advisors who had previously graduated the course. These materials included those from the Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center (DLIFLC), the Air Education and Training Command (AETC), the AFCLC, and U.S. Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC). The research team was also informed that all instructional materials are kept current by incorporating survey data gleaned from each course and having regular communication from former students currently serving in theater. In fact, the team discovered that materials and handbooks are revised for each of the 11 courses taught during the year.

Interviews Interviews were conducted with four students, four “To this point, hands over instructors, and one program manager. Interviews with head, head over heels, this has instructors and the program manager provided information been a lot better training than I concerning where the course requirements originated, as well received prior because we’ve as varying instructional techniques and best practices used at had the time to do it and I’m McGuire AFB (discussed in the Conclusions section). learning a lot.” However, student interviews provided the most valuable --Air Advisor Student Feedback information for the research team. In addition to offering insights into what they deemed important and what they had learned to date, their responses reaffirmed early observations that the students were engaged with the instructors and with the material. All students reported that the training they are receiving in culture and survival language far exceeds any similar training they had previously experienced. One student was quoted as saying: ―To this point, hands over head, head over heels, this has been a lot better training than I received prior because we‘ve had the time to do it and I‘m learning a lot.‖ The Air Advisor students most appreciated the native instructors, as well as the fact that the training is tailored to the area to which they will be deployed. They further expressed the value of having instructors

Chapter 4: Analysis of Air Force Training Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project

Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527

accessible via email after the course ends who will respond to any additional concerns or questions.

Training Content Air Force content received in Phase II was collected only at McGuire AFB. We received and evaluated several materials (for a full list, please see Appendix M). The key materials were: 



Air advisor course textbook. This book provides an overview of all courses delivered within the 4-week training, including information such as lesson title, course developer, method, objectives, sample behaviors, and references. Iraq culture smart card pamphlet. This pamphlet provides Airmen with the culture mindset of the region, vocabulary, greetings/phrases, landscape, religion, flags, ethnic group, dos and don‘ts, etc. Iraq and Afghanistan full air advisor course CDs. This CD includes a copy of all course slides, language materials, additional readings, tips from current Air Advisors, critical incidents learned in theater. Afghanistan expeditionary airmen field guide. This booklet prepares airmen to deploy to culturally complex environments, and offers a culture reference guide for Airmen to keep in their flight suit. Part 1 introduces the foundational knowledge one needs to effectively operate in any cross-cultural environment (culture general). Part 2 of the guide applies culture-general concepts across 12 domains (e.g., family and kinship, religion and spirituality, sex and gender, political and social relations) that will allow Airmen to relate, communicate, and negotiate. DLI Dari basic and medical language survival guides. These language guides provide key phrases (in Dari and English and with phonetic spellings) needed for basic communication and in the medical field.

Overall, our research team found a large proportion of the content to be up to date, relevant, and of high quality. We were especially impressed with the content within the Air Advisor course CDs. The tips/advice from current Air Advisors and critical incidents shared from theater were quite valuable and informative. Our research team also noted that the DLI handbooks dispensed to students were all dated 2005, which raised questions on whether such information needed revisions.

Survey Data The sample size of the Kirkpatrick Level 1 assessment (―K1‖) reaction survey data included 141 participants across the Services, and of those participants, 45 were from the Air Force. Of those, most (91%) received pre-deployment culture and survival language training at McGuire AFB in July of 2010, in a course that lasted 49 hours, and the remaining participants received training at Fort Belvoir in December 2010, in a course lasting only 16 hours. Chapter 4: Analysis of Air Force Training Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project

Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527

Rank ranged from E4 to O5, with about half the participants being officers and half being enlisted. Most of the Airmen (59%) reported being in Combat Service Support or Logistics, with 34% listing their duty position as Combat Arms, while the remaining number (7%) were in Combat Support. The most highly rated aspect of training by Air Force personnel was the quality of culture training received (M = 4.37), which like all other reactions was rated ―1‖ to ―5‖ on a 5-point scale (where 1 = Strongly Disagree and 5 = Strongly Agree), with the next highest rating being the quality of language training received (M = 4.32). The lowest rated aspect of the training was the quantity, or amount, of language training received (M = 3.33), meaning the participants did not feel there was enough time devoted to language training. For more in-depth analyses across all the Services, please see the Analysis Chapter for a full discussion of the results.

Comparisons with Phase I Findings During Phase I, the team made a site visit to the AFCLC. No classrooms or programs of instruction were observed in this phase, and therefore no direct comparison to instructional techniques or pre-deployment training can be made with Phase II information. However, comparisons between the materials, approach to, and processes of pre-deployment culture and survival language can be made. Given the relative short duration between Phase I and Phase II, there were no significant changes observed in Phase II. For instance, general culture materials such as field guides and handbooks were updated, but kept the same structure and retained much of the same material. There were, however, two observations worth mentioning that appeared to have been altered since Phase I. First, from the Phase II data collected, the research team was given the impression that the main tool used to acquire language outside the classroom has shifted to Rapid Rote from Rosetta Stone. From anecdotal reports, Rapid Rote seems to be the preferred software as well. Second, the AFCLC website itself has been revised since Phase I. The website is now easier to navigate and contains additional material not available in Phase I, although as noted in Phase I, no search function or capability is available.

Conclusions The major finding concerning Air Force pre-deployment culture and survival language training is the focus on 3C and regional training that is specific to deployment areas of operation. Based upon the information received to date, the Air Force appears to have a strong system dedicated to high instructional standards and current material, leading to a handful of best practices that should be implemented across the Services. Three best practices observed at McGuire AFB were sponsorship, cultural meal, and the materials delivered to the students.

Chapter 4: Analysis of Air Force Training Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project

Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527



Sponsorship - Students were assigned sponsors (i.e., the person they will replace or overlap with in theater) within the first few days of the course, and were able to reach out immediately to their sponsors to obtain advice on their upcoming role and what in particular they should try to take away from the course. Knowing the individual they will relieve in place so far in advance is a valuable asset that should greatly accelerate the transfer of authority when these Airmen and Officers deploy. This particular practice was not observed for any other Service. Cultural Meal - Students were taken to either an Afghan or Iraqi home or establishment (based upon their deployment) to experience firsthand the importance of breaking bread in those areas. The program manager at McGuire AFB described this experience saying: ―[To] eat out of a common bowl and sit on a stool or the floor … so it's not so strange the first time they do it there [in theater]. Now is it still going to be awkward, oh yeah, but at least it won't be completely foreign. There are so many things that are going to be overwhelming – if we can remove some of those, that's the goal.‖ Materials - Culture and language courses for most Services consisted of hand-out electronic materials that included all PowerPoint slides shown in the classrooms. The course at McGuire AFB went an extra step by also providing audio files for language, tips from current and former Air Advisors who have gone through the course, and lists of critical incidents experienced from Air Advisors in theater. This additional content, combined with the practice of constantly revising the material to reflect the current fight in theater as well as issues or concerns raised from the last class make this a best practice to be followed.

Recommendations for Improvement While the Air Force possesses several strengths in terms of its pre-deployment culture and survival language instruction and materials, certain weaknesses are present. Primarily, the lack of formal evaluation at the culmination of the course prevents a true understanding of how much knowledge was learned and retained. Several reaction level measures are dispensed to gauge general satisfaction with the course, instructors, and material, but without evaluating the students, the program will be unable to gauge improvement. Beyond formal evaluations, the Air Force still appears to not take advantage of information from Joint or other Service doctrine and/or materials. Though certain material must be centered on Air Force personnel, given their distinct roles, Air Force programs could see improvement by borrowing best practices from other Services and institutions engaged in culture and language studies.

Chapter 4: Analysis of Air Force Training Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project

Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527

CHAPTER 5. ANALYSIS OF NAVY TRAINING This chapter provides an overview of Navy pre-deployment culture and survival language training. In Phase II, researchers were unable to make an official site visit to observe predeployment culture and survival language training. Despite this, the research team contacted the Center for Language, Regional Expertise and Culture (CLREC), a branch that coordinates language and culture program instruction for the Navy. This report details a description of the current culture and language pre-deployment training solutions as well as recommendations for improving or sustaining current practices. When line vessels are scheduled to deploy, the ship‘s complement is brought ashore before deployment to receive training provided by Mobile Training Teams (MTTs) or the ship‘s training officer. This approach is used because there are limited training facilities on board for large group instruction and the total ship‘s computing architecture does not provide for a collective instructor-led training network solution. According to the Naval Expeditionary Command Center‘s (NECC) Website, the Navy is currently operating under an initiative) to train Sailors with cultural competence and survival language skills for their upcoming deployments (http://www.necc.navy.mil/). This initiative, called the Language, Regional Expertise and Culture (LREC) Strategy stresses the importance of effective communication, utilizing language and 3C to successfully complete irregular warfare missions (U.S. Africa Command, 2011).

Summary of Results 

 

Center for Language, Regional Expertise and Culture‘s formal training programs typically include 12 hours of instruction spanning over two days. Language training programs typically last two weeks (60 hours of instruction). Center for Language, Regional Expertise and Culture programs primarily utilize classroom instruction instead of online training products. Center for Language, Regional Expertise and Culture uses Marine and Army training products, in addition to those designed exclusively for the Navy.

Observations Culture-general training and the integrations of cultural awareness and military operations abroad are the main points of CLRECs culture and language training initiatives. As one CLREC official stated, ―I also stress the tie between cultural awareness and military operations, underscoring that cultural awareness helps understand the human element in the operating terrain, and that it can be the key to mission success.‖ Formal cultural awareness programs provided by CLREC span over two days with approximately 12 hours of instruction for entrylevel culture training. Formal language training programs span over two weeks with six hours of Chapter 5: Analysis of Navy Training Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project

Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527

instruction per day. Training can also be extended to four weeks if the language is difficult to learn.

Interviews Interviews and observations were not conducted for the Navy in Phase II. However, the research team retrieved ample training materials from CLREC in order to provide a brief comparison of Navy training resources and products to other Services in the Armed Forces. The research team‘s communication with CLREC officials, in addition to follow up emails, yielded significant information about pre-deployment culture and survival language training programs designed for the Navy. Above all, CLREC was forthcoming in providing information for the Navy, as well as other services, without reservation. Upon a formal email request from the Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division (NAWCTSD), the research team received The Senegal Operational Culture Awareness Training (OCAT) presentation. This training product, created by the Center for Information Dominance for the Navy, comprises 49 slides outlining important cultural facts, including: Geography, Religious Influences, and Society and Norms. According to CLREC officials, The OCAT product is often used for culture training along with products from other vendors. The OCAT for Afghanistan and Pakistan were included in the training products received through standard mail from CLREC. The research team additionally received ten training products through standard mail in response to our training request. This information came very shortly after the request was made and included a large amount of material. However, CLREC did not provide information as to which products would be best suited for each Sailor‘s needs. Listed below are the aforementioned products, along with a supplemental description of concepts covered in each product. It is important to note that the Navy is not the sole publisher of the following materials. Moreover, some of the materials provided below are products of other Services‘ culture centers.

Navy Materials 



Urdu Language Familiarization (Disk One and Two). This language training product includes extensive literature on Afghan culture as well as supplemental audio-enabled PowerPoint presentations covering the culture of Islam. Training materials for basic spoken and conversational Urdu, along with reading lessons at the intermediate and advanced levels, are included in this training product. Users can access the Urdu HeadStart component featured in this training product as a way to practice basic culture and language material. Persian Dari Language Familiarization. This training product offers practice modules for both culture and language training. It also includes the Persian Dari HeadStart

Chapter 5: Analysis of Navy Training Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project

Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527



program and a supplemental Survival Kit that reinforce cultural awareness training and language practice concepts. Lessons and practice with Dari script, pronunciation, grammar, and vocabulary are provided. Glossaries and dictionaries are also included in this training product. Pashto Language Familiarization. This training product provides cultural familiarization information along with access to Pashto HeadStart. Textbooks, workbooks, glossaries, and supplemental culture materials for basic and intermediate learners are also included in portable document format (PDF). CLREC Cultural Awareness Training Product: Afghanistan-Pakistan. This training product provides cultural awareness training for Afghanistan and Pakistan. Audio files discuss cultural aspects such as Friday Prayer, Family Dinner, and Ramadan. Engaging PowerPoint presentations with audio and sequenced graphics explain the culture of Afghans and Pakistanis, and also the history and impact of the Taliban. CL-150: Dari-Pashto-Urdu. This training product provides language lessons for Dari, Pashto, and Urdu. It also enables users to access any three of the following programs: Language Pro, Rapid Rote, and Talker. Introduction to Islam. This training product focuses exclusively on cultural information about Islam and cultural etiquette through videos, audio files, and interactive PowerPoint presentations.

Army Materials 

Tactical Dari: Language & Culture; Tactical Pashto: Language & Culture. These training products offer both culture and language training in Dari and Pashto, respectively. This program is structured as an interactive videogame that helps personnel to understand cultural cues and improve their vocabulary. While language and culture skills are addressed, writing skills are not (see Figures 4 and 5).

Chapter 5: Analysis of Navy Training Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project

Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527

Figure 4. Tactical Pashto training scenario

Figure 5. Tactical Pashto language training

Chapter 5: Analysis of Navy Training Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project

Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527

Marine Corps Materials 



Afghanistan Culture Card. This training product is a small pocket card, which outlines important cultural information about Afghanistan such as Do‘s and Don‘ts, Religion, Pashtuns, and Cultural Mindset. Basic vocabulary, operational vocabulary, greetings and phrases, and weapons vocabulary are also provided on the back. Pakistan Regional Culture Smart Card. This training product is a pocket reference that features information about culture, economy, history, and social etiquette. For language practice, there is a small section that provides helpful phrases in Pashto, located on the back.

Training Content Navy content received in Phase II was collected via mail. The section listed above provides a detailed description of all materials. Overall, our research team was impressed with the content offered in these materials, especially the layout and structure of the OCAT products. Additionally, our research team was pleased to discover how well the Navy leverages training products from other services.

Survey Data The K1 survey data collected from the Navy included a sample of only four participants out of the 141 participants across the Services. All four reported their duty position as being in Combat Service Support or Logistics. Because of the small sample size, we are precluded from offering a more in-depth analysis. However, it is noted that Navy personnel were pleased with the quality of culture training received (M = 4.42), which like all other reactions, was rated ―1‖ to ―5‖ on a 5-point scale (where 1 = Strongly Disagree and 5 = Strongly Agree). They also rated their expectations to transfer what they learned in culture training to the field quite highly (M = 4.41). However, the participants rated the quantity, or amount, of culture training received as being low (M = 2.08), meaning they felt that not enough time was devoted to culture training. For more indepth analyses across all the Services, please see the Analysis Chapter.

Comparisons with Phase I Findings During Phase I, results indicated that the Navy regularly deploys for non-traditional expeditionary missions, oftentimes not to the same locations. When on land, typically only the senior leaders interact with the local citizens. Therefore, a much larger effort has been made to train on culture rather than language skills for the General Purpose Forces (GPF). When offered, language training is provided through the Defense Language Institute (DLI) based on a specified need, and this is currently still the case. The research team found that although there were checks on learning throughout the training in Phase I, there were no formal, standardized

Chapter 5: Analysis of Navy Training Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project

Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527

evaluations of performance. To date, there are still no formal evaluations of performance that researchers are aware of. The primary goal of the instruction at the NECC at Little Creek in Phase I was to create/maintain cultural awareness; ensuring personnel understand a region's or nation's culture and appreciate how cultural differences may influence their own and the hosts' perceptions and actions. The content of culture training that was observed by the research team during Phase I included: 

 

Basic facts about the country and culture (i.e., location, size, neighboring countries, dominant language, facts about the Government and recent history, major personalities, religions) Basic facts about the relationship between the country/region and the U.S. Major do‘s and don‘ts

Phase II analysis and review of materials suggests that all concepts observed during Phase I (i.e., basic facts about country and culture, basic facts about the relationship between the country and the U.S., and major do‘s and don‘ts) were also present in the materials obtained through CLREC. Moreover, the classroom-based culture training features noted in Phase I were also identified through analysis of material in Phase II, such as the use of engaging videos, all resident/instructor-led and facilitated lessons, as well as culture general and culture specific information.

Conclusions Researchers acknowledge that the materials received are only a small sample of what is offered through CLREC; therefore, results and recommendations are limited to only those documents and those materials accessible through CLREC‘s website. As such, the acquisition of the materials from CLREC was highly valuable to our research efforts. It should be noted that CLREC was particularly forthcoming in providing the research team with materials, and a best practice observed is how the Navy leverages culture and language training from the Marines and the Army. Overall, the information provided to Sailors is quite impressive. They have access to many training products that train language and culture skills; however, given the significant amount of information Sailors receive, they may experience difficulty locating the specific information they seek at any point in time. Additionally, if Sailors want or need training outside what is provided in institutions or schoolhouses, they must make a formal request for such materials since they are not hosted directly on the CLREC website.

Recommendations for Improvement The research team was generally impressed with the content and amount of information provided in the training products made available for Navy personnel. However, some of the content within Chapter 5: Analysis of Navy Training Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project

Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527

the pre-deployment culture and survival language training products contains redundancies. This finding coincides with the responses received from military personnel across the Services. Due to the time sensitive nature during which personnel are seeking to acquire this knowledge, it may be helpful to mainstream the information by providing an outline for each training product that details unique lessons or training aids not available on other training products.

Chapter 5: Analysis of Navy Training Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project

Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527

CHAPTER 6. ANALYSIS OF TRAINING EVALUTATION The focus of this chapter is on the Phase II analysis and more specifically, on the surveys used to evaluate Kirkpatrick Level 1 assessment (―K1‖) reaction data as well as Kirkpatrick Level 2 assessment (―K2‖) data (e.g. learning outcomes). As explained in the Introduction chapter of this document, the Phase I surveys were specifically written to assess K1 of Kirkpatrick's Training Evaluation Model. The research team sought to extend the survey data collection in Phase II of this project by collecting K2 data in addition to K1 reaction data. To reiterate briefly, the levels of Kirkpatrick's Training Evaluation Model are:    

K1: Reactions - what the students thought about the training K2: Learning - the resulting increase in knowledge or capability as a direct result of the training K3: Behavior - the extent that capability improvement is transferred, or applied, to the job or in the field K4: Results - the outcomes or results experienced by the organization as a direct result of the trainee's performance

For both Phases I and II, K1 data were collected via survey administration, with reactions to culture training assessed using 15 items, and reactions to language training assessed using 13 items. The items were further classified for Phase I research into reactions involving the suitability, relevance, and transfer of culture and survival language training received. As outlined earlier in the Chapter 1, suitability refers to how the culture knowledge or 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; and, transfer is the degree to which the learner believes that the training will be useful for accomplishing a mission or task. In order to dig deeper and to provide a richer analysis, the surveys also included open-ended questions in addition to the closed, Likert-scale types of items. In general, across the Services and grades, learners supported the pre-deployment culture and survival language training that is being provided. Additionally, while students were receptive to the survival language instruction portion of the training, all groups believed that additional time should be devoted to language instruction. Although these important trends were discovered during Phase I of this project, preliminary findings could not be generalized across the Services to support policy-making or proposed improvements. The relatively low number of site visits in comparison to all institutions, home stations, Mobile Training Team (MTT), and similar venues that offer pre-deployment culture and language training precluded generalizing such findings. Additional assessments were needed in order to formulate conclusions as to the nature and effects of training on readiness and performance. Chapter 6: Phase II Analysis Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project

Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527

Phase II analysis addresses this need, the purpose of which is twofold: (1) to extend Phase I through continued K1 survey distribution; and (2) to conduct a K2 for a single training provider and program of instruction in a selected Service branch.

Kirkpatrick Level 1 Analysis Surveys were distributed during four of the seven site visits to observe culture and survival language training courses. K1 data (N = 141) were collected from students participating in this training at the following locations: McGuire Air Force Base (AFB), Cherry Point, Fort Carson, and Fort Belvoir. Because each Service had specific duty positions for deployment, the culture topics and language instruction varied. The Pre-Deployment Culture and Survival Language Training survey (K1 survey), utilized in Phase I, was also used to collect K1 data for Phase II, with some slight changes to clarify wording (see Appendix D for the revised survey). Open-ended demographic items, including inquiries into previous deployment experience, were also added. The survey consisted of a total of 40 questions, divided into two sections: culture and survival language. After each site visit, the K1 surveys collected were entered into an analytical tool called Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) for analyses.

Methodology In order to better understand as well as to differentiate the various trainee reactions, items from the K1 Survey were grouped together for analysis. In Phase I, items had been grouped according to suitability, relevance, and transfer of pre-deployment culture and survival language training received. Again, suitability refers to how the training addresses goals or training requirements, whereas relevance refers to how training addresses an operation or mission requirement. The research team decided that these definitions possess a certain degree of overlap, and that distinctions among suitability and relevance may be too subtle and difficult for the respondent to make. In Phase II, the Pre-deployment Culture Knowledge and Survival Language Training Survey assessed trainee reactions to: (1) the Quality of culture and language training received; (2) the Quantity, or amount, of culture and language training received; and (3) the Expectations to Transfer, or use, what was learned in culture and language training. ď&#x201A;ˇ ď&#x201A;ˇ

Reactions were measured on a five-point Likert Scale, from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree. Of the 97 participants who answered whether or not they had been previously deployed, 71 (73%) had been deployed at least once before.

Chapter 6: Phase II Analysis Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project

Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527



Whether or not a participant had been previously deployed was related to their Expectations to Transfer culture training (r = .29, p < .01).  That is, those who had been previously deployed perceived a greater likelihood that they would transfer what they learned in culture training to the field. Although caution is advised in over-interpreting these results, it should be noted that these results are consistent with those found in our Phase I analysis as well.

Culture Composites Questions used in quality, quantity, and transfer composites for culture are listed in the following tables (See Table 3, 4, and 5). Table 3. Questions Used in Quality Composite for Culture Quality #

Question

1.2

The timing of the culture pre-deployment training was at the right place in the train-up for deployment. (i.e., should it have been given earlier or closer to your deployment date)?

1.5

I understand cultural learning objectives for pre-deployment training.

1.14

Overall, I am satisfied with the pre-deployment culture training I received.

Table 4. Questions Used in Quantity Composite for Culture Quantity #

Question

1.4

Portions of the culture pre-deployment training should be eliminated. (Reverse Coded)

1.5.1

Learning about another culture takes too much time. (Reverse Coded)

1.9

Pre-deployment culture training was about the right length of time.

Table 5. Questions Used in Transfer Composite for Culture Transfer #

Question

1.1

The culture pre-deployment training I received will help me perform on the job.

1.3

Job aids were provided to me after the culture training that I could take as my own use.

1.11

Culture pre-deployment training is a high priority in my unit.

1.12

I take the time to find out more about the culture in the area I will operate before I deploy.

1.13

When I have a question about culture, I know where to find the answer.

1.15

I have visited my Service Culture Center website for cultural information I need.

Chapter 6: Phase II Analysis Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project

Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527

Language Composites Listed in the following tables are the questions used in transfer, quality, and quantity composites for language (See Table 6, 7, and 8). Table 6. Questions Used in Transfer Composite for Language Transfer #

Question

2.1

My survival language training was useful.

2.3

I find training aids like Rosetta Stone very useful.

2.3.1

I was provided language cards to help me with my language skills.

2.4

I plan to use my language cards while in theater.

2.5

I will use my survival language skills training while deployed.

2.9

When I have a question about culture or language, I know where to find the answer.

2.13

I have visited my Service Culture Center website for information about survival language skills that I need.

2.15

I expect to receive additional language training after I arrive in country.

Table 7. Questions Used in Quality Composite for Language Quality #

Question

2.2

I understand survival language learning objectives for pre-deployment training.

2.7

The survival language training is easy to complete.

2.12

Overall, I am satisfied with the pre-deployment survival language training I received.

2.14

The survival language training focused on the missions I will most frequently perform.

Table 8. Questions Used in Quantity Composite for Language Quantity # 2.6

Question There is not enough time available for survival language training.

Chapter 6: Phase II Analysis Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project

Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527

Results All surveyed participants (N=141) in Phase II were asked open-ended follow-up questions in addition to the Likert scale items listed above. The relevant results of the analysis of these data are presented below.

Open-Ended Responses Students were asked, ―What was the best aspect of culture training received at this site?‖ Figure 6 depicts a graphical representation of students‘ responses to this question. Of those who responded, 36% believe the information on cultural norms was one of the best aspects. Responses from this category included: ―do‘s and don‘ts,‖ Jirga role-playing, and Islamic customs. Additionally, 33% of students value having access to native instructors during the training. Learning and practicing the language were also highly regarded among the participants (18%). It should be noted that those responses categorized as ―All/ Everything‖ included comments such as ―all was helpful‖ and ―all was critical and should have been given to troops earlier in campaign.‖ Responses categorized as ―Other,‖ for example, included such responses as ―Iraqi history‖ and ―videos.‖

What was the best aspect of culture training received at this site? 18%

Cultural Norms

36%

Practical Applications All/Everything

25% 7%

Native Instructors Language Other

Figure 6. Responses to best aspect of culture training Respondents were also asked, ―Where do you usually find answers about culture?‖ Results showed that 62% of the participants use general Internet searches, specifically Google, to gather culture information. As an additional resource, 34% reported that they contact instructors, Subject Matter Experts (SMEs), or intelligence offices when seeking information about culture. The pie chart shown in Figure 7 illustrates responses to this question.

Chapter 6: Phase II Analysis Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project

Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527

Where do you usually find answers about culture? 4%

34% Miitary Websites 62%

People General Internet Searches

Figure 7. Responses to sources used for culture information A follow-up question asked participants, ―What is the best source of information about a culture?‖ Here, half the participants (50%) felt that locals or nationals (including their instructors) provide the best information about a specific culture. However, a large proportion of respondents (37%) indicated that general Internet searches yield the best cultural information. Figure 8 illustrates the student responses to this question.

What is the best source of information about a culture? 5%

Local/ National

9% 51%

General Internet Searches

35% Military Websites/ Course Materials Other

Figure 8. Responses to sources used for specific culture information The best cultural training was another open-ended item, specifically asking, ―What was the best culture training you received previously? Where?‖ Of those who responded, 20% said the best Chapter 6: Phase II Analysis Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project

Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527

culture training they received was while they were in theater, whereas 17% of respondents believed Computer Based Training (CBT) was the best culture training they received. Figure 9 illustrates the student responses to this question.

What or where was the best culture training you received previously? In Theater 20% 49% 17% 14%

Computer Based Training (CBT) On the Job Training (OJT) Other

Figure 9. Responses to best previous culture training ―What portion of training should be eliminated?‖ Of those who felt that some portion of the training should be eliminated, 31% felt that the redundancy of topics should be removed from the course, while others felt that any information that was not relevant to their duty position should be removed (28%). Figure 10 illustrates the student responses to this question.

What portion of training should be eliminated? Redundancy 31% 10%

31%

28%

Information Unrelated to Duty Positon Less Writing Other

Figure 10. Responses to training that should be eliminated Finally, an open-ended item as to the language portion of the training asked, ―What was the best source of information about survival language?‖ Of those who responded, 38% thought that Chapter 6: Phase II Analysis Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project

Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527

instructors provided the best information about survival language training, with class instruction and course materials falling closely behind (34%). Figure 11 illustrates the breakdown of responses to this question.

What is the best source of information about survival language ? 6%

Instructors 38%

22%

34%

Classroom Instruction/ Course Materials On-line Other

Figure 11. Responses to best sources for survival language

Frequencies Branches of Military Service included:    

Army (N = 80) Air Force (N = 45) Marine Corps (N = 12) Navy (N = 4)

Most (56%) of the participants received pre-deployment culture and survival language training at Fort Carson (N = 80), whereas 41 participants received training at McGuire AFB (29.1%), and the remaining participants in the sample received training at either Cherry Point or Fort Belvoir. The Length of Training (in hours) was entered as numerical data, ranging from 16 to 480 hours. There were only eight participants (6%) in the 16-hour group, whereas 80 participants (57%) at Fort Carson were in the 480-hour group. The remaining participants were in the 30-hour group (N = 12) and the 49-hour group (N = 41). Therefore, the average Length of Training (M = 290) is skewed higher due to the large number of participants who took part in the 480-hour training course. Deployment Experience asked whether or not the participants had any previous deployment experience. This variable was coded as ―1‖ = ―Yes,‖ and ―0‖ = ―No,‖ so that any significant Chapter 6: Phase II Analysis Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project

Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527

positive correlations between this variable and the trainees‘ responses would indicate that those who were deployed perceived their training more highly than those who had not been deployed. Of the 97 participants who answered whether or not they had been previously deployed, 71 (73%) had been deployed at least once before. The number of deployments ranged from one time to six times for the 68 who responded to this follow-up question. Most (57%) had been previously deployed only once, whereas 22% had been previously deployed twice, with 13% having been deployed three times, and so on. Current Rank of the participants ranged from E2 to O7. Most (N = 45) of the 136 participants who responded to this item were at the level of E4 (33%), with 28 students at the level of E5 (20%), with the remaining students distributed among the other levels.

Correlations Correlations between various demographic variables and the K1 reaction data were calculated and significant findings are shown in Table 9 and summarized below. Branch of Service. Branch of Service was related to:       

Training Location (r = -.65, p < .01) Length of Training (r = -.94), p < .01) Rank (r = .68, p < .01) Quality of culture training received (r = .43, p < .01) Expectations to Transfer culture training (r = .31, p < .01) Quality of language training received (r = .28, p < .01) Expectations to Transfer language training (r = .19, p < .05)

In order to explore how Branch of Service was differentially related to trainee reactions, the research team analyzed the data using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), performing post-hoc pair wise comparisons to better understand these differences. Specifically, in our sample, Army personnel, on average, rated the quality of the training they received as lower than the other three Services. Conversely, the Navy differed from all three other Services with regard to the quantity, or amount, of culture training received (p < .05). Specifically, Navy personnel had a more positive view as to the amount of culture training received than the other branches of Service. Due to the small sample of Navy personnel (N = 4), however, caution is advised in over-interpreting these findings. Current Rank. In addition to its relationship with Branch of Service, Current Rank was negatively correlated with the Length of Training (r = -.79, p < .01). This suggests that the higher the rank, the shorter the training duration in this sample. Rank was also related to: Chapter 6: Phase II Analysis Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project

Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527

  

Quality of culture training received (r = .39, p < .01) Expectations to Transfer culture training (r = .28, p < .01) Quality of language training received (r = .22, p < .05)

This suggests that higher ranked service members perceived greater value in culture training, had higher expectations to transfer what they learned, and rated language training more highly than those in the lower ranks. .

Chapter 6: Phase II Analysis Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project

Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527

Table 9. Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations of K1 Data Variable 1. Military Service

M 1.84

SD 1.033

1 ______

2 Predeployment training location 3. Length of training (in hours) 4. Previous Deployment Experience 5. Current rank

2.39

.97

-.65**

______

290. 05

218.45

-.94**

.70**

_______

.73

.45

-.06

-.22*

-.031

_______

6.70

3.83

.68**

-.52**

-.79**

.18

_______

6. Cultural Quality

4.07

.59

.43**

-.33**

-.45**

.18

.39**

_______

7. Cultural Quantity

3.52

.72

-.14

-.30**

.07

.04

-.08

.31**

______

8. Cultural Transfer

3.72

.50

.31

-.15

-.34**

.29**

.28**

.50**

.05

_______

9. Language Quality

4.09

.55

.28**

-.28**

-.25**

.04

.22*

.63**

.38**

.47**

________

10. Language Quantity

3.06

1.05

.12

-.12

-.06

.07

-.06

.11

-.13

.01

.10

_____

11. Language Transfer

3.85

.47

.19*

-.19*

-.16

.10

.15

.51**

.21*

.55**

.66**

.17

______

Note. *p < .05, **p < .01; N= 97-141. Military Service coded as 1= ―Army,‖ 2= ―Marines,‖ 3= ―Air Force,‖ 4= ―Navy,‖; Locations coded as 1= ―McGuire AFB,‖ 2= ―Cherry Point,‖ 3= ―Fort Carson,‖ 4= ―Fort Belvoir,‖ ; Previous Deployment coded as 0= ―No,‖ 1= ―Yes,‖; Current Rank coded as 1-9= ―E1-E9,‖ 10-16= ―O1-O7.‖

Chapter 6: Phase II Analysis

52 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project

Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527

Deployment Experience. Whether or not a participant had been previously deployed was related to their Expectations to Transfer culture training (r = .29, p < .01). That is, those who had been previously deployed perceived a greater likelihood that they would transfer what they learned in culture training to the field. Although caution is advised in over-interpreting these results, it should be noted that, these results are consistent with those found in our Phase I analysis as well. Length of Pre-Deployment Training. Length of Pre-Deployment Training was related to:   

Quality of culture training (r = -.34, p < .01) Quality of language training (r = -25, p < .01) Expectations to Transfer what they learned in culture training (r = -.45, p < .01)

These negative relationships indicate that those who received shorter training reported more positive reactions with regard to the quality of the culture training, the quality of the language training, and their expectations to transfer what they learned in the culture training. In more closely examining the mean differences between the training groups using ANOVA, followed by post-hoc comparisons, an interesting picture emerged. Here, the research team found that the reactions of those receiving 480 hours of training were significantly lower than the other groups (i.e., 16 hours, 30 hours, 49 hours) when rating both the quality of culture training received and the expectations to transfer culture training. However, those in the 16-hour group were less satisfied with the amount of culture training received than were the other three groups. Due to the small sample size of the 16-hour group, caution is advised against over-interpreting these results Location of Pre-Deployment Training. Location of Pre-deployment Training was related to several participant reactions:    

Quality of culture training received (r = -.33, p < .01) Quantity of culture training received (r = -.30, p < .01) Quality of language training received (r = -28, p < .01) Expectations to Transfer language training (r = -.19, p < .05)

Given these results, the research team more closely examined the differential relationships across locations, using ANOVA, followed by post-hoc comparisons. In this case, the research team found that reactions at Fort Carson, both to the quality of training as well as the expectations of transferring such training to the field, differed significantly from those at the other three locations (i.e., McGuire AFB, Cherry Point, and Fort Belvoir). Likewise, those who received training at Fort Belvoir, where the 16-hour training took place, differed from all three other locations with regard to the quantity, or amount, of culture training received. In both cases, the amount of culture training received was rated lower than it was by participants at the other three

Chapter 6: Phase II Analysis Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project

Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527

locations. Caution is again advised against over-interpreting these results due to the small number of participants in the 16-hour training at Fort Belvoir.

Intercorrelations Finally, the research team examined how closely interrelated the different types of reactions were to one another (i.e., quality, quantity, transfer). As the previous table reveals, the most highly correlated reactions were between the quality of culture training and the quality of language training received (r = .63, p < .01). That is, participants who rated the quality of culture training more highly tended to rate the quality of language training more highly as well. Also highly related were the quality of language training received and the expectations to transfer language training (r = .66, p < .01), suggesting that those who perceived the quality of the language training more highly also had higher expectations of transferring this training once deployed.

Fort Carson Data Analysis Learning outcome data, K2, were provided by Fort Carson, thus fulfilling the Phase II K2 analysis requirements. The research team also separately examined K1 reaction data from Fort Carson. It should be noted that although the same participants took part in both the K1 data collection and the K2 data collection at Fort Carson, due to the anonymity of the data, the research team is unable to link any of the participants in the two datasets (K1 and K2).

Frequencies Of the 80 participants from whom the research team collected K1 data at Fort Carson, 72% had been previously deployed. Of those who had been previously deployed, 38 had been deployed only once (47.5%). Rank ranged from E2 to E6, with 84% being at the level of E4-E5.

Correlations Table 10 displays the descriptive statistics as well as the correlations between various demographic variables and the K1 reaction data for the Fort Carson sample. Several significant correlations were found between relevant demographic variables and reaction data. Caution is advised against over-interpreting these results due to the small sample size.

Chapter 6: Phase II Analysis Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project

Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527

Table 10. Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations of K1 Reaction Data, Fort Carson Variable 1. Previous Deployment Experience 2. Current rank

M .73

SD .45

1 ______

4.19

.73

.51**

_________

3. Cultural Quality

3.84

.59

.18

.25*

_________

4. Cultural Quantity

3.56

.57

.05

-.07

.51**

_______

5. Cultural Transfer

3.58

.48

.32**

.25*

.49*

.23*

_______

6. Language Quality

3.98

.57

.08

.16

.64**

.38**

.52**

_______

7. Language Quantity

3.01

1.02

.09

.14

.18

-.03

.03

.16

______

8. Language Transfers

3.79

.49

.13

.26*

.59**

.26*

.55**

.68**

.32**

______

Note. *p < .05, **p < .01; N= 77-80. Current Rank coded as 1-6 = ―E1-E6;‖ Deployment Experience coded as 0= ―No,‖ 1= ―Yes.‖

Chapter 6: Phase II Analysis

55 Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project

Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527

Current Rank . Current Rank was related to several variables of interest:  

Whether or not someone had been previously deployed (r = .51, p < .01) The number of deployments that individual had undertaken (r = .48, p < .01)

That is, those participants at Fort Carson who were higher in rank were more likely to have been deployed and when they had been deployed, to have gone on more than one deployment. Additionally, those who were higher in rank had higher perceptions of the:   

Quality of culture training received (r = .25, p < .05) Expectations to Transfer culture training (r = .25, p < .05) Expectations to Transfer language training (r = .26, p < .05)

In post-hoc comparisons, however, mean differences were found only between ranks on the expectations to transfer culture training (p < .05). That is, higher ranked Soldiers had greater expectations of transferring what they had learned to the field than those who were lower in rank. Deployment Experience. Whether or not a Soldier at Fort Carson had been previously deployed was related to their expectations to transfer culture training (r = .32, p < .01). As in the K1 dataset as a whole, those who had been previously deployed had greater intentions of transferring what they learned in culture training to the field. For this analysis, the research team also included the number of deployments; however, there was no significant relationship between the number of deployments and Soldier reactions.

Intercorrelations As Table 10 also reveals, all Fort Carson K1 reactions were interrelated, with the exception of the quantity of language training received. This suggests that reactions to the amount of language training received were treated independently from perceptions of the quality of training or the likelihood of transferring such training to the field. The strongest relationships were again found between reactions to the quality of culture training received and the quality of language training received (r = .64, p < .01), as well as between the quality of language training received and the expectations to transfer language training (r = .68, p < .01.

Kirkpatrick Level 2 Analysis Kirkpatrick Level 2 assessment (K2) data were collected from Army personnel (N = 81) who received pre-deployment culture and survival language training at Fort Carson. This site was ideal for this analysis due to the availability of several types of assessment tools used to measure learning outcomes, as well as the availability of collected demographic data.

Chapter 6: Phase II Analysis Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project

Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527

Relevant demographic data included: Current Rank, Company, Classroom Number, Military Occupation Specialty (MOS), and Highest Education Level (i.e., GED through graduate school). In addition to these demographic variables, other predictor and/or demographic variables included the student‘s Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) Score, Previous Language Experience, and previous Deployment Experience. Kirkpatrick Level 2 assessment learning outcomes were measured via: the OPI, which was coded dichotomously (see Table 11), the Final Course Grade (i.e., the average on quizzes, tests, and class participation), and the DLI Composite Score, which score comprised three separate portions (i.e., speaking, listening, and reading).

Frequencies Current Rank of the participants ranged from E2 to E6, with most (80%) of the students at the level of E4 or E5. Of the 76 students who reported Highest Education level, the bulk of students had a high school education (68%), with 25% having had some college. MOS was reported by 77 students, with 27% listing their MOS as ―Armor,‖ whereas ―Infantry‖ comprised 20%. The other MOS categories were divided among nine other occupations such as Military Police and Field Artillery. Analysis of the students‘ prior language experience indicated that of the 76 students who reported their language proficiency, 47% spoke only English, 40% of the students reported speaking one additional language, 9% claimed to speak two other languages, and 4% claimed to speak three other languages. When listing the other languages spoken, the main languages spoken were Spanish, French, and German, with 17% of students indicating that they spoke Spanish, 11% indicating they spoke French, and 5% indicating German as their other language. The rest were combinations of these or included additional languages.

Correlations The relationships between relevant demographic variables, the ASVAB score, and the K2 learning outcomes were explored via an examination of the correlation coefficients. Table 11 displays the means and standard deviations, as well as the correlation coefficients between these variables. Several significant correlations were found and all relationships discussed below were significant at the .05 level. Any relationships not mentioned were not significant. Current Rank. Current rank was highly related to Deployment Experience (r =.52, p < .01). That is, the higher the student‘s rank in this sample, the more likely the student was to have been deployed. Current rank, however, was not related to any of the outcome variables (e.g., learning outcomes).

Chapter 6: Phase II Analysis Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project

Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527

Highest Education. Highest Education level was not significantly correlated with any other demographic variables or predictors, but it was positively correlated with several outcome variables, namely the OPI Score (r = .28, p < .05) and the DLI Composite score (r = .23, p < .05), specifically with the Speaking portion of the Composite score (r = .23, p < .05). These results indicate that students with higher education levels also had higher test scores when compared to those with lower education levels. Prior Languages. Experience with other languages was related to:   

Army Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) score (r = .41, p < .01) Final Course Grade (r = .36, p < .01) DLI Composite score (r = .37, p < .01)  Speaking portion (r = .29, p < .05)  Listening portion (r = .31, p < .01)

This means that that those who spoke other languages tended to score higher on the ASVAB, and received higher final course grades as well as higher DLI scores on the speaking and listening sections. Army Services Vocational Aptitude Battery Score. The ASVAB scores of those who were not deployed were higher than the scores of those who had been deployed, as evidenced by the negative correlation between ASVAB score and Deployment Experience (r = -.28, p < .05). The ASVAB Score was also positively related to several outcome variables:   

OPI Score (r = .26, p < .05), Final Course Grade (r = .38, p < .01) DLI Composite score (r = .26, p < .05)  Reading portion (r = .29, p < .05)

Caution is advised here as well, but given the nature of the ASVAB, as well as the final course grade (e.g., academic ability), and reading comprehension, this indicates that there may be a common factor, possibly cognitive ability, at play here. Relationships Among Outcomes. The three main learning outcomes, as expected, were related to one another. Specifically, the OPI Score was related to:  

Final Course Grade (r = .37, p < .01) Defense Language Institute (DLI) Composite score (r = .26, p < .05)  Speaking portion (r = .36, p < .01)  Reading portion (r = .33, p < .01).

Chapter 6: Phase II Analysis Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project

Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527

That is, those who performed well on one outcome of learning tended to do well on other aspects of learning. The Final Course Grade was related to: 

All three components of the DLI Composite score (r = .51, p < .01)  Listening portion (r = .39, p < .01)  Speaking portion (r = .30, p < .01)  Reading portion (r = .69, p < .01)

This suggests that whatever type of ability is responsible for a student doing well on the reading portion of the DLI exam may also be responsible for the student‘s final course grade. Finally, the DLI Composite Score was found to be highly correlated with its component pieces, and most highly with the speaking portion of the exam:   

Speaking portion (r = .90, p < .01) Listening portion (r = .64, p < .01) Reading portion (r = 53, p < .01)

Therefore, it appears that the Speaking portion was given the most weight in computing the composite score. However, the three portions making up the composite score, although significantly correlated with one another, do not seem to be redundant with, or overlapping, one another, with correlation coefficients ranging between .26 and .34 (see Table 11). Therefore, each piece of the DLI composite score may differentially be related to various predictors, both demographic and otherwise, and it is fair to treat them separately, as well as to examine them together, in the forthcoming analyses.

Multiple Regression Analysis Examining the relationships among different variables using correlation as above provides an exploratory view of the data. However, when one seeks more of explanatory approach toward data analysis, multiple regression analysis is often used. Therefore, the analysis team used this method to model the relationships among the different variables in terms of the how much one variable accounts for changes in another variable (i.e. variance), while taking into account all the other variables. The output generated by multiple regression analysis also includes beta weights, which are interpreted as the relative impact (e.g., weight) of each predictor variable (e.g., demographics, ASVAB) on each outcome variable (e.g., test score). An R2 value is also included when using multiple regression, which is the summary of all the impacts of all the predictor variables in the equation, taken together. Chapter 6: Phase II Analysis Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project

Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527

When generalizing findings from a smaller representative sample to the larger population of interest, the sample-derived R2 tends to overestimate the R2 of the population. Thus, reporting the adjusted R2 is recommended, as this value will be adjusted downward based upon the sample size (i.e., the smaller the sample size, the greater the reduction).

Control Variables Control variables allow for a better understanding of how the typical values of the learning outcomes change when any one of the predictors is varied. The control variables used in this study were Highest Education level and Deployment Experience. By entering these two variables as controls, we were able to essentially level the playing field for all participants and removed their influence, allowing us to more clearly see the unique influence of each of the predictor variables. Using these control variables allowed our research team to answer the question: ―Beyond education level and previous deployment experience, do the following predictors impact the learning outcomes and if so, in what ways?‖

Predictor Variables The predictors of interest chosen for regression analysis were Prior Language Experience and the ASVAB Score. Other demographic (e.g., Rank, Classroom, etc.) were not correlated with the learning outcomes, and therefore unable to be retained as predictor variables in subsequent analyses. Oral Proficiency Interview (OPI) Score. Using Deployment Experience and Highest Education Level as control variables, OPI score was regressed onto Prior Language Experience and the ASVAB score. Linear regression analysis revealed that both of the control variables, Deployment Experience (β = -.25, p = .038) and Highest Education level (β =.26, p = .029), were significant predictors of the OPI Score, with both variables accounting for 10% of the variance (Adjusted R2) in OPI Score. This means that both Deployment Experience and Highest Education level predict OPI score. However, contrary to expectations, Prior Language Experience and the ASVAB score did not predict OPI score. The model was not significant when the two predictor variables of interest were added to the equation. Final Course Grade. Using Deployment Experience and Highest Education Level as control variables, Final Course Grade was regressed onto Prior Language Experience and the ASVAB score. Here, the two control variables, Deployment Experience and Highest Education level, did not predict the Final Course Grade. However, when Prior Languages and the ASVAB Score were entered into the equation, together they accounted for 15% of the variance (Adjusted R2) in the Final Course Grade, with R2 change = 17.5%. In examining the beta weights, however, it appears that while Prior Languages (β =.29, p = .022) was statistically significant in predicting the Final Course Grade, the ASVAB Score (β =.22, p = .081) was not. Therefore, experience Chapter 6: Phase II Analysis Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project

Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527

with prior languages had an impact on, or predicted, the student‘s final course grade, whereas the student‘s ASVAB score was not a significant predictor. Test Average and Quiz Average. As the Final Course Grade is a composite of both the average of the quiz scores and the average of the test scores, the analysis team also treated these scores as separate learning outcomes. This enabled the research team to determine the influence of the control variables and the relevant predictors (Prior Language Experience, ASVAB score) on each component of the final grade. Here, linear regression analysis revealed that none of the control variables or the relevant predictor variables was statistically significant in predicting the final quiz average. However, both Prior Language Experience and the ASVAB score were significant predictors of the final test average. Specifically, Prior Languages (β =.31, p = .013) and the ASVAB Score (β =.26, p = .04) together accounted for 19% (Adjusted R2) of the variance in the final Test Average, with R2 change = 21% of the variance in Model 2. This suggests that being experienced in a prior language and doing well on the ASVAB both predict how well a student will perform on the tests. Defense Language Institute Composite Score. As noted previously, this score comprised three portions: a reading portion, a speaking portion, and a listening portion. Using Deployment Experience and Highest Education level again as control variables, the DLI Composite Score was regressed onto Prior Language Experience and the ASVAB score. The control variables, Deployment Experience and Highest Education level, did not predict the DLI Composite Score. However, Prior Language Experience and the ASVAB Score together were significant predictors of performance on the DLI Composite exam, accounting for 18% (Adjusted R2) of the variance in the DLI Score, with R2 change = 18%. In examining the individual contributions of the predictors, however, it appears that while Prior Language Experience (β =.38, p = .003) was a statistically significant predictor of the DLI Composite Score, the ASVAB Score (β =.10, p = .41), was not. This means that knowing how well a student did on the ASVAB will not allow one to better predict how well this student will perform on the DLI Composite exam, but knowing that the student is proficient in other languages does inform the prediction of that student‘s DLI score.

Defense Language Institute Speaking, Listening, and Reading Portions As the DLI Composite Score is made up of three separate portions, using Deployment Experience and Highest Education level as control variables, the analysis team regressed each of the three DLI portions onto Prior Language Experience and the ASVAB score. This enabled the analysis team to better determine the influence of the control variables and the relevant predictors on each portion of the DLI Composite Score. Chapter 6: Phase II Analysis Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project

Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527

Linear regression analysis confirmed that neither of the control variables was statistically significant in predicting any portion of the DLI Composite Score. However, upon entering Prior Language Experience and the ASVAB Score into the equation, there was a significant change in R2 in the Speaking (11%), Listening (11%), and Reading (9%) portions, with both predictors accounting for 12%, 6%, and 4% (Adjusted R2) of the variance in each of these outcome scores, respectively. Upon examining the individual contributions of each of the predictors, it was found that the ASVAB Score did not predict any of the three portions of the DLI Composite Score, even though the ASVAB Score and the Reading portion were significantly correlated with one another (r = .29, p < .05). This is one reason why regression is superior to simply examining correlation coefficients. Regression takes into account the whole picture. Therefore, it seems that when the ASVAB score is examined with the relevant demographic variables, it fails to reach significance in predicting the reading portion of the DLI Composite score. Prior Language Experience turned out to be the most robust predictor (β =.31, p = .015) of both the Speaking portion of the DLI Composite as well as the Listening portion of the exam (β =.31, p = .021). Apparently, being proficient in languages in addition to English predicts one‘s ability to perform well on the DLI exam as a whole, and especially on the Listening and Speaking portions of the exam.

Discussion of Phase II Analysis Kirkpatrick Level 1 Assessment Summary A high percentage of the students in our Phase II sample believe that the most valuable aspect of culture training was learning about cultural norms and customs, which was facilitated by having access to native instructors. Students also greatly valued applying their new culture knowledge and language skills in a hands-on way, such as engaging in role-play exercises. These are best practices that the Services do well and should therefore continue to do. Of all the sources of information on culture and language, students express that local nationals (including their instructors) provide the best information, which also speaks well to the practice of hiring local nationals to teach these courses. As the research team discovered in both phases of this project, those who had been previously deployed were more likely to see the value in transferring what they learned in culture training to the field. It may be that those who have been previously deployed realize the value of using what they learn in training and applying it in theater, whereas those who have never experienced deployment do not have any idea how much they will need to apply what was learned.

Chapter 6: Phase II Analysis Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project

Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527

An important training implication that may be worthwhile to consider would be to engage those who have been deployed to share their experiences with those who have not yet deployed. This could be accomplished via class discussion, or alternatively through a formal mentoring program, whereby more experienced Service members would be assigned a protĂŠgĂŠe. Mentoring programs have been highly successful in other areas and an advantage of these programs is that they can also take place online in addition to face-to-face interactions. The results of Phase II further suggest that higher ranking service members perceived greater value in culture training, had higher expectations to transfer what they learned in culture training, and rated language training more highly than those in the lower ranks (i.e., E2-O7). That is, as one ascends in rank, one is more likely to perceive the value of training.. Although it could be speculated that this finding is due to higher ranked officers having been previously deployed, this was not the case here. There was no significant relationship between rank and whether or not someone had been previously deployed (r = .18, n.s.). Therefore, rank is uniquely related to reactions to training, and is not due to its association with deployment experience. However, the training implications to take from this finding are identical to those elucidated above for previous deployment.

Kirkpatrick Level 2 Assessment Summary The K2 learning data collected at Fort Carson yielded some interesting findings. For instance, rank was not related to any of the learning outcomes. That is, contrary to expectations, given the reaction data noted above, higher ranking individuals in this sample did not perform better on the DLI exams or on the OPI, and also did not receive a higher final course grade at Fort Carson. Similarly, other demographic variables the research team explored, such as Classroom and MOS, were also found to be unrelated to any of the learning outcomes and were therefore, also excluded from further analyses. By contrast, the highest education level achieved, although not related to any other demographic variables, was related to the OPI and the DLI scores, specifically with the speaking portion of the DLI exam. Although the reason why this occurred is merely speculation at this point, such a finding suggests that achieving a higher education level may be associated with higher oral proficiency performance. The most significant predictor, proficiency in speaking other languages was highly related to the ASVAB score, the DLI exam (both the speaking and listening portions), and the final course grade the student received. It makes sense that being familiar with one or more other languages would predispose one to perform better on proficiency exams related to learning another language. The ASVAB score was also related to previous deployment experience. Interestingly, those who had never been previously deployed received higher ASVAB scores than those who had been Chapter 6: Phase II Analysis Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project

Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527

deployed. Though speculation at this point, this may reflect a recent trend of younger Soldiers receiving higher education levels than those in prior generations. How a student performed on the ASVAB was also related to performance on all three learning outcomes: the OPI exam, the DLI exam (specifically the reading portion), and the final course grade. Given the nature of the ASVAB, the final course grade, and the reading portion of the DLI exam, perhaps there is a common factor, such as cognitive ability at play here. Cognitive ability has been shown to be the most robust predictor of performance, especially academic performance, so this is consistent with the research (Schmidt & Hunter, 1998). Regarding the three portions of the DLI exam, it was interesting to note how highly correlated the speaking portion was to the DLI score as a whole, so that they appear somewhat redundant. It is not known if the course instructor assigns more weight to this portion of the DLI exam or if there is another reason why these two are so highly correlated, but this finding may warrant further investigation. However, the three portions comprising the composite score are not redundant with one another, so it is fair to treat them separately, as well as to examine them together. The three learning outcomes were all interrelated. Those who performed well on one outcome of learning tended to do well on the others. Most highly related were the final course grade and the reading portion of the DLI exam. This suggests a common factor may be responsible for how well a student performs in the course and on the reading portion of the DLI exam. Such a finding is a positive sign that each of the agencies responsible for the three learning outcomes is essentially measuring the same skill sets. If these learning outcomes had been unrelated, this would have implications for varying instructional techniques depending upon the exam or course. Such a positive finding should also alleviate any concerns that the program instructor may have about the possibility of other instructors teaching in a style that would encourage favoritism towards a certain test for fear their evaluation hinges, or bears greater weight, on one exam over the others. In-depth analysis was undertaken to assess the unique impacts of the various predictors (e.g., demographics, ASVAB) on the learning outcomes. Multiple regression analysis goes beyond examining simple one-to-one correlations, as it takes the whole picture into account. Here, the analysis team was able to model the relationships among the different variables in terms of how much one variable changes another variable, while taking into account all the others. By entering the control variables first (i.e., previous deployment experience and education level), the impact of the two predictors (i.e., prior language experience and the ASVAB score) on learning outcomes can clearly be differentiated. Given the results of the correlations, as noted above, these predictors held the most promise in being related to the different learning outcomes and practically made sense as well. It must be noted, however, that because regression analysis goes deeper than simply observing correlation coefficients, the previously-noted relationships changed somewhat given the greater explanatory power afforded by this type of analysis.

Chapter 6: Phase II Analysis Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project

Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527

Using regression to examine the OPI score, the analysis team found that while both deployment experience and highest education level were important predictors of learning outcomes, whereas prior language experience and the ASVAB score were not. That is, when the control variables were taken into account, these two predictors did not impact the OPI score, despite being correlated one-to-one, as noted earlier. In examining the final course grade, however, prior language experience was the most robust predictor of how well a student performed in class. Breaking apart this learning outcome, the analysis team further discovered that both the ASVAB score and prior language predicted performance on the course exams, but not on the quizzes. The impacts of the various predictors on the DLI exam score were next examined and here, unlike the OPI score, neither previous deployment experience nor highest education level predicted how well someone performed on the DLI exam. However, prior language experience was a strong predictor of performance on this exam, whereas the ASVAB was not. Furthermore, prior language experience turned out to be the most robust predictor of both the speaking and listening portions of the exam. Apparently, being proficient in other languages, in addition to English, predicts oneâ&#x20AC;&#x2DC;s ability to perform well on the DLI exam as a whole, and especially on the listening and speaking portions of the exam. Therefore, the foregoing results, taken as a whole, suggest that prior language experience and general cognitive ability (i.e. the ASVAB) are the best predictors of learning a new language, with prior language experience being the strongest overall predictor.

Chapter 6: Phase II Analysis Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project

Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527

CHAPTER 7. IMPLICATIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS Today‘s military leaders are faced with the complex problems inherent in accomplishing their missions in culturally diverse contexts. In such contexts, small units and their leaders must interact directly with members of other cultures. Therefore, small unit members require the ability to quickly and accurately comprehend information about other cultures and more importantly, must leverage what they know to build partnerships and relationships essential to mission success. Consequently, pre-deployment training is a critical part of this force generation process, whereby successful completion of training requirements indicates that Warfighters are prepared for the challenges of counterinsurgency (COIN) and irregular warfare. The goal of Phase I of this two-part project was to develop an understanding of current solutions in pre-deployment culture and survival language training, thus providing a baseline for comparison. Phase II involved the collection of data to extend and confirm the findings of Phase I, to inform our understanding of learner reactions to pre-deployment training, Kirkpatrick Level 1 assessment (―K1‖). This information was collected via site visits, interviews, training observations, and surveys. Additionally, the research team collected and analyzed reaction data across the Services, along with Kirkpatrick Level 2 assessment(―K2‖) data (e.g. learning outcomes) from one location, to identify best practices, trends, and recommendations. During site visits, the research team looked for methods, processes, and techniques that have consistently shown results superior to those achieved by other means. Moreover, evidence of best practices was provided through several different perspectives, those of learners, leaders, and trainers. We present these best practices in two tables, the first focusing on methods provided for culture and language instruction, and the second comparing best overall practices by service, each with respective implications and recommendations. Between these tables, we also present current and upcoming trends for pre-deployment culture and survival language training.

Instructional Methods The research team observed several different instructional methods (see Table 11, including lecture, role-play and other practical exercises, immersion, and online courses, all of which may be used to effectively accomplish culture or language learning objectives. When supported by a qualified instructor (i.e., steeped in the subject, trained to facilitate learning and provide feedback, and a good listener), the training audience seemed to gain from such an experience. In fact, the data suggested that the most highly related reactions were to the quality of culture training and the quality of language training received. That is, trainees who rated the quality of culture training more highly tended to rate the quality of language training more highly as well, which speaks to a common theme across instructional methods.

Chapter 7: Implications & Recommendations Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project

Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527

Table 11. Application of Instructional Method Instructional Method Instructor-Led

Application Instructor is the sole disseminator of information. The instructor presents information to the student systematically in this method. Small group dialogue is supported by probes or questions to check on learning.

Lecture

Example: An instructor provides the students with a series of slides depicting life in Afghanistan. Content is delivered by a lecturer, who becomes the sole disseminator of information. Few checks on learning. Normal evaluation is about the lecture, not the learner. Example: An authority provides a primer on the five pillars of Islam.

Demonstration

Students observe a procedure, technique or event and are shown how to perform a task. Example: A video or online presentation of a Key Leader Engagement

Practical RolePlay Exercises

Students or groups of students are given a problem and supporting materials. Students assume roles where they apply tacit and declarative knowledge to solve problems. Students participate in activities guided by instructors that lead to a solution.

Checks on Learning and Goal Instruction is chunked to level of learning within audience.

Application Culture

Language

Limited reinforcement through student questions and summaries of the materials. An objective test to verify what was learned. Goal is knowledge acquisition and comprehension. Limited reinforcement because training audience is required to listen.

A learner reaction survey about the value of the information or quality of instruction. Goal is knowledge acquisition and comprehension. Learning is reinforced through interaction with the instructor. A learner reaction survey about the relevance or usability of the information. Goal is comprehension. Learning is reinforced through interaction, participation and peer learning.

A critique or after action review (AAR). Goal is application and analysis.

Example: Students are presented with a situation involving tactical questioning and are asked to select a course of action. They are asked to present their solution to the class.

Chapter 7: Implications & Recommendations Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project

Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527 Instructional Method Immersion

Application Students are integrated into a context where they assume roles that require them to interact with a culture or context under realistic conditions.

Checks on Learning and Goal Learning is reinforced through a video replay and feedback from the coach.

Application Culture

Language

A self-critique or team AAR. Example: Students enter a mock village and participate in a simulated ―jirga‖ of village elders, where they must interact and influence the outcome. Individual or Team Practice

Students repeatedly perform learned actions or procedures under the supervision of a coach or instructor.

Goal is application of skills, analysis of performance, and integration of abilities to support realistic performance issues. Learning is reinforced by the coach who provides feedback.

A critique or AAR.

Independent Study

Example: Students practice pronouncing a phrase in Dari that is part of the tactical language lesson. Students are motivated to learn. They determine content, pace and timing of instruction.

Goal is application of the skill in a realistic scenario. Instruction is structured and sequenced to guide learner through subject.

Example: Student uses an online course, like Virtual Cultural Awareness Trainer (VCAT) Horn of Africa, to prepare for deployment.

Learning is reinforced by tests that check on learning at the end of each block. Limited contact with a live instructor. Goal is comprehension, analysis and synthesis of information.

Culture Knowledge. The available information that can be accessed on culture, politics and religion is vast. There is also the challenge of making individuals aware of the resources that apply to their requirements. That is, the information that Warfighters seek may be embedded in a stream of information that is provided through classroom and online sources. The survey in the Phase II sample revealed that students are satisfied with the culture training received. They believe the best aspects of this training are learning the cultural norms and having access to native instructors during the training. There is still much progress to be made, and culture training, as well as culturally-based language training will have an increased role and become an enduring requirement across the services. One of the biggest criticalities may in fact be how the importance of such training is stressed across the Services. This need was reiterated when our research team spoke with Dr. Thomas Connell, also known as ―Dr. Culture‖ (Appendix Chapter 7: Implications & Recommendations Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project

Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527

N). When asked about the most difficult thing to train or get across to the trainees, Dr. Connell said it would be that this knowledge is actually â&#x20AC;&#x2022;importantâ&#x20AC;&#x2013; to know. People do not understand the criticality of cultural knowledge. He pointed out that the Services themselves must recognize and place emphasis on these areas in order for its members to grasp the importance of such training. We are able to report that the Services are taking the importance of culture and survival language pre-deployment training seriously. These areas are being addressed at meetings such as the Culture Summit V, which took place March 1st â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 3rd, 2011 in Sierra Vista, Arizona. The Summit brings together military leaders, scholars, academics, international business representatives, non-governmental organization representatives, subject matter experts, trainers, and educators to discuss practical methods for building cross-cultural competence in the U.S. Army as well as examine the areas of culture that are currently the most popular topics of debate and conversation. Distinguished guest speakers from the U.S. military, academic institutions, international businesses, non-governmental organizations, and several notable researchers and authors have been invited to ensure that this event will benefit the entire culture education and training community and all those who attend. Language Knowledge. Across the services, our research team observed several approaches utilized to teach language, all of which fell under multiple instructional methods mentioned in Table 11. This research team observed that the majority of language training provided for all services is offered through self-study electronic software packages such as Rosetta Stone, Rapid Rote, Language Pro, and Rapport to name a few. Hands on classroom based language instruction is provided across each branch, although the number of hours dedicated to such instruction normally cannot offer proficiency even at the lowest levels (for instance, the instruction at Ft. Carson expects students to reach a 0+ or 1 proficiency level after 16 weeks of language training). For general purpose forces, instructors are given a limited amount of time to teach language, and therefore priority resides in understanding basic vocabulary, and pronunciation. Here, the rationale is if servicemen and women can properly pronounce the given words and phrases, they will be able to manage themselves in theater by reading aloud their language handbooks to locals. Given this, supplemental instruction that can be delivered at a pace tailored to each individual and that is available at all times should be the preferred technique for language instructions. Having said this, the Army and Marine Corps have begun efforts to bolster classroom based language training (Headquarters Department of the Army, January, 2011; U.S. Department of the Navy, April, 2009). For instance, upcoming revisions to the Army Culture and Foreign Language Strategy (ACFLS) has plans for Soldiers to rely primarily on the Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center (DLIFLC)'s distributive learning products for language maintenance and improving proficiency. Additionally, the Army plans to incentivize Soldiers, both monetarily and non-monetarily, for demonstrated proficiency in select foreign languages. Chapter 7: Implications & Recommendations Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project

Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527

At specialized courses such as the one mentioned at Ft. Carson, our research team observed a technique whereby the native language instructor was supported by an assistant instructor, who explained the parallel English grammar rule. This additional resource established the relevant tactical context, enabled more contact with the instructor, and often clarified grammatical issues quickly. In fact, it was the opinion of the students that the effectiveness of survival language training improved when the instruction was preceded by a review of English grammar. This review of grammatical rules allowed the learners to frame the instruction, providing essential scaffolding for acquiring the newer knowledge, as well as setting conditions for accelerated learning. Setting these conditions for learning a new language cannot be undervalued. DLIFIC suggests that cross cultural competence implications are directly tied to language training, which is why they use language as a vehicle to teach culture (Appendix O). They provided our research team with anecdotal evidence that military personnel who know a foreign language will be in a better position to gain a deeper understanding of a culture once deployed simply because they will be communicating directly with people in the foreign culture. In the course of building rapport and relationships, these individuals will be able to absorb many more cultural nuances than those who must rely on interpreters. Additionally, DLIFLC promoted that personnel who can understand the language have greater situational awareness, and thus are more effective, because they are able to make use of all of the communications cues that are provided in the operational environment. Last, while not directly associated with language training, several questions surrounding interpreters continued to be raised during interviews at each site visit. ―How do I pick a good interpreter?‖ ―How do I know my interpreter is translating the message just as I‘m saying it?‖ Through observation and materials collected, only the Marine Corps Key Leader Engagement (KLE) training and the Air Force Air Advisor Course adequately discussed and answered these types of questions. Both courses had slides and knowledgeable instructors that dedicated time to this specific topic, discussing areas ranging from categorization (class I, II, and III interpreters), and assessing interpreter abilities, to structuring conversation, and how to use your interpreter as a cultural guide. While the proper use of interpreters may not have been an essential feature of instruction in more basic courses, it was an issue repeated raised throughout Phase II and should receive attention in future programs.

Trends The Services are adopting new policies for creating and sustaining regional expertise through continued learning and professional development programs. These initiatives have put in place requirements that affect how individuals acquire knowledge, skills, and abilities for culture. These shifts are reflected in the Strategic Plan for Next Generation Training for the DoD (Office of the Under Secretary of Defense Personnel and Readiness, 2010), as well as in Service Chapter 7: Implications & Recommendations Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project

Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527

guidelines for culture and language training. These new directions reinforce the requirements and impose structure. Because of the renewed emphasis on the development of 3C, the knowledge, skills, and abilities comprising 3C are also included in the standards for readiness. Mobile Training Teams (MTTs). Each of the Services included MTTs in its pre-deployment training strategy. In the absence of rigorous evaluations or performance standards, MTTs offered a standard, Service-approved training package, which was created in response to performance requirements. The research team observed Marine and Army pre-deployment training MTTs that were supported by the DLIFLC. The MTTs offered structured training programs that were essential to achieving individual language proficiency along with some understanding of the cultural context. Skill Decay. As in most knowledge domains, language skills and culture knowledge decay over time if they are not practiced or used. There was a significant gap between culture knowledge training and unit deployment. This is likely due to the current force generation processes and the availability of resources, primarily time, as deployment approaches. We found that most predeployment culture and survival language training is occurring five to seven months before deployment. This means that most of this knowledge and many of the skills would likely have decayed over time. Culture and language training need to occur closer to deployment. Alternatively, members might receive a refresher course closer to deployment, or be reissued culture and language materials (or access to such materials) closer to their deployment date. Perspective-Taking. There is greater recognition within the Services of the importance for effective interactions between local civilian leaders and junior tactical leaders. The goal of much of the pre-deployment culture training is to enable the Warfighter to use perspective-taking to gain the trust, respect, and support of the local population by leveraging knowledge of culture and language. Perspective-taking is acquired by using culture knowledge and language skills to make sense of and manage complex situations and can contribute to mission success. This type of perspective-taking often enables a cognitive shift in oneâ&#x20AC;&#x2DC;s approach to other cultures, considered by some researchers to be a prerequisite to learning about another culture (Hammer et al., 2003). Current pre-deployment training for culture knowledge does not allocate sufficient training time to this type of experience for small unit members. Though we did not survey all pre-deployment training events where KLE is practiced, we believe that deliberate practice and training should take place later in the training cycle and involve a smaller training audience. The required skill and knowledge could be developed using deliberate practice, coaching, and case study methods. For instance, all Marines are required to participate in Combat Hunter training, which primes individuals to observe and report on culture in context. Leveraging similar training or processes across the services would be a value added multiplier for oneâ&#x20AC;&#x2DC;s perspective taking skills.

Chapter 7: Implications & Recommendations Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project

Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527

Best Practices Table 12 lists best practices across the services. We have defined best practices as those methods, processes, and techniques that have consistently shown results superior to those achieved by other means. The best practices listed have either been observed through site visits and analysis, or are those which we deem are needed for all services. Each best practice is rated across the services, with accompanying descriptions, implications, and recommendations. Following Table 12, a brief section is dedicated to each best practice, offering further insight into what issues should be addressed and how the services are attempting to meet these needs through their individual training requirements.

Chapter 7: Implications & Recommendations Culture, Knowledge, and Survival Language Skill Pre-Deployment Training Project

Phase II Final Report Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527

Table 12. Best Practices Across the Four Services Best Practices Across the Four Services Best Practice Assessment / Measurement