will be long-lasting , that trainees will behave differently given a certain set of circumstances , that the change will be repeatable , and that it will occur regardless of varying conditions . This is where differences between Army and academic understanding of training and education become apparent . The Army distinguishes the primary difference between training and education as the focus on the known versus the unknown . The Army definition of training is “ a structured process designed to increase the capability of individuals or units to perform specified tasks or skills in known situations ,” 15 but the definition of education is focused on “ an individual ’ s ability to perform in unknown situations .” 16 In the learning sciences , training is a subset of education , with learning occurring in both . The term “ training ” in academia refers to those instructional experiences that are focused on individuals acquiring specific skills that they will apply almost immediately , but it is recognized that similar actions occur in both training and education . 17 To improve training , the Army must embrace the idea of training as learning , as opposed to training as experience .
To use the science of learning in training design and development , it is important to understand the philosophies and theories that guide the science of learning . Learning philosophies and theories describe why learning occurs in individuals and organizations . 18 The learning sciences have developed these ideas that are not just based upon experiences of what works , but have been substantiated and modified based on empirical research . By codifying a philosophy and theory in doctrine , it would support commanders by giving them evidence-based tools and guidance to design better training .
“ Constructivism ” is the most recently popular philosophy within many educational communities , and is nested within the larger category of general philosophies that are described as “ rationalism .” 19 This philosophy is characterized by the belief that reason is the primary source of knowledge , and that individuals construct knowledge , rather than discover it . 20 To understand what this looks like in practice , it is built on three subgroupings : individual constructivism , social constructivism , and contextualism . Individual constructivism is the idea that knowledge is constructed from an individual ’ s experiences . Learning results from a personal interpretation of knowledge and is an active process in which an individual constructs meaning based on experience . Social constructivism adds the assumption that learning can be collaborative with meaning or knowledge being negotiated from multiple perspectives ( such as a dialog between an instructor and a student or between multiple students within a classroom ). Finally , contextualism implies that learning should occur in realistic settings and assessments should be integrated into the learning task , not be a separate activity . 21 While this last point is already a goal of Army training , the constructivism aspect is missing from the vast majority of Army training . While the Army University and the U . S . Army Training and Doctrine Command ( with its Army learning model ) have committed to a constructivist philosophy for PME , the doctrine for training operating forces has not been altered accordingly . 22
The vast majority of Army training is based on the philosophy of behaviorism , which was the predominant school of thought for the first half of the twentieth century . While doctrine does not explicitly state the underlying philosophy , the ideas of behaviorism can be found in training doctrine and training guidance throughout the force . According to behaviorism , learning has occurred when learners display the appropriate response to a particular stimulus . 23 This philosophy emphasizes the influence of the environment on learning and prioritizes the necessity of learners receiving appropriate reinforcement ( both positive and negative ) for their responses to particular stimulus . This philosophy reached its peak in the 1940s and 1950s with B . F . Skinner ’ s work on “ operant conditioning ,” but soon it fell out of favor in the educational world as science was beginning to unlock mysteries behind how the brain functioned , which led educators to focus more on cognitive processes than displayed behaviors . 24
Applying the Science
The differences between constructivism and behaviorism as philosophies may seem trivial , but understanding them and using them appropriately could greatly improve how the Army trains . For example , compare the behaviorist and constructivist responses to a typical small-unit training problem : failure to bound across an objective . In March 2016 , this problem was so prevalent that the XVIII Airborne Corps commander wrote an e-mail about it to his entire command . 25 Soldiers were simply not bounding , by individual or by teams , across an objective as they cleared . For those not familiar , during a squad live-fire exercise , as the unit reaches the objective , they are expected to maneuver
102 November-December 2016
MILITARY REVIEW