Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011

CULTURE KNOWLEDGE AND
SURVIVAL LANGUAGE SKILL PRE-
DEPLOYMENT 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) Cognitive Performance Group, LLC
Arlington, Virginia Orlando, Florida

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

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

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 iii

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.

Copyright © 2011 Cognitive Performance Group iv

Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527

Best Practices Across the Four Services
Best Practice Service Rating Description Implication Recommendation
Assessment / Army Med All Services utilize instructor Without assessment measures Embed knowledge checks within
Measurement rating forms, and course beyond reaction level data, the classroom instruction and distance learning
Navy Low
satisfaction surveys, but few Services are not able to: (a) tools. Establish cutoff scores to certify a
Marine Med actually test whether learning has ascertain if a student‘s knowledge student‘s course completion, rather than
occurred during or after training. increased as a result of training, and simply ―checking the box.‖
Air Force Low (b) evaluate their training program.

Peer Learning Army Med Hearing the importance of a certain Certain service members may have Set up sponsors, mentoring programs, or
training curriculum or topic from a low motivation as they doubt the other processes (e.g. ―Tips to Air
Navy Unk
fellow service member in your unit necessity and application of Advisors‖) to share knowledge with those
Marine Med can act as an impetus to stimulate training, and therefore may not be less experienced members who share
learning in that content area. learning the material. similar missions and skill sets.
Air Force Hi

Training Army Med The handbooks, smart cards, Beyond information relevant to a Most of content is high quality and
Materials/Content Navy High regional packets, PowerPoint specific Service, most content can available online or by request. Limit
presentations produced by all of be shared across services to reduce classroom content to areas requiring direct
Marine High the Services are valuable training redundant material. interaction bookended by generalized
Air Force High resources. content accessible via distance learning.

Culture & Language Army High Service culture websites should act This evidence alone indicates that Promote Service culture websites, make
Websites Navy Low as a resource and repository for all the Service culture websites are classroom materials available online,
culture and language needs. Most either not well known to the service enhance search functions, and consolidate
Marine High utilize ―Google‖ for culture members, that they do not possess tools via JKO or similar site. Use the
information rather than first seek the information members seek, or CAOCL website as an exemplar, followed
Air Force Med their Service culture website. that they are not easily navigable. by the TRADOC Culture Center site.

Instructional Method Army Med Using these techniques promotes Limiting the variability in Promote increased interaction between
(role play, immersion, Navy Unk greater engagement and enhances instructional methods will prevent instructor and student across all programs.
cultural meals, knowledge retention in the certain students from optimally Recommend greater efforts to integrate
Marine High
facilitated discussion) classroom through participation learning the material and create culture within language lessons, and vice
Air Force High and experiential learning. disinterest in others. versa. Investigate immersive training
solutions that can engage most learners
through fixed site or on-line delivery.

Copyright © 2011 Cognitive Performance Group v

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.

Copyright © 2011 Cognitive Performance Group vi

Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page #
Chapter 1. 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
Observations .............................................................................................................................. 23
Interviews .................................................................................................................................. 24
Student Interviews ................................................................................................................. 25
Instructor and Site Director Interviews ................................................................................. 25
Survey Data ............................................................................................................................... 26

Copyright © 2011 Cognitive Performance Group vii

Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527

Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 27
Chapter 4. Analysis of Air Force Training ............................................................................. 29
Observations .............................................................................................................................. 30
Interviews .................................................................................................................................. 31
Survey Data ............................................................................................................................... 32
Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 33
Chapter 5. Analysis of Navy Training .................................................................................... 35
Observations .............................................................................................................................. 35
Interviews .................................................................................................................................. 36
Navy Materials ...................................................................................................................... 36
Army Materials ...................................................................................................................... 37
Marine Corps Materials ......................................................................................................... 39
Survey Data ............................................................................................................................... 39
Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 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 © 2011 Cognitive Performance Group viii

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

Copyright © 2011 Cognitive Performance Group ix

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 © 2011 Cognitive Performance Group x

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 1

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 Location/Date Accomplishments
JFCOM Norfolk, VA Established contacts and support for project.
(Joint Forces) September 1, 2009
Ft. Benning GA Gathered and analyzed documents.
(Army) Jan 12-13, 2010 Conducted interviews.
CACOM , Civil Affairs Pensacola, FL Administered survey (note that this trip was for another
Command, supporting March, 2010 project, but we were able to gather some data)
USSOUTHCOM
Ft. Lewis WA Observed training, gathered and analyzed documents,
(Army) March 1-2, 2010 and conducted interviews.
Naval Expeditionary Little Creek, VA Conducted interviews.
Culture Center April 15-16,2010 Gathered and analyzed documents.
(Navy) Observed training.
Air Force Culture and Maxwell AFB, AL Gathered and analyzed documents.
Language Center May 1,2010 Gathered information and obtained access to training at
(Air Force) Fort McGuire.
Blackwater Training Center Moyock, NC Observed training. Gathered and analyzed documents.
Training Team East Portsmouth, VA Conducted interviews.
Training Center May 3-6, 2010
(Coast Guard)
Defense Language Institute Monterey, CA Gathered culture and language materials for both Iraq
(Army) July 19, 2010 and Afghanistan. Conducted interviews Defense
Language Institute (DLI) administration (Dr. Donald
Fisher and Steve Collins).
McGuire Air Force Base Ft. Dix, NJ Observed training. Gathered course materials and
(Air Force) July 26-28, 2010 documents. Conducted interviews with project
manager, students, and instructors.
Naval Air Warfare Center Orlando, FL Attended Cross-Cultural Communications Course.
Training Systems Division August 9–12, 2010 Interviewed the main speaker, and collected materials.
(Navy, civilian)


Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527

Site Location/Date Accomplishments
Center for Advanced Quantico, VA Gathered information regarding the role CAOCL plays
Operational Culture 14 September, 2010 in preparing and delivering pre-deployment culture and
Learning (CAOCL) survival language training. Gathered culture/language
materials. Obtained guidance on which locations
would be best suited to observe training and collect
data.
Cherry Point Cherry Point, NC Observed Key Leader Engagement training which
(Marines) November 14-16, 2010 covered some Pashto Language Training. Gathered
and analyzed course materials. Conducted interviews
with students and instructors. Collected survey data.
Fort Carson Colorado Springs, CO Observed Campaign Continuity Language Training
(Army) November 17-19, 2010 Detachment with focus on Tactical Dari. Gathered
course materials which included textbooks and
supplemental course materials. Conducted interviews
with site director, instructors, and students.
Fort Belvoir Fort Belvoir, VA Observed Cultural Awareness Training- Criminal
(Joint Forces) December 7-9, 2010 Investigation Task Force (CITF) and collected survey
data from students. Conducted interviews with
instructors and students.
Camp Lejeune Camp Lejeune, NC Observed CAOCL Tactical Afghan Culture Course.
(Marines) December 15-16 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.
Evaluation Evaluation description Examples of evaluation tools Relevance and
Level Type and characteristics and methods practicability
1 Reaction Reaction evaluation is ―Happy sheets‖, feedback Quick and very easy to
how the delegates felt forms. Verbal reaction, post- obtain. Not expensive to
about the training or training surveys or gather or to analyze.
learning experience. questionnaires.
2 Learning Learning evaluation is Typically assessments or tests Relatively simple to set up;
the measurement of the before and after the training. clear-cut for quantifiable
increase in knowledge - Interview or observation can skills. Less easy for complex
before and after. also be used. learning.
3 Behavior Behavior evaluation is Observation and interview Measurement of behavior
the extent of applied over time are required to change typically requires
learning back on the job assess change, relevance of cooperation and skill of line-
- implementation. change, and sustainability of managers.
change.


Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527

4 Results Results evaluation is Measures are already in place Individually not difficult;
the effect on the via normal management unlike whole organization.
business or systems and reporting - the Process must attribute clear
environment by the challenge is to relate to the accountabilities.
trainee. trainee

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 pre-
deployment 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.


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, self-
reliance, 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.


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.


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 Department‘s regional culture
and language training were being implemented during pre-deployment training across the
Services. When we researched the Joint- and individual Service‘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 Commandant‘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.


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 pre-


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 theater-
specific 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 cross-
cultural 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 ―coalition mindset‖ 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


Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527

language training. In our review of documents, we did not note explicit language about pre-
deployment 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.


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 team‘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 team‘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.


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 12

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.


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:


Contract #: N00178-05-D-4527

1) Environment
2) Economy
3) Social organization
4) Political structures
5) 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
Commander‘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 USMC-
wide 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


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


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.


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 Non-
Verbally; 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


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.


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


Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011

Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

Destacado

Destacado (7)

Similar a Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011

Similar a Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011 (20)

Último

Último (20)

Phase+ii+final+research+report+15+march+2011