Innovative Learning:

A Key to National Security

General Editors: Ralph Doughty, Linton Wells II, 

and Theodore Hailes

The Army Press

Fort Leavenworth, Kansas
Cover image of the internet connection graph from border gateway 

protocol data courtesy of Barrett Lyon / The Opte Project.
Innovative Learning:

A Key to National Security

General Editors: Ralph Doughty, Linton Wells II, 

and Theodore Hailes

The Army Press

Fort Leavenworth, Kansas
ii

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Doughty, Ralph, editor. | Wells, Linton, 1946- editor. | Hailes, 

 Theodore C., 1942- editor.

Title: Innovative learning : a key to national security / general editors: 

 Ralph Doughty, Linton Wells II, and Theodore Hailes.

Description: Fort Leavenworth, Kansas : Army Press, 2015.

Identifiers: LCCN 2015037711 | ISBN 9781940804231

Subjects: LCSH: Military education--United States. | Military 

 education--Europe. | Educational technology--United States. | 

Educational 

 technology--Europe. | National security--United States. | National 

 security--Europe.

Classification: LCC U408.3 .I56 2015 | DDC 355.0071--dc23 LC record 

available at http://lccn.loc.gov/2015037711

2015

Editor

Jennifer B. Fike

Army Press publications cover a wide variety 

of military topics. The views expressed in this 

publication are those of the author(s) and not 

necessarily those of the Department of the Army 

or the Department of Defense. It is prohibited 

to use the official seal of the Army Press and/or 

Army University on any republication without 

the express written permission of the Provost of Army University.
iii

Contents

Figures......................................................................................................v

Preface................................................................................................... vii

The International Transformation Chairs Network.........................xiii

Section 1: People and Processes

Chapter 1 - Tackling the Impossible: Learning by Solving 

Real-World Problems for Senior Leaders 

by Ralph O. Doughty and Jack D. Kem...............................................1

Chapter 2 - Insights for a Committed Learning Environment 

by Richard M. Meinhart.....................................................................13

Chapter 3 - The Changing Face of Military Learning 

by Sae Schatz, David Fautua, Julian Stodd, and Emilie Reitz ..........35

Section 2: Organizations and Processes

Chapter 4 - Transforming Military Education for the 21st Century 

by Grant T. Hammond........................................................................51

Chapter 5 - A New Approach to Education. A Case Study for 

a “Teacher-free School:” École 42 

by Guillaume Lasconjarias.................................................................71

Chapter 6 - Changes in the United Kingdom Education System: 

The Case for the United Kingdom Ministry of Defence - Education, 

Development or Training? 

by Derrick J. Neal ..............................................................................85

Section 3: Technology and Processes

Chapter 7 - Rapidly Evolving, Digitally-Enabled Learning 

Environments: Implications for Institutional Leaders, 

Educators and Students 

by Cathy Downes ............................................................................101

Chapter 8 - Being in Uncertainty: Cultivating a New 

Sensibility in Military Education 

by Peter J. Denning and Susan L. Higgins.......................................133

Chapter 9 - Technology and its Impact on Defense/Security 

Thinking and Learning Intervention Issues 

by Derrick J. Neal ............................................................................155

Chapter 10 - Applying Innovative Learning to a National 

Security Problem: Addressing the Challenges of Job 

Replacement by Automation and Artificial Intelligence 

by Linton Wells II and Theodore Hailes..........................................171

About the Authors...............................................................................197

v

Figures

Figure 1. Committed Learning Environment.........................................15

Table 1. Desired Leader Attributes.........................................................37

Table 2. A sample of the range of Career Development and 

Training courses for the UK Army .........................................................90

Figure 2. Distinguishing Features of Web 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0.................103

Figure 3. Distinguishing Features of Learning 1.0 and 1.5..................107

Figure 4. Distinguishing Features of Learning 2.0 and 3.0.................. 111

Figure 5. IBM Blue Gene Supercomputer at Argonne Labs...............136

Figure 6. Internet connection graph from border gateway 

protocol data..........................................................................................137

Table 3. Examples of problems induced by computing technology.....138

Table 4. Contrasts between machine age and network age 

perspectives...........................................................................................138

Figure 7. Growth in Computing Power per Unit Cost .........................174

Figure 8. Using the Complexity Lens to Focus on 

Interactions Among: “People, Organizations, Processes 

and Technology.” .................................................................................181

Figure 9. Refocusing the Complexity Lens “Macro-Scope”

on Workforce Replacement Issues........................................................184

vii

Preface

This book reflects work by the members of the International Transformation (ITX) Chairs Network and is the fourth book in a series covering transformation across the spectrum of government activities. This 

book and its immediate predecessor examine the implications of various 

approaches to learning for different aspects of national security. The previous book, titled “Changing Mindsets to Transform Security: Leader Development for an Unpredictable and Complex World,” was produced in 

conjunction with NATO’s Allied Command Transformation (ACT). 

This year’s title: Innovative Learning: A Key to National Security was 

chosen carefully. Whereas much of the earlier book focused on Professional Military Education (PME) in the US and abroad, this year’s effort 

emphasizes the need to cut across traditional stovepipes such as training, 

education, and experiential learning and blend them into more integrated 

learning approaches, supported by point-of-need content delivery. People 

at all levels, from primary and secondary school students to the broad civilian workforce, to senior war college graduates, need to be prepared for 

the challenges that are being forced on them today by a world that is drawing everyone closer together, with information ubiquitous and knowledge 

spread to all levels, and for the as-yet-unforeseen ones that will change 

their lives and their workplaces in the future. 

Dr. Cathy Downes wrote in her chapter to Changing Mindsets: “Educational praxis is being disrupted by broader technology-driven change. 

Like it, love it, loathe it, it does not matter. It is happening: live with it; 

thrive with it. The disruption is changing the way our future students will 

think, their expectations, and their needs. It is opening up new opportunities for learning and for how we educate.” The emphasis on praxis (process) is very important, but it alone is not enough. Innovative learning 

approaches rarely have major impacts in isolation. As several authors describe here, combinations of sustained leadership, cultural change, adequate investment, information technology upgrades, and other factors all 

must be changed together to affect enough people to make a significant 

difference. Scale is important. 

The ITX Chairs’ basic approach starts by examining particular 

issues through interactions among people, organizations, processes 

and technology. In this volume, each of the chapters includes multiple 

components. Three of the chapters primarily deal with people’s interactions 
viii

with learning processes, three with organizations and processes, and four 

with technology and processes.

People and Processes

Ralph Doughty’s and Jack Kem’s chapter “Tackling the Impossible: 

Learning by Solving Real-World Problems for Senior Leaders,” addresses ways that PME institutions can draw on the “intellectual capital” of 

students to address very serious real-world problems, much as the Service Schools did in the interwar period. At the same time, educational 

requirements must be met, so creative concepts will be needed to meet 

the standard PME requirements while leveraging student experiences to 

provide useful research and recommendations. The authors offer recommendations on how to focus and sponsor such studies to produce useful 

outcomes. They conclude: “Leveraging our intellectual capital . . . at our 

PME institutions is one way we have been successful in the past – and an 

approach we can use to be innovative and find potential solutions to the 

challenges of our future.” 

Rich Meinhart, in “Insights for a Committed Learning Environment,” 

broadly examines ways to build a “committed learning environment from 

curriculum, student and seminar perspectives.” In doing this he draws on 

a wide range of education subjects associated with adult learning, such 

as learning taxonomies, types of discourse, team building and reflection. 

A goal is to “help shape students and faculty thinking on how best to approach and complete an educational journey with a committed learning 

focus.”

Sae Schatz, David Fautua, Julian Stodd and Emilie Reitz, in “The 

Changing Face of Military Learning,” point to the complexity and rate of 

change in the international security environment, and emphasize the need 

to find new ways to empower forces. They specifically focus on “increased 

investments in our Human Dimension,” calling for “an expanded set of 

competencies, skills such as critical thinking, anticipation and emotional 

intelligence, encouraging and empowering social learning, and developing 

more efficient and agile pathways to expertise.” Their vision for “revising 

the military learning enterprise” emphasizes “learner-centric” and “organizational level” approaches that enable a persistent and self-sustaining 

learning culture. Achieving this will depend on a shared grand strategy for 

the military’s “Human Dimension” and the military learning system that 

empowers it. 
ix

Organizations and Processes

Grant Hammond, “Transforming Military Education for the 21st Century,” addresses the modernization of military education, with a particular 

focus on Air University (AU) at Maxwell AFB. AU “is in the midst of 

transforming itself to deliver more rigorous, relevant education and research to the Air Force and to better integrate, share and collaborate with 

partners in the joint community, academia and business.” He describes the 

importance of overhauling an “outdated information technology structure” 

which will take several years. AU’s transformation process has involved 

“some initial personnel reorganization, an expanded electives program for 

in-residence officer PME, major new research initiatives on the Chief of 

Staff’s major priorities, the creation of a new global teaching and learning 

center, and a greater emphasis on future conflict and war gaming. These 

initial changes have occurred. The follow on implementation of a strategic 

plan [is underway].” 

Guillaume Lasconjarias, “A New Approach to Education: A Case 

Study for a ‘Teacher Free School’: École 42,” focuses on an innovative 

school in France known as l’École 42 (School 42). The chapter analyzes 

“the pedagogical methods, or absence thereof,” at École 42 (which was 

designed to deliver computer programming-related content, rather than 

degrees) to “identify and assess future trends in our educational environment as well as possible tools applicable to other educational fields, including the military.” He concludes that this kind of alternative pedagogy 

would be challenging for the military, less for the specific content it can 

provide than for the threat it poses to PME organizational structures. He 

suggests the military should rethink the goals of military education, in 

particular how it can deliver “specific know-how in a particular – and challenging – environment.”

Derrick Neal, “Changes in the United Kingdom Education System: 

The Case for the United Kingdom Ministry of Defence – Education, Development or Training?” explores concepts related to “learning (training 

and/or education) within the context of the United Kingdom.” He feels that 

“over the next 3-5 years there will be a major shift in the mix of learning 

approaches that are utilized for both training and education interventions. 

The notion that students have to receive the majority of their learning by 

attending lectures will be a thing of the past.” High level support will be 

important, and it is particularly important that UK authorities “have a clear 

understanding of what is meant by training, development and education.”
x

Technology and Processes

In the chapter titled “Rapidly Evolving, Digitally-Enabled Learning 

Environments: Implications for Institutional Leaders, Educators and Students,” Cathy Downes “examines the rapid cycles of web evolution . . 

. and the key technologies driving rapid advances in digital functionality, participation, productivity.” She then evaluates “how these cycles of 

technology change have influenced, and are shaping the evolution of digitally-enabled learning environments in higher education, and particularly 

the Department of Defense professional educational system, describing 

conditions of Learning 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 and 3.0.” The chapter concludes by 

identifying critical implications of these developments and the underlying catalyzing directions of web technologies for higher educational institutions in general, for their academic leaderships, for educators and for 

students. These implications, for example, focus on “(1) the growing gap 

between heritage institution educational models and the rapidly maturing 

and growing spread of digitally-enabled alternatives; (2) the challenges 

for Chief Academic Officers in hiring, developing and retaining faculty 

capable of creating and innovating in digitally-enabled higher education 

and strategic/executive level learning environments; (3) the challenges for 

educators in developing their digital literacies and becoming competent 

in new educator roles to meet the expectations and employment requirements of the upcoming generations of students; and (4) the challenges for 

executive-level students to upskill their own digital literacies, to take more 

responsibility for building and adapting their own personalized/personal 

learning networks and paths and developing a rich understanding and situational awareness of the technologies and uses of cyberspace and the next 

phases of the Digital Age.” 

Sue Higgins and Peter Denning, “Being in Uncertainty: Cultivating a 

New Sensibility in Military Education,” describe the skills needed to move 

effectively in an emerging, shifting, unpredictable world. Technology and 

its implications for education play an important role. The authors outline 

“five essential aspects of a leadership identity [they] think are needed in 

the new world.” The Naval Postgraduate School’s Cebrowski Institute has 

been “exploring how to create new learning experiences to meet these 

needs.” They are encouraged by an experiment with “Working Effectively 

in Small Teams” (WEST) that immerses students into practice for effective small teams using virtual worlds, and speculate that by adding a few 

well-designed WEST-like modules to existing military curricula, [NPS] 

could take significant steps toward the desired transformative effect.”
xi

Derrick Neal, “Technology and its Impact on Defense/Security Thinking and Learning Intervention Issues,” highlights “the significance of the 

rapid advances in technology in general and that of digital technology in 

particular. The rate of change presents a range of challenges that have 

impact on individuals as well as organizations.” In light of this the author 

proposes “that a nation’s education system needs to recognize the importance of this dimension from an early stage. Such an approach should capture two aspects, namely, what is taught (the curricula) and how it is taught 

(technology enhanced learning – [TEL]). Having laid the foundations in 

schools this should be consolidated through the higher education system 

bearing in mind that within a period of 3-5 years many digital technologies 

will have advanced. From a defense and security perspective the author 

challenges the designers of learning interventions such as Command and 

Staff courses to ensure that both the curricula and the TEL is relevant 

and reflective of the digital world in which military staff have to operate. 

In order to achieve this it may be necessary to remove topics that can be 

described as interesting and replace them with topics that should be considered as essential.” 

Lin Wells and Ted Hailes, “Applying Innovative Learning to a National Security Problem,” examine the accelerating replacement of jobs 

by automation and artificial intelligence (AI) and provide thoughts on how 

innovative approaches to learning can mitigate social unrest that may be 

generated by new technology. The analysis draws on much valuable work 

that has been published on the impact of automation and artificial intelligence on labor markets. A key conclusion is that “innovative learning can 

have significant benefits for individuals and targeted workforces, but scaling it across broad markets, national labor pools, and the growing global 

youth bulges will need sustained engagement by multi-sector, public-private, and transnational partners. Since many of the issues raised are beyond the planning cycle for government and private sector organizations, 

the chapter’s intent is to inform the debate as it evolves and help develop 

a research agenda to support policy options that can be implemented when 

the time is right.”

Overall, the book reinforces both the imperative for change in 

national security learning and the important benefits that can come from 

such change. The national security environment is changing, learning 

technology is changing, and pedagogy (and andragogy – adult education 

practices) need to change along with it. The outcome, if done well, 

can be not only a military that is better suited to meet a complex and 

uncertain future, but also a broader labor force that is more resilient to 
xii

equally complex challenges. However, pockets of innovative learning 

alone will not be enough. Sufficient numbers of people, at many levels, 

must be engaged to scale the results to large enough populations to make 

a difference. Innovations also must be sustained, and evolved, rather than 

being rolled back. There are several examples of once-promising advanced 

learning initiatives that have been stillborn, rather than course-corrected to 

address the inevitable problems that will arise in implementation.

Innovative learning concepts are known. Senior leaders have articulated the need to develop military personnel who can meet the emerging challenges and uncertainties. But changes are not being implemented 

very fast. The problem is not limited to the military. Private educational 

institutions are under enormous pressure, but not all are adapting. Social 

unrest among unemployable workers may pose serious national security 

problems in the future, yet no one has even conceptualized learning programs on a large enough scale to meet the employment needs of emerging 

youth bulges in Sub-Saharan Africa, the Islamic World, and South Asia. 

The challenge in all these areas, military and civilian, is how to muster the 

vision, will, and resources to make enough difference in time to achieve 

lasting results.
xiii

The International Transformation Chairs Network

The International Transformation Chairs (ITX) Network has its origins in the US Professional Military Education system, but has become an 

international network, adding representatives from Australia, Singapore, 

Sweden, the United Kingdom, NATO’s Allied Command Transformation 

(ACT), the NATO Defense College, and the Civil-Military Cooperation 

(CIMIC) Centre of Excellence. The ITX Chairs’ mission is to “provide 

a forum to challenge thinking, leverage shared knowledge, and inform 

the debate about the national and international security implications of 

global transformation.” The vision is to “help national security leaders 

and decision-makers prepare for a future filled with complexity, chaos, 

and surprise.” The Network approaches transformation as a process that 

shapes the changing nature of competition and cooperation through concept development and innovation management across people, processes, 

organization, and technology. Research by the network includes cross-cutting interactions among those areas.

The Network’s goals are to: 1) Inform ongoing debate with forward 

thinking concepts on major transformational issues; 2) Conduct research 

that identifies cross-cutting issues, opens new vistas, and validates (or 

challenges) current initiatives; 3) Serve as a resource in support of national and international leaders in realizing the transformational potential of 

comprehensive approach and smart power capabilities; 4) Support Professional Military Education (PME), Joint Professional Military Education 

(JPME), and national security education development to prepare future 

leaders and decision-makers. 

The network has published monographs, contributed to changes in US 

military education policy, organized conferences and workshops, and supported a variety of US Department of Defense and international activities. 

In 2009, together with the Swedish Defence Research Agency (FOI), 

the Network co-sponsored the first International Transformation Conference, in Stockholm. The resulting publication, Crosscutting Issues in International Transformation: Interactions and Innovations among People, 

Organizations, Processes, and Technology, is in its second printing.

In 2010, the Network, in support of ACT, began to research ways to 

develop capability in support of the Comprehensive Approach. This work 

reinforced the natural synergy between the two organizations, both of which 

are catalysts for change and seek to bring together diverse audiences to 

promote learning and the development of solutions. The ITX2 Conference, 

Capability Development in Support of Comprehensive Approaches: 
xiv

Transforming International Civil-Military Interactions was held at the 

NATO Defense College in June 2011. The event provided valuable insights 

into how to organize capabilities in support of Comprehensive Approach 

situations particularly in mission areas such as stability operations, building 

the capacity of partner nations and humanitarian assistance/disaster relief. 

It also led to the development of the Quick Wins at Low Cost (QW@LC) 

initiative. This initiative leverages developments that are ongoing in the 

private sector to deploy capabilities in months for thousands of dollars, 

vice decades for millions.

The Chair’s third book, Changing Mindsets to Transform Security: 

Leader Development for an Unpredictable, Complex World, was published in December 2013 as a result of the third ITX conference (ITX3) on 

this topic held at the US National Defense University (NDU). It increased 

understanding of how the profound changes underway in private sector 

adult education, and innovative learning technology, can affect PME and 

JPME, as well as international military education. The conference and 

book encouraged movement beyond the present stovepipes of training, 

experiential learning, and education to a continuous, recruitment-to retirement learning environment supported by point-of-need content delivery.

All three of the previous conference publications have been, or are 

being, used in United States, Allied, and Partner Nations PME institutions. 

They also support ACT’s national “Chiefs of Transformation” (COT) activities.

Current objectives for the ITX Chairs Network are to: 1) Promote innovative learning for national security leader development; 2) Increase 

awareness of the importance of learning as a key national security issue; 

3) Forge ties to the US Joint Staff J-7 in support of Joint Education improvements and the development of concepts and capabilities; 4) Support 

ACT’s COT programme.
1

Chapter 1

Tackling the Impossible: Learning by Solving Real-World 

Problems for Senior Leaders

Ralph O. Doughty and Jack D. Kem

Abstract 

Professional Military Education institutions, such as the US Army 

Command and General Staff College, provide an excellent resource for 

innovation to address real world problems. The inter-war period between 

World War I and World War II was a time where many real-world issues 

were addressed at the service schools; this same approach is still valid today and can be easily incorporated to address the challenges of the future. 

To be successful, however, it is necessary that the implementation be complementary to existing PME missions and relate directly to the experiences 

of students.

One of the key principles of learning at the United States Army Command and General Staff College (CGSC) at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas is 

an approach called “the CGSC Experiential Learning Model,” or ELM. 

The ELM serves as the methodology for both lesson plan design at CGSC 

as well as the dominant teaching methodology for delivering curricula. 

The ELM focuses more on “active” learning than on “passive learning.”

The ELM model is based upon a theory of learning developed by Dr. 

David A. Kolb, where he describes four different modes of learning: concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and 

active experimentation.1

 The curriculum design and principal teaching 

methodology is designed to “hit” all four of the different learning modes 

using a “spiral of learning” approach where learning is conducted by first 

experiencing, then reflecting, then thinking, and finally by acting.2

 In this 

manner, the learning styles for all of the students are emphasized at some 

point in each class – making all students (and faculty) comfortable with 

the methodology of teaching . . . and also uncomfortable at some stage of 

learning.

This model is based on the premise that the best way to learn is by 

learning lessons from one’s own personal experiences or learning something from a trusted friend or colleague that came from his or her own personal experiences. This type of learning has been validated time and again 

by the joint-service military officers and civilians who teach and learn at 

CGSC. It is accomplished by organizing the individual class sections into 

Staff Groups (a seminar approach) which include representatives from the 
2

combat arms, the logistics and support officers, and all the other participating services to include Air Force, Sea Service, International officers, 

Interagency partners, and US Reserve Component officers. 

Actual personal experiences are the most focused forms of learning. 

When we hear something, we remember it for a short while. When we see 

something, we remember it longer than simply hearing about it. But when 

we actually experience something, we are able to internalize it and learn 

from it for an extended period of time. Thus, the things we actually experience have a significantly greater impact than those things that we just 

see or hear about. The emphasis is not only on the experience itself, but 

includes the active process of reflection, thinking, and acting upon those 

experiences to create new knowledge.

The approach to learning – the Experiential Learning Model – provides an excellent means to address some of the challenges that exist today 

in the US Military. These challenges include declining resources while 

the security situation in the world has become more complex and dangerous. Using experiences, and then addressing future challenges in the 

classrooms, is an excellent way to leverage the “intellectual capital” and 

experiences of our officers in the classroom, while still meeting educational requirements.

The Introduction of the Office of Force Transformation

The Experiential Learning Model provides one approach to addressing challenges in the US Military; the introduction of the Office of Force 

Transformation provided another approach. In the mid-2000s, DOD Secretary Donald Rumsfeld initiated a program to transform the department 

in which he directed that each DOD Educational Institution have a senior 

level professor who would serve as a DOD Transformation Chair on the 

college faculty. One of the authors of this chapter (Doughty) came to Fort 

Leavenworth in 2005 and served for three years as the CGSC Transformation Chair, with key support provided by the DOD Office of Force Transformation (OFT) under the leadership of a three-star Navy Admiral (Vice 

Admiral Arthur Cebrowski) at the Pentagon. 

At the onset, DOD’s Office of Force Transformation (OFT) focused 

on three specific areas – “how we do business inside the Department, 

how we work with interagency and multinational partners, and how we 

fight.”3

 Many of the initiatives at the OFT initially involved equipment and 

technologies in support of transformation; the late Vice Admiral Arthur 

Cebrowski suggested that “one of the great rules for transformation is if 

you want to transform go where the money is and on arrival, change the 
3

rules.”4 As the OFT matured, the OFT’s efforts moved beyond the focus 

on equipment and technologies to focusing on transforming the ways the 

military conducts warfighting.

The basic premise of the Transformation Chair position was that true 

transformation cannot be simply directed from above – there had to be 

thrust from below for change and acceptance of change at the senior level. 

Vice Admiral Cebrowski believed that our educational system was the perfect breeding ground for building a ground swell from below for change 

and hence wanted a chair at each PME educational institution to foster, 

encourage and direct that change with the student body. The students after 

graduation would go out to take those thoughts and push them up; as the 

students became senior leaders, would then push these ideas down.

As a result of a shifting focus to how the military conducts warfighting, 

OFT placed emphasis on the predecessor of what we today call “Mission 

Command.” The key was to ensure that all members of the team fully understood the mission and each of their roles in achieving it. As the action 

progressed, key members could see these actions unfolding on the ground 

and on their real-time computer screens. The response from these key 

members would be to take appropriate actions when and where required to 

accomplish the mission based on understanding intent – all without orders 

from higher commanders. These combat and support missions together 

became the foundation for success by each participant having a “Common Operating Picture” of what is happening on the battlefield and taking 

actions accordingly. They were in essence “experiencing” the actions of 

forces throughout the battlefield on a real-time basis using world-class 

simulation capability. This formed the basis for “experiencing the action 

real-time” so that they participated directly in the Experiential Learning of 

how to fight in these fluid combat situations. 

The Past Role of Professional Military Education in Transformation

The period between the World Wars from 1920-1939 provides an illustration of the important roles that Professional Military Education Institutions can have in driving transformational efforts. Just after World War 

I, the military found the geostrategic setting dramatically changed – and 

still changing. This time, particularly in the late 1920s and 1930s, was 

one of “strategic pause.” Because the general public did not share military 

leaders’ concerns about rising threats, the military came under great pressure to reduce budgets. In spite of fiscal constraints – perhaps in some part 

due to them – the US military developed new organizations, doctrine, and 
4

technologies. These developments paid great dividends during World War 

II, enabling the United States to play the decisive role in winning that war. 

Each of the services approached transformation in a unique and innovative way, focusing on the ends of winning the next war in a rapidly 

changing world. The budding US Army Air Corps found that the driver for 

change was indeed the technology of the airplane – the means as the driver 

for transformation. The airplane only partially realized its utility during 

World War I, but at Maxwell Field, Alabama, young airmen considered 

how to put this technology to work in the next war. At the end of World 

War I, airpower “was in its infancy. The new role of three-dimensional 

warfare was even then foreseen by a few farsighted men.”5

 The increasing 

capability of the airplane drove doctrinal development of strategic bombing to win the future war. The Air Corps’ strategic focus during the 1920s 

and 1930s remained on the ends – but the driver (the bomber) was the 

means. The Air Corps Tactical School – the predecessor of today’s Air 

Command and Staff School – was the focus for this effort.

After World War I, the Navy deteriorated; yet realized that its ways of 

approaching future warfare required that it change from relying heavily 

on battleships to using aircraft-carrier battle groups. In 1934 it began to 

build up its forces – and in 1940 the service received authorization to build 

11 Essex-class aircraft carriers.6

 The goal of winning the war against the 

rising Japanese naval threat, which led to a change in the way of fighting 

by shifting to aircraft-carrier groups, served as the Navy’s driver for transformation in the 1930s. Much of the development of this new approach to 

warfighting for the Navy took place at the Naval War College in Newport, 

Rhode Island.

In the Army, “change agents” for the approach to warfighting included two future senior leaders in World War II – George C. Marshall and 

George S. Patton. In 1929 Colonel George C. Marshall became assistant 

commandant of the Infantry School at Fort Benning, Georgia. As head of 

the Academic Department there, he had a free hand to develop the course 

of instruction for young officers. The future Chief of Staff of the Army 

played a key role in developing the doctrine and tactics that his service 

would use successfully on the battlefield. Forrest C. Pogue notes that 

Marshall had “strong and revolutionary ideas, many of which had been 

developing in his mind for some years” and found himself in a “position to apply them to the training of young combat officers [at the] basic 

training ground for the Army’s basic fighting branch.” Marshall felt that 

he “could now transfuse into the Army’s main blood stream” the things he 

had learned and thought.7
5

George S. Patton had strongly encouraged new tactics and the use of 

the tank for future warfare (at the Army War College, he wrote a thesis entitled “The Probable Characteristics of the Next War and the Organization, 

Tactics, and Equipment Necessary to Meet Them”), becoming deeply involved in a number of maneuvers that tested the tank in a combined-arms 

formation. At the beginning of World War II, “there was no living American Soldier who knew as much as Patton about the mobility, mechanical 

features, fire-power, and tactical use of tanks.”8

 The Louisiana Maneuvers 

provided a test bed for many of his ideas about land warfare. Although 

Patton did not enjoy immediate success in his efforts to integrate the tank 

into the US Army, his drive and desire to use it in battle ultimately earned 

a prominent place for this weapon in modern warfare.9

The US Marine Corps underwent the most dramatic change in its 

approach to warfighting – led by junior officers developing concepts at 

Quantico, Virginia. Retaining the constabulary forces that characterized 

the Marines during the 1920s would not allow the Corps to maintain relevance in the looming global war that would require forces to conduct massive amphibious operations. In the early 1930s, the Marine Corps issued 

the Tentative Manual for Landing Operations, which became the bible of 

American amphibious assault doctrine in World War II, and created the 

Fleet Marine Force to operate as an integral part of the fleet for the purposes of capturing advanced bases. The Marine doctrine covered all aspects 

of amphibious assault, including command relationships between land 

forces and the supporting fleet, ship-to-shore movement and communications, air and gunfire support, and amphibious logistics. No other country 

in the world, except Japan, had such an advanced doctrine by 1939.10 The 

resulting change constituted a completely different function for the Marine Corps, resulting in amphibious doctrine and the necessary equipment 

(such as the Higgins landing craft) to support the doctrine.

During the interwar period, the US military made enormous strides 

to transform the warfighting capability of the respective services – and 

many of these changes were made at places such as Maxwell Field, Quantico, and Newport. GEN Henry H. Shelton, former Chairman of the Joint 

Chiefs of Staff, noted that transforming the military requires more than 

just advances in technology; rather, one should focus on the resources and 

means as well as operational concepts and organizational structures to use 

these technologies on the battlefield:

In the 1930s, the Allied powers were hard at work developing new 

airplanes, tanks, aircraft carriers, radar, and other advanced systems. As war broke out, the Allies had, across the board, better 
6

technology than the Germans, and more of it. When the Germans 

invaded France in May of 1940, they had fewer men, fewer artillery tubes, and fewer tanks than the Allies – and the tanks they did

have were inferior.

But they had revolutionary operational concepts for employing 

their systems to achieve battlefield effects far greater than the sum 

of the parts. The next year they stood before the gates of Moscow, having conquered all of Europe from the Arctic Circle to the 

shores of Greece, from the coast of France to within sight of the 

Kremlin. In time, the Allies learned the hard lesson that how you 

employ technology is even more important than the technology 

itself. But these lessons came at a fearful cost (emphasis in original).11

The Recent Role of Professional Military Education in Transformation

Carl von Clausewitz wrote that “everything is very simple in war, but 

the simplest thing is difficult,” continuing his treatise with a discussion of 

friction and how the simplest things get complicated in the “fog of war.”12 

Planning and implementing new organizational structures, technologies, 

and doctrines can indeed prove difficult for an organization as large and 

steeped in tradition as the US military. As Clausewitz would say, military 

operations will have more friction in the future. The military has to adjust 

its institutional character and structures to accommodate these new challenges.

In 1997, Lt Gen Paul Van Riper, Commandant of the Marine Corps’ 

Combat Development Command, and Maj Gen Robert H. Scales Jr., Commandant of the Army War College, published an article in Parameters

entitled “Preparing for War in the 21st Century.” Drawing on the writings 

of Clausewitz, the authors observed that 

Any sustained period of peace challenges military institutions. It 

requires holding on to the immutable and terrifying realities of 

war in a climate of peacetime pursuits and ease, because only by 

an understanding of what war has been can we hope to glimpse 

what it will be. To prepare for the future, we must keep a grip on 

the past.13 

Essentially, Van Riper and Scales warned against structuring a force to 

fight the last war, urging us instead to use history as a means to understand 

what may appear in the future. Years after these two articles appeared, 
7

their message still resonates because of our tendency to cling to the past 

way of war fighting.

Despite the resistance to change, there have been a number of different 

studies in the past ten years at the US Army Command and General Staff 

College to address the challenges of warfighting by leveraging the intellectual capital of officer students in the classroom. These officers, many 

of them fresh from operational deployments, have unique experiences that 

they can draw upon to address these challenges. Using the Experiential 

Learning Model of “experience, reflect, think, and act” provides an approach to develop innovative and adaptive answers to current and future 

problems. 

All of the different studies have been conducted with the ELM approach – and all of them have used a standard problem solving approach: 

Understand the environment and situation; identify the problem; develop 

courses of action to address the problem; test and war game the courses of 

action; and then provide an actionable recommendation for implementation to decision makers. The last item has been particularly useful – providing recommendations that decision makers will consider and possibly 

put into action adds the dimension that the study “really counts.”

The first study at CGSC to leverage intellectual capital was conducted 

in January-February 2004. This study, sponsored by the US Army G3 IED 

Task Force/Rapid Equipping Force was entitled the “CGSC Improvised 

Explosive Device (IED) Study Group.” This study, the first of its kind, addressed finding solutions to the IED problem in Iraq. The study looked at 

a combination of doctrinal and materiel solutions to addressing IEDs and 

their effects. Sixty-eight officer students and 12 faculty members conducted the research; a detailed 238-page report was completed with a number 

of recommendations. Many of these recommendations were adopted.

The second study was conducted in January-February 2007 and was 

initiated within CGSC. This study addressed the first “surge” in Iraq and 

was entitled the “CGSC Operational Level Iraq Campaign Plan Study 

Group.” This study addressed different alternatives to the operational level Campaign Plan in Iraq and conducted detailed war games for different 

approaches to allocating coalition forces. This research was conducted by 

64 officer students and 12 faculty members; a detailed 568-page report 

was completed and provided to the Commander of Multi-National Forces 

– Iraq. 

The third study was conducted in November-December 2007 and was 

sponsored by the Department of Defense’s Under Secretary of Defense 
8

(Policy). This study was entitled the “CGSC Global War on Terrorism 

(GWOT) Domestic Drivers Study Group.” This study conducted research 

on three different domestic emergencies that would require DOD support 

and addressed the impact of these “domestic drivers” on warfighting operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. This research was conducted by 15 officer 

students and three faculty members and produced a 68-page report for the 

USD(P).

The fourth study was conducted in September 2007-April 2008 and 

was sponsored by the Department of Defense’s Assistant Secretary of Defense for Policy Planning. This study was entitled the “CGSC Irregular 

Warfare Research Study Group.” This research addressed a number of 

recommended topics concerning the conduct of Irregular Warfare. A total 

of 18 officer students and 2 faculty members conducted the research; a 

consolidated 141-page report was submitted to USD(P).

The fifth study was conducted in December 2008-January 2009 and 

was initiated within CGSC. This study addressed the initial surge of forces 

in Afghanistan and the Command and Control structure in Afghanistan. 

This study was entitled the “CGSC Afghanistan Operational Campaign 

Plan Study Group.” A total of 32 officer students and five faculty members 

conducted the research and produced a 162-page report. This report was 

submitted to the ISAF Commander; many of the recommendations within 

this report were ultimately adopted.

The sixth study was conducted in October 2008-March 2009 and was 

sponsored by the Deputy Secretary of Defense under the auspices of the 

“Academic Year 2008-09 Voluntary Initiative to Leverage the Intellectual Capital of DOD Joint Professional Military Educational (JPME) Institutions.” This study was entitled the “CGSC Irregular Warfare Research 

Study Group.” A total of 10 officer students and two faculty members participated in this research and compiled a 78-page report (including the 

winning essay).

From February 2009-March 2009 there were two parallel study 

groups that formed the seventh and eight studies at CGSC; both of these 

studies were self-initiated within CGSC. The seventh report was entitled 

the “CGSC Private Military Companies Research Study Group” and addressed the number and scope of Private Military Companies in Afghanistan and Iraq. This research was conducted by 17 officer students and 

two faculty members; this study resulted in a 69-page report that provided 

support to curriculum development within CGSC.
9

The eighth study conducted from February 2009-March 2009 was a 

continuation of the “CGSC Afghanistan Operational Campaign Plan Study 

Group” and looked specifically at Regional Command South in Afghanistan. This study, entitled the “CGSC Regional Command South Afghanistan Research Study Group” addressed issues specific to RC-South’s Area 

of Operations. A total of 21 officer students and two faculty members produced a 139-page report that was provided to the Commander, RC-South.

The ninth study was conducted from September 2012-December 2012 

and initiated within CGSC. This study, the “CGSC Curriculum After Next 

(CAN) Study Group” was an in-depth study of Professional Military Education and the curriculum at the Command and General Staff College. 

Three different groups were formed to study the “Curriculum After Next” 

at CGSC, with a particular focus on addressing needed changes in Academic Year 2014-2015. This research was conducted by 10 officer students and 24 faculty members. During the research, three executive level 

briefings were provided to the CGSC leadership and over 20 Information 

Papers were produced.

The tenth study was conducted from September 2013-May 2014 

and was sponsored by the Command and General Staff College and the 

Defense Institutional Reform Initiative (DIRI). This study, entitled the 

“CGSC Liberia Strategic Study Group” addressed ministerial reform and 

security cooperation activities in Liberia. This initial research was conducted by eight student officers, who produced a 74-page report and five 

related master’s level theses. Based on the recent actions in Liberia and the 

Ebola Crisis, this study has entered a second year of study with 21 officer 

students for Academic Year 2014-15.

The basic methodology for each of these studies was to identify a 

complex problem and allow students – guided by a senior faculty member – to develop actionable recommendations for decision makers. Students acted as a planning staff, developed specific problem statements to 

be addressed, and actively war-gamed their recommendations. The results 

for each of the studies were organized into executive level briefings and 

detailed reports that outlined the recommendations. For each of these studies, students also “red-teamed” the conclusions and recommendations.

The Way Forward

It is important to remember that CGSC (as well as the other Professional Military Education Institutions) does not exist to provide staff studies “for hire.” These institutions have an educational purpose to meet the 

needs of the students and the force for the future. The current curricula at 
10

PME Institutions do a great job in meeting those requirements. That being said, using the current existing structure and approaches (such as the 

Experiential Learning Model) does provide an opportunity to meet educational requirements while also providing useful research and recommendations. To draw on the experiences of the students – while also meeting 

educational requirements – requires careful judgment.

CGSC has seven specific “course outcomes” for the core course; these 

are to educate officers who:

1. Are prepared to assume warfighting duties immediately upon 

graduation.

2. Possess the competencies and supporting skills and 

knowledge that enable them to perform duties effectively 

and help teams achieve organizational objectives. 

3. Are attuned to the complexity of the operating environment 

and consider the impact of culture on military operations.

4. Take a systems approach to meeting organization- and 

strategic-level leadership challenges.

5. Are critical and creative thinkers who can adapt and thrive in 

ambiguous and ever-changing environments.

6. Are self aware and motivated to continue learning and 

improving throughout their careers.

7. Are skilled at communicating critical information clearly to 

reach a shared understanding of issues and solutions.

Leveraging “intellectual capital” to “tackle the impossible” and to 

solve real-world problems – for at least some of the officer students – fully supports meeting these course outcomes. This is particularly true for 

the following course outcomes: #3 (Are attuned to the complexity of the 

operating environment and consider the impact of culture on military operations); #4 (Take a systems approach to meeting organization- and strategic-level leadership challenges); #5 (Are critical and creative thinkers 

who can adapt and thrive in ambiguous and ever-changing environments); 

and #7 (Are skilled at communicating critical information clearly to reach 

a shared understanding of issues and solutions). All of these course outcomes can be reinforced by this approach.

This approach does, however, come with a cost. The studies must be 

limited; these studies should only augment the existing structures. There 

must be relevance to the studies; it was obvious that the IED study was 
11

relevant and addressed a critical issue. There should also be sponsorship 

for the studies; work on studies of this type should have key decision 

makers who are interested and invested in the products. Finally, the studies 

should also be focused; there has to be an attainable product – an actionable 

recommendation, some insight, or way forward.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, GEN Martin Dempsey, 

wrote the following in the Foreword of the Capstone Concept for Joint 

Operations: Joint Force 2020: 

The reality of force development is that about 80% of Joint Force 

2020 is programmed or exists today. We do, however, have an 

opportunity to be innovative in two ways. We can significantly 

change the other 20% of the force, and we can change the way 

we use the entire force. While new capabilities will be essential, 

many of our most important advancements will come through 

innovations in training, education, personnel management, and 

leadership development.14

Leveraging our intellectual capital and “tackling the impossible” at 

our PME institutions is one way we have been successful in the past – and 

an approach we can use to be innovative and find potential solutions to the 

challenges of our future. 
12

Notes

1. D.A. Kolb, Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning 

and development. (Upper Saddle Back River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1984).

2. D.A. Kolb and A. Kolb, Opening Keynote Address, briefing slides, 

Council for Adult and Experiential Learning, November 10-12, 2005, Chicago, 

IL.

3. The Implementation of Network-Centric Warfare (Washington, US 

Department of Defense, Office of Force Transformation, January 2005), 6, 

accessed 18 August 2015, http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/transformation/

oft_implementation_ncw.pdf.

4. K. L. Vantran, “Transformation Begins with Leadership,” Armed Forces 

Press Service, 11 February 2004.

5. The United States Strategic Bombing Surveys (European War) (Pacific 

War) (30 3eptember 1945, 1 July 1946; reprint, Maxwell AFB, AL: Air 

University Press, 1987), 5.

6. Paul S. Dull, A Battle History of the Imperial Japanese Navy, 1941-1945

(Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 1978), 4-5.

7. Forrest C. Pogue, George C. Marshall: Education of a General, 1889-

1939 (New York: Viking Press, 1963), 248-49.

8. Edgar F. Puryear Jr., 19 Stars: A Study in Military Character and 

Leadership, 2d ed. (Novato, CA: Presidio Press, 1981), 384.

9. Martin Blumenson, Patton: The Man Behind the Legend, 1885-1945 

(New York: William Morrow and Company, 1985), 131-40.

10. Larry H. Addington, The Patterns of War Since the Eighteenth Century, 

2d ed. (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1984), 184.

11. Gen Henry H. Shelton, “Operationalizing Joint Vision 2010,” Airpower 

Journal 12, no. 3 (Fall 1998): 104, accessed 18 August 2015, http://www.

airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj98/fal98/shelton.htm.

12. Carl Von Clausewitz, On War (Middlesex, England: Penguin Books, 

Ltd., 1968), 164.

13. Paul Van Riper and Robert H. Scales Jr., “Preparing for War in the 21st 

Century,” Parameters 27, no. 3 (Autumn 1997): 10.

14. US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Capstone Concept for Joint Operations: Joint 

Force 2020 (Washington, DC) JCS, 10 September 2012), iii.
13

Chapter 2

Insights for a Committed Learning Environment

Richard M. Meinhart1

. . .we shall teach each other: first because we have a vast 

amount of experience behind us, and secondly, in my opinion, 

it is only through free criticism of each other’s ideas that truth 

can be thrashed out . . . . during your course here no one is 

going to compel you to work, for the simple reason that a man 

who requires to be driven is not worth the driving . . . . thus 

you will become your own students and until you learn how to 

teach yourselves, you will never be taught by others. 2

– J.F.C. FULLER

Abstract

When educating adults, it is critically important to create a committed 

versus compliant learning environment, which inspires one to learn very 

deeply on wide variety of complex subjects and their associated challenges. A committed learning environment creates insights that will be deeply 

ingrained into one’s thinking, so they can be implicitly or explicitly applied to address these complex challenges students will face upon graduation. This chapter broadly examines ways to build a committed learning 

environment from curriculum, student, and seminar perspectives. In doing 

this, it draws upon a wide range of education subjects associated with the 

following: applying adult learning concepts; proper use of different stages of Bloom’s learning taxonomies; enabling different types of discourse 

to fully examine complex and uncertain issues with a strategic perspective; applying team building concepts within a seminar to create trust and 

commitment; and the importance of and ways to encourage reflection to 

enable one’s learning. This chapter provides insights on the synergistic application of these education subjects from the academic literature and the 

author’s perspectives associated with educating future senior leaders at the 

United States Army War College for almost two decades. This chapter’s 

overall focus is to help shape students and faculty thinking on how best to 

approach and complete an educational journey with a committed learning 

focus. 

Introduction

The above quote from a 1923 lecture by J.F.C. Fuller, a well-respected 

British military historian and educator, is on the wall of every seminar 
14

room at the United States Army War College (USAWC).3 These words 

provide broad insights to an expected interaction among students and faculty that is associated with a committed seminar learning environment. To 

amplify the thoughts in Fuller’s quote and provide insights on how faculty 

can help develop a committed learning environment from curricula, student, and seminar perspectives, this chapter examines five key educational 

subjects that support the inquiry-driven model of graduate study that is the 

basis of the college’s education philosophy.4

 This chapter also provides 

the reader insights on different ways to establish a committed learning 

environment using examples from the college’s curriculum and seminar 

dynamics associated with a student’s 10-month residence educational 

journey, where they can earn a Master’s Degree in Strategic Studies.5

This chapter describes broad differences between a committed versus compliant learning environment to provide context to apply five key 

education subjects associated with developing and executing curriculum. 

The first two educational subjects are properly applying the theory associated with adult learning and Bloom’s learning taxonomy to collectively influence curriculum design and execution that creates an intellectual 

foundation for a committed learning environment. The third educational 

subject is associated with three different types of seminar discourse related 

to conversation, discussion, and dialogue. The proper use of these varied 

discourse types will help build a more committed student and seminar 

learning environment as it encourages the collective intellectual capacity 

and willingness to explore complex issues from multiple perspectives. The 

fourth educational subject is applying team-building principles to develop 

a more trusting seminar learning team, which is essential to enhancing a 

committed learning environment. Finally, the last educational subject is 

the importance of reflection, a key part of a student’s commitment that 

helps frame their future thinking from synthesizing academic and practical 

experiences on curriculum subjects.

There are five key education subjects associated with Adult Learning, 

Bloom’s Taxonomy, Discourse, Team Building, and Reflection. These are 

chosen because properly applying them will directly influence developing 

a committed learning environment from curriculum, student, and seminar 

perspectives. Each of these subjects is significant in their own right, as 

numerous scholarly books and articles have been written about them. This 

chapter briefly examines each subject from an academic perspective and 

then provides practical examples on how a faculty member should apply 

them to create a committed learning environment when developing and 

executing a curriculum. These examples are from the author’s experience 
15

in educating students for almost two decades at the USAWC and recent 

discussions with faculty and students on commitment. These five educational subjects, if applied properly, combine synergistically to help create 

a committed learning environment from curriculum, student and seminar 

perspectives. Figure 1 provides a way to visualize the synergistic relationship of these educational subjects.

Committed Versus Compliant Learning Environment

The educational, as well as the business literature, makes distinctions 

between creating and maintaining a committed versus compliant learning 

environment to enable a student/employee to become self-motivated. It 

describes these distinctions from both faculty/leader and student/employee responsibilities. An underlying thought in many of these articles is developing one’s emotional or self-motivated component to influence overall learning. Some articles use the word “heart” in the article’s title when 

making the distinctions between being committed versus compliant.6

 The 

most straightforward way to articulate the difference between a truly committed versus compliant student is that a committed student wants to learn 

Figure 1. Committed Learning Environment. Created by author.
16

versus being told what to learn, as they make the emotional attachment to 

the subject, faculty, or seminar.7 While a student may be unfamiliar with 

a particular subject, the manner in which the subject is taught will create a 

committed learning environment over time. Faculty observations suggest 

that students with emotional attachment work much harder, since they feel 

responsible for others’ learning within a seminar in addition to their own 

learning. This intrinsic motivation is often obvious in the creative ways 

students complete their assignments, and the additional research they willingly do during their studies.8

Commitment is not just a student responsibility, as some have argued 

that student commitment to some or a great degree depends on the faculty’s commitment to helping all students learn.9

 The faculty has the responsibility to develop the curriculum that is relevant to the students’ future 

challenges and is focused on insights and ways to use what is learned. Key 

aspects of this faculty commitment are associated with being approachable, how you interact within and outside of formal classroom sessions, 

and the ways you show enthusiasm for the curriculum.10 In addition, the 

manner by which faculty respectfully and reflectively listen to students, 

ask thoughtful questions, and encourage positives further contributes to a 

committed seminar environment.11 

Before discussing how these five educational concepts are related to 

a committed learning environment from curriculum, seminar, and student 

perspectives, a short examination of the USAWC’s seminar composition, 

faculty teaching team, and curriculum is warranted. This will enable the 

reader to better apply insights from this chapter to his/her own educational 

experiences.

Seminar Composition and Curriculum

To appreciate how these five education subjects are applied at the 

USAWC one must first understand the college’s seminar composition 

and curriculum. The college’s resident class has approximately 380 

students divided into 24 seminars of 16 students each. The students are 

generally in their late 30s or early 40s, and have approximately 20 years 

of military or federal civilian service. Military officers are in the rank of 

Lieutenant Colonel or Colonel, and civilians are in Grades GS-14 or 15. 

Each seminar is selected deliberately to be diverse with students from 

different occupational backgrounds that range from infantry to intelligence 

to logistics to aviation to special forces. The average seminar has one 

GS-14 or 15 civilian, and officers at the rank of Lieutenant Colonel or 

Colonel (or equivalent) from each of the services, with 1-2 coming each 
17

from the Air Force and sea services, 3-4 from our international partners 

and 8-9 from the US Army. Further, one or two students have National 

Guard or Reserve experiences. This seminar composition adds to a vibrant 

intellectual diversity as one’s thinking is shaped in some way by one’s 

prior experiences. 

From each of the three academic departments there is one teaching 

faculty member assigned to each seminar, and collectively they have a 

mixture of practical and academic experiences to teach the college’s core 

curriculum. In addition, a historian may be assigned to each seminar to 

ensure history is properly integrated throughout the academic year. Finally, other members of the college may affiliate with a seminar to provide 

their functional expertise when needed. In summary, there is considerable 

work that goes into developing the seminar’s faculty team, with a balance 

between civilian and military officers and recent and veteran professors to 

further enhance a seminar’s intellectual diversity.

The seminar stays intact for seven months from August through 

February to examine subjects described by the following core course 

titles: Strategic Leadership, Theory of War and Strategy, National Security 

Policy and Strategy, Theater Strategy and Campaigning, and Defense 

Management. During this seven-month period, students also take a regional 

studies course of their choice that examines one of seven geographic 

global regions. An average class day consists of approximately three hours 

of contact time with four lessons each week. This class is usually done in 

seminar format, though some instructional periods have a lecturer who 

speaks to the entire class prior to the seminar discussion. On occasion, the 

students engage in more interactive course exercises or war-games, and 

these are generally full-day classes.

The next three months the seminar is no longer learning together. This 

timeframe begins with the Oral Comprehensive Exams, where students 

are asked comprehensive questions by a different faculty team as they 

must demonstrate an ability to integrate core curriculum concepts, which 

is a requirement to graduate. Students then take ten credit hours of electives based on their specific interests. The college takes the students on 

field studies to New York City and Washington, DC to engage with leaders 

in business, media, the defense industry and congress. For the final week 

the seminar comes together for a short high-level forum with civilian leaders from across the US where national security issues are discussed. With 

this brief description of the seminar composition and curriculum focus, the 

chapter will now cover how adult learning is applied in curriculum design 

and execution with a committed learning focus.
18

Adult Learning

The educational focus associated with adult learning is based upon 

research in the beginning of the 20th century that was documented in the 

1928 book appropriately titled Adult Learning.12 The adult education paradigm and associated teaching methodology gained additional traction 

from work by Malcolm Knowles, and in 1973 he published the widely 

read book The Adult Learner: A Neglected Species.13 He articulated the 

differences between educating adults, described as andragogy, and educating pre-adults, described as pedagogy. Adults, because of life experiences, 

are motivated to learn in different ways than younger students, which must 

be considered when designing and executing the curriculum. Knowles 

identified the following five broad assumptions to underpin this andragogy 

philosophy: (1) adults increasingly become self-directed in their learning 

approach; (2) their life experiences are a rich resource for learning; (3) 

their learning needs are closely related to changing social roles; (4) their 

time perspective to apply what is learned is more immediate; and (5) their 

learning orientation is more problem centered.14 From this brief description of adult learning, a critical question that will now be answered is: How 

do adult learning assumptions affect curriculum and faculty responsibilities associated with developing a committed learning environment?

Knowles’ first adult learning assumption related to self-directed learning is perhaps the most important to develop a committed learning environment. This self-directed approach is leveraged by a faculty advisor 

working with students to help them develop an individual learning plan 

during the first month of studies and execute it throughout the year with 

faculty mentoring. Hence, the students help design their educational journey within the college’s overall educational framework. Another way this 

self-directed approach can be leveraged by faculty to increase student 

commitment is to provide them the opportunity to write about subjects 

that they want to conduct research on versus assigning students an exact 

writing topic. A colleague once said to me that “writing is a window to the 

mind” to emphasize this approach.

Knowles’ second adult learning assumption of a person’s experiences 

being a rich learning resource is realized by encouraging and leveraging 

relevant student experiences to create a committed seminar learning environment. Consequently, more often faculty need to facilitate subjects 

in seminar to bring out these rich experiences rather than directly teach 

subjects through lecture. Knowles’ third adult learning assumption that 

learning needs are related to changing social roles is that students want 

to focus more on subjects that address their future leadership roles (their 
19

changing social role). Upon graduation, students will be interacting across 

higher organizational levels with greater responsibilities to include those 

at the strategic level. The college’s curriculum focus at the strategic level 

and students’ future leadership challenges address this assumption.

 Knowles’s fourth adult learning assumption related to a more immediate time perspective and fifth assumption of a problem-centered approach 

are very related in that students want to study subjects and problems they 

are expected to address upon graduation. Hence, curriculum exercises or 

papers should focus on real-world challenges and what advice students 

should provide to senior leaders to address these challenges. For example, 

in the warfighting part of the curriculum, students conduct an exercise to 

address current strategic challenges in Southeast Asia when studying how 

to employ war planning concepts and processes. In the leadership part of 

the curriculum students write papers on Mission Command or Sexual Assault Prevention and Response, which are examples of potentially relevent 

issues they will address upon graduation.

Research by other scholars in the educational community somewhat 

disagreed with Knowles’ approach that broadly specified differences between andragogy versus pedagogy. They believed Knowles’ learning differences and associated assumptions between pre-adults and adults were 

too general in nature and did not reflect an individual’s learning approach. 

Instead, they applied adult-learning research to espouse an education philosophy under a framework called self-directed learning (SDL).15 In this 

framework, adult learners gain greater learning independence, as they 

progress through different learning stages and accept greater responsibility 

for their learning. This greater interdependence more smoothly addresses 

an individual’s personal learning process. Educational expert Dr. Gerald 

Grow articulated this SDL philosophy by developing a straightforward, 

four-stage learning model where the learner’s motivation and self-direction changes from low to moderate to intermediate and finally to high.16

Grow’s four-stage learning model identifies not only a learner’s motivation and associated behaviors but resultant faculty perspectives, both 

of which are relevant to appreciating the characteristics of a committed 

learning environment. In Stage 1, the student is not interested in or familiar at all with the subject being discussed and is fully dependent on explicit 

faculty directions. In Stage 2, the student is interested in the subject and 

may be motivated to learn the material, which can occur from an inspiring 

lecture and guided faculty discussions. In Stage 3, the student is fully engaged and shows initiative and confidence when exploring subjects as the 

faculty primarily facilitate the resultant seminar discussion and dialogue. 
20

In Stage 4, the student takes ownership for learning and conducts independent research under faculty mentoring.17

Based on faculty experiences at the USAWC, Stage 1 is rarely encountered among the graduate student population. Stage 2 occurs from 

either Bliss Hall lectures, given by distinguished scholars and our nation’s 

senior leaders, or by faculty in seminar describing complex Defense Department systems and processes used by senior leaders to make decisions 

such as the Planning, Programming, Budgeting and Execution process. 

Stage 3 is the most common seminar condition, as faculty often facilitate 

students’ experiences and insights on a wide variety of subjects to achieve 

higher-level learning objectives. To develop a committed learning environment, an open-ended questioning approach should be used during this 

stage to gain insights by applying or evaluating what is taught. Stage 4 

occurs when students complete their Strategy Research Project, which is 

a 5,000 to 6,000 word paper on a strategic issue with a faculty member in 

an advisor role.

Whether an educator prefers using Knowles’ assumptions or Grow’s 

four-stage SDL model to describe motivations and interactions between 

students and faculty, a key point for a committed environment is that students must take responsible ownership for their learning. The faculty must 

positively respond to that ownership with a facilitating and mentoring 

rather than a directing approach. The college’s curriculum and associated 

learning environment are different from most students’ earlier experiences 

from undergraduate studies or intermediate-level service colleges in two 

main areas. First, the curriculum explores issues at the strategic level that 

often have characteristics associated with being ill-structured or of a wicked nature within a strategic environment broadly described as volatility, 

uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity.18 Second, the curriculum has to 

meet Joint Learning Areas that are predominately focused at the higher 

learning levels of Bloom’s taxonomy; levels that require analysis or evaluation of subjects vice knowledge or comprehension.19

Another way the college addresses the self-motivated learning approach 

is in course assessments. Faculty formally assess students individually in 

each course on how well they achieved or exceeded standards in meeting 

course objectives in the three categories of seminar contribution, writing, 

and overall. The standards are quite substantial with the assessment 

criteria specified in a Course Directive and Communicative Arts Directive. 

Upon graduation, a number of students are recognized as distinguished 

graduates based on their ability to consistently exceed standards on core 

academic courses, research project, and comprehensive exam. Further, 
21

about 25 writing and research awards are presented at graduation to 

recognize significant individual work that adds to the academic body of 

knowledge. The college also provides numerous noontime lectures on a 

variety of subjects that are optional, but often widely attended. In total, this 

assessment approach develops a more self-motivated learning experience 

that encourages commitment. This learning focus is also enabled by how 

Bloom’s taxonomy is applied as curriculum is developed and executed, 

which will now be covered.

Bloom’s Taxonomy

One needs to understand Bloom’s taxonomy within the cognitive domain to gain a greater appreciation of how lesson and course learning objectives are related to a committed learning environment.20 Within the cognitive domain, Bloom specified six levels of learning, which sequentially 

go from the lower knowledge level, to comprehension, to application, to 

analysis, to synthesis, and finally to evaluation. Since lesson authors and 

course directors use verbs associated with these six different cognitive 

learning levels to specify lesson and course objectives, understanding and 

applying this taxonomy helps one better integrate adult learning assumptions. In the college’s core course learning objectives for Academic Year 

2014, five were at Bloom’s first two levels, ten were at the second two 

levels, and seven were at the highest two levels. This overall stratification 

reflects the college’s graduate-level education focus and the Joint Chiefs 

of Staff’s learning criteria for joint professional military accreditation at 

senior service colleges.21

The first cognitive level, called knowledge, focuses on knowing something, such as a definition or raw data. Learning objectives use verbs such 

as define, describe, or know to identify this basic level. The next level, 

called comprehension, focuses on grasping the meaning of the information 

presented or being able to describe it in your own words. Learning objectives use verbs such as explain, comprehend, or understand to identify this 

level. Some of a lesson’s readings, and when faculty introduce a subject 

to first start the seminar discourse, are mainly at these two basic cognitive 

levels. The link to a committed learning environment is that this allows 

everyone in the seminar to have a common knowledge or comprehension 

level on a subject before proceeding to the higher levels of learning as a 

lesson and course progresses.

The words application and analysis describe the next two Bloom’s 

taxonomy levels. Application is the ability to apply that lesson’s knowledge or concepts to actual problems or issues. Verbs that identify learning 
22

objectives for this third cognitive level are use, apply, or solve. Analysis 

is the ability to break down the whole into component parts and see how 

they are interrelated or interact. Verbs that specify this fourth cognitive 

level are analyze, appraise, or examine. The link to a committed learning 

environment is that, as students and faculty discuss the readings and integrate their experiences and insights, the seminar is at these middle two 

learning levels. More course learning objectives focused at this level are 

in line with adult learning assumptions.

The words synthesis and evaluate describe the last two higher cognitive levels. Synthesis involves creating a new meaning or rearranging the 

ideas covered into new paradigms. Verbs that identify this cognitive level 

are combine, develop, or synthesize. The highest cognitive level of evaluation results in informed judgments about the value of ideas or concepts. 

Verbs that specify this level are evaluate, conclude, or appraise. These 

highest learning levels require a mastery of the other learning levels and 

the ability of a student and even the seminar to reflect. Individual lessons 

generally do not address these two higher levels unless they involve case 

studies or an exercise. The integration of the various lesson materiel and 

seminar discourse from all of the lessons enables the achievement of the 

higher course learning levels, which are essential to a learning environment appreciated by committed adult learners.

In total, achieving different learning levels defined by Bloom’s taxonomy depends to a great deal on the type and quality of seminar discourse. 

To achieve different learning levels associated with lesson and course objectives requires an understanding and application of the characteristics 

associated with different seminar discourse types, a subject now examined 

with a committed learning environment perspective.

Discourse

Conversation, discussion, and dialogue are three distinct types of 

communication that comprise seminar discourse.22 Furthermore, discussion can be further categorized in two different ways by the words persuasion and democratic.

23 Each one of these discourse types has different 

characteristics and purpose, but when properly used they all contribute 

to developing a committed learning environment and achieving learning 

objectives at different levels of Bloom’s taxonomy.

The first and most basic discourse in seminar is conversation. This 

occurs from the first day as seminar members first start to learn about 

each other. Conversation helps start the implicit bonding process where 

diverse individuals begin to engage with each other to develop into a team. 
23

Generally, conversation seeks equilibrium and is a pleasant exchange or 

bantering of thoughts and feelings about an issue that is less formal and 

structured. Conversation evolves as seminar members get to know one another better and continues all year with different levels of human interest 

where the “best conversations maintain a tension between seriousness and 

playfulness.”24 Overall, conversation focuses primarily at Bloom’s lower 

two learning levels. A link to a committed learning environment is that 

faculty should have conversations with students before or after a lesson as 

this begins the processes to develop committed interactions with students 

and their learning, as it helps identify a faculty’s needed approachability.25

Discussion is the next type of seminar discourse that is more structured than conversation, which enables the seminar or student to get 

closure on an issue. Discussion focuses on an intellectual give-and-take 

when analyzing issues or applying concepts from varied perspectives. Peter Senge, in his book The Fifth Discipline, compares discussion with the 

words percussion and concussion due to root word similarities and argues 

that in discussion “you fundamentally want your view to prevail.”26 In 

essence, this perspective implies a type of discussion that primarily builds 

on other’s ideas to support your views. Overall, the adjective persuasive

best describes this type of discussion. While discuss is a verb initially recognized under the comprehension learning level, seminar learning that 

most often reflects persuasive discussions are Bloom’s middle levels of 

apply and analyze, but it can go to the next higher levels depending on that 

discussion’s underlying purpose. To enable student commitment, faculty 

should facilitate discussions of students in seminar versus being persuasive in providing their views so as not to anchor students’ thinking with 

a “right” answer. Further, faculty must ensure when discussing an issue 

that all views are fully valued and examined, even if most in the seminar 

disagree with a particular view. This can minimize the potential adverse 

impact that too many persuasive discussions may have on a committed 

learning environment.

Others, who do not agree with discussion’s underlying persuasive 

motivation described in the preceding paragraph, describe discussion as 

being a more open exchange of ideas and use the adjective democratic to 

describe it. Brookfield and Preskill in their book, Discussion as a Way of 

Teaching, described nine different classroom discussion dispositions under the heading, Discussion in a Democratic Society. These nine different 

dispositions are hospitality, participation, mindfulness, humility, mutuality, deliberation, appreciation, hope, and autonomy.27 
24

These dispositions can be useful and more effective than persuasive 

discussions in creating a committed learning environment that focuses on 

achieving Bloom’s two middle learning levels, while allowing learning to 

smoothly transition to the next two highest levels. Hospitality occurs within a seminar when everyone feels invited to participate, which enables one 

to take risk and share strongly-held views. Participation involves sharing 

views that add to depth and subtlety, while realizing that not everyone need 

say something, as respectful silence is valued. Mindfulness is associated 

with paying close attention to what precisely is said and being aware of the 

overall context. Humility builds on mindfulness when one acknowledges 

their limited knowledge and values learning from others’ different views. 

Mutuality occurs when seminar members realize that everyone’s learning 

is important to create a spirit of goodwill. Deliberation involves offering arguments and counter-arguments supported by evidence and logic to 

convince others. Appreciation involves expressing gratitude to another for 

their insights that raises the level of respect for other perspectives. Hope 

involves reaching a new level of understanding or perspective. Finally, 

autonomy involves being willing to take strong stands or have the courage 

to hold views not widely shared.28 Again, faculty need to facilitate seminar 

discussions in an open manner that enables all of these discussion dispositions to occur to develop both student and seminar learning commitment.

Dialogue is the final type of seminar discourse that tends to be more 

exploratory in nature than discussion and focuses more on inquiry. Dialogue causes one to be more inclined to ask “why” when exploring an 

issue, and this takes learning beyond one’s own understanding to have a 

freer flow of exploration from multiple perspectives as one becomes an 

observer of their thinking.29 In essence, dialogue enables students in seminar to gain deeper insights on complex issues that could not occur from 

individual work. As such, seminar dialogue focuses more on the higher 

learning levels to first fully analyze and then evaluate issues.

To develop a team-learning discipline associated with dialogue, which 

allows students and seminars to reflect upon their individual and collective 

thinking, requires three basic conditions.30 The first condition is the willingness to suspend assumptions. This is the key difference when comparing dialogue with discussion’s persuasive or democratic characteristics. 

Suspending assumptions means explicitly being aware of your assumptions, being aware of how they influence thinking, and holding them up 

for reexamination. While difficult to do, suspending assumptions does not 

mean discarding them. The second condition for dialogue to occur is that 

seminar members must see each other as colleagues, be fully open, and 
25

create the positive energy in properly questioning others or ideas. The last 

condition for dialogue to occur is the need for a facilitator, who holds the 

issue’s context and flow and asks the right questions to spur positive inquiry. Being a facilitator is an important faculty responsibility. Achieving 

and maintaining these three conditions for dialogue are hard work that 

requires disciplined intellectual thought, which enables a committed student and seminar by the willingness to explore others’ perspectives before 

determining your own.

All three discourse types exist within a seminar with conversation 

starting the initial contact, discussion in either persuasive or democratic 

forms that is more structured and enables closure, and dialogue that is 

more inquiry and exploratory focused. Depending on where you are when 

examining an issue, there may be times for all types of seminar discourse 

to synergistically enhance one’s overall commitment and seminar 

learning. However, more of the seminar discourse needs to be focused 

on democratic discussion and dialogue to enable student and seminar 

commitment. Understanding and applying characteristics associated with 

all discourse types provides one the ability to better reflect on and take 

responsibility for a committed student and seminar learning environment. 

Further, knowing the sign posts for each type of discourse helps with 

applying team-building insights to enable a committed seminar learning 

environment, a topic now covered.

Team Building

The previous section examining different types of seminar discourse 

is one aspect for gaining insights on ways to develop committed learning 

habits and techniques and build a seminar team. A seminar, like other 

small groups, will grow and evolve as the year progresses. Small groups, 

according to research by Bruce Tuckman in the 1960s, develop through 

sequential stages described by the following four simple words: forming, 

storming, norming, and performing.31 He and others a decade later added 

a fifth stage called adjourning, which signifies completion. Organizational 

insights and behaviors associated with these stages are useful to help create a committed learning environment.

The forming stage of team building at the USAWC begins when the 

seminar initially meets with members introducing themselves, learning 

about others’ backgrounds, becoming acquainted with the college’s opportunities, and clarifying expectations. At this stage, people are normally 

polite, operate somewhat independently, and cover issues superficially. 

The collective seminar learning that occurs at this stage is predominately 
26

at Bloom’s lower two levels, although individuals based on their internal motivation can achieve a higher level. Generally, the seminar quickly 

moves beyond this forming stage, which is needed to begin to develop a 

committed seminar learning environment.

The storming stage of team building, as the word suggests, is characterized by intra-group conflict. This occurs as different ideas or students 

actively compete for their views to be accepted, disagreements over decisions are passionately voiced, and frustrations are visible, all of which 

may cause one to shut down. This can occur if persuasive discussions routinely dominate seminar discourse, which occurs if members are mainly 

focused on wanting their individual views to prevail and become leaders 

within the seminar. Furthermore, some issues may have emotional connotations that are not readily apparent based on the topic, but can elicit an 

unexpected personal response from someone. A helpful seminar technique 

when emotions rise is to “talk to the center of the room,” so a response is 

not taken personally but examined collectively. A technique when an issue 

generates emotion is to ask students to “count to three” before responding, so their response is not overly reactive and allows time for thinking. 

As indicated in some of democratic discussions’ dispositions, it is “ok” 

to share strongly-held views, disagree after carefully listening, and hold 

views not widely shared. However, if seminar behaviors are focused too 

much at the storming stage then a committed learning environment will 

begin to degrade.

The norming stage of team building occurs as seminar members adjust 

their behaviors, begin to work more smoothly and effectively together, 

share learning, and begin to create a greater collective trust, and leadership 

within the seminar is sorted. Simply, collective trust is needed for a committed learning environment.32 Students’ and faculty’s professional characteristics and motivations enable this stage to occur smoothly and quickly 

at the USAWC. A negative condition of a norming stage is that sometimes 

members will not offer contrary views, and a condition called groupthink

may occur from a desire for harmony.33 Another expression often heard 

to describe decisions when conformity is desired over proper dissent is: 

We are on the bus to Abilene. A way faculty can address groupthink is to 

encourage an opposite perspective and ask to identify its strengths and 

weaknesses in an open manner. While an individual’s learning can be at 

different Bloom’s taxonomy levels, the collective seminar learning at this 

team-building stage is most often at the middle two levels.

The performing stage occurs when productive teamwork is evident, 

as members willingly take initiative and responsibility while balancing 
27

autonomy with interdependence, all of which is reflective of a committed 

learning environment. A performing stage results from the dedication and 

hard work of all team members – students and faculty. Collectively, the 

seminar has the capability to achieve the highest learning levels at this 

stage, as there is an appreciation of everyone’s intellectual contributions 

and achievements. Dissent can occur during this stage, but it will be positively resolved, sometimes with humor or with an open-ended questioning 

approach. The one caution is that once a seminar achieves this performing 

stage, and my experiences reveal USAWC seminars will achieve it, internal monitoring must still take place. This internal monitoring ensures the 

seminar stays at this stage, since a natural tendency toward complacency 

or a norming stage may try to assert itself.34

The adjourning stage occurs when a group is no longer together, and 

this can create an element of anxiety or sadness. A way to describe this 

at the USAWC is graduation day. However, seminars often stay in contact through a variety of electronic means to keep updated on member’s 

actions or even have reunions, reflecting those strong bonds developed 

during the year. Some seminars set up groups on Facebook and LinkedIn 

just before graduation to enable learning to continue. These strong bonds 

are the result of a committed learning environment. Hence, collective seminar insights and learning can continue well beyond graduation.

 Seminars go through these team-building stages with some stages more quickly passed through than others depending on interpersonal 

and institutional dynamics, as well as shared learning cultures developed 

from other educational or operational experiences. Furthermore, seminars 

sometimes go back and forth among these stages. This can occur when 

major changes affect the existing learning rhythm, such as different group 

tasks, new course material, or different faculty. However, when a seminar 

is at the performing stage it is more likely to stay there. The travel through 

these stages identifies an important individual and seminar responsibility, 

which is the need to self-monitor either implicitly or explicitly, to ensure 

needed cohesiveness and trust for a committed learning environment. This 

last point of self-monitoring brings to the forefront this article’s last point, 

the importance of reflection.

Reflection

The subject of reflection was included because many senior leaders, 

when addressing USAWC students in Bliss Hall, have spoken passionately about their senior service college experience a decade or more earlier as 

a valued opportunity to view issues from many different perspectives and 
28

shape their thinking.35 In essence, they had the opportunity to reflect on 

complex national security issues rather than make time-critical decisions 

or lead organizations associated with their previous responsibilities. While 

reflection has many different definitions, a useful one is: the thought, idea 

or opinion on a subject from consideration or meditation.

36 Reflection requires hard work, as rigorous, disciplined thought is required, which is 

related to an individual’s commitment.

A reflective learning approach can be organized into the three categories of subject, personal, and critical.37 The subject category deals with 

specific insights one gains for future use from lesson or course materiel on 

a particular subject. This occurs as students gain insights from the wide 

variety of materiel in core courses and electives. The personal category 

deals with the concept of what you are learning about your own thinking or insights. This occurs as one’s thinking is challenged or insights are 

gained about the habits of the mind from varied seminar discourse during 

core courses and after class in other social or academic settings.38 The 

critical category deals with the learning associated with challenging one’s 

assumptions and beliefs, even if those beliefs and assumptions do not 

change. Reflective learning associated with each of these three categories 

have different outcomes, but they are synergistic in nature in enabling a 

student’s commitment as one considers issues within different contexts 

and they combine to shape future decisions.

Adult learning assumptions, Bloom’s taxonomy, seminar discourse 

types, and team building stages address these three broad reflection categories, all of which influence one’s learning commitment. Subject reflection occurs as the adult learner considers and evaluates relevant curriculum subjects. Personal reflection occurs more often when achieving lesson 

and course learning objectives at the higher levels of Bloom’s taxonomy, 

which are helpful to spur reflective inquiry. Seminar discourse associated with discussion that combines openness, careful listening, and logical 

give-and-take contributes to reflection on both subject and personal categories. Seminar discourse associated with dialogue, which requires one to 

suspend assumptions, deals more with the critical reflection category. Faculty can enable reflection by asking more “why” versus “what” questions 

and exploring “how one could” use curriculum concepts in the near future. 

Achieving the team building stage of a performing seminar contributes to 

all three reflection categories, both individually and collectively, to help 

develop students’ commitment.

Individual techniques that enable reflection in all three categories 

include asking questions of yourself, keeping a journal, updating a 
29

learning plan, and doing independent research. Ask yourself questions 

such as: What did I really learn today? or How did this experience change 

my thinking? Another way to develop reflective judgment is to keep a 

journal focused on what was learned versus what was taught. Insights 

written down stay longer in one’s collective memory, and these insights 

can later be explicitly reviewed. While the USAWC requires students to 

develop an individual learning plan within the first month, updating this 

plan as the year progresses helps spur reflection and one’s commitment 

to learning. Writing and research experiences, especially the college’s 

strategy research paper and the opportunity to write a personal experience 

monograph, provide different opportunities to reflect more deeply in all 

categories.

Conclusions

This chapter broadly examined education subjects associated with 

adult learning, learning taxonomy, discourse types, team building, and 

reflection, all of which in different ways contribute to a committed learning environment from curriculum, student, and seminar perspectives. Informed by the author’s educational experiences at the Army War College 

over almost two decades, the chapter broadly applied these education subjects to identify the conditions for a committed learning environment from 

curriculum, student, and seminar perspectives.

In summary, when developing curricula, faculty need to integrate adult 

learning assumptions and focus on higher levels of Bloom’s learning taxonomy to help set the foundation for a committed learning environment. 

When executing a curriculum, faculty need to facilitate seminar discourse 

that seamlessly transitions from conversation to discussion to dialogue as 

the issue is being examined at higher Bloom’s taxonomy learning levels, 

but there should be a greater focus on democratic discussions and dialogue. In doing so, faculty must ensure that all students’ views are valued, 

multiple perspectives are encouraged, and an open-ended questioning approach is used. Faculty need to encourage team-building behaviors to 

get to the performing stage, while creating the collective trust and mutual 

respect for other’s views needed for a committed seminar learning team. 

This committed seminar team environment enables the student and seminar to collectively examine an issue at higher Bloom’s taxonomy learning 

levels, while encouraging the student to reflect on issues from personal, 

subject, and critical categories by asking more “why” versus “what” questions. While developing and executing the curriculum, faculty also need to 

be available to students outside of seminar and create flexibility in course 
30

assignments focused on topics students want to research to continue to 

enhance a committed learning environment.

The chapter’s overall intent was to provide insights to help shape student and faculty thinking on how best to approach and complete an educational journey with a committed learning focus. While these insights are 

from the author’s teaching experiences at the Army War College, many 

of them are applicable at other educational institutions and classrooms. 

Finally, reflecting on this article’s concepts will provide additional insights 

into what J.F.C. Fuller’s opening quote implies both individually and collectively in a seminar learning environment.
31

Notes

1. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not 

necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Army, Department of 

Defense, or the US Government. It builds upon an earlier faculty paper by the 

author used for faculty development at the US Army War College. 

2. Peter G. Tsouras, Book of Military Quotations (Zenith Imprint, 2005), 

274. 

3. Tsouras, Book of Military Quotations, 274. 

4. William E. Rapp, Academic Programs Academic Year 2015, accessed 25 

May 2015, http://www.carlisle.army.mil/documents/AY2015%20Academic%20

Programs.pdf, 9.

5. The college is accredited by the Middle States Commission of Higher 

Education.

6. The heart is mentioned in Mac McIntire Innovative Management Group, 

“Commitment vs Compliance: Ten Reasons Why You Need Your Workers 

Hearts not just their Hands,”accessed 15 May 2015, http://www.imglv.com/

articles/Commitment_vs._Compliance.pdf; and Kathleen Stinnett, “Compliance 

vs Commitment: The Heart of the Matter,” September 29, 2010, accessed 18 

May 2015, http://zingerfolkman.com/compliance-vs-comittemt-the-heart-of-thematter/.

7. Author’s insights from seminar teaching experiences and articles on 

committed environments.

8. Michael Beck, “Compliance vs Commitment,” 11 March 2014, accessed 

20 May 2015, http://www.michaeljbeck.com/leadership/4784. 

9. Ben Johnson, “Student Commitment Depends on Teacher Commitment,” 

accessed 20 May 2015, http://www.edutopia.org/blog/student-commitmentdepends-on-teachers-ben-johnson. 

10. Center for Excellence in Teaching, University of Southern California, 

“Showing Commitment to Teaching and Learning,” The TA Handbook 1997-

98, accessed 20 May 2015, http://cet.usc.edu/resources/teaching_learning/docs/

teaching_nuggets_docs/2.2_Showing_Commitment_to_Teaching_and_Learning.

pdf.

11. Tom Drummond, “A Brief Summary of the Best Practices in College 

Teaching,” accessed 25 May 2015, http://teaching.uncc.edu/learning-resources/

articles-books/best-practice/instructional-methods/best-practices-summary.

12. Sharan B. Merriam, The New Update on Adult Learning Theory, 

“Chapter 1, Andragogy and Self-Directed Learning: Pillars of Adult Learning 

Theory,” (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2001), 3-4.

13. Sharan B. Merriam, The New Update on Adult Learning Theory, 

“Chapter 1, Andragogy and Self-Directed Learning: Pillars of Adult Learning 

Theory,” 3-5; and Malcolm Knowles, The Adult Learner A Neglected Species, 

(Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing1973 and 1978), ix.
32

14. Malcolm Knowles, The Adult Learner A Neglected Species, 108-110 and 

Sharan B. Merriam, The New Update on Adult Learning Theory, “Chapter 1, 

Andragogy and Self-Directed Learning: Pillars of Adult Learning Theory,” 5.

15. Merriam, The New Update on Adult Learning Theory, 9-10.

16. Gerald Grow, “Teaching Learners to be Self-Directed,” accessed 15 

May 2015, http://www.longleaf.net/ggrow/SSDL/Model.html.

17. Stage descriptions come from the article by Gerald Grow, “Teaching 

Learners to be Self-Directed,” accessed 15 May 2015, http://www.longleaf.net/

ggrow/SSDL/Model.html.

18. For more information on ill-structured problems, see King and 

Kitchner’s book, Developing Reflective Judgment. For more information on 

wicked problems see Camillus’s article, Strategy as a Wicked Problem in 

May 2008 Harvard Business Review. For more information on the strategic 

environment, see the 2010 Army War College’s Strategic Leadership Primer.

19. Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction 1800.01E, Officer 

Professional Military Education Policy, 29 May 2015. A review of joint learning 

area objectives at Service Intermediate Level college showed that 37 out of 43 

objectives were at the comprehend level. For Senior Service college, there were 

no joint learning objectives at the comprehend level and 16 out of 26 objectives 

were at the evaluate level.

20. “Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning Domains,” acessed 15 May 2015, 

http://www.nwlink.com/~Donclark/hrd/bloom.html; and “Bloom’s Taxonomy: 

Learning Objective Verbs at Each Blooms Taxonomy Level,” acessed 15 May 

2015, http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/edref/bloom.htm. Material on the 

taxonomy and verbs in this paragraph and others come from these sources 

and the author’s experiences. There is now a seventh level of taxonomy called 

creating.

21. The Bloom’s taxonomy joint learning taxonomy specified in Chairman 

Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction 1800.01D, 15 July 2009. For senior service 

colleges, 4 were at apply, 6 at analyze, 1 at synthesize and 12 at evaluate. The 

USAWC passed Joint Chief of Staff Accreditation that reflects these July 2009 

learning levels. The most recent CJCSI, 19 May 2015, has similar joint learning 

taxonomy levels (see endnote 18).

22. Stephen D. Brookfield and Stephen Preskill, Discussion as a Way of 

Teaching (San Francisco, CA: John Wiley and Sons, 1990), 1-7.

23. Brookfield and Preskill, Discussion as a Way of Teaching, XV-5; and 

Peter M. Senge, The Fifth Discipline (New York, NY: Currency Doubleday, 

1990), 240. Senge used the adjective persuasion while Brookfield used the 

adjective democratic to describe discussion.

24. Brookfield and Preskill, Discussion as a Way of Teaching, 4-6.

25. Center for Excellence in Teaching, University of Southern California, 

“Showing Commitment to Teaching and Learning” The TA Handbook 1997-98, 

accessed 20 May 2015, http://cet.usc.edu/resources/teaching_learning/docs/

teaching_nuggets_docs/2.2_Showing_Commitment_to_Teaching_and_Learning.

pdf.
33

26. Peter M. Senge, The Fifth Discipline, 240. Senge attributes most of 

discussion and dialogue’s characteristics to physicist David Bohm, a leading 

quantum theorist.

27. Brookfield and Preskill, Discussion as a Way of Teaching, XV-8. 

The authors used the word democratic to broadly categorize these classroom 

discussions that reflect the principles of civil discourse associated with a 

democratic society that “emphasizes the inclusion of the widest variety of 

perspectives and a self-critical willingness to change what we believe if 

convinced by the arguments of others.”

28. Brookfield and Preskill, Discussion as a Way of Teaching, 8-18. The 

nine dispositions in the above paragraph are summarized from 10 pages in the 

first Chapter of Discussion as a Way of Teaching.

29. Senge, The Fifth Discipline, 241-242.

30. Senge, The Fifth Discipline, 243-247. The three conditions covered in 

this paragraph are summarized from Senge.

31. Bruce W. Tuckman, “Developmental Sequence in Small Groups,” 

(Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal, Number 3, spring 

2001). Republished article in Psychological Bulletin, Vol 63, Number 6, 1965, 

accessed 20 May 2015, http://www.infed.org/thinkers/tuckman.htm. The linkage 

to discourse types and Bloom’s taxonomy covered in the following paragraphs 

are the author’s views.

32. Michael Beck, “Compliance vs Commitment” 11 March 2014, acessed 

20 May 2015, http://www.michaeljbeck.com/leadership/4784.

33. Glenn M. Parker, Team Players and Teamwork, (Jossey-Bass, San 

Francisco CA, 2008), 141.

34. Parker, Team Players and Teamwork, 143-144.

35. Author’s insights from listening to Bliss Hall lectures over the past 

decade and a half.

36. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, (Springfield, MA: MerriamWebster Incorporated, 1994), 982. This definition combines two of nine different 

definitions.

37. Patricia Raber Hedberg, “Learning Through Reflective Classroom 

Practice,” Journal of Management Education 31(1) (February 2009): 10-12.

38. Hedberg, “Learning Through Reflective Classroom Practice.” Habits of 

the mind are discussed in this article.

35

Chapter 3

The Changing Face of Military Learning

Sae Schatz, David Fautua, Julian Stodd, and Emilie Reitz

Abstract

Globalization, social media, ever-increasing computing power, and 

the proliferation of low-cost advanced technologies have created a level 

of worldwide complexity and rapid change never before seen. To remain 

competitive in this environment, the US Department of Defense and our 

coalition allies must identify new ways to empower our forces. In this 

chapter, we assert that part of that solution includes increased investments 

in our Human Dimension. Specifically, we argue that military personnel 

require an expanded set of competencies, higher levels of nuanced skills 

such as critical thinking and emotional intelligence, and more efficient and 

agile pathways to expertise, and that achieving these outcomes depends, at 

least in part, on revising the military learning enterprise.

Towards this end, we outline a vision for the future of military learning, painting a picture of the “art of the possible” and proposing a roadmap 

that outlines five enabling conditions needed to achieve this future vision. 

The conditions include: (1) Cultivate ubiquitous learner-centric, technology-enabled instruction; (2) Build upon the foundations of data-driven 

learning; (3) Foster a learning culture at the organizational level; (4) Encourage and empower social learning; and (5) Draw upon deliberate practices and the evidence-based body-of-knowledge from learning science. 

Enacting any one of these conditions will pose significant challenges, and 

particular science or technology gaps associated with each condition create 

additional hurdles. Nonetheless, we argue that the time is right, in terms of 

understanding and demand, to take action. One major step in that direction 

is to agree upon a shared grand strategy, that is a vision for our Human 

Dimension and the military learning system that empowers it. That is the 

professional dialog this chapter attempts to help inform and encourage.

Introduction

 The essential nature of war remains unchanging, although both its 

features and the world, in general, continue to evolve at an increasingly 

rapid pace. Globalization, ever-increasing computing power, and 

the proliferation of low-cost advanced technologies have created a 

level of worldwide complexity never before seen. Added to that, the 

democratization of communication, the rise of social collaborative 

technology, and an increasingly fluid notion of “nation” and “identity” 
36

enable widespread volatility. Digital communities form and take action 

around an idea, globally, before it even appears on the mainstream radar. 

The voices of government, national media, and conventional news outlets 

now compete with the voices of these multitudinous communities, many 

of whom provide greater appeal than the alternative formal channels. In 

short, the ways we learn, live, and collaborate are all shifting. To remain 

competitive, the US Department of Defense and our coalition allies must 

identify new, high-value targets that give our forces overmatch and allow 

us to thrive under volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous (VUCA) 

circumstances. In this chapter, we assert that investments in our Human 

Dimension are part of that solution.

The Human Dimension comprises the people, their skills, and the performance-enabling technologies that directly enhance their abilities, such 

as decision-support systems.1

 Our personnel, or “human capital,” carry 

a heavy burden in the evolving global military environment. They must 

be prepared to perform a broader range of missions, across all phases of 

war (from initial deferring activities through post-conflict stabilization and 

rebuilding), and across an expanded set of missions (including cybersecurity, expanded intelligence analysis, space, civil military affairs, and humanitarian assistance/disaster relief). They must possess the independent 

decision-making skills to operate without clear a priori task direction, 

because so many challenges they face are novel. They must have the capacity to operate on intent, balance their tactical actions against strategic 

goals, and integrate multiple domains of sophisticated skills (e.g., soldiering skills, sociocultural understanding, emotional intelligence, resilience, 

and self-reflection) all within a joint, interagency, intergovernmental, and 

multinational context. In other words, as Lt. Gen. Robert B. Brown, commanding general of the Army Combined Arms Center, recently remarked:

For the last dozen years or so, the Army has said it needed people 

who are “comfortable” in conditions of “ambiguity and uncertainty . . . [but] If you want to win in a complex world, ‘comfortable’ 

isn’t good enough. We need individuals who improve and thrive 

in conditions of uncertainty and chaos . . .” Needed to strengthen 

the human dimension are institutional agility, executing realistic 

training that replicates the complexity of the world, and the ability 

to out think the adversary and figure a way out of complex situations.2

Representatives from other services have issued similar statements. 

For instance, the Marine Corps Vision and Strategy 2025 calls on the 

community to “prepare Marines for complex conditions and to counter 
37

the unexpected” and to help small unit leaders develop their abilities to 

“make sound decisions... in an increasingly complex environment while 

potentially operating in a decentralized manner.”3

 And the Chairman, Joint 

Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) recently published his six “Desired Leader Attributes” that centered on cognitive readiness–type skills, such as anticipation, adaptability, and critical thinking (see Table 1).4

Despite the urgency and high-level support for Human Dimension efforts, it seems unlikely that 

significantly more time 

will be available to create 

increased capacity. Therefore, it stands to reason 

our personnel will need 

to achieve an expanded 

set of more sophisticated 

skills, behaviors, and attitudes within the same (or 

even less) amount of time. 

Further, given the VUCA 

milieu around us, personnel should expect to continuously learn, adapt, and 

grow across their entire 

careers. In other words, 

three fundamental reasons 

encourage reexamination 

of the status quo:

1. Breadth: Personnel require an expanded set of competencies 

2. Depth: Personnel require higher levels of nuanced skills, e.g., 

critical thinking, anticipation, and empathy 

3. Velocity: Personnel must gain these competencies more efficiently and have mechanisms for maintaining their relevance 

in an ever-changing environment

The remainder of our discussion will focus on personnel development 

as one part of the solution to meeting these issues. (Complementary approaches might include personnel selection, talent management, performance-enhancing technologies, and other external technological or system 

supports, but these fall outside the scope of this chapter.) The following 

sections outline a vision for the future of learning within the Department 

Table 1. Desired Leader Attributes. CJCS, 2014-

2017 Chairman’s Joint Training Guidance.

(1) The ability to understand the 

environment and the effect of all 

instruments of national power

(2) The ability to anticipate and adapt to 

surprise and uncertainty

(3) The ability to recognize change and 

lead transitions

(4) The ability to operate on intent 

through trust, empowerment, and 

understanding (Mission Command)

(5) The ability to make ethical decisions 

based on the shared values of the 

Profession of Arms

(6) The ability to think critically and 

strategically in applying joint warfighting 

principles and concepts to joint operations
38

of Defense and related coalition military agencies, painting a picture of the 

“art of the possible” and proposing a roadmap that, we believe, may help 

address the challenges outlined above and release the untapped potential 

of our Human Dimension. 

Vision for the Future of Learning

We envision a military learning environment that produces savvy, agile, and operationally adept individuals, teams, and organizational structures. In this future, our Human Dimension approaches each new challenge with reflection and creativity, the adaptability to notice and react 

quickly to evolving conditions, and a strategic understanding of the larger 

system and far-reaching effects of actions taken within it. This future force 

is not only comfortable in these conditions – but it thrives in them. Personnel develop deep understanding, across a range of cognitive, affective, 

interpersonal, and physical competences, and they refresh and adapt their 

knowledge and skills as situations evolve. The organization, too, shifts and 

grows easily with evolving needs, rapidly capturing and integrating lessons learned and disseminating new ideas painlessly across the enterprise. 

To achieve this vision, we need to profoundly redesign the integrated 

continuum of formal and informal training, education, and operational experience. Hence we use the term “military learning” to more generically 

refer to this integrated spectrum. We believe that five enabling conditions 

(defined below) will help bring this vision to life. If effectively realized, 

these conditions will construct a pervasive learning context – i.e., an intentional, interdependent learning environment composed of processes, technologies, and cultural practices. In other words, these conditions do not 

represent technologies nor specific modalities of delivery, per se. These 

conditions instead define the enabling context, including interaction types, 

desired outcomes, and delivery approaches that create the conditions for 

effective future learning.5

Roadmap to the Future Vision

Condition #1: Cultivate ubiquitous learner-centric, technologyenabled instruction

The roadmap begins with the idea of fully blended learning or what 

someone might call ubiquitous learning. This concept expands (substantially) upon the traditional definition of blended learning, which generally 

comprises some classroom delivery plus online elements. The expanded 

version proposed here parallels the idea of ubiquitous computing, i.e., 

where computing power exists everywhere, fills an essential role in our 
39

everyday lives, but – enabled by smart, transparent technology – fades into 

the landscape, below active notice. 

Stated more plainly, “ubiquitous learning” defines a learning context 

that is pervasive, omnipresent, and transparent. This necessarily means 

that formal and informal learning (including just-in-time learning and onthe-job learning) become seamlessly integrated with more formal modes 

of instruction. This also means that distinctions between training and education – and even between personal development and operational duties 

– blur. Operational decision-support systems become learning and assessment systems (and vice versa), and all of these technologies also become 

sensors for detecting context, performance, and tracking lessons learned. 

This notion shifts key portions of learning away from something formally bound by time and place, into something continuous, timely, and 

expressly relevant to each learner’s tasks, state, and situation. As the classic study by Benjamin Bloom exemplifies, personalized learning, such 

as between a tutor and a student, achieves better learning outcomes than 

more homogenized instruction.6

 Of course, providing individual tutors for 

students is cost prohibitive, but technologies can help fill this gap. Traditionally, this has been the rallying cry of the intelligent tutoring systems 

(ITSs) community. Today, that goal of automated, personalized learning 

has matured to include a more diverse set of formal and informal technologies that, like conventional ITSs, provide intelligent and adaptive 

learning experiences but across the broad military learning continuum as 

described above. This is what we mean by the phrase “learner-centric, 

technology-enabled.”

Many decades of research – often funded by the US Department of 

Defense – have helped to mature the field of adaptive learning technologies and science. Most, if not all, of the raw materials exist to implement 

the complete vision, but more efforts and integrative work will be required 

in several key areas. From our perspective, those areas include the following:

Blending of Learning Activities and Operations: Although not a 

technology, nor even a science per se, achieving the ubiquitous learning 

capability will require new processes and an evolved organizational 

culture that accepts the notion of “fully blended learning.” Trainers, 

educators, instructional technologists, and operational systems 

designers (to name a few) will need to demolish the boundaries that 

separate their disciplines (and domains of ownership). Data, learning 

content, and even resources will need to be shared across organizational 
40

boundaries. Negotiating the processes to achieve this will likely prove 

just as challenging as developing the actual technologies that facilitate 

it. 

Personal Assistant for Learning (PAL): Ubiquitous learning must 

be supported by a variety of systems, starting with a cluster of enabling technologies associated with a Personal Assistant for Learning 

(PAL). The PAL concept begins with an integrated learner model that 

captures a person’s full range of attributes and formal and informal 

developmental experiences. Based on this data, it recommends new 

learning opportunities (macro-adaptation) and can inform micro-adaptation within a given learning context. The PAL must be context-aware 

(to enable recommendation of just-in-time or opportunistic learning) 

and incorporate open learner models that enable the individual learner 

(and, possibly, teachers and supervisors) to view his/her learning trajectory.7

 

More learner-driven options (for both time and delivery): In a 

ubiquitous learning environment, learners necessarily take more ownership of their own development. This offers several benefits. First, 

learner-driven growth is often more effective than learning that is 

“done to” a student. Learner-driven content fosters metacognition (i.e., 

individuals thinking about their own thinking) and encourages greater 

personal accountability for growth. It helps students learn not only the 

content, but also how that content fits within the larger development 

context (e.g., because they directly see the trajectory of learning) and 

objectively how they are performing within that context. Technologies 

that enable learner-driven development promote generative learning 

processes, encouraging personnel to explore new ideas, try new ways 

of interacting, and actively apply their learning.8

Second, from a practical perspective, learner-driven development is 

more flexible to the individual. Previously, we’ve written about “the 

paradox of the white space;” that is, any given training schedule is 

already densely filled with no time for more content.9

 However, if 

personnel can complete a learning task on their own (e.g., an online 

course accessible anytime/anywhere) then they can most likely 

find “white space” in their own schedules to meet that requirement. 

Increasing learner-driven options creates more flexibility. Even 

unsophisticated delivery of self-paced learning has been shown to 

be at least equally as effective as other, traditional methods (e.g., 

classroom-based presentation), while also creating an efficient, more 

satisfying, and less frustrating learning environment for participants.10
41

To achieve this increase in learner-driven development, we need to 

leverage enabling capabilities, such as:

•	Transmedia learning, which enables nonlinear learning across 

a variety of media modalities and where students can start and 

stop their learning, shift between different tools and contexts, 

and gain additional insights from the contrasting delivery styles.

•	Live/virtual/constructive (LVC) modeling and similation, 

that is, the technology that directly enables the blending of 

training content or educational overlays into real-world contexts (and vice versa).

•	Mobile learning, where “anytime, anywhere” becomes a 

reality, only constrained by available bandwidth, as learning 

management systems can flexibly serve content across a 

multitude of mobile learning access points. 

Improved Andragogical Models: To support this future learning vision, in general, as well as the ubiquitous learning capability, specifically, improved instructional models will be needed. These need to 

have a more robust level of detail versus current broad-based solutions 

while offering greater scalability versus today’s ITSs. The frameworks 

need to tell us how to best design the open learner models, when to 

recommend certain learning opportunities or make specific adaptations, and how to best integrate transmedia, LVC, and mobile learning 

into students’ personalized development trajectories. 

Condition #2: Build upon the foundations of data-driven learning

The concept of ubiquitous learning requires much more effective and 

extensive performance measurements and evaluations (where “measurement” or “test” refers to the quality of the data collection and “evaluation” 

refers to the quality of the interpretation and response to that data). Without measurement, we cannot be agile, we lose efficiency with reinforcing 

known principles to advanced personnel, and we lose effectiveness by 

pushing unprepared individuals ahead. Measurement is the lynchpin to the 

future learning vision. Data-driven learning enables real-time adaptations, 

whether in an instructional or operational context (which are blended together seamlessly anyhow in the future learning vision), and it will enable 

organizational adaptability at higher levels. In a world where learning is 

constant, data in the form of measurements and evaluations will be more 

pervasive and must be woven into the learning experience.11
42

To mature the idea of data-driven learning, we need to further develop, 

operationalize, and integrate several core capabilities including the following:

Massive human performance data: Douglas Hubbard, author of 

How to Measure Anything, remarked (during a special event panel at 

Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation and Education Conference 

(I/ITSEC) 2014): “The best way to spend 1% of a budget is to use it 

to optimize the other 99%.” Testing and evaluation enables this, and 

it offers a high return-on-investment because it provides insight, enables adjustments, and allows us to make better decisions by removing 

some uncertainty around them. Presently, the manpower, personnel, 

and training system within the military does a relatively poor job testing and evaluating personnel beyond their initial entry (e.g., ASVAB) 

or their physical factors (e.g., pace of a mile). As Brad Carson, acting 

Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, wrote in a 

recent memo: 

In managing personnel, we use only a narrow slice of information about service members and, as a result, we cannot 

optimize assignment, training, development or utilization of 

the available talent pool. In short, we have a one-size-fits-all 

model of production, in which people are not seen as uniquely valuable so much as almost interchangeable inputs into an 

industrial machine.12

Measuring other attributes, as well as managing and analyzing a 

greatly expanded set of more demanding data, is challenging. Current 

technologies enable the capture, management, integration, storage, 

sharing, access, and protection of such big data, but work is needed 

to integrate the available capabilities and apply them towards the military human performance system, broadly defined.

Performance sensing technologies: Capturing this data will require 

a range of ancillary technologies, including environmentally based Internet of Things sensors, operational neurophysiological sensors, and 

other wearable devices.13 Together these technologies will support 

more realistic measures in situ. They will be noninvasive, blending 

into the background (e.g., stealth assessments).14 These capabilities 

will provide a basis for collecting data to inform the next item, expanded measures. 

Expanded measures: In order to support the sort of learning 

outcomes described in the introduction, agencies will need an 
43

expanded set of metrics that can accurately capture and diagnose 

complex, unobservable, and latent knowledge, skills, and attitudes. 

To be most effective, this expanded set of measures will need to 

be multidimensional, collected in realistic contexts, and address 

all levels of assessment (from Kirkpatrick’s level-1 satisfaction to 

level-4 organizational outcomes). Further, the measures must address 

foundational attributes (e.g., competencies) versus highly contextspecific task achievements (e.g., Mission Essential Task Lists). With 

the expanded scope of measures, assessments require improved 

psychometrics, such as greater reliability, sensitivity, repeatability, 

and integration into a larger assessment schema. With greater fidelity 

of learning and skill advancement, it would be a disservice for the 

assessments to remain basic go/no go summaries of performance. 

Competency-based learning: Competency-based learning means 

focusing development interventions on the underlying human performance capacities (e.g., critical thinking and sensemaking) versus the 

context-specific tasks those capacities support. Competency-based 

learning offers two important benefits. First, focusing on underlying 

competencies directly supports preparation for the VUCA operational environment, where we are increasingly less able to fully define 

the exact tasks someone will need to complete.15 Second, we need a 

standardized set of competencies so that different systems can share 

human performance data; that is, by agreeing upon standardized competencies, their ontological relationships, and definitions of their internal steps (or stages of learning), different databases and instructional 

technologies can share content and learner performance.16

Traceability through layers of the organization: Within the Defense 

enterprise, any data-driven learning system will necessarily seek to 

translate individual performance data into individual readiness data. 

More than that, the system also requires models that predict team, collective, or institution-level readiness based upon collected data. These 

more abstract readiness estimates are unlikely to be simple aggregates 

of their component parts. This means that different models will be 

needed, with an emphasis on shifting the goal of learning based in 

response to the measured outcomes, or double loop learning.17

Condition #3: Foster a learning culture at the organizational 

level 

By definition, “learning organizations” are those companies or agencies that continuously transform themselves to maintain relevance within 
44

changing conditions, respond nimbly to the newest threats, and capitalize 

upon emerging opportunities. To support these collective outcomes, learning organizations necessarily promote continuous improvement at the individual levels; they possess a set of organizational values, conventions, 

processes, and practices that encourage individuals – and the organization 

as a whole – to increase knowledge, competence, and performance. As a 

result, learning organizations reap many benefits. For example, a 2010 

industry study conducted by Bersin & Associates found that those organizations with a strong learning foundation tend to significantly outperform 

their peers in areas such as employee productivity (37 percent greater), 

response to customer needs (34 percent better), and possessing skills to 

meet future demands (58 percent more likely).18

While military leaders may be less concerned with business outcomes, 

the underlying drivers of those outcomes (e.g., efficiency, responsiveness, 

and anticipation) are universal. Those attributes that support business 

outcomes also support the effectiveness and adaptability of Defense institutions in the face of volatility and turbulence. Defense agencies already invest heavily in lessons learned systems as well as information and 

knowledge management technologies. The aspiration to foster a culture 

of learning also already exists, but the scale and complexity of this task 

create challenges in all phases of the process from collection, to integration, and eventual dissemination. Emerging technologies will be needed to 

achieve this; two examples are provided below:

Social computing to collect lessons and forecast trends: High-impact learning cultures capture lessons learned and notice meaningful 

leading indicators in a timely fashion. Now reaching a sufficient level 

of maturity, social computing can support such processes. Social computing combines collaborative social technologies (e.g., micro-blogging), large-scale data, and associated analyses.19 For instance, we can 

leverage social computing crowdsourcing to identify learning opportunities or meaningful problem solving approaches, or in a more passive modality, to collect data to inform forecasting and sensing for 

weak signals such as population outlooks or changes in attitude. 

Automated knowledge resource creation: A particular challenge 

of lessons-learned systems involves efficiently processing the large 

quantities of input data, turning it not only into information or 

knowledge, but transforming it into situationally relevant education 

and training content. This transformation from raw-data to optimizedlearning traditionally requires trained analysts and instructional 

designers (with necessarily limited bandwidth), but automated 
45

semantic analysis systems can now supplement this process. For 

instance, performers working with the Army have demonstrated the 

use of semantic analysis to create standardized machine-readable data 

with testable topic models from doctrine or raw reports via automated 

semantic analysis.20

Condition #4: Encourage and empower social learning

Social collaborative technologies have given rise to the “Social Age,” 

where individuals connect (often globally) in informal communities 

who share and access information outside of the scope of traditional 

governance. Organizations have conventionally “owned” the training 

and education messages pushed down to learners. Such organizationally 

designed (formal) instruction will continue to play important roles for 

the foreseeable future; nonetheless, formal learning content is inherently 

abstract. Top-down content, no matter how engaging or dynamic, is always 

one step away from learners’ immediate reality. To augment formally 

created content, individuals need spaces and resources that enable them to 

engage with one another, to share knowledge peer-to-peer (or even from 

bottom-to-top), to co-create meaning, probe new ideas, and create shared 

narratives. That is, future learners require social learning.

21

Social learning grows out of scaffolded environments that nurture and 

facilitate reflective, community-based, informal learning situated within 

participants’ everyday reality. Social learning should not be confused with 

social media, although connective and collaborative technologies typically facilitate social learning. It is more accurately defined by the behavior, 

scaffolding, and community exchanges that occur. 

Adopting a scaffolded social learning approach requires a certain 

bravery, because the organization relinquishes full control of the story. 

It retains ownership of the overall narrative, but the community fills it 

with lived experience and meaning. Under this approach, organizations 

work within and alongside the grassroots communities, providing access 

to both the formal learning resources and tacit collective knowledge. In 

other words, organizations develop formal elements and then surround 

them with social, co-creative ones where participants can bring their own 

experience, everyday realities, personal challenges, ideas, and resources 

into the learning space. 

Collaborative learning approaches: Social learning communities 

often manifest on their own, on Twitter or Reddit, for instance. However, to create deliberate (and secure) social learning venues requires 

more intentionality and a greater understanding of the nature of social 
46

learning. How can we effectively leverage peer-to-peer and bottom-up 

learning within the military learning enterprise (which has been, and 

will continue to frequently include, top-down learning)? What are the 

most appropriate enabling technologies and facilitating techniques 

that will foster genuine social learning? 

Condition #5: Draw upon learning science deliberate practices 

and its body-of-knowledge 

None of the previous roadmap elements will be possible without applying a deliberate, evidence-based approach to their design and implementation. The application of learning science helps meet this demand. 

Learning science is an applied, ecological discipline as well as a resulting body-of-knowledge about how people learn and how to enhance that 

learning. It touches on many related fields, such as cognitive science, neuroscience, computer science, educational psychology, anthropology, applied linguistics, and design science; however, it principally emphasizes 

the combination of human cognition and learning plus educational theory 

and practice. The primary goals of learning science practitioners include 

creating and discovering learning innovations, continuously improving instructional methods, and applying learning science knowledge to create 

effective, efficient, and affordable instructional interventions.22

Effective application of learning science can enhance any and all aspects of the previously outlined vision, and to be clear, the use of iterative, evidence-based learning science methodologies is a critical enabler 

of those elements. In addition to the previously mentioned items, learning 

science can help inform the development of the following: 

Improved humans-in-the-loop: Despite the many benefits technology provides, humans will continue to support the design, delivery, 

and evaluation of learning in fundamental ways. We should work hard 

to enhance their skills and prepare them to most effectively use the 

supporting technologies.23

Ongoing improvement of instructional delivery: Learning scientists (often working in conjunction with technologists and emerging 

software capabilities) continue to advance the discipline each year. 

Recent and ongoing areas of progress include better understanding 

and application of neuroscience principles, increased understanding 

of the factors that affect optimal learning states (such as the interplay 

of fatigue, stress, and nutrition), how to foster implicit learning, how 

gamification can contribute to instructional outcomes, and how to best 

apply other emerging techniques and technologies, such as Massive 
47

Open Online Courses (MOOCs). Continued analysis of such techniques – as well as many other future methods not yet popularized 

– will directly support the future learning vision. 

Conclusion: Enabling the Future

This chapter defined five enabling conditions of a future military 

learning environment that reliably produces savvy and operationally adept 

individuals across all echelons, promotes a culture of organizational learning, and expands the breadth, depth, and agility of our Human Dimension. 

Admittedly, it’s a big idea. 

By painting this high-level picture of the “art of the possible” we 

hope to promote a conversation about a collective strategy for the future 

of military learning. As constituents of the military learning enterprise, if 

we work in isolation and pursue diverse projects that individually achieve 

limited short-term goals, then we might arrive at the desired emergent outcome (after considerable investment). If we work towards a shared vision, 

however, we can achieve success with more surety and efficiency. This 

means designing the entire learning system with the strategic outcome in 

mind, optimizing the whole system (versus trying to optimize individual, 

siloed parts of it), and considering the human element throughout that design effort. We need to work in concert towards a shared vision – a grand 

strategy – and with a high level of coordination among agencies, industry, 

and research centers. 

The building blocks of the five conditions outlined above already 

exist; yet, no one has operationalized, integrated, or collectively implemented them into real military learning environments. Individual projects 

and other examples showcase the possibilities of each concept described 

above. They are like the raw materials needed to build a house, and the 

future military learning strategy (which this paper contributes to) is the 

blueprint for the building. We still need to put the pieces together, which is 

no small task. More work is needed.

We have reached critical mass in terms of understanding and demand 

for the future learning capability. The timing is right to unleash the full 

potential of our Human Dimension. All the resources are here – science, 

technology, and the demand – all we need is a shared strategy and the will 

to pursue it. 
48

Acknowledgements

The views and conclusions contained in this chapter are those of the 

authors and should not be interpreted as representing the official policies, 

either expressed or implied, of the US Joint Staff or the US Government. 

The US Government is authorized to reproduce and distribute reprints for 

Government purposes.
49

Notes

1. US Army Training and Doctrine Command, The US Army Concept for 

the Human Dimension in Full Spectrum Operations 2015–2024. (Fort Monroe, 

VA: Department of the Army, Training and Doctrine Command, 2008).

2. Lisa Ferdinando, “Carson: Changes Needed in Army’s ‘Archaic’ 

Retention, Promotion System,” ARNEWS, 18 October 2014, accessed 30 May 

2015, http://www.army.mil.

3. United States Marine Corps. Marine Corps Vision and Strategy 2025, 14.

4. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 2014-2017 Chairman’s Joint 

Training Guidance (CJCS Notice 3500.01) (Washington, DC: Joint Chiefs of 

Staff, 10 October 2013).

5. For an expanded discussion on the nature and need to reform military 

education, training, and learning, see Joan Johnson-Freese, “The Reform of 

Military Education: Twenty-five Years Later” Orbis (Winter 2011): 135-153; 

M.E. Dempsey, Mission Command: White Paper (Washington, DC: Joint Chiefs 

of Staff, 3 April 2012), 1-8; and Martin E. Dempsey, Joint Education White 

Paper (Washington, DC: Joint Chiefs of Staff, 16 July 2012), 5-6.

6. Benjamin S. Bloom, “The 2 Sigma Problem: The Search for Methods 

of Group Instruction as Effective as One-to-One Tutoring,” Educational 

Researcher 13 (1984): 3–16.

7. See Elaine M. Raybourn, Jeffrey Mills, and Kent Weeks, “Next 

Generation Learner Interactions with Personal Assistants for Learning” (paper 

presented at the Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation and Education 

Conference (I/ITSEC), Orlando, FL, 2-5 December 2013); Damon Regan, Elaine 

M. Raybourn, and Paula J. Durlach, Design recommendations for intelligent 

tutoring systems: Volume 1 – learner modeling, eds. Robert Sottilare, Arthur 

Graesser, Xiangen Hu, and Heather Holden (Orlando, FL: US Army Research 

Laboratory, 2013).

8. Manuel London, “Generative Team Learning in Web 2.0 Environments,” 

Journal of Management Development (32(1) (2013): 73-95.

9. David T. Fautua and Sae Schatz, “The Continuum of eLearning and 

the Paradox of White Space” (paper presented at the 86th Annual DETC 

Conference, Honolulu, Hawaii, April 2012).

10. B. Charles Tatum and Julia C. Lenel, “A Comparison of Self-Paced and 

Lecture/Discussion Methods in an Accelerated Learning Format,” Journal of 

Research in Innovative Teaching 5(1) (March 2012): 139.

11. Jay Freeman, et al., “Data and Analytics Tools for Agile Training and 

Readiness Assessment” (paper presented at the Interservice/Industry Training, 

Simulation, and Education Conference (I/ITSEC), 2014).

12. Andrew Tilghman, A., “Pentagon’s Quiet Push for Military Personnel 

Reform,” Military Times, 11 May 2015, accessed 30 May 2015, http://www.

militarytimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2015/05/11/personnel-reformpush/70895094/.
50

13. Frederick J. Riggins and Samuel Fosso Wamba, “Research Directions 

on the Adoption, Usage, and Impact of the Internet of Things through the 

Use of Big Data Analytics” (paper presented at the 48th Hawaii International 

Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), January 2015): 1531-1540.

14. See Valerie J. Shute, “Stealth Assessment in Computer-Based Games 

to Support Learning,” Computer Games and Instruction, 55(2) (2011), 503-524 

and Valerie J. Shute and Yoon Jeon Kim, “Formative and Stealth Assessment,” 

in Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology, 

(New York, NY: Springer, 2014): 311-321.

15. Richard A. Voorhees, “Competency‐Based Learning Models: A 

Necessary Future,” New Directions for Institutional Research 110 (2001): 5-13.

16. Demetrios G. Sampson and Demetrios Fytros, (2008) “Competence 

Models in Technology-Enhanced Competence-Based Learning,” in Handbook 

on Information Technologies for Education and Training (Berlin, Germany: 

Springer Berlin-Heidelberg, 2008): 155-177.

17. Chris Argyris and Donald Schon, Organizational Learning: A Theory of 

Action Perspective (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1978).

18. Argyris and Schon, Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action 

Perspective (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1978). For additional support, see 

also T. Otter, (2012). Reach Peak Performance through Employee Engagement

(Stamford, CT: Gartner, 2012).

19. Douglas W. Hubbard, Pulse: The New Science of Harnessing Internet 

Buzz to Track Threats and Opportunities (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 

2001).

20. Fritz Ray, Keith Brawner, and Robby Robson, “Using Data Mining to 

Automate,” ADDIE, Educational Data Mining (July 2014).

21. Julian Stodd, Exploring the World of Social Learning (Los Gatos, CA: 

Smashwords, 2012).

22. Robert T. Hays, The Science of Learning: A Systems Theory Perspective

(Universal-Publishers, 2006).

23. As we previously found, simply providing the tools to military 

instructors does not necessarily enable those instructors to effectively employ 

the tools. See David T. Fautua et al., “Institutionalizing Blended Learning into 

Joint Training: A Case Study and 10 Recommendations” (paper presented at the 

Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation and Education Conference (I/ITSEC), 

Orlando, FL, 2014).
51

Chapter 4

Transforming Military Education for the 21st Century

Grant T. Hammond

Abstract

Modernizing military education for the 21st century is mandatory for 

modern militaries. Given the rapid technological advancements of the last 

two decades, education has been fundamentally changed in many ways. 

Air University at Maxwell Air Force Base is in the midst of transforming itself to deliver more rigorous, relevant education and research to the 

Air Force and to better integrate, share, and collaborate with partners in 

the joint community, academia, and business. Doing so requires a major 

investment and overhaul of an outdated information technology structure 

which will take several years to fully complete. The bulk of its educational programs serve the enlisted community throughout the continental US 

and around the world through blended distance learning programs. The 

transformation process involved some initial personnel reorganization, an 

expanded electives program for in-residence officer PME, major new research initiatives on the Chief of Staff’s major priorities, the creation of a 

new global teaching and learning center, and a greater emphasis on future 

conflict and war gaming. The initial changes have occurred. The follow-on 

implementation of a strategic plan for the future will occupy the coming 

academic year and require additional resources for the Fiscal Year 2018 

Program Objective Memorandum (POM).

Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to review the development of modern military education focusing on the American experience in general and that 

of the US Air Force in particular. It addresses the need for, vision of, and 

process to accomplish the transformation of Air University, the source of 

military education for the US Air Force. In so doing, it examines why this 

is necessary. More importantly, it provides a case study of how to initiate 

such a process and how this transformation is to be accomplished. The 

intended results of this multi-year redefinition and expansion of Air Force 

military education for the 21st century are to rethink conflict, reimagine air 

power, and build agile leaders.

The formal education of the military has been a major concern for 

modern military establishments at least since the 19th century with the 

founding of the Academy for Young Officers of the Infantry and Cavalry 

in Prussia in 1801, which later evolved into the General War Academy in 
52

1810. More specialized military education dates from the late 19th century. Education, as opposed to training, has come in at least two kinds. First, 

there is a formal in-residence instruction, generally for a period of some 

months, whether earning a specialized degree or certificate or not. Second, 

there have been a series of continuing education experiences of various 

durations offered for a particular service, specialty and rank. These have 

typically been in a centralized residential location, at disparate posts or 

bases, or in more modern times, through a non-resident, distance-learning program. As militaries have become more technical, acquired more 

complex weapons, focused more on doctrine and strategy, and become a 

serious profession of arms demanding both broader and deeper study and 

expertise, the requirements for professional and continuing military education have grown in the 20th century.

Origins

The effort in the United States to make formal military education a 

component of the profession of arms began at different times in different 

ways for the individual armed services, but they all follow on the heels 

of the advances in the Industrial Revolution that transformed production, 

transportation, communication, and weaponry. The advent of mass production, interchangeable parts, steam power, railroads, telegraphs, repeating 

rifles, and long-range artillery changed warfare completely in the second 

half of the 19th century.1 As a result, militaries, particularly in America, 

began to change. The Army Command and General Staff College had its 

origins in 1881 when Gen William Tecumseh Sherman, Union hero of the 

War Between the States, founded the School of Application for Infantry 

and Cavalry. Secretary of War Elihu Root founded the Army War College after the Spanish-American War in 1901. The Navy Command and 

Staff College evolved from a number of efforts to improve seamanship 

throughout the 19th century. The Naval War College was founded in 1884 

and Commanded by Commodore Stephen B. Luce with Alfred Thayer 

Mahan as one of its first faculty members. In 1909, the Navy established 

the School of Engineering at the Naval Academy in Annapolis. In 1912 it 

became the Postgraduate Department, later the Naval Postgraduate School 

moving to Monterrey California in 1942. 

The Air Force Command and Staff College (ACSC) traces its roots 

to the Air Corps Tactical School founded in 1926. It did not assume its 

current name until 1962. Like the Navy, The Air Force established a more 

technical graduate education school with the founding of the Air School 

of Application in 1919. After a series of name changes over the years, it 

became the Air Force Institute of Technology in 1948 at Wright-Patterson 
53

AFB in Ohio.2 The Air War College (AWC) was founded immediately after World War II in 1946 and predates the founding of the US Air Force in 

1947. Unlike the other services, all the Air Force professional continuing 

and degree granting military education institutions, save for the Air Force 

Academy located in Colorado Springs, CO, are co-located in one place 

under Air University at Maxwell AFB, AL. The centralization of military 

education is continuing as the US Army established The Army University 

in 2015 at Ft. Leavenworth, KS.

The US Marine Corps (USMC) Command and Staff College can trace 

its roots back to 1891 and the formation of the School of Application, 

later the Officers Training School and eventually the USMC Command 

and Staff College. The Marine War College followed and became part of 

the eventual establishment of the Marine Corps University in 1989. The 

US National War College was founded in 1946 to replace the Army-Navy 

Staff College founded in 1943 during the Second World War. The Armed 

Forces Staff College, a school composed of both faculty and students from 

all the US military services, was founded in 1946 and evolved into the 

Joint Forces Staff College in 1981. It is a subsidiary of National Defense 

University (NDU), founded in 1976. In addition to being the home of National War College, NDU also contains the Eisenhower School for National Security and Resource Strategy, formerly known as the Industrial 

College of the Armed Forces, established in 1946. That institution was a 

successor to the earlier effort to keep abreast of industrial developments 

for the Army with the founding of the Army Industrial College in 1924. 

While there are a host of other specialized schools and research centers in 

each of the services, these are the principal ones in the US military. 

Each service required its own military education specific to its domain 

of operations, doctrine, strategy, and tactics.3 Within their service emphasis was a need to differentiate the education (the “why” of things) received 

as opposed to training (how to do things). They also needed to tailor the 

instruction for enlisted versus officers and for company grade, field grade, 

and senior officers. This specialization by rank led to the development of 

junior NCO and officer education, mid-career intermediate professional 

development, and senior level officer and enlisted education for those at 

higher levels. As these foci of instruction became routine, the development 

of new technologies complicated things still further.

The Twentieth Century

In our fast-paced world of the 21st century, with the iPhone, Facebook, 

Twitter and other social media all born in the last decade or so, we tend 
54

to forget about the rapid era of technological advancement in warfare that 

occurred before and during World War I. It saw the employment in war of 

aircraft, submarines, very long-range artillery, gas and chemical warfare, 

tanks, radio, zeppelins, infiltration tactics, and other advancements that 

changed warfare permanently in the 20th century.4 These were introduced 

so rapidly that military leadership didn’t really begin to understand the 

true nature of these capabilities until after the war when they studied these 

ex post facto.

5 But as they did so, the technology continued to advance and 

the continual extension of range, speed, power, capabilities and interaction 

of all these made innovation in the interwar years prior to World War II a 

golden age of progress in military affairs. The evolution of the blitzkrieg 

style of warfare created a need for greater technical expertise, strategic 

acumen, and tactical agility in the military. As a result, the education of the 

enlisted and officer corps have become major enterprises and increasingly 

expensive undertakings.6

But it was not only technology that drove military education. The depression that occurred during the decade between the Wall Street crash of 

October 1929 and the outbreak of war in September 1939 played havoc 

with national and military budgets and simultaneously emphasized the importance of economic might as the underpinning of national security and 

military capability. While the challenger nations seeking to overturn the 

status quo from the right – Fascism in Germany, Japan, and Italy – or the 

left – the Communist Soviet Union – saw an increased emphasis on the 

military and in military spending despite economic hardships, the democracies and defenders of the status quo did not. None had the wherewithal 

needed to match the military spending of the challengers and recognized, 

only belatedly, the need to do so. This resulted in a frenzy of a general 

arms race from 1938 into World War II.7

The emphasis on economic preparedness as well as military 

preparedness sprang from the lessons learned from World War I that 

waging war meant competing productivity and logistics capabilities. The 

US recognized this with the founding of the Army Industrial College 

in 1924, and began to prepare officers who were knowledgeable about 

marshaling resources, problems of production, storage, and distribution for 

war materiel ranging from minerals and fuel to arms and munitions. But 

knowing what was required and obtaining it were two different matters, 

as the 400,000 people involved in the armored exercise of the famed 

Louisiana Maneuvers of the early 1940s realized when cars covered by 

sheets and broomsticks (in lieu of rifles) were used because of insufficient 

equipment. 
55

The Air Corps Tactical School developed its theory of strategic bombing based on the notion of destroying the enemy’s industrial web as a 

major target and ever greater precision.8 Rapid scientific progress, military 

innovation, and improved weapons design came to be seen as major determinants of military power.9 In so doing, they changed both the strategy 

and tactics of warfare.

During the 1930s, the US military suffered from budget cuts and declining military procurement. The United States was woefully ill-equipped 

for war when it finally came. It was, however, intellectually well-prepared. 

The thinking that had gone on in the war games at the Naval War College, 

in the classrooms of the Army Industrial College, and in the practice formations of the Air Corps Tactical School had prepared a skeleton officer 

corps to think about how to conduct a two-front war, the global logistics 

required, and the massive amounts of materiel and ordnance that would 

be needed. The Navy developed carrier air operations and submarine tactics, the Marines refined the concept of amphibious operations, the Army 

worked on developing armored warfare and spent money on air power 

so that the Army Air Forces could develop close air support and strategic 

bombing capabilities. While ill-equipped, the US was well-prepared for 

World War II when it occurred because of the education and thinking that 

had occurred in the interwar period. Brain force was as necessary as brute 

force in the conduct of war.10 More important still, success might well be 

determined by the mental preparation for war that occurred in peace-time 

while the war validated the thought invested in the process. 

Military Education in the US

All the military services in the United States have generally the same 

model. They try to have 100 percent of all enlisted and officers at entry 

ranks go through some form of professional military education beyond 

basic training and organize additional specialization keyed to promotion 

to higher rank. Thus in the Air Force there are Airmen Leadership Schools 

(ALS) at every Air Force base to teach young Airmen what it means 

to be an Airman and their duties and responsibilities. There is a NonCommissioned Officer (NCO) Academy that has 100 percent of all those 

who reach the rank of Sergeant, a Senior NCO Academy which takes the 

top 100 percent who make the rank of Master Sergeant for a year-long 

resident program, and a Chief’s Academy for those who make it to that 

senior enlisted rank. Though designed for 100 percent throughput, there 

are some large backlogs that require waivers and exceptions.
56

Similarly in the officer corps, all captains attend Squadron Officers 

College for an in-residence five-week program. Roughly 20 percent of the 

Majors will attend Air Command and Staff College in residence, while 

the rest will be required to take it in an on-line distance-learning program 

for which they receive an On Line Master Program (OLMP) degree. Only 

the top 15 percent of the lieutenant colonels and colonels in the USAF 

selected for a Senior Developmental Education have a five-year window 

to attend the Air War College in residence, or a sister service War College. 

In fact, it is a reality that in all US military services, the number of officers 

attending other service schools in an effort to increase “jointness,” – an 

appreciation of other service doctrine, capabilities, roles and missions – 

exceeds the number who attend their home service war college. Those 

that do not attend a War College in residence will take an on-line distance 

learning program from which they can receive a master’s degree as well. 

All the services send their members at the major, lieutenant colonel and 

colonel levels to each other’s service colleges to insure a broader joint 

understanding of sister services’ doctrine, methods and operations. This 

enables better joint campaign planning and operations.

While 10-month residential education experiences have increased dramatically since World War II, the granting of degrees for these programs 

has been a more recent phenomenon, occurring from the 1970s and 1980s. 

Civilian PhDs were hired in growing numbers to augment the military 

faculty at command and staff colleges and war colleges.11 As both the technological and strategic complexity of international security and warfare 

increased, the nature and breadth of the education increased accordingly. Granting of master’s degrees became the norm in all the US military 

schools in the 1990s. Indeed, since officers in the US military were encouraged to obtain a master’s degree on their own in order to be promoted 

from major, it is possible to find those in the US military with not only 

a personal master’s degree but an additional military service sponsored 

one, and in some cases an additional one or two others as well. That is, a 

colonel in the US military might well have three or more master’s degrees 

and have spent something on the order of one-fifth or more of his time in 

service in formal education. As services have moved to offering master’s 

degrees at the command and staff college level for majors, the need to 

obtain personal masters degrees has subsided.

The US Air Force has mandated a major effort at transformation 

to expand, modernize and improve Air University, the source of all its 

military education save for the Air Force Academy. A major decision in 

the Air University transformation process is the emphasis to be placed on 
57

Air Command and Staff College (ACSC). It has roughly 520 students in 

residence and thousands in a distance learning program through which 

students may get an on-line master’s degree. It is the largest of the nontechnical residential degree-granting schools, the other major one being 

the Air War College that has roughly 150 Air Force Students out of an 

enrollment of 245.12 This includes students from other services, some 

civilians from agencies in the US government, and 45 international 

students from 45 countries. But those at ACSC touch more of the Air Force 

upon graduation, have a wider array of specialties and jobs, and are in the 

Air Force longer – for most, another decade or two. The AWC average 

graduate, by comparison, is retired in less than five years. The return 

on investment, measured in time and money, is nowhere near as great. 

And since officers in the Air Force will have an Air Force provided MA 

degree, why shouldn’t the ACSC one become the gold standard and the 

one to focus on? Historically, ACSC has failed to meet its Department of 

Defense (DOD) mandated ratio of faculty to students and is currently short 

some 30 plus military faculty billets on its faculty. Steps are being taken to 

address both the number and quality of civilian and military faculty there 

at ACSC as a first step in the transformation process. 

A better-educated officer corps has become mandatory for modern 

militaries. A well-educated cadre of enlisted NCOs is equally important, at 

least in most Western militaries, although such is not necessarily the case 

in others. Over two centuries after Frederick the Great, 125 years after the 

beginnings of formal modern military education in the US and many other 

countries, and 75 years after World War II began, the need for a well-educated military is of paramount consideration – or should be. Although 

no military can claim to be modern and capable in today’s environment 

without the human capital investment required to use it effectively, education is often a step-child in budget drills and does not receive the sustained 

investment, recapitalization, growth, and refresh rate that is required to 

keep pace with the changes in how education is delivered and the pace 

of changes in science and technology that underlie military preparedness. 

Education is a labor intensive, expensive, time-consuming, and difficult 

process. It can easily be done poorly. Doing it well is both art and science 

and is dependent on quality faculty and educational program design and 

a culture that values mental fitness as well as physical fitness. Keeping 

pace with educational technology to create and deliver more information 

more effectively and transform that into knowledge and understanding 

is a continuous process. More important is a military culture that values 

education and sees participation by its uniformed members in it – as both 
58

students and instructors, lab scientists and area experts with PhDs – rather 

than being seen as a “time out” from the real military and an impediment to 

promotion. Promotion of a uniformed faculty member or Dean to General 

Officer would go a long way to prove this reality and change a culture 

which does not value time as an instructor for those in uniform. It will 

happen for the first time at Air University in the summer of 2015. It is but 

one step among several needed to have the Air Force place a greater value 

on its human capital.

Air University (AU)

As a newly created armed service founded in 1947, the US Air Force 

had the advantage of starting anew and building its education system from 

the ground up. Air University and the establishment of the Air War College 

and Air Command and Staff College actually predate the establishment of 

the US Air Force as they were opened in 1946. Unlike the other services 

in the United States, almost all of the Air Force’s military education save 

for its undergraduate academy are part of a single organization, and most 

of it is co-located in one place. While the US Air Force Academy, founded 

in 1955 after the design of facilities, curriculum and construction, is in 

Colorado Springs, the great bulk of Air Force military education – enlisted and officer, continuing education (short courses) and degree granting 

(both distance learning and residential) – are headquartered if not located 

at Maxwell AFB in Montgomery, Alabama.13 Montgomery has a central 

part of the heritage of the US as an aerospace nation in that the Wright 

brothers established the first flying school in the US in Montgomery in 

1910. Montgomery became the site of the Army Air Service Aircraft and 

Engine Repair Depot #3 in 1917. In 1921 it became home to the 22nd 

Observation Squadron and was named for Alabama resident Second Lieutenant William Maxwell in 1922. In 1931, the Army’s Air Corps Tactical 

School (ACTS) was moved from Langley AFB in Virginia to Maxwell 

AFB in Montgomery. It was at ACTS during the 1930s that much of the 

theory, strategy, and doctrine of the Army Air Forces used in World War 

II were studied. Most notably, the theory of strategic bombing, targeting 

of the “industrial web,” and the development of bomber tactics and pursuit aviation were developed at Maxwell.14 During World War II, Maxwell 

Field became a major training base for thousands of flight cadets from the 

Army Air Forces and allied pilots from the Free French Air Force and the 

United Kingdom Royal Air Force. 

The only major portion of Air University not located at Maxwell AFB, 

other than its distributed outreach components at universities and air force 

bases, is the Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT), founded in 1919 
59

and degree granting since 1954. It is the technology MS and PhD granting 

arm of Air University located at Wright-Patterson AFB in Dayton, Ohio, 

home of the Wright brothers. It is composed of three resident graduate 

programs offering a variety of technical degrees: the Graduate School of 

Engineering and Management; the School of Systems and Logistics; and 

the Civil Engineer School. AFIT’s faculty is a roughly 50 percent civilian 

and 50 percent military mix. It is funded by a number of federal agencies 

as well as by the Air Force and the Department of Defense, and places students in civilian universities, particularly in the health sciences and 

medicine fields, as well as in its own programs. AFIT has seven different research centers addressing such subjects as Autonomy, Navigation 

and Technology; Directed Energy; Cyber Research; Operational Analysis; 

Space Research and Assurance; Technical intelligence and Research; and 

Scientific Test and Analysis Techniques. It offers 26 different MS degree 

programs and 14 PhD programs in addition to hosting a number of civilian institution programs throughout the country where Air Force students 

are placed in other degree programs. Students can get master’s degrees in 

fields as diverse as Physics, Computer Engineering, Mathematics, Operations Analysis, Nuclear Engineering, or PhDs in more exotic fields such 

as hypersonics or quantum cryptography. It is world-renowned for its programs.

Air University writ large has an enormous global reach and huge 

student body. It runs a Community College of the Air Force (CCSAF) 

that awards Associate of Arts degrees to enlisted members of the US 

military. In 2014, it had 286,920 students enrolled under the guidance of 

over 6,000 faculty offering nearly 2,000 courses in 68 degree programs 

in 82 countries.15 A further 144,000 students were enrolled in a variety 

of distance learning programs for both enlisted and officer personnel. An 

additional 70,000-plus students were enrolled in resident degree programs 

or on-site instructional programs distributed throughout the Air Force at 

Air University, an Air Force Fellows program with 130 students studying 

at universities across the country, those enrolled in 145 Reserve Officer 

Training Corps detachments at American colleges and universities, 

Airman Leadership schools throughout the Air Force, personnel in the 

USAF Test Pilot School and various others. That means that in 2014, 

there were over 500,000 students enrolled in Air University programs. 

In 2014, Air University components awarded 23,157 AA degrees; 15,672 

master’s degrees and several dozen PhD degrees through its own programs 

such as AFIT or the School of Advanced Air and Space Studies or AU 

sponsored programs at civilian universities. In addition, it had over 22,000 
60

personnel graduate from a variety of courses in Junior and Senior ROTC, 

Officer Training School, and other officer accession programs.16 It has an 

international dimension as well as several hundred international officers 

attending the International Officers School, Air Command and Staff 

College, Air War College, or the School of Advanced Air and Space Studies 

each year. Nearly 500 of these international graduates have become head 

of their air force, their defense establishment or their country over the last 

half century. Air University is an important component of the USAF, has 

accomplished much, and represents an essential part of every Airman’s 

career. But Air University is in need of transformation for the 21st century 

if it is to not only continue, but also improve the accomplishment of its 

existing missions and add USAF civilians in the process.

Transformation

The act of transformation is to undertake to change the nature, function, form, appearance, or condition of someone or something. It is a synonym for change, but a change that is seen as major, a complete revision of 

things. And it is in the sense of re-vision that the Air Force has approached 

the process of transforming the way it goes about conducting its military 

education. Doing so is a complex process, for it deals with institutional 

identity, the service’s vision, the strategy to accomplish major change, and 

in the process aims to change the institutional culture itself. It cannot be 

done quickly and will take several years if not a generation to fully implement. It is complex because it concerns how the Air Force treats and 

values its people, ideas, and things. It is highly dependent on technology, 

particularly an information technology architecture and infrastructure, but 

is at base about people involved in a very human endeavor. Designing the 

process is as important as acquiring the resources and implementing the 

processes to make it happen. It is not without some pain, as the re-visioning will require reallocation of resources – physical, financial, and human 

capital are all involved – and the process is as much emotional as well as 

rational.

The transformation process will require people to take risks, to try 

new things, to fail, to re-assess, and to innovate. It will be driven not 

by establishing metrics for outputs, but by establishing the effects, the 

outcomes that we seek and the best manner by which they can be assessed 

and progress measured. It will take leaps of faith and lots of time, boldness, 

and patience, and a sustained effort to do what is necessary to accomplish 

the mission. It involves leadership that can both aspire to greater heights 

and inspire others to reach them. This is undertaken not because Air Force 

military education is so bad. It is in many ways a model for what and how 
61

things should be done. But, there is room for improvement, technology is 

driving new learning and the ways in which we learn and communicate, 

and the types of knowledge and skills that leaders require are evolving 

rapidly. To keep up with these trends, to shape our future, not merely react 

to it, we must undertake to “Rethink conflict, re-imagine airpower, and 

build agile leaders.” That is the shorthand task – the bumper sticker slogan 

if you will – for what the transformation of Air University is all about. 

The Chief of Staff of the US Air Force, General Mark Welsh, III 

has mandated this transformation and appointed a new Commander and 

President of Air University, Lt Gen Steven Kwast. The Chief has given 

him some specific directives. These are to: 1) educate more airmen, more 

broadly and more deeply; 2) do more relevant research on air force issues 

and problems now and for the future; and 3) do a better job in outreach and 

telling the Air Force story to publics, politicians and to ourselves. These 

are necessary because the USAF finds itself in an increasingly difficult set 

of circumstances. It needs a greater emphasis on and investment in brain 

force as opposed to brute force in its human capital; selective modernization in its capabilities; better strategies for shaping the future security environments with which it has to contend; and teaching its personnel how to 

exist in an increasingly ambiguous environment that is complex, uncertain 

and ever changing. In short, the USAF needs to become agile and adaptive 

in learning how best to cope with such circumstances. Doing so means 

asking the right questions before one can provide answers. It requires the 

ability to innovate by creating initiative out of insight and imagination. 

It means having a better situational awareness of the strategic landscape 

in which one has to operate. It requires an understanding of what others 

value and fear, a discernment of other’s purpose and motivation, and the 

ability to craft a strategy through operational design to contend successfully in a wide range of contested environments. These environments are 

increasingly novel and ill-understood. How does one begin to create an 

educational process and set of programs to address such a set of fundamental and wide ranging demands? How does one organize and equip an 

educational enterprise to accomplish this?

The Prerequisites

General Kwast began by holding a series of conversations with people 

at Air University when he arrived as the Vice Commander nearly a year 

before he was to become the Commander and President of Air University 

in November 2014. He set about to get an appreciation for the many components and missions of Air University and the roles of those within each 

component. He spent time talking with commanders and faculty, military 
62

and civilians, those who had been here a long time and those who were 

new, to compile a set of impressions and assessments of various aspects 

of the university. But more importantly, he was looking to get a sense of 

who the people were who might assist him in transforming Air University 

when he took command. Over the course of several months, he sought 

out those who possessed the traits he was looking for in those on whom 

he would depend to design and lead the transformation journey. As he 

explains them, these traits are humility, nobility, compassion, and an edge. 

He sought those individuals who displayed in their words and deeds these 

traits, the combination of which he thought essential for the kind of leadership that would be required. Having the right people in the right places 

to make the qualitative skilled judgments required was the first order of 

business.

As he defined them, these required skills and attributes were as follows: 1) Humility – the quality of being deferential to each other, unpretentious and being modest in behavior, attitude, and spirit; 2) Nobility – 

displaying high moral character through honor, generosity and courage; 3) 

Compassion – the sympathy and empathy for others and the inclination to 

give aid, support and mercy to ones fellows; and lastly, 4) he wanted those 

in whom he had trust and confidence to have an “edge.” An “edge” meant 

having a keenness, a zest for what needed to be done as well as a margin 

of superiority and an ability to use the capability to cut when a dividing 

line was crossed, to make the hard decisions that come with leadership. 

These attributes that Gen Kwast sought and by which he would judge subordinates were shared with all of the schools and programs throughout 

Air University and the students enrolled within them. There was to be no 

misunderstanding in what was expected and how people were supposed to 

behave in the process. At the same time, he invited those with ideas, differences of opinion, or alternatives to let him know and bring them forth 

to discuss and consider.

After getting some idea of who he could count on, he had an ever 

deeper series of conversations with those whom he felt he could trust 

to assist him in carrying out this transformation journey. In so doing he 

learned about personalities, policies, processes and politics that color and 

shape any institution. He began to develop a sense of the impediments to 

change, the things that most needed changing, and those which needed to 

be preserved and reinforced. He then held a series of visits and discussions 

with the major components of the university telling each what the CSAF 

had asked him to do and why, asking for their inputs and suggestions and 

further observing the interests and talents of individuals in each area in 
63

the dialogue that followed. He set up a SharePoint site for people to make 

suggestions – large or small, lengthy or short, general or detailed, and had 

it compiled. He invited each organization commander to send two to four 

personnel in whom they had confidence and appointed a few more for a 

two day offsite. There they discussed various portions of reorganization of 

Air University and its major tasks and components. All of these sessions 

had recorders taking notes – on both what was said and as importantly, 

who said it. He was thus able to glean from nearly 600 pages of ideas and 

comments – the “let a hundred flowers bloom” part of the exercise – an 

even clearer idea of the diversity of opinion, the coalescing of concentration on more fundamental issues, and another indication of the ideas, attitude and willingness of certain individuals to assist in the transformation 

process.

The Goals of Transformation

A clever Air University Vision, couched as a new AU Commander 

taking charge in 2020 reviewing the accomplishments of the last five 

years, was prepared over the Christmas holidays and distributed upon return to work in the New Year.17 It served as a base to further refine where 

we should be headed and what had to be done to get there. Central to 

the accomplishment of an expanded Air University mission – to educate 

all Airmen – enlisted, officer, Active, Guard, Reserve and civilian not 

only throughout their careers but in effect from cradle to grave – were 

two things: A robust information technology architecture and capability 

which could grow in the future both quantitatively and qualitatively, and 

an equally dynamic and future-focused, educational technology capable 

Global Learning Center which could collect, organize, process, and disseminate the fruits of the learning going on and the information required 

for a global clientele in the military of the US, allies, and partners. The 

ideas collected in the various meetings and offsite – many of which were 

diametrically opposed to each other – were collated into specific areas of 

inquiry for further examination and refined by a variety of teams

Each team was composed of a team of people from across the university representing enlisted as well as officer military education, short course 

and degree programs, civilian as well as military personnel, and those who 

were opposed to much change as well as those leading the charge for it. 

The functions examined by the teams and the objectives sought were as 

follows:

Education – educate more broadly and deeply

Research – timely and relevant
64

Outreach – within AU, across the USAF and beyond

Doctrine – valued in product and process

Integration – effective and efficient

Support – aligned infrastructure and processes

These teams focused on lines of operation to examine both functions 

within the university and the accomplishment of objectives. Each of these 

teams were to provide ideas, processes, targeted goals and metrics for 

what could be accomplished by July 2015 (referred to as IOC – Initial 

Operating Capability) and in place for the coming Academic Year 2016; 

an intermediate set of goals for 1 July 2017; and those that were long-term 

and would not be implemented until 1 July 2018 and beyond. Those things 

that were under local control versus those that would require external intervention to accomplish were also noted. A “Gray Beard” group of trusted 

advisers who had been at Air University components for a number of years 

reviewed and formulated a synthesis of these team recommendations. 

As a result, everyone in these teams were agreed that the future state 

was to create an Air University that offered timely and relevant analysis to national security challenges and threats. It was to provide Airmen 

who can ethically lead others to be more innovative, to have the insight, 

imagination, and initiative skills to meet these challenges facing the Air 

Force and the nation. For Air University to meet these current and future 

requirements, it would need to train, educate and exercise Airmen to be 

prepared to develop and integrate the concepts, ideas and technologies for 

the future.

The Initial Reorganization

On 9 February 2015, Gen Kwast made a series of announcements designed to move people about in order to get a critical mass of those in 

whom he had confidence and trust to begin to implement the transformation he envisaged and to get far enough along in the next few months that 

he could achieve Initial Operating Condition by 1 July 2015, less than six 

months away. Chief among these changes were the following:

1) The creation of the office of Provost to serve as the Commander’s 

and President’s right hand in guiding the transformation process. The Provost was specifically charged with overseeing the major research initiatives to be launched for Academic Year 2016 and their support.

2) A change in the Deans at both the Air War College and the Air 

Command and Staff College, the two MA degree-granting ten-month residential programs physically located at Maxwell AFB. These enroll about 
65

650 USAF officers, but they are the top 12 percent of the officer corps at 

their respective ranks.

3) The reorganization of the AU HQ into a more functional structure 

utilizing a Senior Financial Advisor (who was already in place and had 

come nearly eight months earlier) to help with the financing of the resources required for transformation.

4) The designation of a Director of Personnel position at Headquarters 

to oversee all personnel changes throughout the University of all kinds 

and categories (military who were Active, Guard or Reserve; civilian academics as well as government Civil Service employees – (GS) or contractor – and the ways in which positions and people could be hired, fired or 

repurposed.

5) A Director of Operations to oversee the accomplishment of these 

transformation directives to reach IOC by 1 July 2015 and the reallocation of office and classroom space, apportionment of available faculty, 

and development of institutional effectiveness metrics based on program 

outcomes.

6) A major expansion in research capability through changing a premier two-term AWC elective program called Blue Horizons into a non-degree granting Intermediate and Senior Developmental Education program 

in which students would participate full-time in a specially designed research seminar, series of war games and intensive individual research.

There was some initial confusion and changing choices regarding personnel to lead and/or be assigned to these Research Task Forces, but these 

were eventually worked out and things progressed more smoothly. This is 

an indication that the process will not be mistake-free and that failures will 

occur. But to continue, these must be recognized, addressed and corrected. 

The mantra is to fail early, often, and forward. These were the major personnel changes and the reorganizations seen as most immediate and the 

least disruptive enterprise-wide in order to facilitate the changes required.

The Transformation Process

There were a series of procedural and programmatic changes that 

were also required if we were to address the CSAF’s directives in full. 

They constituted the other half of the initial actions taken to begin the 

transformation journey. It is accepted by all that this is a long process and 

will unfold over time in various dimensions and at various levels. The remaining half of the initial dozen changes currently underway is as follows:
66

7) A series of Research Task Forces, each of which would have a number of faculty (about six variously involved) and students from both Air 

Command and Staff College and Air War College in a two-term joint elective researching items of specific concern for the CSAF on the following 

topics: Cyber/ Electronic Warfare; Air Power; and Deterrence and Nuclear 

Issues.

8) An expanded electives program based on a common university elective schedule to allow students from ACSC and AWC to enroll in whatever 

electives they wish in two elective periods offered each Wednesday in two 

elective offerings in the Fall for AWC and two in the Fall and Spring for 

ACSC.

9) The initial steps in the establishment of an Air University Global 

Learning Center which would serve to collect, organize, cross reference, 

and disseminate in synchronous and asynchronous distribution via video, 

audio, and on-line blended learning with a variety of materials and services for faculty and students.

10) The organization and support facilities for a new effort in Officer 

Professional Military Education (OPME) which will get $2.5 million and 

25 new faculty and staff to deliver this via enhanced distance learning 

programs beginning in October 2015.

11) An initial effort to repurpose space and acquire additional technology to support a greater degree of classified research, outreach and 

interchange on secure communications and data links across the Air Force, 

DOD and Federally Funded Research and Development Corporations 

(FFRDCs) to enhance and expand the quality and significance of research.

12) All of the above are dependent upon a massive expenditure in 

people and money in support of the design and implementation of a new, 

more capable and robust information technology infrastructure and the 

necessary linkages and gateways to other users globally. Initial campus-wide WIFI, expanded bandwidth, and reconfigured firewall systems 

are underway now as are plans for the entire system.

There were only two formal curricular directives for each of the 

schools and programs to implement. How this was to be accomplished 

was left to each to design as it preferred. The inclusion of these in the 

curricula, however, was mandatory. The first new requirement was to 

include consideration of future conflict in each curriculum. Faculty and 

students were to consider the rapid evolution of the strategic landscape 

already underway and the impact of accelerating technological change, 

as well as the changing demography and economic geography of global 
67

trade and production in energy, information and productivity underway. 

The second was for all courses to consider the use of case study teaching 

and war gaming as a part of their instructional activities. Again, how to 

do so was left to each program and course to determine. All of these were 

contained in a series of transformation directives that were issued over the 

first two months of the transformation process. An Executive Committee 

of the leadership team put in place at Air University Headquarters meets 

weekly and, in turn, with school Deans and Commandants to ensure steady 

progress is being made. Thus far we are on course for the implementation 

of these changes in the coming academic year. Much of the difficult work 

will remain for the coming year in order to continue the transformation 

and cement the changes yet to be made in place. It will require millions of 

dollars and hundreds more people to be accomplished and sustained.

Conclusion and the Importance of the Process

The underlying motivation of the transformation at Air University is a 

realization that the US Air Force had disinvested in its human capital and 

had produced too few Airmen with a more holistic view and understanding 

of the fundamental Air Force mission: To be able to project air, space and 

cyber power globally to present options to the President to hold targets 

at risk to defer, defend, defeat, or assist as required. As specialization in 

technologies and weapons systems and processes increased, the overall 

appreciation of the integration of air, space and cyber space had waned. 

Moreover, the USAF finds itself with an aircraft inventory whose average 

age is 25 years old, a series of new challenges in a rising China, a resurgent 

Russia, and a terrorist muddled Middle East. It is confronted with the need 

for modernization of its air assets, its missile fleet, its nuclear weapons, 

and its strategy and doctrine. In the current budgetary environment, the 

resources to do all of the above are lacking. At the same time, there has 

developed a culture in which higher education is undervalued, seen as a 

“square filler” for promotion rather than as an essential investment for the 

future, where instructional duty is seen as a detriment to promotion, and 

where it has not husbanded the investment it did make in those in uniform 

with advanced degrees. It must think its way out of these dilemmas and 

make the hard choices necessary to contend successfully in the future.

Ultimately, the transformation of Air University is the centerpiece 

of the transformation of the Air Force and a return to the legacy of the 

Air Corps Tactical School in addressing current and future problems. It 

demands attention to the Air Force’s five core missions, not its thirteen 

Core Function Lead Integrators (CFLI) or its disparate major commands 

(MAJCOMs) which have become separate tribes. It means redefining an 
68

Airman’s identity to include a holistic appreciation of the necessary interaction of air, space and cyber space. It requires a changing vision of what 

the Air Force is, what it needs to become, and how to accomplish that. And 

ultimately, it means reinvigorating an Air force culture that will embrace 

ambiguity and wicked problems, take risks, fail without ending careers, 

and innovate constantly. Doing so is essential if we are to cope with the 

combination of emerging threats and accelerating change that are shaping 

the future.

The accomplishment of this will take years. But if it is not begun now, 

it cannot happen in a timely manner. The costs could be staggering compared to the levels of disinvestment in the past in military education. That 

said, they are, in the vernacular, relatively so much “budget dust” in the 

larger scheme of things. All militaries require better human capital, more 

science and technology capable personnel, more and better strategic thinking, and better research, development and war-gaming if they are to be 

able to compete successfully in the future. The requirements can be reduced to a few essential ingredients. These are: 1) an investment in quality 

faculty and in the recruitment, promotion and sustainment of them and the 

best and brightest of the enlisted and officer corps; 2) a robust information 

technology/educational technology infrastructure capable of reaching any 

Airman, anywhere, anytime, 24/7/365 on any device to deliver instruction 

and information that is on demand as well as on command, off-site as well 

as on-site, in time as well as at that time as required; 3) a much more robust general and classified research and information sharing capacity that 

focuses on Air Force missions, not the components of the organizations 

and their platforms and capabilities; 4) the sustainment of the effort and 

the requisite change in culture required to value these – forever; and 5) the 

continued commitment of senior leadership to reinforce and support these 

values.

For this transformation to be fulfilled, the US Air Force will have to 

place a premium on investment in Air University and understand that investment in the human capital and technology necessary for it to thrive in a 

synergistic manner will be essential. To date, it has done so and the process 

is well and truly launched. Sustainment, however, is critical and alas, often 

personality dependent. So far, the stars have aligned to make this a reality. 

For those who doubt the wisdom of investing large sums of time, money 

and effort in such activities, the answers to the following questions would 

seem to be in order. If not us, who? If not this, what? If not now, when? 

If not here, where? If not in this way, how? Perhaps the most important 

question is, why not?
69

Notes

1. An older but very readable account of the complex process of the 

emergence of the modern military is Larry H. Addington, The Patterns of War 

Since the Eighteenth Century (Bloomington, IN: University of Indiana Press, 

1984).

2. Wright-Patterson AFB is the home of two other hallmarks of the modern 

military emphasis on education for the US Air Force. The Air Force Research 

Laboratory (AFRL), was founded in 1993, but has roots dating back to the 

establishment in1917 of the Foreign Data Section of the Army Signal Corps 

Airplane Engineering Department, later the Air Technical Intelligence Center 

and then the Foreign Technology Division of Air Force Systems Command. The 

National Air and Space Intelligence Center (NASIC), was founded in 1997 with 

the combining of thirteen more narrowly focused research directorates. They 

are representative of the emphasis on scientific and technological innovation 

and the importance of the investment in military intelligence gathering and its 

implications. The other military services have similar institutions.

3. The emphasis on “jointness,” the multi-service roles, missions and 

operations of the armed services, and the joint education and assignment of 

the military in the US does not occur until after the passage of the GoldwaterNichols Reform Act of 1989. It has, however, become a growing area of 

emphasis within the US military.

4. For an interpretation of the broad sweep of the so-called “revolution in 

military affairs” placed in context, see Max Boot, War Made New: Technology 

Warfare and the Course of History, 1500-Today (New York: Gotham Books, 

2006).

5. For an overview of the period, see Williamson Murray and Alan 

Millett (eds.), Innovation in the Interwar Period (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge 

University Press, 1998). For the specific development of Blitzkrieg by the 

Germans, see James S. Corum, The Roots of Blitzkrieg: Hans von Seeckt and 

German Military Reform (Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press, 1992).

6. While specific budget data is difficult to acquire given the different 

ways in which the separate services and the Department of Defense account for 

program expenditures, even a 5 billion dollar expense for professional military 

education in the US, a not insignificant expenditure, would amount to roughly 

only one percent of the total defense budget.

7. See Grant T. Hammond, Plowshares Into Swords: Arms Races in 

International Politics, 1840-1991 (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina 

Press, 1993), Chapter 5. 105-130.

8. See David E. Johnson, Fast Tanks and heavy Bombers: Innovation in 

the U. S., Army 1917-1945 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1998) and 

Stephen L. McFarland, America’s Pursuit of Strategic Bombing, 1910-1945

(Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1995.)
70

9. See Stephen Peter Rosen, Winning the Next War: Innovation and the 

Modern Military, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1991.

10. This phrase was popularized by Alvin and Heidi Toffler in their book 

War and Anti War: Survival at the Dawn of the 21st Century (New York: Little 

Brown & CO., 1993), 10. The reality is, however, that the transition had begun 

long before the 1990s.

11. This process has been rather slow and cumbersome to say the least. The 

first recommendation from the Board of Visitors (BOV) of Air University to hire 

civilian PhD subject matter experts to enhance the quality of the faculty was 

made in 1951. It was not implemented until 35 years later beginning in 1986.

12. The Air Force institute of Technology, a constituent part of Air 

University, grants more MS degrees than the number of MA degrees awarded at 

the Maxwell AFB campus.

13. As an example, the Holm Center for Officer Accessions is the largest 

source for newly commissioned Air Force officers. It is the non US Air Force 

Academy (USAFA) source for newly commissioned officers in the Air Force. 

The Holm Center not only operates the onsite Officer Training School (OTS) 

program at Maxwell AFB but also is the headquarters for the Reserve Officer 

Training Corps (ROTC) program that oversees 145 separate USAF ROTC 

detachments at American college and university campuses throughout the 

country.

14. See Robert T. Finney, History of the Air Corps Tactical School, Center 

for Air Force History, USAF Historical Studies No. 100: March 1955 edition.

15. Unless otherwise noted, all figures presented here are taken from “The 

Air University 2014 Annual Report,” Maxwell AFB, AL. 2014.

16. Unless otherwise noted, all figures presented here are taken from “The 

Air University 2014 Annual Report,” Maxwell AFB, AL. 2014.

17. This was drafted by Dr. Matthew Stafford, the Vice President for 

Academic Affairs, whose career has spanned both Air Force and civilian 

education experiences ranging from an AA degree to a PhD and who is 

admirably equipped and well positioned to help lead this transformation process.
71

Chapter 5

A New Approach to Education. A Case Study for 

a “Teacher-free School:” École 42

Guillaume Lasconjarias1

Abstract

Among the multiple challenges that education faces in our current societies, two main obstacles have to be tackled: how to ensure that children/

students do not fall behind and, ultimately, drop out from a school system 

which seems too rigid and unconducive to creativity. The concept of engaging learners by using new technologies in the classroom is not new, but 

some have gone a step further by advocating that the whole educational 

system has to be overhauled. At l’École 42 in Paris, developed and financed by a French information technology (IT) tycoon, a radical solution 

has been devised: why have teachers and a curriculum, when almost everything is to be found on the internet? Based on “learning by doing” and 

“peer-to-peer” models which are similar in approach to apprenticeship, 

the idea is to attract and select the most motivated students of their generation, offer them a tuition-free curriculum, provide them with top-notch 

technology and encourage them to explore the IT world so as to define 

what they want to achieve and create. Based on a problem-solving attitude 

and a combination of technical and social skills, the idea is to educate 

rather than train or lecture, by encouraging creative disorder and “out-ofthe box” solutions: a true cultural challenge for stove-piped and strongly 

hierarchized organizations.

Introduction

Investigating educational strategies has long been a domain in which 

faculty and teachers explored new ways and methods of achieving learning 

outcomes. For decades, the battle has raged between those who argue that 

content (the “what”) is key, whereas others believe that the transmission of 

knowledge and understanding (the “how”) is essential to usefully impart 

any new information. Over the past decade, new technology has played 

an increasingly important role in our daily lives, and it is impossible to 

be disconnected from what seems to be a true “revolution in schooling 

affairs,” pointing to an epic battle between the Ancients and the Moderns. 

Well-founded reasons exist for the mismatch: a growing disconnect, and 

even discontent, with those who still support the old-fashioned ways of 

teaching opposed to those who believe that the current fundamentals of 

the educational system are ill-suited for the 21st century. Because schools 

are complex institutions, characterized by a bureaucratic organization 
72

responding to political pressure and institutional imperatives, there is a 

tendency to separate the schooling from the learning, although the first is 

the principal institution devoted to the second.2

 Those who believe in the 

advances of the cognitive sciences think that it is now time to break away 

from the standard one-way approach, which favors only students who are 

compliant with the “mainstream” logical mindset. Articulated differently, 

the aim is to reach out to more students “by presenting materials in a multitude of ways and giving them options in how they may convey their own 

understandings.”3

This is in line with the generation of students currently studying at 

university, who belong to the so-called “Generation Z:” those who are 

“digital natives,” born in the 1990s and who have in common an inclination for the use of new technologies and a strong attraction to technological “gizmos” when it comes to problem-solving. Educating this generation 

is likely to prove challenging, especially as they question the place and 

role of teachers and faculty in general.4

 From the educational community’s 

perspective, the challenge is even more formidable, since they face a public which is more demanding in terms of new learning approaches, insists 

on collaborative thinking and is determined to make maximum use of the 

technologies at hand. Generally speaking, it looks like a competition between what was hastily labelled as “outdated teaching methods” ‒ mostly 

platform-centric and place-dependent ‒ versus new, innovative and adaptable learner-centric, tailor-made models.

Crosscutting the whole of the educational system, the problems 

affect even those institutions which at first glance would seem secure, 

such as the military. Military services are not immune to these influences, 

and any discussion about the future of Professional Military Education 

(PME) will have to tackle these issues.5

 They arise in part from a common 

understanding that military education has to be varied so as to embrace the 

widest possible academic domain to develop an open mind in the soldier. 

The “long war” fought in Iraq and Afghanistan recognized the need for 

educated and adaptable leaders. Throughout the network of military 

academies and war colleges, the trend has been to make the best use of 

available materials to foster, train, educate, promote and retain those who 

will be intellectually and mentally agile enough to spare the crucial time 

needed for rapid response and adaptation on the battlefield. To spare the 

time and the resources in a money-driven environment has been a struggle, 

as well as finding the right educational tools – “enablers” or “enhancers.” 

In this sense, the use of new learning technologies and on-demand 

content has already begun, and is growing. However, the question as yet 
73

unanswered is how to move beyond the straightforward implementation of 

new technology in the classroom, and deal with the consequences in terms 

of pedagogy, outcomes, careers and faculty.

If the military is still struggling with these pressing issues, some civilian schools may already have found the answer, in quite a radical way. 

This chapter aims to describe what future education could look like in an 

environment where the concept of faculty would have disappeared, where 

Internet and e-learning would provide answers to all sort of questions, and 

where flexibility and imagination would be the most relevant skills.6

 This 

chapter focuses mainly on one case study, l’École 42 (School 42), based in 

Paris and named after the famous “geek’s bible” The Hitchhiker’s Guide to 

the Galaxy.7 Founded by the French billionaire entrepreneur Xavier Niel, 

the school aims at reducing France’s shortage of computer programmers 

by a very selective process of recruitment of students who then enjoy tuition-free schooling. By analyzing the pedagogical methods – or absence 

thereof – in use at École 42, one can identify and assess future trends in 

our educational environment, as well as possible solutions applicable to 

other educational fields, including the military.

Taking Stock of a Broken Educational System

École 42 represents a clean break in terms of learning and teaching, 

not just in the French educational environment, but in education generally. 

Often seen as “one of the most ambitious experiments in engineering education, it has no teachers. No books. No MOOCs. No dorms, gyms, labs, 

or student centers. No tuition.”8

 Its founder, Xavier Niel, is a successful 

businessman from the telecommunications and technology industries, best 

known as the founder and primary shareholder of the French Internet service provider and mobile operator Iliad.9

 Niel is an atypical individual: 

his approach is based on addressing new challenges, anticipating market 

expectations, chasing innovation, and often introducing himself as a modern-day Robin Hood in the new technologies domain.10 His aggressive 

policies in the mobile phone and Internet markets proved correct, setting 

new standards for pricing and services – in a sector previously heavily 

dominated by traditional firms such as Orange (formerly state-owned 

France Telecom,) Vivendi, or Bouygues.11

Announcing in March 2013 the opening of a new type of informationtechnology school, based on a “unique pedagogical approach and 

accessibility to all, completely free of charge,” Niel’s intention was to 

break the bonds of a French educational system which he believes is failing 

French youth.12 His approach was initially justified by his position as an 
74

entrepreneur, admitting that his main problem had been to discover and 

attract talent, and especially find the developers he needed for the design of 

innovative products, as well as maintaining the leading edge in computer 

programming. Pointing at the rigidity of the national educational system, 

Niel acts like another Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg, who advocated that 

coding should be taught in school and that the time had come to overhaul 

an ineffective educational system. From his own perspective, Niel lays the 

blame: “France has been losing ground in the digital domain [and] this 

decline is attributable, among other things, to an educational system that 

is no longer capable of training the talent that is required by companies 

in the new technologies field.”13 Worse, youth unemployment in France 

is at a 14-year high, with the paradox of French companies not finding 

enough IT specialists, and thousands of young computer enthusiasts not 

getting the training because of a lack of specialized schools. Caught 

between a free university system which is poorly adapted to the needs 

and characteristics of business firms, and expensive private schools that 

are selective but exclude a lot of talent because of tuition fees, lies a gap 

that Niel intends to fill with his project, proposing a “daring response [...] 

to the challenge of information-technology skill development, as well as 

a source of innovation for the future,”14 a challenge which Niel has taken 

seriously, when one considers that the tycoon has invested more than 70 

million euros (approximately 80 million USD) in the project.15

Winds of Change

When asked why École 42 is not just new, but innovates in the area of 

pedagogy, its Director, Nicolas Sadirac, usually starts with a description of 

the current revolution in programming and IT.16 The school, he argues, has 

taken on board the rapid changes in new technology, and especially in the 

field of computer programming. At the start of the IT revolution, computer 

engineering still belonged to the support function of companies, banks and 

institutions, in close association with complex logistics. However, since 

connected devices play an increasing role in our daily lives, IT engineers 

have seen their job develop dramatically: Internet networks, connected 

devices, software automation tools, 3D printing, and cloud computing are 

among the key innovations in the IT sector that have changed our lives and 

work habits, and which may contribute to creating wealth. For companies 

– private and public – big data is the future challenge, as is the protection of 

personal data and security. Not a week goes by without press reports of cyber-attacks, industrial espionage, or hacking. IT engineers have seen their 

role expand beyond the maintenance and organization of an IT network to 

become key actors in the development and introduction of new products. 
75

Indeed, the most successful companies in the past 10 to 20 years have seen 

their value based on IT engineering: Uber, Facebook, and Google are just 

a few of the well-known examples. Henceforth, the conventional image 

of the IT “geeky” engineer has been replaced by a new generation which 

is directly contributing to developing new models, new technologies and 

new trends together with artists, businessmen, and virtually anyone who 

has an idea to make it happen, in a truly collaborative way. Sadirac underlines that firms and companies – especially in the private sector – do not 

live by the rules of social Darwinism, but evolve on a regular basis for fear 

of disappearing: one of the major trends in economics, the co-evolution of 

gene culture, strengthens his idea.17

What is taught – or in the case of École 42, not taught – is henceforth 

supposed to enable students to learn and choose among a whole array of 

digital career paths, from developers to social media managers, or specialists in augmented reality space. It therefore doesn’t really matter what 

the students know, but it is how they think that counts, and the more “out 

of the box” it is, the better. The mantra at École 42 is that the school 

does not teach the students: they have to find the solutions to any potential problems. The uncertainty and difficulties of predicting the future are 

key considerations, bringing out the ability of these students (and future 

entrepreneurs) to react to any difficulty. To do so, they have to learn by 

themselves. On the contrary, formal academic training teaches an already 

extant solution and a model that prevents and hinders innovation. Similar 

to the “garbage can model” developed by James G. March in 1972, the 

process encouraged by the school is fluid, whereby a constant stream of 

problems is met by a constant stream of solutions from virtually every participant.18 Indeed, École 42 simply implements organized anarchy in this 

educational pursuit, benefitting from the freedom and accessibility offered 

by the Internet, where everything seems to be available and within reach.19

Nothing could be further from the truth than believing that the “classrooms” – three “clusters” in the so-called “Heart of code” building that 

hosts École 42, in Paris – looks like a:

Factory floor or a coding sweatshop, with row after row of Aeronstyle chairs facing row after row of big monitors . . . The layout is 

designed to facilitate small-group collaboration, with the monitors 

staggered so that students can easily talk to one another, on the 

diagonals between the monitors or side by side with the people 

next to them.20
76

In a school were the key word is “collaborative,” an open space is critical 

to the promotion of an open mind.

“Leave us kids alone:” Learning by Doing and Peer-to-Peer 

Education

To highlight the principles of this innovative teaching method, one of 

the members of staff likes to tell a story: “On the first day, I ask the students: ‘When did the battle of Marignan take place?’ Everyone answers: 

‘In 1515.’ But when I continue: ‘And who opposed who?’ there is always 

one person who knows the answer. So, I tell them: ‘You see, you need no 

teachers, everyone has some knowledge he can deliver to the group. Use 

that as a guideline.’”21 As a matter of fact, École 42 claims to have implemented a type of “participatory learning that allows students to unleash 

their creativity through project-based learning.”22 Based on the permanent 

and enduring involvement of all students in collaborative projects, the educational principles have in common a shared passion – IT and all aspects 

of computer engineering, which depends on learners having mastered the 

basics of language programming; and a common ambition, aimed at developing a set of skills expected in real life and in the business world: 

immediate output, continuous learning, great personal commitment and 

the determination to reach one’s goals. As in their future working environment, what is expected from the students is their ability to provide 

answers to ever more complex problems, for which no one has a solution 

– including the staff. And since there is no solution, why would a course 

or a lesson be needed? If there are no lessons or courses, why have a faculty or teachers? The staff is reduced to a skilled maintenance crew, with a 

team of managers who are more interested in challenging the students and 

encouraging them to assemble their own knowledge than lecturing them 

in a top-down fashion.

Again, at center stage in École 42’s pedagogy is the concept of peerto-peer learning. This method of knowledge acquisition sees each student 

interact with the others, and the focus is on problem-solving rather than 

straightforward learning. The idea is to enable the students to solve 

more and more complex technical issues; if the solution requires a basic 

understanding of an algorithm or C-code syntax, then the student might 

have to google online courses or books so as to explore what he thinks 

will be relevant to his problem. He may also turn to others to figure out 

a possible solution. This justifies the no-teachers approach, as nearly 

anything you need to know about programming can now be found, for free, 

on the Internet. But having no teachers doesn’t mean there is no evaluation 

at all. Peer-to-peer learning means that your work will be assessed by your 
77

own colleagues and fellow students, in a peer-review process based on 

rates and guidelines. In addition, as the school values teamwork, if one 

person fails, the group fails, which strengthens internal cohesion.

Hence, to be efficient and to succeed, students have to be rigorous, 

autonomous and full of pragmatism, complete their project and meet their 

objectives. Through their school years, they will learn three fundamental 

skills: the “know-how,” the ability to interact – where the main qualities 

are the ability to listen and discuss with others, but also to manage a team 

– and operational excellence. Rather than having students complete a job 

from one week to the other, the goal is to motivate them to be mature and 

responsible enough to define when they want to complete it; if in theory, 

an average student would need three years to complete the curriculum, the 

best can pass with flying colors in a year, while those with more difficulties 

would need four years. The notion of curriculum doesn’t even make sense, 

as the idea is to have students complete a masterpiece – anything related 

to programming, from social network to augmented reality – and École 

42 can, in this respect, be compared to an apprenticeship. It means that 

students are ready when they have completed their own challenge. Some 

will extend their time at École 42 and benefit from in-depth technological 

knowledge, working on the latest challenges in industrial projects, while 

others might consider the acquisition of the mandatory skills as a sufficient 

stepping stone to become entrepreneurs and (successful) business men and 

women in the IT domain. To make a long story short, the goal of this new 

type of education is to train IT programmers who are highly-qualified, 

self-motivated, well-rounded in all aspects of software engineering, and 

willing to work hard.

Selective, Bold and Ambitious

One of the mottos of École 42 is that everyone deserves a chance. 

Actually, the school could also adopt as a motto Churchill’s famous quote 

on “blood, toil, tears and sweat” as that is what awaits the students when 

they apply. Of course, as there are no particular entry requirements (no 

degree, or even high-school diploma) except for age (applicants have to 

be between 18 and 30 years old, and have at least an interest in computer 

programming), so selection is key. Passing the examination tests requires 

motivation, hard work, social skills and the ability to challenge oneself. 

Since École 42 is a private school, but tuition-free (which means that recruitment will not be based on financial discrimination), the idea is that 

everyone can seize this opportunity.
78

A first screening is online-based: after the hype in 2013 where more 

than 70,000 applicants went on the school website to take the tests, in 

2014, just over 50,000 people applied. There are multiple-choice questions 

containing cultural questions, logical items and some questions about motivation. Then starts the series of games and cognitive skill tests, which 

in some cases last a couple of hours; no hints are given, no explanations 

are given, the applicant has to find out the rules and the ultimate goal of 

the game by him/herself. Among the 15,000 that complete the test, 4,000 

are invited to proceed to step 2, the “swimming pool.”23 The “swimming 

pool” is a four-week long challenge, where the applicants are carrying out 

increasingly difficult coding challenges, which require them to work under 

pressure, for long hours – but at their own rhythm. And they are not alone: 

they are encouraged to work as teams to overcome particular hurdles. Tests 

are essentially pass-fail: you either make it or you fail. Sadirac – whose 

father was in the military – calls it an obstacle course, where you are on 

your own but where you also have to help the weakest to finish the run.

The experience is tough. According to one applicant, the main goal 

is to force the students to step out of their comfort zone. On the first day 

of the swimming pool, candidates receive no welcome address, they are 

invited to sit in front of their computer, and then it starts: no speeches, no 

explanations, no instructions. As a consequence, those who are familiar 

with the French school system are a bit lost.24 Applicants are tested on 

their resistance to pressure: right on the second day, the “Coding Marathon” starts: every hour, for 24 hours, a new exercise is given. What really 

matters, ultimately, is not only the ability to succeed, as graduation rates 

depend on additional skills: an open mind and readiness to help others are 

highly regarded. This means that the selection process takes into account 

not only the results at coding, but social interaction as well (in fact, École 

42 has hired a data scientist to analyze where applicants sit and how they 

interact). In the last few days of the “swimming pool,” each of the applicants votes for 10 others. If one applicant receives more than 10 votes, s/he 

scores a bonus on the teamwork, friendliness and helpfulness metric. This 

is consistent with École 42’s aim of selecting applicants who maximize 

the benefits of joint effort, rather than individualism. In the end, around 

a thousand students are selected. The first intake, admitted in November 

2013, comprised 890 students with an average age of 22, females representing 11 percent of the total.

Ways Towards a New Educational System?

École 42 is more than an airlock between school and the professional world; its pedagogical principles aim at streamlining school projects 
79

with what happens in the real world. It demands performances, imposes 

timelines and expects deliverables, just as would any business. École 42 

doesn’t even have to tell its students to work hard, as they are doing what 

they like, and what they believe in, in optimal conditions. Based on the 

principle that these students are the agents of their own success, what is 

expected from them is an ability to get their acts together and demonstrate their determination. Deputy Director Florian Bucher puts it simply: 

“You’re going to give all what you’ve got. And you will help your followers. It’s not going to be easy, far from it. You will be on your own and 

you’ll be accountable of your own failure or success. But how rewarding 

it is!”25 Hence, it blurs the line between training and education: because of 

the specific nature of computer programming, some basic understanding 

of the nature of programming is required. However, because of the challenges that the students are supposed to overcome, fundamental priorities 

are the ability to challenge oneself, to think out of the box and to look for 

solutions that either have yet to be identified or have deliberately not been 

provided. In terms of pedagogy, École 42 illustrates the crisis that modern education is facing: based on the idea that information is everywhere, 

why bother going to school, the main task of which is precisely to deliver 

the same information all the time? École 42 offers a sharply relevant perspective on the legitimacy problem that the whole educational system is 

currently facing. In addition, École 42 plays on the mismatch between 

students’ expectations and the general inability of schools, as institutions, 

to answer current needs. In short, École 42 capitalizes on advantages that 

every educational system or institution could benefit from: it offers a practitioner-oriented “curriculum,” where the mix of different students with a 

variety of backgrounds and experience helps to broaden perspectives and 

orient everyone towards enhanced problem-solving capacities. By deliberately taking students outside their comfort zone, selecting only those 

who have a combination of technical and social skills, and insisting on a 

philosophy where teamwork and autonomy go together, École 42 is in a 

way replicating forms of elite education and training that can be found in 

the military – special forces, for instance.

Where the main difference lies is the no-teacher, no-faculty approach. 

To be sure, the role and place of teachers in general, and faculty in 

particular, are growing sources of concern, as traditional academies 

increasingly discuss the balance and composition of their academic staff 

with a view to reflecting current challenges or expectations. École 42 is at 

the forefront in innovative pedagogy, claiming that the time of traditional 

education is gone as everything is available everywhere. Indeed, the 
80

Internet conveys all the information needed and the content available 

doubles every 18 months – in a process that can even be overwhelming. 

And that’s where the problem lies. Education is more than just the ability 

to do cherry-picking: it is also about selecting, analyzing, testing and using 

information, which requires at least some skills to distinguish what is right 

and what is wrong, what makes sense and what does not. To justify the 

lack of faculty by an argument that “what is true today, might be wrong 

tomorrow” – meaning that what is taught today, has a short life expectancy 

– might be true for some technological high-ends. However, there’s a risk 

in downgrading traditional education and faculty: one must not forget that 

the (social) justification of teachers lies in their ability to convey research 

and knowledge, thus building bridges between what is going on in some 

particular fields and giving students the ability to go beyond. If there’s 

no faculty, no research, what is the future of academia in general? It is 

because of their specific knowledge and skills that academics can lecture 

on available online courses; if they disappear tomorrow, how is the Internet 

going to replace them? The Internet is just a gigantic supermarket, where 

you can find everything, but if you have no map and no indications, you 

can lose your way. In addition, if you build upon the comparison with 

supermarket shelves, if no one is there to replace the products after their 

expiry date, you might get food poisoning. The peer-to-peer learning 

process provides access to information, not to knowledge; thus, it might 

be useful for training, but might be limited when it comes to education.

Conclusion

École 42 is definitely a breakthrough in education. Because of its particular status and the charisma of Xavier Niel, it has attracted a great deal 

of attention. While not seeking accreditation with the French Board of 

Education, École 42 has established some relationships and linkages with 

Art and Design Schools or Schools of Economics.26 There again, the goal 

is to bring together students with various backgrounds, play on the complementarity of heterogeneous profiles and have these small groups carry 

out innovative projects and build start-up businesses. As such, the École 

42 model perfectly suits a dynamic and competitive private sector; it also 

explains why the still-outstanding issue of whether École 42 is entitled to 

deliver degrees and diplomas is not high on the agenda. The proof of the 

pudding will be in the eating, as Niel argues that companies buy knowhow and Sadirac highlights that the students can show their “portfolio” 

just as any art student does, but in the IT domain. Indeed, the first surveys 

tend to corroborate the management’s position: more than half of the first 

promotion sent for internships in firms and IT companies were judged as 
81

already employable. However, as the school is still young, a comprehensive assessment and review will have to be undertaken in 2016, when the 

first “graduates” will be joining the workforce.

For other specific domains and, in our case, for the military, this type 

of alternative pedagogy is rather challenging, not so much for the content 

of what is taught as in terms of the structure that frames it, i.e., our organizational chart. There lies the true challenge for today’s militaries: we 

should maybe rethink the goals of military education and not consider 

the question of degrees, but the ability to deliver specific know-how in a 

particular ‒ and challenging ‒ environment.
82

Notes

1. Guillaume Lasconjarias holds a PhD from La Sorbonne University and 

is currently a researcher at the NATO Defense College in Rome. The views 

expressed in this paper are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of 

the NATO Defense College, or the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

2. David Olson, Psychological Theory and Educational Reform (New York: 

Cambridge University Press, 2003).

3. Howar Gardner, “What We Do and Don’t Know About Learning,” 

Daedalus (Winter 2004): 5-12, 11.

4. Diana G. Oblinger and James L. Oblinger, eds. Educating the Net 

Generation, EDUCAUSE, 2005, accessed 15 June 2015, http://www.educause.

edu/research-and-publications/books/educating-net-generation.

5. For a wrap-up of the current ongoing discussions in the United States, see 

Kevin P. Kelley and Joan Johnson-Freese. “Getting to the Goal in Professional 

Military Education,” Orbis (Winter 2014): 119-131.

6. Kourosh Houshmand, “Schools of 2030: No Grades, No Exams, No 

Teachers?” The Globe and Mail, October 4, 2013, accessed 12 May 2015, http://

www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/education/schools-of-2030-no-gradesno-exams-no-teachers/article14699733/.

7. Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy (New York: 

Harmony Books, 1979). In this science fiction novel, 42 is “the answer to life, 

the universe and prime numbers.”

8. Dylan Tweney, “This French tech school has no teachers, no books, no 

tuition – and it could change everything,” Venture Beat, June 13, 2014, accessed 

9 June 2015, http://venturebeat.com/2014/06/13/this-french-tech-school-has-noteachers-no-books-no-tuition-and-it-could-change-everything/.

9. He also co-owns one of the iconic French newspapers, Le Monde.

10. To better understand his communication skills, see Jean-Baptiste 

Diebold, “Niel: la communication qui tue,” Challenges, January 2012.

11. Xavier Niel has understood the need for an efficient and active 

communication policy, always with an element of provocation in his discourse 

(see the remarks on the coming war on mobile phone prices by Cuvelier, 

Frédéric, “Comment Xavier Niel peut encore bouleverser le prix du mobile.,” 

Clubic, April 30, 2015, accessed 22 June 2015, http://pro.clubic.com/entreprises/

iliad-free/actualite-765286-xavier-niel.html.

12. According to the official statistics of the French Board of Education, 

there are over 140,000 school dropouts very year (12 percent of the 16-25 yearold cohort).

13. Xavier Niel, “L’édito de Xavier Niel.” École 42 (also available in 

English), accessed 8 May 2015, http://www.42.fr/ledito-de-xavier-niel.

14. According to the École 42 website, http///www.42.fr, accessed 8 May 

2015.

15. For the French journalist Romain Gueugneau (“Qu’est-ce qui fait courir 

Xavier Niel?” Les Échos, November 2014), Niel can also be seen as using his 
83

school to go beyond recruitment requirements, and work on developing national 

talent, thereby contributing to building a 21st century-type of capitalism, 

consistent with the needs of our modern society.

16. Interview with Nicolas Sadirac, Director of École 42, Paris, 29 January 

2015. Nicolas Sadirac was previously the Director of EpiTech, one of the first 

French schools dedicated to IT.

17. Jonathan Haidt and David Sloan Wilson, “The Grand Theory of 

Business, From Charles Darwin,” Forbes Online, November 2013, accessed 27 

April 2015, http://www.forbes.com/sites/darwinatwork/2013/10/11/the-grandtheory-of-business-from-charles-darwin/.

18. Michael I. Cohen, J. G. March, and J. P. Olsen. “A Garbage Can Model 

of Organizational Choice,” Administrative Science Quarterly 17.1 (March 

1972): 1-25.

19. This key assessment might be discussed, Sadirac himself doesn’t believe 

that e-learning or MOOCs are everything. He argues that you find all you want 

on the Internet, but that doesn’t mean his students do not have to be curious and 

explore the outside world. 

20. Tweney, “This French tech school has no teachers, no books, no tuition 

– and it could change everything.”

21. Quentin Descamps, “Alt garderie pour bébés Niel,” Libération, March 

2015. In the French collective memory, the battle of Marignan (in what is now 

northern Italy) in 1515 is among France’s most famous. The decisive defeat 

of the Swiss cantons by King Francis I was exploited throughout his reign as 

an historical event reinforcing the legitimacy of the King and his prowess as a 

warrior.

22. École 42, «Revolutionary Computer Training Free and Open to All,” 

accessed 8 May 2015, http://www.42.fr/42-revolutionary-computer-trainingfree-and-open-to-all.

23. The name “swimming pool” refers to a military exercise where recruits 

have to swim without panicking and without dropping any item of equipment.

24. To have some ideas of the month-long experience of one of these 

apprentices, see Castor, Laurène. Chronicles of a Drowned Girl (blog), accessed 

23 May 2015, http://laurenecastor.com/42-les-chroniques-dune-noyee.

25. Interview of Florian Bucher, Deputy Director of 42, accessed 8 May 

2015, http://www.42.fr/biographie/florian-bucher.

26. Paul De Coustin, “HEC et l’école 42 s’associent pour des programmes 

d’entrepreneuriat. ” Le Figaro Étudiants, June 2015.

85

Chapter 6

Changes in the United Kingdom Education System: The Case 

for the United Kingdom Ministry of Defence - Education, 

Development or Training?

Derrick J. Neal1

Abstract

This chapter seeks to explore a number of dimensions that constitute 

learning (training and/or education) within the context of the United Kingdom. The chapter first explores the drivers for change within the education 

community with particular reference to the influence of politics within the 

context of the state of the UK’s economy. This exploration works progressively from the school sector through to the tertiary sector where significant 

changes have taken place in the university sector in particular. The chapter 

then contextualizes the issues within the Ministry of Defence (MOD) with 

particular reference to the training and education of the officer core and 

the impact that 11 years of being on operations has had on training and 

education policy combined with the impact of technology and the move to 

Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL). A key point covered in the chapter 

concerns the MOD’s view of what constitutes training and how it differs 

from education with particular reference to an expectation that officers can 

accumulate credits that can be counted towards an advanced degree. The 

analysis goes beyond the progression of military officers and considers the 

parallels that exist for their civil servant counterparts and highlights the 

need to ensure that a coherent approach to training and education needs 

to be applied if the Ministry of Defence is to be able to improve its performance both on operations and within the business space. The chapter 

then concludes with the author’s view of the changes that may start to take 

place over the next three to five years with the heavy caveat of “beware 

of the law of unintended consequences,” which has been a feature of the 

changes in the UK education system and changes in the UK MOD over 

the past two decades.

Introduction

In most societies today the issue of education is fraught with challenges that are grounded in and shaped by many aspects, such as gender, 

religion, unstable environments, politics, finances, or simple geography of 

being able to get to a place of learning. This represents a highly simplified 

view of the challenges and not only are there many more dimensions, in 

most cases, the reality is that combinations of these factors are at work 

in varying proportions at any point in time. It is beyond the scope of this 
86

chapter to try to capture the picture on a multi-national basis, and the focus 

will be on the education system in the United Kingdom. Whilst this has a 

sound and well developed education system, it is not without its challenges. A key point that will feature in this chapter is that when viewing the 

education of the populace of a nation, it is necessary to ensure that there 

is coherence from primary school through to the delivery of advanced degrees. However, throughout this spectrum a wide range of different stakeholders have a strong voice in terms of what is delivered and the means by 

which it is delivered.

The UK, like many other countries, has a mixed economy when it 

comes to education, as it is a society where choice is a key tenet of its 

democracy. It follows that government has a huge role to play in the provision of early years education (nominally from the age of 5 to 18) and of 

course this comes with an associated cost which comes from the public 

purse. When a nation is in a period of prosperity this aspect does not take 

on great significance, but when the economy is in a downturn it shines a 

light on all forms of public expenditure. Of course it is common to hear 

the politicians state that today’s young are tomorrow’s future and as such 

we need to protect education budgets. Equally, politicians can also see 

the benefits of bringing in private sector stakeholders with funding to offset the pressures on public expenditure. In recent years under the reforms 

put in place by the Secretary of State for Education (at the time Michael 

Gove), an initiative was developed to make provision for the establishment of Free Schools (able to set their own agenda) and the creation of 

Sponsored Academies for both Primary and Secondary schools. In effect 

an Academy can shape its own future with freedoms over the curriculum 

and scope to employ and pay staff the necessary market rate to get the 

individuals they want to teach in the school.

Although this seemed like an attractive proposition on paper, the 

expected uptake was nowhere near the levels that the politicians hoped 

for, and this led to some unfortunate behavior on the part of the politicians. 

In effect, they made it mandatory that any school that was put into Special 

Measures (failing to meet the required standards) was forced to become an 

Academy and to be put under the wing of a well-performing school in their 

vicinity. To ensure that this measure worked, the government raised the bar 

in terms of what was acceptable and used an independent body, the Office 

for Standards in Education, to monitor the quality of school education. 

Not only did this force the issue but it also delivered in terms of the “law 

of unintended consequences” when it was found that, in many cases, the 

well-performing school that had taken on responsibility for the failing 
87

school was itself now suffering. The incorrect assumption was that the 

well-performing school knew how to fix the failing school. Assumptions 

are dangerous things.

The second order effect in this matter was that due to public expenditure pressures. Local governments also lost money and one of the areas that was cut by some Local Authorities was the support to schools 

through reductions (and in some cases total removal) of School Improvement Teams. Instead in many cases the Local Authority simply went out 

to contract in resources as and when needed. This misses the point that 

School Improvement Teams know the local schools very well and see their 

role as prevention rather than recovery. They can achieve this through the 

constant contact with the schools and can pick up the signs of problems at 

an early stage hence avoiding a school going into Special Measures.

The key points being highlighted here are that politicians have a huge 

role to play in the domain of education, and they are driven by a range of 

factors which may link to personal ambition through to pressures from the 

state of the economy and the public expenses limitations. Changes are not 

always easy to reverse, and there is always the possibility that a change of 

government will signal a radical change in policy; but in this case, even 

the change in the Minister (Gove was removed from this Ministerial post) 

can herald yet further changes.

The output from the secondary sector is the input to the tertiary education sector and this has not been immune from changes that have again 

been driven by politicians. For example, a target was set in 2002 by the 

then Prime Minister (Tony Blair) that by the end of the decade 50 percent 

of individuals aged between 18-30 would be in full time higher education 

(studying for a nationally recognized qualification) and that the majority 

of these would be in university education. The tertiary sector had already 

begun some restructuring, and the first wave took place in 1992 when a 

large number of former polytechnics and technical colleges were either 

absorbed into existing universities or in many cases were reclassified as 

universities in their own right. Then in the mid-2000s (2005-2007), in 

direct response to the Blair plan, a second wave of institutions became 

universities with degree awarding powers. Again, the law of unintended 

consequences came into play as these institutions started offering degrees 

and were less interested in the lower level qualifications that they had previously provided that ranged from trade qualifications through to Higher 

National Certificate (HNC) and Higher National Diploma (HND) qualifications. The consequence of this was that the UK found itself with a 

shortage of qualified people with trade skills or professionally qualified 
88

individuals within the Certificate and Diploma part of the spectrum. This 

situation then led to an explosion of migrants moving to the UK with particular skills in the building trade (bricklayers, electricians, plumbers and 

carpenters to name but a few) in response to a demand in city centers (such 

as London and Manchester) driven by new developments and re-development/refurbishments of residential properties. This did of course slow 

down somewhat post the 2008 financial crisis and at the time of writing 

(2015) is slowly returning.

To make matters worse, many of the “new universities” also generated 

new degrees that have subsequently been found to be of little value in the 

jobs market, covering such things as hospitality, or golf club management, 

and an explosion in what is generally called media studies. Such qualifications fail to underpin the needs of the UK economy. The consequence is 

that if you graduate from a low grade university with a soft degree in some 

obscure subject you have probably jumped ahead a couple of places in the 

queue for a job stacking supermarket shelves. 

Again the issue of finance has played a large part in the evolution 

of tertiary education in the UK and dates back to 1997. Irrespective of 

changes in government, the situation has progressed through to the current 

situation where a student graduating today with a Bachelor’s degree could 

easily be in debt to the tune of £30-40k. This move has not been without 

protests from students, and despite the Liberal Democrats stating that they 

would oppose student tuition fee increases in England, the Conservative/

Lib Dem coalition government won a vote in the House of Commons 

which resulted in universities being able to charge students up to £9,000 a 

year for the annual tuition costs. This represented a 300 percent increase 

from the traditional maximum fees of £3,000 per year. At the time 64 universities announced their intention to charge the full £9,000 allowed by 

the government from 2012, with the remaining 59 all charging at least 

£6,000. In some cases the increased fee situation has led to students travelling overseas to attend university where tuition fees do not apply, and 

in the case of some of the brightest students they have been able to gain 

scholarships to attend American universities (where the cost of university 

education can also be expensive), thus promoting a brain drain.

Again the law of unintended consequences comes into play as graduating students find themselves with some difficult decisions. Firstly, having a degree is no guarantee of getting a job and even if one is successful, 

the position may well be at a very low level within the organization. Given 

that the job market has been poor in the UK, it even led to graduates being 

willing to work for nothing in order to be able to show on their Curriculum 
89

Vitae that they have some experience. Secondly, students with good first 

degrees will find it easier to get a job and given the debt they hold may 

elect to do this and hence not consider continuing with postgraduate study. 

Equally, students from wealthy backgrounds may well have been ‘bank 

rolled’ through their first degree and may even have the luxury of being financially supported through a second degree. Graduate students with poor 

prospects in the work environment may well be tempted to continue their 

studies on the basis of differentiating themselves from others with only a 

first degree.

The final point to note in this section is that the clarion cry from industry in the UK, by way of a variety of employer federations and the Confederation of British Industry, is that the skills and knowledge that universities are embedding in graduates are not at all well-suited to their needs. 

Indeed, it has been argued that university degrees (along with A level examinations) have been dumbed down so that institutions can show that 

they have met national pass rate targets. Equally, a student paying £9,000 

per year has an expectation that their hand will be firmly held through the 

process such that they pass the assessments. This has already resulted in an 

increase in student complaints and grievance claims against institutions on 

the basis that the university had not provided the student with the support 

and input to enable them to pass. In other words the institution failed – not 

the student.

The author contends that policy decisions taken by the government of 

the day may well be made with good intent but the consequences of such 

decisions may endure for some considerable time and have negative consequences that were not identified at the outset.

The reason for this lengthy introduction is to highlight the complexity 

of an education system, even in a mature and well-developed society, and 

the role that politics, finances, and the state of the economy can have on 

decision making. All of these factors are relevant from the point of view of 

the military as the output from the national education system is the input to 

the military officer core which forms the basis of the next section.

The MOD Context

The UK MOD, like many corporations, repeatedly makes the claim 

that they value people and make it clear that they have achieved IIP (Investors in People) status. However, it also has to be noted that when it 

comes to the recruitment of individuals on a career track leading to being 

commissioned as an officer, the military are looking for key characteristics associated with leadership and leadership potential. As a man/woman 
90

progresses through their military career (irrespective of their service), they 

are exposed to a number of learning interventions that are either linked to 

their rank and promotion or to the needs of a role or task that they need to 

undertake. This is not at all peculiar to the UK, and most countries have 

their equivalent Academies and Colleges that perform the same or similar 

function providing Command and Staff courses.

The progression for a young Officer in the British Army is given in 

Table 2, and although this covers the generic or prescribed courses there 

are a raft of other forms of learning that may also apply but that are too 

numerous to capture in this chapter. In particular the raft of MSc education 

interventions has not been included.

1. Career Development 

Courses

Rank Duration Age

Sandhurst 

Commissioning

N/A Months 18-23

Intermediate Command 

& Staff Course

Major Months Mid-30s (all)

Advanced Command and 

Staff Course

LTCOL Months Mid-40s 

(selected)

Higher Command & Staff 

Course

COL/BRIG Months Mid-50s 

(selected)

2. Training Courses Delivery Duration

Joint Officers Leadership 

Program

Sandhurst & e-Learning

Joint Officers Tactical 

Course

Attendance 4 weeks

Military Knowledge 1 e-Learning Variable

Military Knowledge 2 e-Learning Variable

Military Analysis Attendance 2 weeks

Captains Warfare Course Attendance 8 weeks

Acquisition Employment 

Training

Attendance 5 weeks

Table 2. A sample of the range of Career Development and Training courses for 

the UK Army. Source: Author and British Army Web site.
91

However, this introduces the issue of understanding what the military 

provides to its officers in terms of whether it is education or training or 

development or indeed a mixture of these elements. For the purposes of 

this chapter and debate, the author will adopt the position of stating that 

learning takes place and that it is a mixture of education and training. 

The only difference for any particular intervention is the balance of the 

two elements which will determine the focus. The reason for making this 

distinction is that it then provides a basis for analysis of what the Officers 

receive and the way the organization portrays what they believe they are 

delivering.

According to Kevin Wheeler (2013), Founder and Chairman of the 

Future Talent Institute, “training is about teaching a specific skill, especially by practice and it is systematic instruction and drill.”2

 Clearly this 

fits very well with the early years of an officer’s career where they spend 

a significant amount of time actually being drilled in the ways to function, 

the values of the organization, and even down to how to march. These 

are by definition repetitive activities that have little if anything to do with 

education other than perhaps educating them as to what the organization 

expects of them. It is worth noting that the vast majority of officer recruits 

join their service having already completed an undergraduate degree, for 

example 85-90 percent of Army recruits going to Sandhurst have a first 

degree.

When one moves into the realms of education, rightly or wrongly, 

there is a perception that the individual is engaging with an organization 

that has a structured delivery of knowledge and skills that are new to the 

individual. The individual will be taken on a journey over a period of time 

that will involve forms of assessment that will enable them to demonstrate 

their knowledge and understanding at an appropriate level to warrant credit towards a recognized qualification. In the case of the UK military, this 

takes place at a number of institutions ranging from traditional universities, delivering undergraduate degrees through to the Defence Academy 

of the United Kingdom delivering postgraduate awards. However, this is 

only a perception rather than a reality since “education focuses on learning new skills, knowledge and attitudes that will equip an individual to 

assume a new job or to do a different task at some predetermined future

time.”3

 The point being that even at a Masters level the intended learning 

outcomes will typically involve both knowledge and skills elements and in 

many cases the latter can be viewed as training rather than education. For 

example, the skills elements might include producing PowerPoint slides or 

how to use spreadsheets and while such skills will have utility beyond the 
92

immediate course they are skills that would be considered training. Individuals regularly attend short training courses to develop these skills, and 

yet when it is part of an MSc degree program for some reason the military 

likes to consider this as an education intervention.

This example is instructive in making the point that even learning that 

is correctly defined as education will contain elements that clearly fit the 

description of training, and one might argue that this could be of the order 

of 80:20 in favor of education. Equally, even a specified training course will 

have elements that could be defined as education as knowledge is gained 

that has both immediate and longer term utility. The reason for highlighting 

this point is that organizations frequently misuse the terminology in an 

effort to portray something to meet their own objectives. The UK military, 

and no doubt other militaries, are classics in this regard since they start an 

officers career with significant amounts of training, as noted earlier, but as 

the officer progresses through their career there is an assumption that they 

should be engaged more and more in education, and that as a supporting 

statement of this being the case the officer will gain recognized academic 

qualifications. This has certainly been the case in the UK military over 

the past decade or more where some of the major learning interventions 

(as shown for the case of the Army in Table 1) such as those delivered at 

Sandhurst and the Defence Academy of the United Kingdom, are expected 

to deliver academic credits that work towards a recognized qualification. 

Although the Defence Academy of the United Kingdom likes to argue that 

it delivers education, it is clear that some of the courses sit in the training 

space – for example, the Acquisition Employment Training course – while 

others are clearly in the education space such as the range of MSc degrees.

Confusion seems to exist in the Command and Staff Courses (both 

the Intermediate and the Advanced) since they do not sit at either end of 

the spectrum, but rather are a mix that is probably closer to a 50:50 split 

between education and training. The author argues that such a split might 

be better described as “development” for the purposes of clarity. However, 

the Services would like to think of such courses as being education and 

part of the argument to support this view is the fact that numerous high 

profile speakers are often attracted to deliver to such courses. However, 

while a very senior member of the MOD may deliver a most enlightening 

and powerful address, this in itself does not give it the academic credibility 

or credentials that would position it as education.

The consequence is that the organization tries to overplay the education card when in reality this is not justified based on what a university is 

prepared to accept as the required level of the delivered material. Of course 
93

not all universities take the same approach as to levels of attainment, and it 

is certainly the case in the UK that some universities are prepared to give 

credit transfer that is not based on any specific academic achievement. 

For example, some universities will give an Army Major 30 Master level 

credits simply for having reached that rank. Other universities take a much 

stronger line in defense of academic standards and do not chase the fees 

based on a lax entry requirement.

It is the case for the UK military that they would like to link each of 

the Command and Staff courses to Masters level credits such that as the 

young officer progresses through their career, they accumulate credits in 

such a way that they have a Masters qualification prior to being promoted 

to a Lieutenant Colonel. Indeed, to press this matter, the Army intends to 

make a Masters qualification a pre-requisite for promotion to Lieutenant 

Colonel. As a consequence, the academic providers (universities) delivering the raft of learning interventions starting at Sandhurst are seeking the 

opportunity to provide input to the various programs at a Masters level 

and tie this to associated assessments such that academic credit can be 

justified. However, the law of unintended consequences yet again features 

in that the promotion progression path for an officer will be measured in 

decades from a raw Lieutenant (average age 23) to a Lieutenant Colonel 

(mid 40s). Unfortunately this timescale does not sit comfortably with the 

idea of a coherent academic progression and indeed in many areas the 

subject matter and technology will have moved forward to the extent that 

the early credits gained bear no resemblance to the final award of a degree. 

Many universities apply a maximum registration period for a student to 

cover this very point and typically five to six years will be applied for a 

part time postgraduate degree. 

In addition to the prescribed learning interventions, military officers 

may also pursue postgraduate qualifications by a number of other routes, 

perhaps as a personal objective in their own time, where the likes of the 

Open University distance learning is seen as a viable option. In addition, 

the MOD will also place officers in a Masters course that is deemed to be 

pertinent either to their career specialization (such as engineering/technical Masters) or in advance of going into a particular post where the subject 

matter studied will help their performance.

It should be recognized that there are differences in approach to further education between the three services, and whereas the Royal Navy 

and Royal Air Force are supportive of taking an officer out of their day job 

to attend a one-year Masters full-time, the Army is less supportive of fulltime education. This was highlighted about eight years ago when the Army 
94

decided that its preference was for its officers to study on a distance learning basis through a Modular Master’s Program (MMP) which essentially 

required to officer to study away from the Defence Academy (even whilst 

on operations) and to attend a summer school of three weeks once per 

year. The drop-out rate for this approach was so significant that the idea 

was dropped within three years; in hindsight, it was most unlikely that any 

officer was ever going to fight during the day and study in the evenings, 

and as such it was an ill thought-through concept that had been predicated 

on the MMP being a cheaper form of delivery compared to attendance 

for taught modules. Again, this was a dangerous assumption as bespoke 

distance learning material is expensive to develop and maintain, it also has 

the potential to lose the richness that comes from peer to peer learning and 

the dynamic debate that can take place in a classroom.

While it is fair to argue that the academic provider institution has the 

main say in what is taught on the Masters MSc programs, it is often the 

case that the MOD desires to have a clear voice in aspects of how material 

will be delivered, and this is increasingly involving Technology Enhanced 

Learning (TEL) with on-line support, use of podcasts, and the development of dedicated Apps. This is not at odds with the view of many universities, as they also see this as a way forward and most forward-thinking 

institutions have or are developing TEL as part of their strategy. They also 

recognize the need for a blended approach to learning interventions.

To a large extent, the learning interventions for military officers are 

reasonably well-defined, and they either know what they have to attend 

or it becomes apparent by virtue of their postings and/or their chosen specialization. However, this has not been so clear when it comes to the other 

major part of the MOD, namely the civil servants, where learning interventions have been less structured. Since 2010 this situation has and continues to change significantly, with the Civil Service Reform plan under 

the initial stewardship of Sir Bob Kerslake, and some good progress had 

been made between 2010 and 2014. 

A key part of the Civil Service Reform was the identification of four 

pillars of capability that were in need of development. This has provided a 

focus for the Civil Service Learning (CSL) organization to ensure that they 

have the necessary learning interventions to cover the following:

•	 Leading and managing change.

•	 Commercial skills and behaviors.

•	 Delivering successful projects and programs.

•	 Redesigning services and delivering them digitally.
95

In July 2014, following some Political machinations, Sir Bob stood 

down as Head of the Civil Service, and although he was replaced by Sir 

Jeremy Heywood, the Civil Service Reform continues on the same track. 

The key objective of the reform is to make the Civil Service more efficient 

and effective in delivering support to government in the delivery of its 

policies. The scale of the challenge is dramatic, with the projected staff 

reductions over a five year period from 480,000 in 2010 to 380,000 in 

2015 – no small challenge.

To put MOD civil servants into context, it should be noted that in 

2014 there were 410,000 civil servants covering 36 departments of State 

and of these the MOD accounts for about 57,000 (which is low compared 

to about 110,000 that worked in the MOD in 1997). However, this can be 

misleading if the simple numbers are considered because within this period an outsourcing strategy has been applied which resulted in functions 

that were previously performed within the MOD now being conducted 

by the defence industry. Part of the outsourcing strategy involved MOD 

civil servants being moved to commercial companies under TUPE4

 arrangements which in effect means that the same people are performing 

the same functions but within the context of an external organization. Of 

course, the expectation was always that a commercial organization would 

find more efficient and effective ways to perform those functions and the 

company would be on a contract that would strive for profit through improvements in efficiency.

The real and present challenge for any organization is to be able to 

address up-skilling and downsizing at the same time while also meeting 

the required delivery outputs, and the Civil Service in general and the civil 

servants in the MOD in particular are struggling to come to terms with 

these challenges. One of the misplaced expectations within the change 

literature is that an organization can embark on a major change without 

any impact on the outputs delivered by that organization. If outputs are 

to be maintained, then additional resources need to be injected into the 

organization as part of the change program, recognizing that change is 

not and never has been a “free lunch.” An up-skilling initiative is being 

progressed within the MOD by the Head of Profession for the commercial 

function by actively driving an agenda to provide a comprehensive and 

coherent training and education intervention to make this function more 

professional, efficient and effective in delivering military capability to the 

Armed Services. However, at the same time they have to deal with the fact 

that in many parts of the MOD, they have to operate with many unfilled 

vacancies and staff suffering from low morale. Although the initiative is 
96

to be applauded, one also has to recognize that it takes time to design and 

develop a raft of new learning interventions, which range from relatively 

low-level material through to full Masters programs, and then find the time 

and space for their delivery.

The final factor to be considered within the topic of training and education within the UK MOD is that although there are some well-defined 

pathways for service personnel and for civil servants, the true test of the 

organization’s performance is its ability to deliver defense in support of 

the needs of the government of the day. To that end, it is imperative that 

the services and the civil servants are able to work together in a structured 

way and in order to achieve that, it is necessary that they have a common 

language and shared understanding of a wide range of subject matter. This 

is particularly important when operations are involved, but it is also true in 

the realm of defense capability acquisition since this represents the future 

of the MOD’s ability to defend the nation. It does, therefore, make sense 

to have learning interventions that are shared between military officers and 

MOD civil servants, and to that end, a number of the learning interventions do indeed make space for both civil servants and officers.

What Does the Future Hold for Learning Interventions in the 

UK MOD?

The starting point is to truly understand the distinction between education and training as composite parts of learning, and to be realistic as to 

the mix that exists within a given intervention. This would then enable the 

classification as to whether it is strongly at one end of a spectrum or the 

other, or indeed that it sits closer to the middle. In the latter case it would 

then be helpful to use a different descriptor, such as development as mentioned earlier, that recognizes the balance. In order to achieve this it is 

first necessary to be clear about the objectives of the intervention in order 

to determine the approach or approaches to be adopted in the content and 

delivery of the course material.

The next factor to be recognized is the time gap that exists between career progression courses that may be mandated and the period over which 

a university is prepared to allow credits to be carried forward towards a 

qualification such as a degree. This is a mind-set issue and one that requires careful management of expectations on the part of the individual, 

the MOD, and the universities awarding the qualification. Equally within 

this space is the notion that if a young recruit enters the MOD with an 

undergraduate degree, then everything that is delivered beyond this point 

(from an academic perspective) should be at a Masters level or above. 
97

This is also a mind-set issue that needs to be changed and built into the 

thinking at the outset of development of learning interventions.

The easy part of this challenge can be dealt with when considering the 

range of MSc degrees that are available to MOD staff as they clearly fall 

into the education end of the spectrum; and as a sub-set of this, universities also provide Post Graduate Certificates and Post Graduate Diplomas, 

which are also clearly education.

At the other end of the spectrum, there are specific training courses 

that may not have any form of assessment at all or may have some element 

of test that does not count towards any form of academic credit. On-line 

mandatory health and safety training would fall into this category, in that 

one has to complete the course and demonstrate that the information has 

been understood. Equally, some of the pre-deployment training courses 

would fall into this category, in that the individual is given practice at 

using the systems and equipment that they will find when they go into 

theater so that they arrive up and running as on the job training in theatre 

is a luxury that cannot be afforded.

This leaves the difficult middle ground of the Command and Staff type 

courses that are a mix of education and training and which, historically, 

the MOD has wished to define as education, and has been the cause of 

some concern to universities delivering to such courses. In recent years, 

the MOD has sought Masters-level credits for elements or large parts of 

such courses but the evidence, based on course content, is that it is not sufficiently grounded in academic theory to justify the award of credit. The 

recent moves in the UK MOD are for Command and Staff courses to take 

the opportunity to reduce some of the core content on things like campaign 

planning or informative descriptive material to make space for some deeper Masters level academic material. This, together with appropriate assessments, will enable the university in question to be justified in giving academic credit to those that pass the assessment. However, even if this can 

be achieved and using the Army as an example, it still has the problem of 

the time gap between an individual attending Sandhurst to completing the 

Captains Warfare Course (CWC), to the Intermediate Command and Staff 

Course (ICSC). These courses are ones that all Army officers will attend, 

and beyond this a selected number will attend the Advanced Command 

and Staff Course (ACSC). Given that it is the intent that upon completing 

the ICSC, the Army officer will have completed a Masters qualification, it 

begs the question as to what they will be awarded upon completing ACSC 

since they will not need another Masters and will not have enough time 

during the ACSC course to complete another award.
98

So far the debate has centered on the military officer, but there is also 

the case to be made for the MOD civil servants; as they do not have the 

equivalent of the Command and Staff courses to contend with, the matter is 

somewhat simpler. Core parts of the Civil Service contribution to defense 

include program and project management, commercial (includes finance 

and legal) as combined they are about delivering defense capability for 

current and future requirements. To deliver in these areas the previously 

mentioned up-skilling initiative being driven by the Head of Profession for 

the Commercial function is setting out a range of learning interventions. 

One way of taking this forward is to recognize that professional qualifications have as much of a role to play as do academic qualifications. In 

the area of defense acquisition, the Chartered Institute of Purchasing and 

Supply (CIPS) has a key role to play and can make a significant contribution to the training end of the spectrum. At the other end of the spectrum, 

the education elements can be delivered by universities with MSc degrees 

such as the Defence Acquisition Management MSc awarded by Cranfield 

University at the Defence Academy of the United Kingdom. Again the 

challenge that needs to be addressed is one of progression, but it is less of 

a problem since the civil servant does not have to contend with the “development” courses equivalent of the Command and Staff courses but it 

does not overcome the need for joint training, development and education 

between the military and the civil servants.

The section above has considered the issues of what is delivered (in 

terms of its status) and when it is delivered; the remaining key issue for 

the future is the topic of how it is delivered. The chapter has already raised 

the points about distance learning and the reluctance to support full-time 

education. Although the military are supportive of attendance on the developmental courses such as the Command and Staff courses, there is still 

a view that for training and education courses the delivery partners need to 

be more innovative in their approaches. For example, there is support from 

the MOD for other forms of engagement through the use of mentoring/

coaching, reflective learning, delivery at the place of work (as opposed 

to students going to a College or Academy), further use of technology to 

support self-learning, and peer-to-peer learning, to name but a few of the 

ideas being considered. 

Such approaches certainly have merit and cannot be discounted, and 

at the training end of the spectrum have particular utility. Matters become 

more challenging for some of these ideas when dealing at the education 

end of the spectrum, given that a university needs to be confident that 

Masters level intended learning outcomes (ILOs) have been met and that 
99

the learning and associated assessment processes meet the standards set 

out not only by the university itself but also those of the quality assurance 

agency.

It is the view of the author that over the next three to five years, there 

will be a major shift in the mix of learning approaches that are utilized for 

both training and education interventions and certainly for the education 

intervention the notion that students have to receive the majority of their 

learning by attending lectures will be a thing of the past. One can only 

hope that prior to any of this that the customer (MOD) recognizes many of 

the points raised in this chapter such that they have a clear understanding 

of what is meant by training, development, and education, and that they 

can come to terms with and find a solution to the time disconnect issue 

between interventions and the timing tied to career progression. Finally, 

that they do not make the mistake of thinking that the alternatives to 

“in class” traditional teaching methods will be a cheaper means of 

imparting knowledge and understanding. Mentoring and one-to-one type 

interventions are time-consuming and expensive, and while it is possible 

to tailor the delivery to the specific needs of the individual, it also negates 

much of the benefit gained from “in class” peer-to-peer learning that takes 

place through facilitated debate. In the case of education, they also need 

to understand the issue from the university perspective of being able to 

demonstrate that the depth and rigor to meet Masters level requirements 

has been met.
100

Notes

1. The views expressed in this chapter are those of the author and are not 

necessarily those of the UK MOD or Cranfield University.

2. Kevin Wheeler, “What are the Differences Between Training, Education, 

and Development?” The Future Talent Institute, accessed 3 March 2015, http://

futureoftalent.org/whats-the-difference-training-education-developmentlearning/.

3. Wheeler, “What are the Differences Between Training, Education, and 

Development?”

4. TUPE means Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) 

which means that your current terms and conditions will remain in place until or 

unless you agree adjustments with your new employer.
101

Chapter 7

Rapidly Evolving, Digitally-Enabled Learning 

Environments: Implications for Institutional Leaders, 

Educators and Students1

Cathy Downes

Abstract

This chapter examines the rapid cycles of web evolution from Web 1.0 

through 2.0 and now into 3.0, and the key technologies driving rapid advances in digital functionality, participation, and productivity. The chapter 

then evaluates how these cycles of technology change have influenced, 

and are shaping the evolution of digitally-enabled learning environments 

in higher education, and particularly the Department of Defense professional educational system, describing conditions of Learning 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 

and 3.0. The chapter concludes with identifying critical implications of 

these developments and the underlying catalyzing directions of web technologies, for higher educational institutions in general, for their academic 

leaderships, for educators and for students. These implications, for example, focus on (1) the growing gap between heritage institution educational 

models and the rapidly maturing and growing spread of digitally-enabled 

alternatives; (2) the challenges for Chief Academic Officers in hiring, 

developing and retaining faculty capable of creating and innovating in 

digitally-enabled higher education and strategic/executive level learning 

environments; (3) the challenges for educators in developing their digital literacies and becoming competent in new educator roles to meet the 

expectations and employment requirements of the upcoming generations 

of students; and (4) the challenges for executive-level students to upskill 

their own digital literacies, to take more responsibility for building and 

adapting their own personalized/personal learning networks and paths and 

developing a rich understanding and situational awareness of the technologies and uses of cyberspace and the next phases of the Digital Age. 

“...digital technology is the fabric of nearly everything associated with 

teaching and learning... digital technology is the core strategic enabler 

of learning in higher education...Our thinking about digital technology is 

shifting from seeing it as IT infrastructure and instead toward conceiving 

it as a digital learning environment.”

--Malcolm Brown, Director

EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative, 20152
102

Coming, Ready or Not!

The World Wide Web started as digitally-linked static documents 

(web pages) in standardized templates for viewing by consumers and customers. Just a few years later, a second generation of digital technologies 

emerged – the social and collaborative web – Web 2.0 – characterized by 

openness, user-generated content, sharing, interactivity, and participation. 

We are now seeing other digital technologies emerging, interacting with 

each other, and leveraging off Web 2.0 technology advances, to create 

Web 3.0 – the Semantic Web, the Data Web, and the Internet of Things. 

As a result of these developments, new and different ways of working, 

and delivering goods and services, engaging in civic, political and social 

affairs and learning and teaching are being enabled and catalyzed. The 

effects are disruptive. They challenge deeply-established success-proven 

practices across social, economic, government, private-volunteer and educational sectors.3 Crowds are increasingly wise. Customers are also producers. Learners are teachers. The dominance of the Westphalian state system to exercise sovereignty over people is being tested on many fronts.4

Yet, with the exception of pockets of innovation in online learning, the 

higher education sector (including the US Department of Defense (DOD) 

professional educational system) has largely insulated and shielded itself 

from disruptive digitally-enabled changes that have affected other social, 

economic and political sectors. As Davidson and Goldberg remark in the 

introduction to their 2009 report on the Learning Institutions in the Digital 

Age: 

Modes of learning have changed dramatically over the past two 

decades – our sources of information, the ways we exchange and 

interact with information, how information informs and shapes us. 

But our schools – how we teach, where we teach, who we teach, 

who teaches, who administers, and who services – have changed 

mostly around the edges.5

This insulation and the rapid, wide-scale changes affecting higher education have significant implications for academic leaderships, educators 

and students in the higher education sector of the US DOD professional 

education system.

Web 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, and...

As we have progressed further into the Information Age, it is clear 

that the Age is not one state of being, but is rapidly morphing through 

perceptible cycles of evolution. This is perhaps best recognized through 
103

the coining of the term “Web 2.0” in the early-2000s.6 In rapid succession, 

we have seen matching ideas of Enterprise 2.0, Gov 2.0, Collaboration 

2.0, Knowledge Management 2.0, eLearning 2.0, Organization 2.0, etc. 

emerge.7 It is too easy to dismiss these ideas as just piggy-backing on a 

sticky idea in information technology. On deeper examination, we are 

seeing sector leaders embracing these cycles of web evolution concept 

and understanding how these advances catalyze and enable corresponding 

effects and impacts in their sectors and enterprises.

The idea of Web 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 describes an evolutionary path with particular dynamics. Each iteration rests on, and leverages off, the applications, functionalities and concepts of the preceding iteration. At the same 

time, the enabling information technologies have reached the “knee of the 

curve” of exponential growth and speed of entry of new applications, infrastructures and platforms. As a result, while one iteration is maturing, it 

is being modified by the next one’s defining emergent technologies. Thus, 

presently, we see a maturing Web 2.0 merging with an emergent Web 3.0. 

Given the increasing rate of technology change, it is likely that future iterations of the Web will deepen and widen this blurring. This dynamic is 

represented in Figure 2: Distinguishing Features of Web 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0. 

Each iteration of the Web is an intensely rich and complex phenomenon of multiple technologies and interactions. Describing such phenomena is a precarious balance between too much and too little information. 

Figure 2. Distinguishing Features of Web 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0. Created by author.
104

The aim here is to focus on the distinguishing features of each iteration, 

particularly those of relevance to shaping, catalyzing and enabling corresponding cycles of evolution in higher education teaching and learning. 

Web 1.0 Characteristics

Web 1.0 is the original World Wide Web conceived and constructed 

of linked web pages, documents of information that could be accessed by 

users using the physical network of linked computers – the Internet. Web 

1.0 is the Read-Only web – a one-to-many, broadcast interaction where 

companies, governments, organizations and individuals created and made 

available online static content. Interactions were passive with users only 

being able to read – “receive” – what was published and “surf” from one 

linked page to another. As web pages and sites grew, web browsers and 

portal websites emerged as responses to the user challenge of finding 

sought-after content. 

Web 2.0 Characteristics

In the early 2000s, Web 2.0 is kick-started by technology advances, 

including software application languages to create web- rather than PCbased applications and services, for linking content rather than just web 

page formats and linking more types of content beyond just text (particularly images, data sets and video). These advances enabled the transition 

from the Read-Only Web to the Read-Write Web, the Social Web, the participatory, collaborative interactive Web. 

Unlike Web 1.0, content creation is no longer restricted to organizational or enterprise programmers. This lowering of entry barriers 

has unleashed a global flood of self-expressive and collaborative authors and producers of web-pages, blogs, videos, audio, data sets, and 

web services. For example, just taking the statistics for one of the main 

blogging websites, WordPress, in May 2015, over 400 million people 

read over 20 billion WordPress blog pages. In the same month, users 

posted over 57 million new blog pages and 54 million new comments.8

 For example, in February 2015 Tumblr had 217 million blogs with 99 

billion posts, with over 100 million posts being made on any one day.9

In terms of video, YouTube for example has over one billion users, 

with 300 hours of video being uploaded every minute and 400 billion 

views every day.10 It is the second largest search engine, after Google. In 

terms of images, Flickr has over 92 million users, 10 billion images and an 

average of one million images shared daily.11
105

In opening up source code, individuals as well as organizations are 

able to create, co-create and crowdsource dynamic, editable, online information platforms. Examples of Web 2.0 sites include Wikipedia, which in 

May 2015 contained 4.9 million articles (in its English language edition). 

In the same month, there were nearly 10 million “Wikipedians” with a 

2014-2015 average of 850 new articles added each month.12

If Web 2.0’s technologies have lowered the barriers to mass participation and co-creation, they have also facilitated online social communities 

of unprecedented scale that are the main expression of Web 2.0 as the 

Social Web. Examples of social and business networking, micro-blogging, 

photo and video sharing and messaging include Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Pinterest, Sina Weibo, Tumblr, Flickr, Google+, Renren, SnapChat, 

and WhatsApp.13

Two other strands of digital technologies have converged with other 

Web 2.0 technologies and share many of the same defining features. These 

are Massive, Multiplayer, Online Role-Playing Games (MMORPGs) and 

virtual online worlds both of which involve people engaging as avatars in 

virtual 3D spaces. In both cases, gamers and users engage interactively 

with others who hold similar interests and expertise in immersive social, 

business or fictional virtual environments. 

 Tapscott and Williams in their 2006 book capture the heart as well as 

the head of Web 2.0: 

Low-cost collaborative infrastructures – from free Internet telephony to open-source software to global outsourcing platforms – 

allow thousands upon thousands of individuals and small producers to cocreate products, access markets . . . in ways that only large 

corporations could manage in the past . . . Once a bastion of “professionalism,” credentialed knowledge producers share the stage 

with “amateur” creators who are disrupting every activity they 

touch . . . Individuals now share knowledge, computing power, 

bandwidth, and other resources to create a wide array of free and 

open-source goods and services that anyone can use or modify. 

What’s more, people can contribute to the “digital commons” at 

very little cost to themselves, which makes collective action much 

more attractive. Indeed, peer production is a very social activity . . 

. We’re all participating in the rise of a global, ubiquitous platform 

for computation and collaboration that is reshaping nearly every 

aspect of human affairs. While the old Web was about Web sites, 
106

clicks, and “eyeballs,” the new Web is about the communities, 

participation and peering.14

Web 3.0 Characteristics

At least three trends in digital technology distinguish the emergent 

Web 3.0. These are the ever-reducing ties to location with increasingly 

portable “smart” devices – the Mobile Web (everything, everywhere, all 

the time); the exponential evolution of machine-to-machine connections 

– the “Internet-of-Things,” the Data Web; and standards, protocols and 

applications that improve the ability of machines to “understand” and behave intelligently.

It is estimated that by 2016, 80 percent of global internet access 

will occur through mobile devices.15 By 2020, 80 percent of the world’s 

population will have a smartphone and there will be two to three times 

the number of smartphones as PCs. With over 3.5 billion people online 

in 2015, it is also estimated that the next billion users will come online 

via smartphones.16 3G and 4G infrastructures are evolving into 5G, 

significantly enhancing the speed, capacity and functionality of mobile 

devices. For example, according to Apple and Intel sources, a 2014 iPhone 

computing processing unit had 625 times more transistors than a 1995 

Pentium computer.17

New mobile applications start off as Web 2.0-enabled, with real-time, 

always available, data-based web information, payment, location, and other services. Applications development is also integrating with the Internet 

of Things (see next paragraph) with the smart phone becoming a personal 

control hub for devices and services. 

It is estimated that by the end of 2015, the majority of web browsing 

and media consumption will be being done on smartphones. While smartphones first got physically smaller and then incorporated larger screens, 

with the launch of Apple watches, health monitoring devices, and Google 

glass, we are also entering the era of commercially viable wearables which 

will provide vehicles for augmented reality and ambient intelligence for 

the user.

Web 3.0 is the hyperconnected web of “things” – sensors, PCs, phones 

– that can be identified by an IP address and so connected. Estimates vary 

wildly on how many devices could be connected data gatherers, analysts 

and sharers. A mid-range estimate of the MIT Technology Review is about 

25 billion by 2020.18
107

This is the space where mobile, computing, and the internet converge 

as standards and protocols for inter-connectivity are maturing and costs 

and the size of sensors, processors and networking are reducing significantly. The result: “smart” objects and environments, homes, cars, refrigerators, and toothbrushes able to create, share, and interpret the data they 

are gathering. 

Finally Web 3.0 also reflects a milestone – the Semantic Web, the 

“meaning” Web for machines – on the way to artificial intelligence. Web 

2.0 has evolved applications to connect people in ways that allow them to 

achieve the synergies of sharing and collaborating. 

Leveraging off this, the goal of the Semantic Web is to help people 

and computers connect, analyze, and create insightful information 

through protocols, standards, and computer languages that attach 

meaningful contexts to data. This advance seeks to address the 

exponential growth of digital data. In 2012 it was estimated that 

there was about 2.7 zettabytes of global data, with this figure likely to 

double by 2015 and continue to double every two years after that.19

By annotating data with contextual and meaning attributes, computers can 

search, find, link and connect, recognize people, places, events, products, 

etc. and the relationships between these things substantially faster and 

more efficiently than keyword search for example.20

Learning 

1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 

and...3.0?21

In the higher 

education sector, 

we have seen Web 

1.0 and 2.0 catalyze, shape, and influence new learning environments, 

and reconfigure and 

upgrade existing 

learning environments. Enabled by 

technology advances, new understandings about teaching and learning have evolved that 

improve the quality of the learning experience. New and upgraded learning spaces have been created for students who have been excluded from 

Figure 3. Distinguishing Features of Learning 1.0 and 1.5. 

Created by author.
108

existing institutional models. However, by comparison with many other 

sectors, the higher education sector has evolved extremely slowly and in 

a very patchy way. 

Learning 1.0 Characteristics

Today’s heritage higher education models reflect their roots in Europe’s 12th century universities. These institutions took on teaching practices of early Church schools, which served to distinguish university education from trade/craft guild-based vocational training. Young and adult 

learners and educators largely interact in a master-pupil relationship. The 

principal teaching method involves a credentialed, research-proven, lecturer lecturing, with or without visual aids, face-to-face (f2f) to groups of 

students amassed in one bricks-and-mortar location. The student role is 

primarily passive, ingesting information provided by the lecturer. Students 

are expected to prepare for class by reading textbooks or journal articles 

also assigned by the lecturer. Lectures may be followed by smaller group 

tutorials led by teaching assistants and enriched by occasional field studies 

or other practical activities.

Students study in groups and individually, using library resources to 

achieve learning objectives defined for each course. The main goal is usually knowledge transfer. The extent of this transfer is measured by tests, 

examinations, and written assignments graded by the lecturer or automated scoring. Students progress through programs of courses to meet institutionally-defined standards for an academic qualification. While students 

may have some choice in what subjects and courses they take, the balance 

of choice rests with the institution.

In the military school-house this model predominates with highly doctrinaire schema of “Learning Areas and Objectives” dictating what and 

how students must study and faculty-student ratios dictate where learning 

can take place.22 The learning experience is primarily centered around the 

teacher as the provider of organized content, the selector of appropriate 

readings, the developer of slide decks, and the presenter of pre-selected 

models and frameworks to save students time and help them traverse complex knowledge areas.

Over time, this highly teacher-centric method of Learning 1.0 has 

been refined. For example, the “sage-on-the-stage” re-roles as the “guide 

on the side” with students usually taking more active roles in discussion 

sessions – often referred to as the “Socratic method” to practice critical 

thinking. However, as Cobb observes:
109

The idea of an expert, tutor, or mentor who conveys knowledge 

and experience to a student . . . has been around at least as long 

as recorded history. The teacher in this relationship holds the 

position of dominance, and, while there may be dialog between 

teacher and learner, the teacher is the authoritative source. The 

Socratic method, for instance, is a time-honored approach to such 

dialog. Socrates engages the learner in a series of questions, but 

ultimately, it is Socrates who has the answer.23

Learning 1.5 Characteristics

Learning 1.5 is characterized by the ongoing refinement of the Learning 1.0 f2f model and the advent of first generation e-learning. While the 

latter has been a significant change in its own right, this learning era only 

gets a 0.5 designation. This is because of the narrowness of vision that 

shaped the technology adoption strategies of most higher education institutions which reflected the usual desire to fit new technologies into existing and familiar organizational structures and practices. 

The starting point for this narrow vision has been the academic profession’s valuation of Learning 1.0 as the premier way for students to learn 

and for teachers to teach. Therefore by definition any other format must 

be of a lesser quality and a technology strategy should seek to emulate or 

approximate as best it could the f2f experience as closely as possible. 

The key characteristics of the e-learning component of Learning 1.5 

can be summed as: 

•	 digitized text and basic graphics in static, minimalist web-pages 

replicating hard-copy text formats, and e-books/journal articles, 

packaged into a linear series of lessons that can be viewed by the 

student via a computer;

•	 one-way knowledge transfer from educator to student with the 

latter being responsible for reading and absorbing e-content with 

minimal interaction with the educator or other students;

•	 the principal role of the educator is to research, organize and 

package relevant content into an ordered sequence of lessons 

supported by a set of matching, usually text-based, writing assignments, quizzes for students to complete and submit electronically; 

•	 use of e-mail communications and asynchronous “chat” (text) 

threads that permit the exchange of text messages between 

students, and between students and educators; and
110

•	 automated systems (for example, Moodle, Edmodo, ConnectEDU and Blackboard) for organizing and delivering course content and scheduling, statistical tracking of student activity, grades 

and transcripts, communications, uploading of student assignments and feedback electronically to remotely located students.

At least two new eLearning formats have emerged in recent years 

that have been heralded as great advances in eLearning. Yet, when stripdown evaluated, at their core, Massive, Open, Online Courses (MOOCs), 

and “Flipped Classrooms” are very much Learning 1.5 products based on 

Learning 1.0 models. 

MOOCs are marketed as being taught by lecturers from the some of 

the world’s most highly respected bricks-and-mortar universities.24 Yet, 

while opening up a new platform for delivering higher education to many 

who could not otherwise afford an f2f experience, many MOOCs rely on 

canned videos of faculty 1.0-style lectures similar to those given to their 

f2f students and using the same textbooks they have written for publication. Few of the participating universities and lecturers are highly reputed for their leading edge online learning praxis. Moreover, many rely on 

practices that, while minimizing educator time/cost commitments, are as 

yet unproven in their efficacy for student learning. There are some developmental path options for MOOCs. One path will be continuing to seek 

to replicate (at scale) Learning 1.0 education methods and outcomes. On 

this path, MOOCs will be continue to be assessed against Learning 1.0 

f2f standards such as high completion rates while lacking the positive and 

punitive incentives for students to achieve such standards (such as tuition 

fees, academic credit and credentials). MOOCs may evolve along another 

path that engages more Learning 2.0 and even 3.0 learning and teaching 

praxis and concepts. 

For their part, flipped classrooms are not an advanced form of online learning, but rather another way to enhance the existing f2f Learning 

1.0 experience by providing canned video lectures to students for viewing 

before coming to class so as to free up class-time for more interactive 

faculty-facilitated discussions or activities. Just as for MOOCs, flipped 

classroom concepts could remain just a tool for making better use of time 

spent in the f2f classroom, or it could evolve by employing more Learning 

2.0 and 3.0 learning and teaching praxis and concepts.

Learning 2.0 Characteristics

If Learning 1.5 was shaped by the goal of replicating the f2f classroom, 

the impact of Web 2.0 technologies on the evolution of Learning 2.0 has 
111

been transformative. As much as Web 2.0 technologies have fundamentally 

re-shaped the Web, these technologies have also created opportunities for 

different learning experiences that educational theorists and researchers 

suggest are more enabling of student learning. 

The shift from the Read-Only to the Read-Write Web has enabled a 

significant shift in eLearning to incorporate more learner-centric learning 

experiences. For example, using more open, free, user-friendly authoring tools, it has been possible for students to engage in Wikinomic-type 

co-creation projects.25 This is where educators create content examples, 

and students create their own contributions. 

An example of such learning events can be seen in the author’s graduate degree course on interagency collaboration for national and homeland 

security leaders. In this course, students and faculty create video interviews of interagency practitioners. By 2015, the Google Site video gallery held over 70 co-created interviews accessible by current and future 

students. 

In this activity, students and faculty seek out a suitable interagency 

practitioner. They practice their engagement skills with their selected 

practitioner to gain his or her buy-in. Students and educators also practice 

digital video filming skills, and their skills in question design and 

Figure 4. Distinguishing Features of Learning 2.0 and 3.0. Created by author.
112

interviewing (using Charlie Rose’s meaningful dialogue style as a guide).26

In Learning 1.0, a corresponding activity might be students attending an f2f 

guest speaker presentation that may be followed up by a class discussion 

facilitated by an instructor. By contrast, as a co-creator, the student learns 

by doing, by discovery. In addition, many also additionally benefit from 

the connection they make with their selected practitioners, many of whom 

follow up as informal mentors. 

Web 2.0 technologies have provided tools for the inquiring educator 

to design other digitally-enhanced learning events that provide greater student choice and autonomy and practice. These include for example:

•	 games and simulations

•	 blogging, tagging, and reflective journaling

•	 self-assessment tools

•	 creation and exploration of virtual Worlds

•	 design and construction of infographics

•	 wiki-enabled course products

•	 creation of web-pages

•	 crowd-sourcing features

Another defining feature of Web 2.0 is its socialness in reducing barriers to, and the addictive encouragement of, group and individual participation. Social Web technologies have enabled more interactive online 

learning environments where students can interact in collaborative ways. 

Such collaborations on challenges, experiments, games, wikis, simulated practice situations, and product creations assist students to construct 

shared meaning and new insights and perspectives that each student can 

internalize for future application.27

Social web technologies have also shaped Learning 2.0 environments 

with activities that help students to develop and practice their leader and 

contributor skills, which are increasingly required by Digital Age working 

environments. Downes explores this concept by distinguishing the features of traditional groups and Web 2.0-enabled networks. He observes 

that a “group is elemental, defined by mass and sameness . . . a network 

is diverse and changing, defined by interactions – like an ecosystem.”28

He distinguishes traditional group-work as requiring unity, coherence, privacy or segregation and focus on voice. By contrast, Downes observes, 

networks work through diversity, autonomy, openness and interaction. 

Digitally enabled Learning 2.0 environments expand the opportunities for 

students to work autonomously or collaboratively in networks as well as 

in more traditional group settings. 
113

Web 2.0 technologies have also enabled educators to change out static, 

black and white Web 1.0 text content with more rich media combinations of 

text, links, voting, surveys, images, interactive charts, diagrams, gamified 

content, videos, podcasts, etc. Intuitive authoring tools are increasing daily 

for educators who do not need to have a software coding competency. 

These tools are enabling educators to lead the design and development of 

more authentic, active and immersive digitally-enabled learning events for 

students.29

Another key feature that distinguishes Learning 2.0 is the shift from 

using digital technologies to simply expand student access to also change 

what students learn. For example, Davies, Fidler and Gorbis, identified ten 

key workforce skills needed by Digital Age workforce members:

•	Sense Making •	New media literacy

•	Social Intelligence •	Transdisciplinary

•	Novel and Adaptive Thinking •	Design Mindset

•	Cross-Cultural Competency •	Cognitive Load Management

•	Computational Thinking •	Virtual Collaboration30

As Web 2.0, and now 3.0, are reshaping the competencies needed by 

Digital Age workforces and leaders, so Learning 2.0 is evolving to provide 

digitally enhanced discovery spaces, practice events for example where 

students can develop these digital literacies and skills. 

Learning 3.0 Characteristics

Just as Web 3.0 is in early emergence, so too is Learning 3.0. Even 

for early innovators and adopters, this is still a period of experimentation. 

Also, mainstream Web 2.0 technologies are evolving by leveraging emergent Web 3.0 technologies. Three features of the emergent Web 3.0 are 

likely to shape the functionalities of Learning 3.0: 

•	 mobile technologies that are making learning anywhere, anytime 

possible; 

•	 maturing Web 2.0 applications and Semantic Web technologies, 

along with internet infrastructure developments, that are making 

always-on personalized/ personal learning networks, and alternative educational digitally-based spaces and facilities possible; 

and

•	 data web technologies that are likely to influence how educational institutions measure, evaluate, analyze, customize and adapt 

group and individual learning experiences.31
114

Mobile applications for education are quickly moving out. Instead of 

seeing the mobile device as simply a way of accessing web content designed for larger PC screens, increasingly new web applications include 

mobile versions. 

Gaming and simulation apps are being designed to offer students enhanced learning through replay, active practice, and multiple opportunities for low-stakes formative assessment.32 Other developments include 

apps for students to access institutional student information systems, and 

wide-ranging online learning resources through their mobile devices. We 

are also starting to see Web 3.0 features such as augmented reality and intelligent agent information services being integrated into mobile devices. 

Mobile device ownership is expanding rapidly. For example the Pew 

Trust’s April 2015 smartphone survey shows that 84 percent of 18-29 yearolds and 79 percent of 30-49 year-olds own a smartphone. Mobile devices 

have also changed how users engage with the Web for accessing information, learning, communicating continuously, creation, and reflection. For 

example, 30 percent of 18-29 year-olds surveyed had used their phone 

to “take a class or get educational content.”33 In other studies of higher education students, these percentages are substantially higher – 60-80 

percent.34 In their 2015 survey of US teens and technology, Pew Research 

found that 92 percent of teens report going online daily, with 24 percent 

using the internet “almost constantly” and 56 percent going online several 

times a day. The survey also found that 91 percent of teens send between 

30-40 messages daily on average and that nearly three quarters of teens 

play video games on their mobile devices. The 2015 Pew survey of teens 

and social media found that 39 percent of online teens share their own 

artwork, photos, stories or videos, 33 percent create or work on webpages 

or blogs for others; 28 percent create their own online journals or blogs; 

27 percent maintain their own personal webpages and 26 percent remix 

content they find online into their own creations.35

Web 2.0/3.0 technologies are not only facilitating the shift from teacher to student-centered learning approaches. They are changing where and 

when learning can take place, and who is involved in determining what is 

learned for what purpose. 

The conventional understanding of education as the singular

qualifying event that transforms the novice, the amateur, or the ignorant 

into the qualified, credentialed societally recognized knowledgeable and 

capable professional is increasingly being challenged by the exponential 

growth of new data, information and knowledge. To sustain professional 
115

competence, currency, agility, resilience, and relevance in the Digital Age, 

professionals (and their employers) are increasingly seeking frequent, 

easily accessible, affordable, and relevant-to-need and often just-in-time 

learning opportunities. 

Equally, the model that the learner must come to the societally approved educational institution for learning, and that institution (and/or a 

professional association) will determine completely both the process of 

learning and the performance changes that the learner needs to make, is 

being challenged by the emergence of digitally-enabled non-traditional 

learning providers who successfully leverage Web 2.0 and 3.0 technologies. Moreover, maturing Web 2.0 technologies that connect people are 

merging with Web 3.0 technologies that focus on open access to exponentially expanding resources, data, information, and knowledge. 

These high entry barriers (in terms of accreditation requirements, faculty qualifications, facility expectations, etc.), which have protected expensive and heritage institutional monopolies (including those in the DOD 

professional education system), are being outflanked by innovation in the 

higher education marketplace fueled by Web 2.0 and 3.0 technologies. 

There is an increasing range of learning opportunities being developed 

outside, alongside, or on the edge of the traditional academy – MOOCs, 

games, nano- or micro-credentialing, and also include the more established practice of webinars.36

These factors are creating opportunities and incentives for learners to 

take more initiative in selecting the what, when, where and how of their 

learning activities and to create for themselves digitally-enabled personal 

and personalized life-long learning networks. In Learning 3.0, we are seeing the 1990s aspiration being realized through Web 2.0/3.0 technologies 

that enable students to create independently, or with guidance from educators, their own online continually evolving collection of learning resources (blogs, websites, wikis, twitter and RSS feeds, online courses, content 

repositories, etc.) 

These two breaks in conventional practice, along with Web 2.0 and 3.0 

technology enablers, have opened up new approaches that challenge the 

centrality of the heritage bricks and mortar higher education institution. 

Moving away from segmented learning events controlled by heritage institutions, we are seeing the emergence of customizable learning “flows” 

or pathways, as described by Institute for the Future’s Future of Learning 

Program:
116

New technologies, work patterns, and practices are disrupting 

how we learn, where we learn, and what we need to learn. The 

definitions of teacher and student are becoming fluid, and education itself is moving out of episodic experiences in traditional 

institutions and their classrooms, into learning flows that course 

through our daily lives. People of all ages dip in and out of these 

flows, engaging in continuous learning channels that are contextually relevant and always available. Opportunities and resources 

for learners are no longer scarce but abundant; they are pervasive 

rather than localized.37

Further, two of the classic mainstay features of heritage higher education – the textbook and the course – are also undergoing transformation 

enabled by Web 2.0/3.0 technologies allowing more opportunities for students, not just educators, to personalize and customize learning experiences. Over the last decade particularly, we have seen the rapid maturing and 

expansion of Open Educational Resources (OERs) – digitally available, 

free, open source software and development tools, open courseware, content projects, free courses, Learning Object repositories, and open standards and licensing tools that are outflanking the central place of textbooks 

and journal articles.38 As Brown remarks: 

The ever-growing abundance of ancillary content relevant to education (e.g., iTunes, U, MOOCS, and repositories such as OpenStax, CNX), enables students to skip the purchase of core textbooks altogether and instead seek basic explanations of content 

from these open resources.39

The traditional concept of the “course” is also being challenged by 

alternative digitally-enabled learning spaces and content bundles that can 

be accessed easily, cheaply and directly by students. These range from the 

growth of “content commons” such as YouTube (videos), Flickr, Pinterest 

(images) Slideshare (presentations), through to newer platforms that are 

designed to connect up and organize disparate sources of information and 

data or provide easy access to self-paced online courses primarily suited 

for knowledge transfer (for example, Carnegie Mellon University’s Open 

Learning Initiative, Udemy, Udacity). 

We are also seeing new types of educational institutions emerging. 

Already mentioned for example is the growth of MOOCs, with providers 

such as Coursera and FutureLearn in the UK, iTunesU and edX, that are 

not constrained by the location encumbrances, qualification restrictions 
117

and cost profiles of traditional campus universities that limit student access. 

The third area of Web 3.0 technologies influencing Learning 3.0 is 

that of the Internet of Things and the Data/Semantic Web. The increasing 

amount of data from automated processes, coupled with the evolution of 

predictive algorithms and data analytics capabilities, holds the potential 

to provide insightful information to support more efficient and responsive administration. Also, as students increasingly pursue their learning 

through and by digital means, data patterns can be collected to provide educators (and students) with greater situational awareness of performance 

so that they are able to amend, adjust, reprioritize, repeat, etc. learning 

events and provide timely formative feedback to help students to achieve 

learning outcomes. 

The US Department of Education in its 2013 briefing on Data Mining and Learning Analytics provides this perspective on how Learning 3.0 

could apply and be shaped by improving data analytics: 

New computer-supported interactive learning methods and tools 

– intelligent tutoring systems, simulations, games – have opened 

up opportunities to collect and analyze student data, to discover 

patterns and trends in those data, and to make new discoveries and 

test hypotheses about how students learn.40

Implications and Recommendations

Implications for Educational Institutions

Heritage higher education institutions, particularly those serving adult 

learners, are under increasing pressure to adapt their controls over academic credentials, credit hour measures, course structures and schedules 

etc., as students, educators, and employers seek the advantages of Learning 2.0 and 3.0 opportunities. As Peter Smith, President of Kaplan University’s Open College observes: 

Our system of higher education is based on . . . the principle of 

scarcity, that the resources needed to provide an education must 

be collected in one place – a campus . . . The principle of scarcity 

says that for an institution to be valuable to the community around 

it, it must offer a service that community members can’t get more 

cheaply or with higher quality somewhere else . . . Technology is obliterating the old boundaries defined by the campus and 

its schedule, leaving multiple possibilities to provide organized 

learning opportunities.41
118

To date, higher education institutions, including the DOD professional 

education system, have “seen off” challenges to their preferred Learning 

1.0 teaching model and practice, firm in their belief that these models and 

practice represent the apex of quality. This has led to views that dismiss 

the relevance and impact of digital technologies. Moreover, it is also believed that enough accommodations have been made with first generation 

eLearning models. For example, the Online Learning Consortium (OLC) 

survey of late 2014, found that “even amongst those institutions with the 

most extensive online offerings, about two-thirds [of chief academic officers] report that their faculty do not accept it.” The report also found that 

only just over a quarter of higher education faculty members accept the 

“value and legitimacy of online education.” Even more startling is that this 

level of non-acceptance has not changed in a decade.42

Another institutional impediment to leveraging Web 2.0/3.0 technologies is the inertia and rigidity of Learning Management Systems (LMS) 

that have failed to evolve much beyond Learning 1.5. Their focus on automated academic administration has also controlled the design of digital 

educational practice and content.43 In evaluating the effects of this overstretch, Weigel in 2005 observed: 

The downside of the CMS [Content Management Systems] is that 

it canalizes our collective creativity by forcing e-learning technologies into the familiar classroom categories of lectures, discussions and exams, reinforcing uncritical acceptance of the traditional features of the classroom model.44

And a decade later, leading educational technologist, Downes put it 

even more bluntly: “It’s not new just because you’ve added ‘on a computer’ to some pre-existing model or idea . . . It’s not even new on a computer . . . today’s online learning models are yesterday’s models with new 

names.”45 Although LMS providers have continued to “bolt-on” software 

upgrades, they have not evolved past their DNA-level goal of emulating 

Learning 1.0 models and flawed assumption that administering and enabling eLearning are one and the same.46

Mainstream institutions also have a critical need to reassess how educational technology fits into institutional investment strategies. All too 

frequently, educational technology is seen as a “back office” administration issue. This influences how technology requirements are formulated, 

prioritized and deployed, as Churcher, Downs, and Tewksbury observe: 

Those routinely employed to implement these technologies are 

not educators, but more commonly technical consultants and IT 
119

staff. Their primary goal is to make the technology function properly and effectively, not necessarily to think of issues such as student learning outcomes or best teaching practices.47

IT staffs and enterprise administrators are often unaware and uninterested in the limitations imposed on educators’ ability to design and deliver learning events, particularly leveraging the unique properties of the 

online medium to help students develop higher-level Bloom’s taxonomy 

cognitive skills that are better achieved in substantially more interactive, 

participatory, immersive learning environments.

This dysfunction is exacerbated by often unresponsive institutional IT 

systems and acquisition practices and, in the DOD professional educational system particularly, cripplingly high-barrier cyber security defenses that 

compromise edtech innovation and the functionality of digitally enabled 

environments for military and civilian national security professional students.

While many of the author’s Learning 1.0 colleagues might disagree, 

it is reasoned here that the confident and effective integration of leading 

edge (with some bleeding edge) relevant, educator- and student-friendly 

enabling technologies is increasingly critical for educational mission success.48 This includes:

•	 prioritizing educational technology investments over bricks-andmortar infrastructures,

•	 appointing or developing and supporting Chief Information and 

Chief Academic Officers who are edtech “savvy” and edtech 

evangelists, and

•	 assigning organizational authority for edtech to qualified academic leaders. 

The exponentially expanding influence of digital technologies upon 

contemporary and future work environments is of such a magnitude that 

how higher education institutions, and especially within the context of 

this book, how DOD professional education institutions, leverage Learning 2.0 and 3.0 models is likely to influence their continuing relevance 

to potential students, and their employment sponsors. This is particularly 

the case as both students and employer sponsors are increasingly able to 

access alternative educational providers who are more agile in continuous 

development and deployment of new learning experiences, and are more 

customer-focused, and skilled at leveraging technology cycles. 

Also, as Web 2.0/3.0 technologies create new levels of userintuitiveness, customization, participation, and democratization of 
120

access in other ecosystems, higher education institutions are inevitably 

going to be judged not by comparison with peer institutions, but against 

leading performance in these other sectors – for example, how do our 

student information systems compare with Amazon.com customer-centric 

information systems; from a student perspective, how do our lectures and 

presentations compare with TED Talks; and how do our highly regulated 

and institutionally controlled schedules of courses and evaluations 

compare with 2U, Minerva Project, and pop-up schools for example.49

And in response to the inevitable criticism of comparing apples and 

oranges, and concerns over the “tail wagging the dog,” employers, users, 

and learners do not care. They will blithely translate experience from sector to expectations they have of another. Relying on the presumption that 

Professional Military Education (PME) and Joint Professional Military 

Education (JPME) students and their sponsors will have no other choice 

but to accept the current education options on offer from the DOD professional education system is both high-risk and ill-advised. 

Implications for Institutional Academic Leaderships

Institutional academic leaders are also challenged by the growing gap 

between the mainstream and the leading edge of professional educational praxis and administration, between educational innovators and early 

adopters and late adopters and the trailing edge in their institutions.50 This 

expanse is growing not simply because of shortening cycles of digitally-focused discovery, experimentation, development and deployment. It 

is also expanding because the rate at which mainstream higher education, 

and DOD professional education institutions, are adopting and integrating 

new technologies is halting at best.

Academic leaderships sit between the proverbial rock and a hard 

place. On the one hand, Learning 2.0/3.0 is evolving fast. On the other 

hand, most of their educator workforce is not. Many faculty feel their authority and competence is being eroded and threatened by these changes. 

They see little value in them. They remain unconvinced of the need to expand their practice beyond familiar and proven models. In this context, it 

is interesting to note the reaction of US Chief Academic Officers in a 2014 

Online Learning Consortium survey, where although 71 percent of 2,800 

CAOs surveyed agreed that online education is critical for their institutions’ long-term strategy, and acknowledged the lack of faculty acceptance 

as a critical issue, many commented that they were pursuing strategies to 

work around faculty intransigence.51
121

At the same time, institution leaders are facing the aspirations and 

frustrations of the innovators and early adopters of Learning 2.0/3.0 

amongst their educator workforce. As the pace of technology change increases, most educator innovators are frustrated by tepid, rhetorical and 

caveated support for their experimentation and innovation efforts and the 

technology emphasis on enterprise, one-size-fits-all LMS and walls-up information security. As Mott observes: 

Many students, teachers, instructional technologists and administrators consider the LMS too inflexible and are turning to the web 

for tools that support their everyday communication, productivity 

and collaboration needs. Blogs, wikis, social networking sites, microblogging tools and other web-based applications are supplanting the teaching and learning tools previously found only inside 

the LMS.52

For academic leaders, leveraging the best from both sides of this divided workforce is also made more difficult by the fact that, unlike virtually every other profession, higher education practitioners are not usually 

appointed for their capabilities as best practice educators. 

In the DOD professional development system, military officers particularly are assigned to the faculty of the War Colleges, and National 

Defense University, for example, not for their qualifications or demonstrated best practice as educators, but on the criteria of rank, military occupational specialty, operational experience, and service. This practice is 

reinforced with the re-hiring of retiring military officers into civilian faculty appointments. Underlying these practices are two presumptions: that 

content knowledge is the more important and difficult to acquire and so 

has to be hired or assigned in, and that anyone can teach after at best some 

orientation briefings and “on-the-job” observation and practice.53

The purpose of graduate education at the senior war and joint colleges 

is substantially about helping students develop their strategic and enterprise thinking and leadership skills. In this context, content knowledge is 

not a substitute faculty qualification for competency in educational theory 

and practice in designing and crafting learning events and course learning 

structures that are effective for adult student learning in higher end cognitive skills.54 And it is not a viable alternative faculty qualification for 

the task of designing digitally-enabled learning events that leverage the 

unique and constantly innovating properties of the online medium. 

Faculty members assigned to a war or joint college need to be 

developed as educators capable of performing the spectrum of educational 
122

roles in all learning environments. Similarly, there is a need for many 

long-standing civilian faculty to substantially expand and strengthen their 

digital literacies to enhance their confidence and capabilities to lead other 

faculty in digitally-enabled learning environments. 

To address these needs, there is a critical and urgent requirement to 

institutionalize and prioritize sufficient financial and human resources to 

support comprehensive leading edge professional development programs 

for civilian, military and visiting faculty. Such programs should:

•	 help faculty members see themselves and develop themselves as 

higher education educators and members of the education profession;

•	 provide safe, non-threatening learning labs where all faculty can 

develop their digital literacy competencies working on projects 

of personal and institutional relevance; and

•	 provide well-resourced (tools, apps, digital resources) experimentation spaces, and qualified faculty and edtech guides for 

designing, testing and developing new learning events.

These programs need to be designed and led by educators recognized 

for their teaching skills, their innovation in digital technologies, and their 

understanding of their institution’s culture. Participation in such programs 

needs to be recognized, valued, and incentivized in performance appraisals and promotion criteria. 

There is also a need to vitalize, value, and validate faculty innovators 

and experimenters and create paths to rapidly socialize and mainstream 

their successful experiments across and beyond institutional boundaries. 

As the Higher Education Funding Council of England noted in their report 

on Enhancing Learning and Teaching Through the Use of Technology, 

“the challenge for institutions is to move beyond pockets of innovative 

practice carried out by enthusiasts.”55

There is a palpable need to develop, resource, and empower a vibrant 

educational innovation community across the entire DOD professional 

education system. Such a community needs low entry barriers, easy and 

incentivized sharing of best practice learning events, development tools, 

and content resources (such as videos, images, games, simulations).

Implications for Educators

As observed above, the gap between Learning 1.0/1.5 and Learning 

2.0/3.0 teaching practice and competencies is widening rapidly as the former changes little, and the latter is evolving at an increasing rate. For 
123

many educators, that there is a gap is irrelevant as long as they are able to 

continue using Leaning 1.0 methods of practice. However, the evidence 

presented above foreshadows a situation where there may well no longer 

be a choice to continue solely with these methods of practice. If this is the 

case, then the gap does matter, and the fact that the gap is growing is of 

significance. 

As digitally-enabled learning environments become more pervasive, 

rapidly changing, and more sought after by students and employers, educational technology mastery can no longer be a skill-set for specialist edtech technologists or “instructional designers.”56 There is a pressing need 

for educators to grow beyond their Learning 1.0 praxis and develop their 

professional skills and digital literacies for designing learning events and 

courses that leverage the unique properties of Learning 2.0/3.0.57 With the 

speed of developments, taking this initiative now as a priority is critical 

before the gap between current and needed skills levels widens so much 

that it is too challenging to bridge. 

Learning 2.0/3.0 also calls for educators to expand beyond traditional 

direct or indirect teacher-centric roles. New roles include that of educational experimenter and innovator. As the development cycles for educational technology shorten, traditional research practice carried out by 

academic researchers is struggling to serve this role. Moreover, this space 

is being filled by software and publishing house vendors, new alternative 

education providers, and students themselves. Front-line educators should 

not be limited to being deliverers of pre-packaged content that can only 

be changed at the margin through hierarchies of inflexible, cumbersome 

“mother-may-I” approval processes. 

Other Learning 2.0/3.0 roles and responsibilities could include serving 

as guides for life-long learners in creating and evolving their personalized/

personal learning networks; designer and constructor of Learning 2.0/3.0 

learning events including games, simulations, videos, assessment tools, 

websites, etc., for a wide range of access devices, spaces and places; and 

serving as peer advisers to new faculty to help them develop their own 

digital literacies. 

Implications for Students

Particularly the graduate part of the higher education sector and the 

senior level of the DOD professional development system are confronting 

a learner generational issue. Baby boomer generation and Gen X adult 

learners have been socialized by their youth Learning 1.0 experiences to 

expect and accept teacher-centered school experiences and accept learning 
124

as a requirement for professional accreditation. For military practitioners 

particularly, continued professional standing and advancement has been 

tied to regular, spaced injections of education and training. Such students 

expect to leverage their years of professional experiences in each episode 

of education or training but equally expect a “full-service” experience 

where, for example, all learning materials are prepared for them. 

As we move into more learner-centric 2.0/3.0 environments, many 

baby boomer and Gen X students may find they need to significantly upgrade their digital literacies and capabilities that they will require not only 

for episodic and continuous learning events, but also within Web 2.0/3.0 

shaped work and operational environments. 

By contrast, US Millennials and Gen Zee are socialized by their living 

and learning experiences, immersed in the rapid-fire changes of Web and 

internet technologies, and the unbundling of learning opportunities out of 

conventional Learning 1.0 educational systems.58 These are the generations of adult students who are shortly to enter our mid and senior PME 

and JPME educational institutions, and who, for the most part, have very 

different and demanding expectations and preferences for autonomy, participation, collaboration, mobility, IT support, electronic resources, personalization, etc. 

At the same time, while it would appear that these upcoming generations are more familiar with and active on many Web 2.0 social and 

current affairs apps, and depend upon always-on, personalized connectivity, it cannot be assumed that they possess advanced digital literacies 

for leveraging the web for learning purposes, as a British Library/Joint 

Information Systems Committee report observed about the “Google Generation:” “although young people demonstrate an ease and familiarity with 

computers, they rely on the most basic search tools and do not possess the 

critical and analytical skills to assess the information that they find on the 

web.”59 Although slightly counter-intuitive, it would seem also likely that 

Millennials and Gen Zee students will require learning opportunities that 

either directly or indirectly help them upgrade their digital literacies and 

capabilities.

Learning 2.0/3.0 3.0 environments open up opportunities for students 

to learn by their own discovery, by their own practice, and by their own 

collaborations. While many students may relish the idea of not being 

overly prescribed, directed and controlled in their learning activities, this 

empowering freedom also transfers a degree of responsibility from educators to students which may not necessarily be as welcome. While learning 
125

2.0/3.0 educators may guide and assist, much more of the initiative and 

discipline for learning rests with the student. 

As episodic learning opportunities prove inadequate for professionals 

to keep up with subject matter developments and maintain their digital 

capabilities, and as more anywhere, anytime learning alternatives go 

mainstream, most professionals will become active continuous life-long 

learners. To support this habit, learners are likely to need to develop their 

skills in designing and maintaining their own Learning 2.0/3.0 personalized/

personal networks and paths – to become informed customers, rather than 

passive recipients of institutional direction. To guide their selection of 

learning experiences to incorporate, they are likely to establish continuous 

relationships with a number of local or global educators and mentors. 

Also, we are likely to see changes in the traditional work environment 

– concepts of work productivity and what gets done at work – to accommodate and incorporate learning activities, time, and spaces, and sharing 

of learned experiences as normal components of activity. There is likely to 

be a strong feedback loop from these activities in terms of organizational 

resilience, readiness for innovation and adaptation.

Finally, as can be seen from the earlier sections of this chapter, like 

it, love it, or loathe it, digital technologies (particularly when converged 

with their nano- bio- and robotic counterparts) are impacting almost every social, economic, and government sector in and between every world 

region. Yet the learning areas and subject structures of most (but not all) 

War and Joint College programs continue to focus on traditional subjects 

such as history, politics, economics, mathematics, engineering, computer 

sciences, etc. While such educational experiences are always challenged 

by trying to squeeze a quart of learning into a pint pot of time available, 

as future strategic leaders, PME and JPME students (and faculty) particularly need to develop their subject matter awareness and understanding 

of cyberspace writ large in terms of its wide, diverse and exponentially 

evolving uses, technologies and security. 
126

Notes

1. Many of the trends and practices presented in this chapter are being 

experienced in many parts of the world. However, to manage its scope, this 

chapter focuses principally on the US context. I would also like acknowledge 

and thank Dr. Paulette Robinson, and Dr. Linton Wells II for their review of this 

chapter and comments all of which have been incorporated.

2. Malcolm Brown, “Trajectories for Digital Technology in Higher 

Education” EDUCAUSE Review July/August 2015, accessed 30 June 2015, 

http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/erm1541.pdf), 16.

3. For example, see Clayton M. Christensen, The Innovative University – 

Changing the DNA of Higher Education from Inside Out (San Francisco, JoseyBass, 2011); and Clayton M. Christensen, Michael B. Horn, Curtis W. Johnson, 

Disrupting Class (New York, McGraw-Hill, 2008).

4. See for example, Moises Naim, The End of Power – From Boardrooms to 

Battlefields to Churches and States, Why Being in Charge Isn’t What it Used to 

be (New York, Basic Books, 2013).

5. Cathy N. Davidson and David Theo Goldberg, The Future of Learning 

Institutions in a Digital Age (Boston, MIT Press, 2009), 8.

6. Tim O’Reilly, “What is Web 2.0 – Designing Patterns and Business 

Models for the Next Generation of Software” September 30, 2005, accessed 12 

June 2015, http://www.oreilly.com/pub/a/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html.

7. See an interesting blog post on this by Andy Mulholland, “Government 

2.0 – What Exactly Does this and other 2.0 Terms Mean?” GovLoop October 

9, 2008, accessed 18 June 2015, https://www.govloop.com/community/blog/

government-2-0-what-exactly-does-this-and-other-2-0-terms-mean/.

8. “A Live Look at Activity Across WordPress.Com,” accessed 18 June 

2015, https://wordpress.com/activity/.

9. Craig Smith, “By the Numbers: 70+ Amazing Tumblr Statistics and 

Facts,” 1 May 2015, accessed 18 June 2015, http://expandedramblings.com/

index.php/tumblr-user-stats-fact/.

10. YouTube Statistics, accessed 18 June 2015, https://www.youtube.com/

yt/press/statistics.html.

11. Craig Smith, “By the Numbers; 14 Interesting Flickr Facts” 23 May 

2015, accessed 18 June 2015, http://expandedramblings.com/index.php/flickrstats/.

12. 50 Recently Active Wikipedians, accessed 18 June 2015, http://stats.

wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm#wikipedians.

13. Randy Milovanic, “The World’s 21 most Important Social Media Sites 

and Apps in 2015” Social Media Today, 13 April 2015, accessed 19 June 2015, 

http://www.socialmediatoday.com/social-networks/2015-04-13/worlds-21-mostimportant-social-media-sites-and-apps-2015.

14. Don Tapscott, Andy Williams, Wikinomics – How Mass Collaboration 

Changes Everything (New York, Portfolio, 2006), 12-19. The materials defining 

Web 2.0 are substantial. One reference of particular help is Ron Dawson’s Web 
127

2.0 Framework, Web 2.0 Landscape and Web. 20 Definitions, accessed 18 June 

2015, http://www.rossdawsonblog.com/Web2_Framework.pdf.

15. Darryl West, Going Mobile – How Wireless Technology is Reshaping 

Our Lives (Washington D.C. Brookings Institution Press, 2014).

16. Benedict Evans, “Mobile is Eating the World,” 8 October 2014, 

accessed 18 June 2015, http://www.slideshare.net/a16z/mobile-is-eating-theworld-40841467.

17. Evans, “Mobile is Eating the World,” 2014.

18. Antonio Regalado, “Business Adapts to a New Style of Computer” 

MIT Technology Review July/August 2014, accessed 19 June 2015, http://

www.technologyreview.com/news/527356/business-adapts-to-a-new-style-ofcomputer/.

19. Darryl K. Taft, “Five Trends that will drive Data Storage in 2015”

eWeek, 28 November 2014, accessed 20 June 2015, http://www.eweek.com/

storage/slideshows/five-trends-that-will-drive-data-storage-in-2015.html.

20. For an overview of the Semantic Web, see Hatem Mahmoud, “Web 

3.0 The Semantic Web” 14 July 2009, accessed 20 June 2015, http://www.

slideshare.net/HatemMahmoud/web-30-the-semantic-web?qid=53fd8829-5ed8-

4ff4-ade5-0a5eccac0d6c&v=default&b=&from_search=1.

21. Two caveats in respect of this section: first, the US higher education 

sector is large and diverse. Inevitably any attempt to summarize defining 

characteristics and attributes cannot incorporate all exceptions and exceptional 

models, institutions, practitioners and student groups. Second, a word about 

“eLearning”: unfortunately, “e-Learning” is often too narrowly viewed 

and defined as “distance” or “distributed” learning. It has led to a false and 

misleading separation into two divergent and disconnected tracks of education 

- online and face-to-face, asynchronous and synchronous, resident and 

online educators, and students. However, emerging, and even mainstream, 

digital technologies are shaping and enhancing the learning experience in all 

educational settings, not only those outside the traditional bricks and mortar 

institution.

22. For example, see the 148-page Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff 

Instruction (2015, 29 May) Officer Professional Military Education Policy 

(CJCSI 1800.01E).

23. Jeff Cobb, Learning 2.0 for Associations (Tagoras, 2nd Ed., 2010), 

accessed 12 June 2015, http://www.tagoras.com/docs/Learning-20-Associations2ed.pdf, 15-16.

24. See Coursera (https://www.coursera.org/) and EdX (https://www.edx.

org/)for example. 

25. Don Tapscott, Andy Williams, Wikinomics – How Mass Collaboration 

Changes Everything (New York, Portfolio, 2006).

26. See for example, Ari Bildner, “TV Journalist Rose Imparts Interviewing 

Tips” Yale Daily News, 19 April 2007, accessed 26 June 2015, http://

yaledailynews.com/blog/2007/04/19/tv-journalist-rose-imparts-interviewingtips/.
128

27. For an overview of the educational theory of social constructivism, 

from which this idea of social collaborative learning is drawn, see, Kalen M.A. 

Churcher, Edward Downs, Doug Tewksbury, “Friending” Vygotsky: A Social 

Constructivist Pedagogy of Knowledge Building Through Classroom Social 

Media Use” The Journal of Effective Teaching, 2014, 14, 1, 33-50.

28. Stephen Downes, “Groups vs. Networks Blog post,” 24 November 

2007, accessed 26 June 2015, http://www.downes.ca/post/42521.

29. See for example, Koreen Olbrish Pagano, Immersive Learning 

– Designing for Authentic Practice (American Society for Training and 

Development Press, 2013).

30. Ann Davies, Devin Fidler, Marina Gorbis, Future Workforce Skills 

2020 (Institute For the Future, University of Phoenix Research Institute, 2011), 

accessed 21 June 2015, http://www.iftf.org/uploads/media/SR-1382A_UPRI_

future_work_skills_sm.pdf.

31. For an example of an excellent summary of these trends, see Malcom 

Brown, “Trajectories for Digital Technology in Higher Education” EDUCAUSE 

Review, July/August 2015, accessed 26 June 2015, http://www.educause.edu/

ero/article/six-trajectories-digital-technology-higher-education, 50, 4; Mark S. 

Valenti, “Beyond Active Learning – Transformation of the Learning Space” 

EDUCAUSE Review, 2015, July/August 2015, accessed 26 June 2015, http://

www.educause.edu/ero/article/beyond-active-learning-transformation-learningspace, 50, 4; and Malcolm Brown, Joanne Dehoney, Nancy Millichap, “What 

Next for the LMS?” EDUCAUSE Review, 2015 July-August 2015, accessed 26 

June 2015, http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/whats-next-lms, 50, 4.

32. See definition of “low-stakes” assessments: “Low-stakes assignments 

are forms of evaluation that do not heavily impact students’ final grades or other 

educational outcomes. The purpose of low-stakes assignments is to provide 

students with an indication of their performance while taking a course and give 

students an opportunity to improve their performance prior to receiving a final 

grade, either on an assignment or in a course,” accessed 29 June 2015, http://

teachingcommons.depaul.edu/Feedback_Grading/low-stakes-assignments.html.

33. The Smartphone Difference: US Smartphone Use in 2015, Pew 

Research Center, April 2015, accessed 28 June 2015, http://www.pewinternet.

org/2015/04/01/us-smartphone-use-in-2015/. 

34. For example, see: Angela Murphy, Helen Farley, Helen, Andy Koronios, 

“Understanding the Use of Smart Mobile Technologies for Learning in Higher 

Education” (Paper presented to the 30th Ascilite Conference, Sydney, 2013), 

accessed 28 June 2015, http://www.ascilite.org/conferences/sydney13/program/

papers/Murphy.pdf. Also see: McGraw-Hill Education’s March 2015 report on 

its survey of higher education students from undergraduate to doctoral level, 

reports that of those surveyed 81 percent use mobile devices for educational 

purposes. This is up 40 percent over their 2013 survey. Accessed 28 June 2015, 

http://www.mheducation.com/about/news-room/report-new-mcgraw-hilleducation-research-finds-more-80-percent-students-use-mobile. 
129

35. Amanda Lenhart, Teen, Social Media and Technology Overview 

2015, Pew Research Center, April 2015, accessed 2 July 2015, http://www.

pewinternet.org/files/2015/04/PI_TeensandTech_Update2015_0409151.pdf. The 

2014 Social Media data is recorded in Andrew W. Berning, Top Ten Current 

Trends in Educational Technology 11 June 2015, accessed 25 June 2015, http://

www.slideshare.net/andyberning/top-current-trends-in-educational-technology6-1115?qid=4b74fd37-203b-4bdd-ac9b-13d5dde7b3d8&v=qf1&b=&from_

search=7.

36. See for example, John K. Waters, “How Nanodegrees are Disrupting 

Higher Education” Campus Technology, 5 August 2015, accessed on 6 August 

2015, http://campustechnology.com/articles/2015/08/05/how-nanodegrees-aredisrupting-higher-education.aspx.

37. Institute For The Future, From Educational Institutions to Learning 

Flows – Mapping the Future of Learning (2013), accessed 30 June 2015, http://

www.iftf.org/our-work/global-landscape/learning/from-educational-institutionsto-learning-flows-map/. See the program’s Learning Flows Map, http://www.iftf.

org/fileadmin/user_upload/images/ourwork/learning_2013map_lg.jpg.

38. Steven Wheeler, “What’s so Good about Open Educational Resources?” 

(Presentation for the UNESCO OER Conference, Windhoek, Namibia, 2010) 

Slide 11-12, accessed 30 June 2015, http://www.slideshare.net/timbuckteeth/

whats-so-good-about-open-educational-resources?qid=7b8415b5-7e26-493b8bb9-6942ea45a5cb&v=default&b=&from_search=3). Open Educational 

Resources are defined as “teaching, learning, and research resources that reside 

in the public domain or have been released under an intellectual property license 

that permits their free use and re-purposing by others.”

39. Malcolm Brown, “Trajectories for Digital Technology in Higher 

Education” EDUCAUSE Review, July/August 2015, accessed 30 June 2015, 

http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/erm1541.pdf.

40. Marie Bienkowski, Mingyu Feng, Barbara Means, Enhancing Teaching 

and Learning Through Educational Data Mining and Learning Analytics: An 

Issue Brief (US Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology, 

2012), 9, accessed 30 June 2015, http://www.cra.org/ccc/files/docs/learninganalytics-ed.pdf.

41. Peter Smith, “The Coming Era of Personalized Learning Paths” 

EDUCAUSE Review November/December 2014, accessed 29 June 2015, http://

www.educause.edu/ero/article/coming-era-personalized-learning-paths, 49, 6.

42. Elaine I. Allen, Jeff Seaman, Jeff, Grade Level: Tracking Online 

Education in the United States (Boston, Babson Survey Research Group and 

Quahog Research Group LLC, 2015), 15.

43. Lisa M. Lane, “Insidious Pedagogy: How Course Management Systems 

Impact Teaching” First Monday 2009, October 5, 14, 10, http://firstmonday.org/

ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2530/2303.

44. Van Weigel, “From course management to curricular capabilities: A 

capabilities Approach for the next generation” EDUCAUSE Review 2005, 40, 3, 
130

55, accessed 24 June 2015, http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM0533.

pdf.

45. Stephen Downes, “New Learning, New Society” Keynote Presentation 

delivered to Chang School talks, Ryerson University, Toronto, 2015, February 

23. Also, as another educator observed: “Typing is not teaching and reading 

is not learning. Students deserve more from online courses than regurgitated 

textbooks and opportunities to teach themselves. With today’s technology, we 

can create a rich learning environment.” Ellen Smyth, “Solving the Problem 

of Online Problem Solving,” Faculty Focus, 8 November 2010, accessed 1 

July 2015, http://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/effective-teaching-strategies/

solving-the-problem-of-online-problem-solving/.

46. Malcolm Brown, Joanne Dehoney, Nancy Millichap, “What Next for the 

LMS?” EDUCAUSE Review, July/August 2015, 50, 4, accessed 26 June 2015, 

http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/whats-next-lms.

47. Kalen M.A. Churcher, Edward Downs, Doug Tewksbury, “Friending” 

Vygotsky: A Social Constructivist Pedagogy of Knowledge Building Through 

Classroom Social Media Use” The Journal of Effective Teaching, 2014, 14, 

1, 35. For example, the “Academic Computing Working Group (with only 

advisory authority) at National Defense University reports to the IT Investment 

Committee, rather than sets the priorities for the latter.

48. See for example, the UK JISC Digital Student Program’s 50 exemplars 

of effective digital practice in support of student achievement, accessed 2 July 

2015, http://digitalstudent.jiscinvolve.org/wp/exemplars/. 

49. Started in 1984 as a conference where Technology, Entertainment and 

Design converged, TED provides a variety of open platform opportunities for 

leading thinkers, researchers, practitioners, activists to speak on their ideas 

across a broad spectrum — from science to business to global issues. These 

talks are short in length (usually 15-18 minutes), pithy, informative and are 

characterized by intense preparation, and careful use of graphics, charts, 

diagrams, and statistics to support argument and reasoning. Talks are curated 

on the TED Website (https://www.ted.com/). http://2u.com/; Wood, Graeme, 

“The Future of College?” The Atlantic Monthly September 2014, accessed 26 

May 2015, http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/08/the-future-ofcollege/375071/. Christine Mercer, “Radical Pop-Up Schools: A new way to 

reach educationally disadvantaged communities” Washington Post, June 16, 

2015, accessed 30 June 2015, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answersheet/wp/2015/06/16/radical-pop-up-schools-a-new-way-to-reach-educationallydisadvantaged-communities/.

50. Everett Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations (New York, Free Press, 5th 

Edition, 2003).

51. Elaine I. Allen, Jeff Seaman, Grade Level: Tracking Online Education 

in the United States (Boston, Babson Survey Research Group and Quahog 

Research Group LLC, 2015), 21-22.

52. Jonathan Mott, (2010, March), “Envisioning the Post-LMS-Era: The 

Open Learning Network” EDUCAUSE Quarterly March 2010, accessed 1 July 
131

2015, http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/envisioning-post-lms-era-openlearning-network. 

53. Joan Johnson-Freese, Educating America’s Military (Cass Military 

Studies, Routledge, 2012). See also, Book TV: Joan Johnson-Freese, “Educating 

America’s Military,” accessed 1 July 2015, https://www.youtube.com/

watch?v=lh_SakoTRnU.

54. See the updated Bloom’s Taxonomy of Cognitive Skills. Interesting, 

the update is not only in sync with the shifts from Learning 1.0 to Learning 2.0, 

but it also acknowledges “Create” as the highest cognitive skill – a skill that is 

encouraged and facilitated by co-creative and collaborative digitally-enabled 

learning environments. 

55. Higher Education Funding Council of England, Enhancing Learning 

and Teaching Through the Use of Technology (2009), 6. The latest NMC 

Technology Outlook for the Australian Tertiary Sector also commented that: 

“Current organisational promotion structures rarely reward innovation and 

improvements in teaching and learning. A pervasive aversion to change 

limits the diffusion of new ideas, and too often discourages experimentation.”

L. Johnson, S. Adams Becker, C. Hall, 2015 NMC Technology Outlook for 

Australian Tertiary Education: A Horizon Project Regional Report (Austin, 

Texas: The New Media Consortium, 2015), 8.

56. Marc Prensky, author of Digital Game-Based Learning, remarked in 

2005 in his EDUCAUSE Review article “Students certainly don’t have short 

attention spans for these games, movies, music or internet surfing. More and 

more, they just don’t tolerate the old ways and they are enraged we are not doing 

better by them.” Marc Prensky, “Engage me or Enrage Me – What Today’s 

Learners Demand” EDUCAUSE Review September 2005, accessed 2 July 2015, 

https://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/erm0553.pdf.

57. D. Bawden, Chapter One: Origins and Concepts of Digital Literacy, 

in Digital Literacies: Concepts, Policies and Practices (Peter Lang 

Publishing Inc.), 17-32, as summarized by Judy O’Connell, “Digital Learning 

Environments – A Multidisciplinary Focus on 21st Century Learning” 

Presentation to Ascilite 2014 Conference, Dunedin, New Zealand, 23 November 

2014. O’Connell quotes Bawden’s facets of digital literacy as: 

• Knowledge Assembly – building a “reliable information hoard” from 

diverse sources;

• Retrieval Skills, plus critical thinking for making informed judgements 

about retrieved information, with wariness about the validity and 

completeness of internet sources;

• Reading and understanding non-sequential and dynamic material;

• Awareness of the value of traditional tools in conjunction with 

networked media

• Awareness of “people networks” as sources of advice and help;

• Using filters and agents to manage incoming information; and

• Being comfortable with publishing and communicating information as 

well as accessing it. 
132

Bawden’s concept of digital literacy was limited to gathering and using 

digitally-housed information. Over the last seven years, the concept of digital 

literacies has deepened and widened to include skills in video/audio production, 

web page design and construction, image adjustment, creating relevant mash-up 

applications; wiki editing, blogging, tagging which are associated with Web and 

Learning 2.0. We are currently seeing Web and Learning 3.0 coming up with 

additional literacies required to fully utilize the emerging technologies. 

See also the UK Joint Information Systems Committee, Developing Digital 

Capabilities Guide and its Seven Elements of Digital Literacy (https://www.jisc.

ac.uk/full-guide/developing-digital-literacies); and its Digital Student Project 

and Digital capabilities model (https://www.jisc.ac.uk/blog/thriving-in-aconnected-age-digital-capability-and-digital-wellbeing-25-jun-2015). Accessed 

on 3 July 2015. 

58. Although there are a few years difference between sources, most usually 

baby boomers are defined as the generation born between 1946 and 1964, Gen 

Xers – between 1965 and 1984, and Millennials as post 1980. However, we are 

seeing that perhaps Millennials are being followed by a distinctive generation, 

dubbed Gen Zee, born after 2004, who will soon be entering their teens. 

59. I. Rowlands, et. al., Information Behaviour of the Researcher of the 

Future (CIBR Research Team, University College, London, 2008) 18-20.
133

Chapter 8

Being in Uncertainty: Cultivating a New Sensibility in Military 

Education

Peter J. Denning and Susan L. Higgins

Abstract

We consider the question: Is military education keeping pace with the 

task of preparing military people for effective leadership in the emerging 

highly networked, highly unpredictable world? We examine the nature 

of the changing environment for military operations. We speculate about 

leadership identity needed in this environment, possible ways to cultivate 

the required sensibilities, and the possible role of technology in achieving it. We call for a conversation about how military leadership education 

might be redesigned and how we might get a new design in place.

Today’s global security environment is the most

unpredictable that I have seen in 40 years of service.

 – General Martin Dempsey, US Army

Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff1

If we were the best of the best, why were such attacks not

disappearing but in fact increasing? Why were we unable to defeat an 

under-resourced insurgency? Why were we losing?

– General Stanley McChrystal, US Army2

We are in the midst of a transformation from a machine age to a network age. The machine age taught us to aspire to predictability, control, 

and efficiency; the network age confronts us with massive, ever-increasing, intractable uncertainties. Possibilities change rapidly and outcomes 

are unpredictable. Our military leaders were brought up in a machine age 

of operations planned and executed in a strongly hierarchical, rule-based, 

and technology-dominated tradition. The network age breaks the old rules 

and demands new ones: it integrates billions of humans and machines into 

an ever-shifting, semi-intelligent organic system. Effective leadership is 

challenging because there are no fixed rule sets in the network age. Our 

education systems, designed in the machine age, do not adequately prepare our military for the emerging new world. Our adversaries, who are 

not subject to our institutional constraints, are moving into the new age 

faster than we are. It is time for a new conversation about the design of 

military education.
134

The now-famous story of Lieutenant Colonel Christopher Hughes in 

Iraq in April 2003 gives a glimmer of thinking that should become the 

norm of the Network Age.3

 He was leading a battalion from the US Army’s 

101st Airborne Division toward the Shia mosque in Islamic holy city of 

Najaf, Iraq. Suddenly they were surrounded by an angry mob, increasingly 

agitated as the rumor spread that the Americans were there to forcibly take 

the mosque. Hughes’ military training gave him clear rules – protect his 

men by raising their firearms toward the crowd, fire a warning shot, and be 

prepared to fire to kill if needed. Hughes recalled later “If somebody shot 

a round in the air, there was going to be some sort of massacre.”4

 Instead, 

Hughes bucked his training. He ordered his men to drop to one knee, lower 

their weapons, and smile. Then he ordered them to back away. The crowd 

parted and he and his men left. No shots were fired on that street that day. 

Not only did he duck disaster, Hughes won a strategic victory by building 

trust that the Americans were not trying to take over mosques.

Our Naval Postgraduate School colleague Commander Zachary Staples had an assignment in Iraq in which he got to observe first-hand the 

devastating effects of Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs). Up to that 

point, the military had tried a variety of technology fixes including improved vehicle armor, early detection of explosive chemical residues, and 

jamming of radio signals that detonated IEDs. These technologies had an 

effect on reducing IED casualties, but the troops still sustained major injuries because many were not wearing their helmets when an IED hit. 

Staples asked the men why they did not wear their helmets or the headsets 

that protected their eardrums from blast overpressure effects. They told 

him that most convoys were long, hot, and boring – taking off their helmets and their headsets enabled them to listen to their iPods and remain a 

little cooler. As an engineer he built a small adapter that gated iPod signals 

into the helmet headphones so that soldiers could listen to their music with 

helmet and headsets on, but it automatically switched to the radio channel 

when needed. Men who used the adapter wore their helmets and sustained 

far fewer IED injuries. Staples travelled across Iraq offering an IED training seminar in which the graduation token was a free adapter. In the seminar he showed how to avoid injuries by wearing helmets and using the 

adapter. He said, “I was able to achieve this innovation and get the buy-in 

by understanding what was important to them in their everyday culture, 

and giving them a protective technology that blended into their worlds.”5

What made Hughes and Staples buck their training? We think they 

had a sensibility about the social cultures they came in contact with, enabling them to anticipate people’s assessments and moods, and find better 
135

alternatives than permitted by the existing rules. They followed their sensibilities instead of the published procedures and coped with unexpected 

contingencies. We think that such sensibility can be cultivated within a 

new approach to military education. We will speculate about the shape of 

that approach in this chapter.

Mindful of Albert Einstein’s saying, “We cannot solve our problems 

with the same thinking we used when we created them,” we might ask 

how we can change our thinking for the new age.6

 This is the wrong question for our situation because it implicitly assumes thinking will solve the 

problems that thinking caused. Instead we will examine here what kind of 

human beings we need to become so that we will be effective in the new 

age. Certainly, we need to think differently, see the world through new perspectives, and make new interpretations. But that is far from enough. We 

also need to embody new practices of sensibilities toward history, culture, 

moods, emotions, power, and possibilities – for this is how we will be able 

to act effectively even when there is no time to think. We will examine in 

depth what this new way of being looks like and how we might cultivate it.

We use the term “network” frequently in this chapter. We are not referring to a machine-age view of a large network of connected computers, 

but rather to a network-age view of billions of people and machines interacting with each other. The emerging network is both social and technological. The network age brings together computing networks and human 

networks in a way unseen at any time in history, creating the ever shifting, 

semi-intelligent organic system we now experience as “the network.” The 

network age has the computational power of the machine age, plus publishing, information sharing, global communications, coordinating, social 

networking, sharing economies, crowdsourcing, mobility, cheap cloud 

computing, and more. And it includes a new dark side of cyber crime, 

identity theft, cyber attacks, dark networks, and black-market “network 

exploits.”

Role of Computing Technology

Computing technology is a transformative influence behind the 

changes in our world. We have developed machines of vast computational 

power and connected them into a vast network. Today’s computers are 

a million times faster and a thousand times smaller than those of fifty 

years ago. Today’s Internet has grown to over fifteen billion machines and 

four billion people. The network of machines and people has acquired a 

sort of intelligence – the collective amplified intelligence of all the people 
136

participating in it. The semi-intelligent network functions more like a 

biological ecosystem than a huge supercomputer.

The first of the two accompanying images (Figure 5) illustrates the 

computing power we have achieved so far. It is the IBM Blue Gene supercomputer at Argonne Labs. It houses 250,000 processors in 72 cabinets 

connected by an optical network. It can perform around 1015 operations 

per second – a million times faster than the chip in your smartphone. The 

second image (Figure 6 on the following page) is a beautiful graph of 

connections between Internet sites collected from data on packet traffic in 

the Internet.

The Internet is an organic system of humans and machines in a never-ending dance of interaction altering and amplifying each other’s capabilities. We are constantly changing the system’s structure. Our collective 

behavior is unpredictable because there is no way to know how interactions among so many people and machines will turn out. This is the context in which military operations are being conducted.

Reinaldo Normand, a Silicon Valley entrepreneur, writes a provocative 

book about the speed at which digitalization of almost everything combined 

with exponential growth of digital technologies in almost every sector, 

defies our abilities to project what will happen next.7

 He calls attention to 

Figure 5. IBM Blue Gene Supercomputer at Argonne Labs. Photo courtesy 

of Argonne National Laboratory. Image available at http://flickr.com/photos/35734278@N05/3323018571, Wikimedia Creative Commons license.
137

15 digital technology trends, each growing exponentially, that are causing 

major disruptions in economies and governments – the cloud, mobility, 

sharing economy, Internet of things, big data, virtual reality, 3D printing, 

bionic implants, biotech, nanotech, artificial intelligence, alternative 

energies, bitcoin, and digital crime. Exponential trends foster avalanches 

that sweep away entire industries, long familiar ways of doing business, 

and identities. Exponential trends and avalanches, rare in the machine age, 

are increasingly common in the network age.

Military leaders today are trying to come to terms with new realities 

of warfare enabled by the network context. Here are examples of problems 

induced by computing technology, but for which there is no technological 

solution (see Table 3 on the following page).

Figure 6. Internet connection graph from border gateway protocol data. Photo 

courtesy of Barrett Lyon / The Opte Project.
138

Contrasting Perspectives

There are many contrasts between our machine-age interpretations of 

our world and the emerging network-age interpretations. We have listed 

nine examples in Table 4, and we will comment on them next.

Large scale sensor 

networks and 

situational awareness

Massive sensory data easily push operators into information overwhelm and 

present them with a “situation” too complex for their understanding. The large 

number of people interacting and making their own choices makes prediction 

impossible.

Command and control 

of huge networks

Operators are easily pushed into overload. Great uncertainties are caused by 

incomplete information and lack of control over adversary actions.

Encryption hides 

content but not actions

Strong encryption hides content of messages behind unbreakable ciphers. But 

metadata, including event records of packet movements, allows inferring plans 

and intentions of those sending secret messages.

Finding dark networks Adversaries take extraordinary steps beyond encryption to hide their 

communications and networks. But their actions leave “footprints” in the 

physical world. Can the footprints be correlated and analyzed to infer the 

contents of hidden communications, locate hidden actors, and even map their 

social networks?

Automated weapon 

control

It seems that the only choice with a very complex system is to develop weapon 

controllers that decide how and when to use the weapon faster than humans can 

determine and respond. This is problematic because taking humans out of the 

loop leaves decision making to machine intelligence that does not understand 

political and diplomatic nuances. Can we keep humans in the loop?

Cyber attacks The attacker’s intent ranges from nondestructive theft of information without 

being detected, to disabling our ability to communicate and coordinate. Should 

we have backup systems? What might they be?

Swarming operations Drone technology is making swarm tactics cheap, feasible, and effective. An 

aircraft carrier cannot defend itself against a swarm of autonomous bombardier 

drones. But we may be able to defend with our own swarms of defensive drones.

Table 3. Examples of problems induced by computing technology. Created by 

authors.

1 Innovation as idea creation Innovation as emergence

2 Knowing more Exponential uncertainty

3 Diffusion Mobilization

4 Deterministic Unpredictable

5 No intelligence Intelligence

6 Efficiency Effectiveness

7 Managing toward goals Navigating

8 Rule sets and end-states Commitments, moods, power

9 Sustaining innovation, 

brands

Shifting identities, disruption, 

avalanches

Table 4. Contrasts between machine age and network age perspectives. Created 

by authors.
139

(1) The first contrast concerns the origins of innovation. Our innovation process models assume that innovation begins with an idea that is 

then processed through a series of steps until it is embodied into a technology artifact that diffuses through a population. These models make it 

seem that ideas drive innovation and without ideas there is no innovation; 

therefore we put great emphasis on creativity and imagination. Yet even 

with charismatic leadership, our success with creative thinking, strategic 

plans, and careful process management is dismal – under four percent of 

innovation projects make a positive return on their investment.8 This has 

been a scourge for the military, which depends on constant innovation to 

stay ahead of nimble adversaries. 

Through our studies of innovation, we are learning that much innovation does not begin with an idea – it emerges in the practices of communities as people respond to concerns using whatever tools and technologies 

they find around them.9

 Whatever we call the “idea” is often a story invented in hindsight to explain the practice that has already emerged. We are 

also learning that 90 percent of the work to achieve innovation is involved 

in adoption of the new practice rather than creating ideas. We are likely to 

become much more successful at innovation if we let go of the “idea idea” 

and learn how to foster adoption.

(2) The second contrast concerns the promise of “big data.” On the 

one hand, big data offers vast knowledge of events everywhere in the network and the computational power to locate patterns and causes. On the 

other hand, the more information we have and the more connected we are, 

the less we are able to predict. It seems that the increasing numbers of connections and increasing sophistication of automation generate uncertainty 

faster than they resolve uncertainty.

(3) The third contrast concerns technology adoption. Our machine-age 

interpretation is that adoption results from information diffusion: people 

making conscious decisions to use a new technology after receiving information about it through their communication channels and social connections.10 In the network age, however, we see people unconsciously falling 

into new practices that attract them by appearing more effective, admirable, or fashionable; leaders foster adoption by mobilizing people in a 

network to commit to the new practice.

(4) The fourth contrast concerns deep differences between a network 

of machines and a network of people. Machines are deterministic: they 

follow definite steps, in definite orders, producing definite outcomes. The 

network of people and machines on the other hand is non-deterministic: no 
140

outcome is certain and it is often difficult even to enumerate all the possibilities available at a given time. Our deterministic rule sets, developed in 

the machine age, do not work well in the uncertain network age.

(5) The fifth contrast concerns our notions of intelligence. Machines 

are not intelligent. All you see inside a machine is electronic circuits made 

of transistors and wires. Whatever we call intelligent behavior of a machine is simply an assessment provoked in us by the machine’s designer. 

When we connect huge numbers of people and machines, the resulting 

network behaves with intelligence – the collective amplified intelligence 

of the people using it. The network can aggregate data about our individual movements and make inferences about our future movements. How do 

we navigate in such an environment?

(6) The sixth contrast concerns the role of efficiency. With machines 

we are concerned to minimize waste of time and energy. In the network 

age, we often have more computing power and bandwidth than we need 

and our concern shifts to effectiveness. How do we foster the effective 

outcomes when the tools we find around us are cheap?

(7) The seventh contrast is that in the uncertain, unpredictable environment of the network age we often cannot describe the end-states we 

seek. We can speak only of possibilities and we wonder how to move in 

the network closer to the possibilities that interest us. We cannot readily 

define a path from where we are to where we want to be. Instead, we must 

find our way amidst the uncertainty, much the same as navigators have 

historically found their way across uncertain seas to destinations well over 

the horizon. Instead of defining a path and managing it every step of the 

way, we explore and navigate through an ocean of uncertainties. We alter 

course when we encounter unexpected contingencies.

(8) The eighth contrast is the focus on what is most important for 

achieving outcomes. The machine-age view is that the world is a complex 

system and the desired outcome (end) is a state of the system. In this view, 

we define rule sets for how to move in the system and get to the end state. 

The network-age view is that the desired outcomes depend on commitments that people make. Their willingness to make commitments depends 

on their moods. The capacity to induce others to make commitments depends on whether they have personal and social power in the network. 

Clarity in making speech acts such as requests, promises, declarations, 

assertions, and assessment is essential for developing personal and social 

power.
141

(9) The ninth contrast concerns how organizations, industries, and 

identities evolve. In the machine age, conditions are relatively stable and 

predictable; organizations have many years to develop brands and earn 

trust of generations of customers. In the network age, disruptions of brand 

and identity are increasingly common; avalanches sweep away entire job 

sectors in just a few years. How do we rebuild if we are disrupted? Manage our moods?

In these contrasts, we have emphasized that the machine-age framework is heavily technological. It looks for technological and rule-based 

solutions to problems. It seeks to define rule sets for dealing with recurrent problems. Bureaucracies, which achieve machine-like behavior from 

human organizations, fall in this category and are notoriously slow to 

change. The military services are deeply bureaucratic. They have extensive rule sets and instructions to cover almost any imaginable contingency 

and are constantly producing new instructions to cover new contingencies.

In the network age, leaders must become aware of the social context 

in which technology is used; its history, stakeholders, culture, dispositions, 

moods, and power exercised by various groups. Vice Admiral Arthur 

Cebrowski, a network-age thinker par excellence, frequently gave 

speeches arguing that the two approaches can be brought together 

through the military doctrine of “commander’s intent.” He advocated that 

commanding officers enable forces to organize from the bottom up – or 

to self-synchronize – to meet the commander’s intent.11 This is similar 

to McChrystal’s principle to delegate decisions on specific actions to the 

lowest possible level.12 The Cebrowski and McChrystal interpretations of 

command are controversial.13 Too many junior officers fear their careers 

will be ruined if they break the rules or violate their chains of command. It 

will be a real challenge to develop organizational rewards that incentivize 

the development of network age leaders. 

Deeper Reflection on the Ideation-Emergence Contrast

Let us examine in more detail the first of the contrasts in the list. This 

is the contrast between the machine age notion that ideas cause or initiate innovation and the network age notion that innovations emerge in the 

practices of people in the domain. Our success at innovation and staying 

ahead of adversaries will depend not on idea creation, but on how well we 

master emergence.

Ideation means imagining and creating new ideas for solving 

problems. The result is a description of the idea, a prototype, and a plan 

to implement it. The main work of innovation is seen as invention; the 
142

work of gaining adoption is buried beneath the lesser term “implement.” 

This notion is attractive because our main models of innovation – pipeline, 

funnel, diffusion, and innovation cell – all show innovation being initiated 

and driven by ideas. Moreover these four models are formulated as 

technologies – an assembly line, a series of funnels, a communication 

network, a spinning wheel throwing off sparks. The models themselves 

exemplify machine age thinking and terminology.

The flaws in this framework can be seen in two major breakdowns 

mentioned earlier: the four percent success rate of innovation proposals 

and the 90 percent adoption work factor. We need to spend less time on 

ideation and more on fostering emergence. Many adversaries are using 

approaches consistent with emergence (discussed next) and are overtaking 

us in the novelty of their attacks.14

The fundamental problem with the machine-age framework for innovation is that it views the world as constituted of objects to be described 

and controlled; innovation looks like a process of manipulating and controlling objects. In this framework innovators must be skilled at planning, 

selling, executing, managing, and spinning off. 

In contrast, the network age brings the interpretation that the world 

is constituted by practices. Innovation is the emergence of new practices 

that displace existing practices. Practices are rooted in human interactions, 

history, conversations, and skills; objects and technologies are tools and 

equipment to enable and facilitate practices. Emergence means a marginal 

practice shows up in a community and spreads as people imitate and improve it. They come to embody the new practice, which means they do it 

without conscious thought.

In the network-age framework, innovators facilitate emergences by 

exercising by the skills of appropriating, navigating, offering, and mobilizing.15 If you are not sure what these terms mean, you are not alone. To 

innovate in the network age, we need to understand and cultivate these 

skills – and include them in our education of military officers.

Leadership Identity

McChrystal, et al. favor the metaphor of leaders as gardeners, 

helping people grow their organic networks by tending, caring, watering, 

fertilizing, and pruning as needed.16 This metaphor is consistent with our 

view of network age leaders. Is there a curriculum that teaches in this 

metaphor? We think it is premature to try to specify a whole curriculum. 

Let us begin with simple steps, starting with conversations about skills 

and practices of leaders who will thrive in the network age. Let us also 
143

design experiments that help us learn more, as Vice Admiral Cebrowski 

advised when changing world conditions create new military challenges.17

We think a good place to start is with a conversation on the identity of a 

network age leader.18

Leader as Innovator – The leader understands that missions are 

accomplished and battles won through innovation. The leader understands 

innovation as emergence of practices and makes new proposals by 

responding to concerns and contingencies with new combinations of 

existing practices and technologies. The leader mobilizes members of the 

social community to commit to the new practice and bring others along. 

The leader understands that some pockets of the network will support and 

others will oppose the proposed change, and helps the team ride with the 

supporters and seek a turn of mind among the opposers.

Leader as Navigator – The leader helps the group find its way through 

oceans of uncertainties and fogs of war, without having a map of the territory or knowing a clear path to the goal. The leader is prepared to respond 

and adapt to unexpected contingencies and has prepared the team with the 

right competencies and commitment to stick together and support each 

other. The leader sets the direction, provides necessary context, and allows 

the individual members to make choices based on local conditions while 

moving in the general direction. The leader expects them to exercise good 

judgment and ask for help when they do not know. The leader is constantly 

open to new contingencies and adapts around them.19

Leader as Historical Agent – The leader respects that all people 

grow up in different communities that are parts of different cultures, from 

which they acquired concerns, practices, interpretations, and distinctions. 

The leader is constantly entering into community conversations that were 

going on before the leader came along. The leader is interested in other 

people’s histories and their communities, not only to see what concerns 

them, but also to build trust and credibility with them.

Leader as Opener of Possibilities – The leader realizes the importance of orchestrating moods to create openings for action toward new 

possibilities. The leader opens new possibilities by making well-grounded 

assessments of current conditions and on the basis of those assessments offers new possibilities and ways to make them happen. The leader produces 

a commitment in the group to move toward a possibility.20

Leader as Appropriator – The leader understands that every new 

mission is likely to encounter new communities. An experienced and 

capable person confronting a new situation must be willing to be a 
144

“beginning learner” in the new context. Finding and listening to the 

“voices” of a community helps to accelerate understanding. Continuous 

learning practices help a leader “appropriate” a holistic familiarity of a 

changing world. 21

The leader’s identity is a story that blends attitudes, dispositions, 

commitments, credibility, and skills in these five areas. Network age leaders must be willing to accept rapid change and adapt to emerging new 

realities. In other words, the leader’s identity is not fixed, but is always 

changing. The leader looks for opportunities in the ever-changing environment and adapts with them. The messiness of this process of adaption may 

feel uncomfortable. McChrystal notes, “for an engineer educated at West 

Point, the idea that a problem has different solutions on different days was 

fundamentally disturbing. Yet, that was the case.”22

Toward a New Learning Environment

Designing new learning environments that support the cultivation of 

network age leaders needs an iterative approach that includes both explorative conversations and experimentation. This should begin with a broad 

conversation about the breakdowns currently experienced by military 

leaders, the nature of the world in which they will be leading future military operations, and the aspects of a leader’s identity that our education 

programs should cultivate. At best we have glimmers and intuitions about 

these issues.

We might consider speculating about a complete redesign of military 

schools. Recent examples of redesigned engineering schools are encouraging.23 The enthusiasm of their graduates is a signal that a bottom-up redesign of engineering curricula might win support and be successful. Given 

the military’s strong focus on engineering, the military service academies 

at West Point, Annapolis, and Colorado Springs might well explore experiments in a similarly holistic redesign of their engineering curricula.

However, proposals for complete redesign are likely to meet considerable resistance. We favor the less disruptive approach of experiments with 

modules on transformative practices that can be added to existing programs. One such possibility comes from Frank Barrett who describes how 

to teach the skill of improvisation to business and executive students using 

lessons from jazz masters.24 He proposes an “improvising organization” in 

which leadership tasks are approached as experiments, routine is deliberately broken in order to encourage serendipity, and everyone has a chance 

to solo. He suggests that minimal structure and control might maximize 

autonomy and flow. The WEST program, described in the next section, is 
145

another example of a simple educational experiment in cultivating new 

leadership sensibilities.

The WEST Experiment

Working Effectively in Small Teams (WEST) is a four-month course 

offered by Pluralistic Networks, Inc. It focuses on effective leadership of 

small teams. Using a Skype-like group communication tool called Zoom, 

students participate from global locations, spending approximately three 

to four hours each week on coursework. The success of this program flows 

from its careful attention to how students use language and how that affects their moods and willingness to trust each other. The WEST course 

was designed by Dr. Fernando Flores, who earned a PhD in Philosophy 

at University of California, Berkeley, and in a long career became an international business leader, entrepreneur, former senator in Chile, and 

world-recognized leader in language as a means for communication, coordination, and action. WEST applies education principles developed by 

Flores and his colleagues in Chile to the issues of small teams.25

Flores designed WEST to help people develop and practice skills 

needed to work in “pluralistic networks” – participants from different 

backgrounds and cultures must coordinate as members of diverse teams 

to create meaningful action.26A recent WEST class included participants 

from public and private organizations in the United States, Canada, Mexico, Argentina, Chile, Germany, Australia, Singapore, and Nigeria. They 

were public school administrators and teachers, artists, personal coaches, 

military officers, financial executives, cyber experts, and professors. Several held senior positions in their organizations as Presidents, CEOs and 

Vice Presidents; others were mid-level managers and individual entrepreneurs. This emphasis on pluralistic networks intrigued us because military 

joint international operations aspire to be effective in exactly that type of 

environment.

In this experiment, we sponsored a team consisting of six US military 

officers – a Navy and a Coast Guard Lieutenant Commander, a Marine 

Captain, a retired Navy Captain and retired Navy Commander, and an 

Army reserve Major as an observer. They were part of a 30-person class 

led by Flores. They were initially randomly divided into teams of five. For 

the first two months each military member was part of a mostly civilian 

team; for the second two months the military members formed their own 

team. 

In weekly assignments teams read and discussed articles and received 

initial guidance for planning team operations to be conducted inside the 
146

platform of the commercial virtual fantasy game World of Warcraft (WoW). 

WoW is accessible internationally for under $15 per month and has about 

12 million subscribers worldwide. Much like a flight simulator, the WoW 

virtual world places teams of participants in “quests” that provoke the same 

moods and reactions as in the real world. WEST uses WoW as a virtual 

laboratory in which teams experienced challenges with coordination and 

communication in fast-paced “battles” needed to complete quests. When 

the challenge was done, each team debriefed in an after-action session 

and followed up with short written reflections on what they experienced 

and learned. A coach accompanied them to observe their in-game actions 

and conversations and to help them make effective use of the language 

distinctions in their group debriefings.

An important part of their work together was coordination, not only 

for in-game operations but also for the team meetings. The basic language 

element for coordination is Conversations for Action (CFA).27 Team members were guided through weekly exercises in which they practiced CFAs 

with explicit declarations, requests, offers and commitments.

A key part of team coordination consists of making assertions (verifiable facts) and exchanging grounded assessments (opinions backed by 

relevant assertions) about each teammate’s performance. The coaches 

repeatedly emphasized that the assessments should be aimed to help the 

team achieve its goals – not as personal criticisms or attacks. Many found 

this honesty tough at first and diluted their assessments with unnecessary 

verbal filters. Yet it soon became apparent to all teams that their effectiveness depended on each member’s skill in making and receiving these honest assessments. The challenge of doing this well was compounded when 

team members were from different cultures and backgrounds.

In addition to providing an inexpensive platform for conducting team 

operations without a physical meeting, WoW evokes participant experience of “being a beginner.” Almost all of them are beginners in WoW. 

Senior people in organizations have often forgotten what it is like to be a 

beginner. Allowing oneself to be a beginner in an unfamiliar environment 

and learn how to act effectively is an asset in unpredictable environments. 

Practicing being a beginner also helps develop a sense of empathy for 

others, useful as leaders build diverse teams that include members with 

fresh perspectives.

The participants also joined 90-minute, bi-weekly sessions with 

Flores held via Zoom. These sessions featured short conversations with 
147

each participant about their experiences and provided just-in-time learning 

opportunities based on participants’ questions and concerns.

Preliminary findings include: 

• The challenges and quests within the game of WoW elicit various 

moods and emotions, which can be discussed in terms of how they 

promoted or hindered working together.

• Core skills for teams working in new, uncertain and emerging 

environments can be developed and practiced in virtual environments.

• Leadership skills can develop across distance. A common belief 

is that meeting “in-person” is the only way to develop leadership 

skills. Developing leadership practices in virtual environments is 

valuable, especially for organizations where geographically dispersed teams are the norm. 

• Participants re-experienced what it is like to be a beginner – an 

unusual opportunity for developing empathy among seasoned 

professionals. 

• Participants practiced building trust in teams. Many realized they 

often talk about the importance of trust but have little sense of 

what conversations actually contribute to creating a sense of trust.

• Participants built relationships with each other. This helped develop a sense of commitment among team members to provide 

honest assessments and stick with the course.

• Participants created shared understanding by practicing new skills 

together, further contributing to their mutual trust and team effectiveness.

• Participants had fun. Their enjoyment of their teams and projects 

kept them engaged week by week for the full four months.

• Participants saw broader value for the course as they considered 

opportunities to provide the course within their own military services and communities. 

• Participants learned to operate across organizational and cultural 

boundaries.

• Commercial virtual games can be a very cost effective method for 

training and is much cheaper than organization-specific games.

• The course effectively cultivated several aspects of network age 

leadership including innovation, navigation, and appropriation.

Based on the students’ positive recommendations, we set up a second 

experimental team for WEST sponsored by the Marine Reserve Forces 
148

Command. This group had to blend two different cultures – full time, active duty Marines and reservists who serve one active weekend a month.

Roles of Technology in Cultivating Leadership Sensibilities

In the past five years there has been a marked increase of discussion about technology advances in learning environments. For example, 

Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) use Internet-based platforms to 

make university lecture courses available free around the world and to 

employ machine learning to customize its responses to each individual 

student. They are completely automated learning environments (ALEs). 

An up-and-coming technology is the Online Competency Based Module 

(OCBM), which focuses on teaching and testing students for specific skills 

that make up a domain, and then issuing a certificate of competency when 

the student passes all required demonstrations. The Clayton Christensen 

Institute promotes this technology and tracks dozens of private companies 

offering it as an alternative to a university degree for those seeking employment.28 The OCBM idea is older than MOOCs – it traces back to prediction by Lewis Perelman that a new mode of nonlinear learning, which 

he called hyperlearning, would gradually become more dominant than the 

linear syllabi of traditional courses.29

What might the role of automated learning environments be in the 

kind of education we are discussing here? The philosophy of Hubert Dreyfus gives good guidance. Dreyfus is well known for introducing a learning 

hierarchy in which people grow through the stages beginner, advanced 

beginner, competent, proficient, expert, and master in their domains. In On 

the Internet, Dreyfus inquired how far up the hierarchy an ALE can take 

a student.30 He argued that ALEs are in effect education expert systems 

aiming to automate the work of master teachers – and no expert system 

has ever helped students become more than competent in their fields. The 

reason is that ALEs are rule-based systems that train conformity to the rule 

sets in which they were conceived. They are extremely good at training 

people to become advanced beginners and entry-level competent because 

those skill levels are highly dependent on rules.

Thus, ALEs could be very useful at teaching the basics of the leadership traits listed earlier. For example, they could provide videos, reading 

materials, and exercises to help beginners learn basics of coordination. 

Coordination results from people making commitments to each other. 

There are only five kinds of commitments – requests, promises, assertions, assessments, and declarations. We have found that most students 

are not aware of these basic distinctions. When they practice working with 
149

them they develop a competence that enables them to bring more projects 

to completion, detect why projects are falling behind and take corrective 

action, and develop credibility and trust. We have found that a learning 

module on coordination is transformative: it helps people in all aspects of 

their lives, not just in their leadership. We believe it is possible to design 

ALE technology for a coordination basics module. We suspect that there 

are modules of basics for supporting leadership development in each of 

the leadership identities listed earlier.

However, the military asks its senior leaders to go beyond basics and 

develop a skill level of proficiency or higher. Dreyfus advises that ALEs 

are not up to the task of bringing people to proficient, expert, or master 

skill levels. Senior leaders work in environments where the rule sets are 

constantly changing, whereas an ALE is designed within a given rule set. 

Master teachers foster learning environments with traditional practices of 

apprenticeship, conversation, immersion, mentoring, and coaching – practices that cannot be automated. Our challenge in military education is to 

go beyond technologies when seeking the higher skill levels of leadership.

With a team of colleagues, Dreyfus is featured in a movie, Being in the 

World, which shows six masters from diverse fields and proposes language 

that allows us to talk about what they do and how they became masters.31 It 

is hard to go away from this movie with any impression that any automated learning environment can possibly cultivate mastery.

Conclusions

The spread of digital technology is transforming jobs, the world, the 

way we see the world, and the way we interact effectively in the world. 

The emerging world is more like a constantly-changing ecosystem than 

a distributed supercomputer built from the network of machines. When a 

new practice spreads through the system in exponential growth, the disruptions often seem like avalanches to the large groups of the network 

whose identities are swept away.

Our future leaders will need to engage and resolve exceedingly complex and unpredictable security challenges. General Dempsey has warned: 

Global disorder has significantly increased while some of our 

comparative military advantage has begun to erode. We now face 

multiple, simultaneous security challenges from traditional state 

actors and trans-regional networks of sub-state groups – all taking 

advantage of rapid technological change.32
150

Complexity and rapid change, he says, 

characterize a strategic environment in which individuals and 

groups have access to more information than entire governments 

once possessed, and can swiftly organize and act on what they 

learn, sometimes leading to violent change.33

The National Military Strategy calls for learning environments that 

can “build creative, adaptive professionals who are skilled at leading organizational change while operating in environments of great complexity 

and uncertainty.”34

In this chapter we described the skills needed to move effectively 

in this emerging, shifting, unpredictable world. The skills encompass 

new ways of thinking and interpreting. They embody new sensibilities 

about people’s moods and possibilities in fast-changing networks. They 

cultivate moods that facilitate actions. They define a new way of being 

in and navigating an uncertain and unpredictable world. The new way is 

not obvious from the machine age in which we grew up and designed our 

education systems.

We outlined six essential aspects of a leadership identity we think are 

needed in the new world. We are learning and refining these distinctions 

through ongoing conversations with an international group and are extracting the ideas that are most relevant for our situation in military education. 

The need for these skills stems from a change in human dynamics as our 

world transforms with the help of dramatic advances in digital technology.

At the Naval Postgraduate School’s Cebrowski Institute, we have been 

exploring how to create new learning experiences to meet these needs. We 

are encouraged by an experiment with WEST that immerses students into 

practice for effective small teams using virtual worlds. We speculate that 

by adding a few well-designed WEST-like modules to existing military 

curricula, we could take significant steps toward the desired transformative effect.

The emerging network age presents profound implications for global 

security and for the sensibilities that we can cultivate as we design new 

approaches to military education. We welcome collaborators in our explorations and experiments as we seek to better understand the unfolding of 

a new era.
151

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to John Arquilla, Frank Barrett, Douglas Bissonette, 

Fred Disque, Hubert Dreyfus, Fernando Flores, Pablo Flores, David Goldberg, Stanley McChrystal, Scot Miller, B Rousse, and Mitzi Wertheim for 

conversations and inspirations that helped shape the framework and proposals discussed here.
152

Notes

1. Joint Chiefs of Staff, National Military Strategy 2015, accessed 26 

August 2015, http://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Publications/2015_

National_Military_Strategy.pdf.

2. Stanley McChrystal, Tatum Collins, David Silverman, and Chris Fussell, 

Team of Teams: New Rules of Engagement for a Complex World (Portfolio, 

2015), Kindle Location 380.

3. Christopher Hughes, War on Two Fronts: An Infantry Commander’s War 

in Iraq and the Pentagon (Philadelphia, PA: Casemate, 2007).

4. Tricia McDermott, “A Calm Colonel’s Strategic Victory,” CBS News, 

March 15, 2006, accessed 26 August 2015, http://www.cbsnews.com/news/acalm-colonels-strategic-victory/.

5. Zachary Staples, Commander, US Navy, in personal discussion with the 

authors August 29, 2015 at Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA.

6. Albert Einstein, BrainyQuote.com, Xplore Inc, 2015, accessed 21 

September 2015, http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/alberteins121993.

html.

7. Reinald Normand, Innovation Squared, 2015. An e-book about the 

exponential growth of digital technologies and the new markets they create. 

Accessed 26 August 2015, http://www.innovation2.com. 

8. Peter Denning and Robert Dunham, The Innovator’s Way (Cambridge. 

MA: MIT Press, 2010), Kindle Location 63.

9. Denning and Dunham, The Innovator’s Way, Kindle Location 4225; 

Fernando Flores, “Report of Consejo Nacional de Innovación para la 

Competitividad,” Surfing Towards the Future: Chile on the 2025 Horizon, 

2013, accessed 26 August 2015, http://chile-california.org/surfing-towards-thefuture-into-counselor-fernando-floress-vision-for-innovation; Peter Denning and 

Fernando Flores, “Emergent Innovation,” Communications of ACM 58, 6 (June 

2015), 28-31.

10. Everett Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations (New York, NY: Free Press, 

1962, 5th edition 2003).

11. Arthur K. Cebrowski, Vice Admiral, US Navy and John H. Garstka, 

“Network Centric Warfare,” US Naval Institute Proceedings Magazine 124/1/1 

(January 1998): 139.

12. McChrystal, et al., Team of Teams: New Rules of Engagement for a 

Complex World, Kindle Location 3887.

13. John Arquilla, Worst Enemy: The Reluctant Transformation of the 

American Military (Chicago, IL: Ivan R Dee, 2008).

14. John Arquilla, Insurgents, Raiders, and Bandits: How Masters of 

Irregular Warfare Have Shaped Our World (Chicago, IL: Ivan R Dee, 2011); 

McChrystal, et al., Team of Teams: New Rules of Engagement for a Complex 

World, Kindle Location 380.

15. Flores, “Report of Consejo Nacional de Innovación para la 

Competitividad.”
153

16. McChrystal, et al., Team of Teams: New Rules of Engagement for a 

Complex World, Kindle Location 3984.

17. Ubiquity Staff, “Arthur K. Cebrowski on Transformation of Defense” 

Ubiquity, ACM Digital Library, August 2004, accessed 27 August 2015, http://

ubiquity.acm.org/article.cfm?id=1022362.

18. Flores, “Report of Consejo Nacional de Innovación para la 

Competitividad;” Denning and Flores, “Emergent Innovation,” 28-31.

19. Denning and Flores, “Emergent Innovation,” 28-31.

20. Fernando Flores and Maria Letelier, Conversations for Action and other 

Essays (Charleston, SC: Create Space Independent Publishing Platform, 2012).

21.Denning and Flores, “Emergent Innovation,” 28-31.

22. McChrystal, et al., Team of Teams: New Rules of Engagement for a 

Complex World, Kindle Location 136.

23. David Goldberg and Mark Somerville, A Whole New Engineer

(Douglas: Three Joy, 2014); Peter Denning, “The Whole Professional,” 

Communications of ACM 57, 12 (December 2014), 24-27.

24. Frank Barrett, Yes to the Mess: Surprising Leadership Lessons from Jazz 

(Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press, 2012), Kindle Location 3193.

25. Flores, “Report of Consejo Nacional de Innovación para la 

Competitividad.”

26. Peter Denning, Fernando Flores, and Peter Luzmore. “Orchestrating 

Coordination in Pluralistic Networks,” Communications of ACM 53, 3 (March 

2010), 30-32; Peter Denning, Fernando Flores, and Gloria Flores, “Pluralistic 

Coordination,” in Business, Technological, and Social Dimensions of Computer 

Games, eds. Maria Manuela Cruz-Cunha, Vitor Hugo Carvalho, Paula Tavares 

(Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 2011), 416-431.

27. Flores and Letelier, Conversations for Action and other Essays.

28. Clayton Christenson Institute, accessed 26 August 2015, www.

christenseninstitute.org; Peter Denning, and Daniel Menascé. The website of 

the Hyperlearning center (1993-2000), which began as the Center for the New 

Engineer at George Mason University, is archived at http://denninginstitute.com/

oldcne-home-archive.html. Accessed 26 August 2015.

29. Lewis Perelman, School’s Out (Avon, 1992).

30. Hubert Dreyfus, On the Internet (London: Routledge, 2001), 33-49.

31. Being in the World. Movie (81 minutes) directed by Tao Ruspoli and 

produced by Mangusta Productions. (Documentary video released 2013), 

accessed 26 August 2015, http://beingintheworldmovie.com.

32. Joint Chiefs of Staff, National Military Strategy 2015, accessed 26 

August 2015, http://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Publications/2015_

National_Military_Strategy.pdf.

33. Joint Chiefs of Staff, National Military Strategy 2015, accessed 26 

August 2015, http://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Publications/2015_

National_Military_Strategy.pdf.
34. Joint Chiefs of Staff, National Military Strategy 2015, accessed 26 

August 2015, http://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Publications/2015_

National_Military_Strategy.pdf.
155

Chapter 9

Technology and its Impact on Defense/Security Thinking and 

Learning Intervention Issues

Derrick J. Neal

Abstract

This chapter highlights the significance of the rapid advances in technology in general and that of digital technology in particular. The rate of 

change presents a range of challenges that have impact on individuals as 

well as organizations. 

Within the Defense and Security sectors, this presents particular issues 

where digital technology is the name of the game and yet the decision 

making cycles tend to be relatively long and the development of major 

capabilities can be measured in decades. Keeping pace with digital developments is one issue, but equally, the very technology itself is an enabler 

for the spread and adoption of new capabilities, a factor that has been experienced in recent military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. In effect, 

this is a double edged sword that requires significant attention if nations 

are going to be able to be effective in areas of conflict and turmoil.

The fact that most innovation now takes place in the private sector 

is particularly important, and this combines with the fact that for most 

developed nations, the idea of a growing defense budget is a thing of the 

past. Increasingly Ministries of Defense are having to look long and hard 

at the most economical way to gain access to technologies and capabilities 

while recognizing that today’s solutions are likely to provide a technical 

edge for a relatively short period. Such considerations must be viewed 

against a backdrop of the changing nature of conflict and the challenges 

that presents, not only in the way operations are conducted but also in how 

we prepare the officer of the future.

This raises the challenge of how we educate our young both in terms 

of curricula content and the very use of digital technology in the delivery 

of learning interventions. The author surfaces some of the problems that 

flow from the advances in digital technology and tries to develop some 

solutions that may be applied to dampen the impact that they may have. 

The point is made that this is something that needs to be addressed in the 

early years of education such that it can evolve as an individual progresses 

through their career. Particular emphasis is placed on the training and education of military officers, and makes the case that course designers for the 

likes of Command and Staff courses need to see the value in addressing 
156

these issues even if it has to come at the expense of some of the more traditional topics commonly covered in such courses of study.

Introduction

Technology impacts on everyone’s life in a multitude of ways, ranging 

from how we communicate with each other to the availability of information via the web. It also impacts how we conduct business, either as 

individuals or as organizations, through to the development of new materials that make the impossible challenge of yesterday a reality today. 

The advances in medical science alone are dramatic and have clearly had 

life-changing impact for millions of patients in terms of their treatments, 

quality of life and prospects of a longer life.

 When considering technological advances, one of the great achievements of the last 50 years was putting man on the moon. In fact, the computing power that was present on board Apollo 11 was equivalent to that 

found in a very basic calculator of the early 1980s and far less powerful 

than the sorts of chip you’re likely to find inside a child’s electronic toy or 

indeed your digital wrist watch. The computer on the moon lander had 64 

Kb of memory and the computer on the lunar vehicle weighed a relatively 

massive 30 kilos and used 55 Watts. 

The one fact that needs to be recognized is that the rate of advance in 

a wide range of technologies is exponential, and this is particularly true 

within the domain of digital technology. As noted by Hailes and Geis the 

consequence of this fact is that linear extrapolation in thinking is no longer 

valid. They argue that,

The essential issue is that the human brain works in a linear fashion. This means that the more predictable the future is, the better 

the brain can deal with the issues presented. Because technology 

is on an exponential curve, the rate of change caused by new systems will be increasing, increasing the uncertainty of the future.1

The consequence of this is that linear decision-making today is likely 

to lead to large errors in outcomes, since the technology environment will 

have moved forward to a point that did not feature in the linear thinking at 

the time of the decision. 

While there are many aspects of technology that improve the quality 

of lives, there are aspects of technological advances that can be thought 

of as negative, either in the present or in having a longer term negative 

impact. For example, some would argue that social media has a positive 

influence on the ability to draw together those with like minds or shared 
157

interests. However, it has also opened the door to those that want to groom 

or prey on the young in a variety of inappropriate ways, and this has presented major challenges for governments around the world both today and 

into the future. The immediacy of access to people means that many can 

only achieve down time by switching the mobile phone off. 

One only needs to walk down a street or sit on a train to recognize that 

most individuals are connected to their Internet Service Provider (ISP) 

for one form of communication or another. This seems to have fed into a 

culture that says “if you are not connected you don’t count.” The author 

takes the view that this is not a positive social development and individuals actually need time away to think and reflect. A longer term concern is 

about what this medium is doing to the social skill development of today’s 

and tomorrow’s youth. For example, a simple face-to-face interaction is 

far more complex than the words that are exchanged. If youngsters are 

increasingly being social through an electronic medium, what aspects of 

social development and enrichment are they missing? The growth of gaming (whether individual versus machine or in a group activity on-line) sees 

youngsters sitting in their bedrooms driving keystrokes rather than being 

outside in the fresh air actually taking part in physical (and social) activity; 

what does this mean for their development physically, emotionally, and 

socially?

Some would also make the case that with the ready access to answers 

via the internet, individuals are less likely to devote time and effort to 

study, as in using their brains. For example, only a few decades ago the 

notion of being able to do mental arithmetic was a part of the education 

system, and yet today it is not uncommon to find that if you ask a teenager to tell you what 25 percent of 60 is, they must resort to pulling out 

a calculator (or more likely use their mobile phone). In a recent move in 

the UK, schools have been directed to re-introduce children to having to 

know their times tables through to the 13 times table, and even if this is 

initially delivered through rote learning, it does at least mean that they 

are in a stronger position to move into mental arithmetic and actually use 

their brains rather than technology. By way of underpinning the above 

views expressed by the author, a timely piece of research published in July 

2015 serves to provide empirical evidence of these points. According to 

research conducted by psychologists Barr, Pennycook, Stotz & Fugelsang, 

there is evidence to suggest that many smartphone users saw them as their 

“extended mind.”2

 They found that hi-tech gadgets, which allow users to 

access the internet and perform complex tasks, encourage people to look 

for quick answers rather than use “effortful analytic thinking.”
158

This raises the question about when the education system should start 

to build recognition of the impact of technology into the taught curricula. The real challenge here is about how an education system can keep 

pace with the rate of change that is and continues to take place in digital 

technology. To some extent, it can be argued that today’s young (i.e., less 

than 18 years of age) are indeed the digital generation and are more comfortable with and knowledgeable about digital technology than those that 

stand in front of them is classes in high schools and colleges. If you ask an 

average 11-year-old to prepare a PowerPoint presentation with embedded 

YouTube footage, music, and dynamic graphics, you will probably get a 

more professional presentation than most high school or college teachers 

could deliver.

The author argues that this is an intractable problem, since many institutions find themselves using technologies that are at least one or two 

generations behind what is available in the business world. For example, 

the author’s own institution is only just investing in smart boards, and 

yet the teaching staffs have little idea of how to use them to best effect. 

Yet even this technology is behind the curve, as 3-D technologies already 

exist and are being used by industry. For example, BAE Systems has 3-D 

capabilities that allow a design such as a ship to be viewed in a way that an 

individual can move through the ship as if it actually existed when in reality it is only at a design stage. Given that education establishments in general are at least one or two generations behind what is actually available, 

and even if the funding existed to purchase such capabilities, the teaching 

staffs possibly constitute the key limiting factor. This is not intended as a 

criticism of the staff; it is a realistic reflection that it is almost a full-time 

task to keep pace with what industry has to offer, and then the challenge 

is one of working out how this can be incorporated into a learning intervention scenario. Is there a solution to this problem? The answer is that 

there is not a simple solution, and as such this probably borders on being 

a wicked problem. One approach may be to engage more fully with the 

likes of research institutes, academies, and agencies that are at the cutting 

edge of some of the digital technology developments and integrate them 

into the delivery of some of the academic material. The melding of the academic and the practitioner/researcher may be a way of exposing students 

and faculty to the art of the possible and to highlight how the curriculum 

and the delivery mechanisms can be shown to represent the direction of 

travel of the digital revolution.

At an organizational level, technology has, over several decades, impacted on systems and processes associated with the conduct of business. 
159

For example, the advent of the fax machine resulted in an expectation that 

issues would be dealt with much faster than had been the case prior to 

the development of that technology, and moved turnaround time expectations from days to hours. Continuing technology developments have now 

reached the point where transactions take place within seconds (or less), 

hence systems and processes have evolved to take advantage of the speed 

and ease of processing. A potential downside of this is that decisions may 

be taken without time for a richer consideration of the possibilities. An example of this was in the share market, where transaction automation operating at milliseconds (or faster) created chaos as far back as 1987 with the 

stock-market crash of 19 October known as “Black Monday.” At this time, 

there were still some elements of people in the loop, and when the market 

fell about 200 points in an hour, it was deemed fast; eventually systems 

were switched off to halt the crash. However, by way of demonstrating 

how much faster and automated the stock market has evolved, the “Crash 

of 2:45 PM” was far more dramatic.3 On 6 May 2010, the Dow Industrial 

Average fell 1,000 points in 15 minutes.4

Advances in technology provide the potential to create new paradigms 

such that current thinking is fundamentally challenged. According to FitzGerald & Sayler, there are a number of causes of “Creative Disruption,” 

firstly, the very nature of the rapid expansion of digital technology itself 

presents a need for a change in thinking. Secondly, and to some extent 

related to the impact that digital technology has had on communications, 

it is the case that new breakthroughs can be diffused into society far more 

rapidly than was the case in earlier decades and also to a global audience.5

They argue that the combination of these two factors has relevance in all 

facets of a society; for example, can a commercial organization now reasonably expect to protect itself from its invention or breakthrough being 

copied by a competitor anywhere on the planet? The very process of protection afforded by patents can take longer to process than it may take 

a competitor to copy the product and move on to the next generation. It 

comes as no great shock to see that China has an aircraft that looks remarkably similar to the F-35 or a copy of the C-17 heavy transport aircraft.

Whilst it is clear that advances in technology have primarily had beneficial impacts on individuals and business alike, it is also true that the case 

within a defense and security context is less clear and that there are more 

negative impacts than positive as will be explored in the next section.
160

Technology and its Impact on Defense and Security Thinking

The focus of this chapter is to take the issues and concerns that have 

been highlighted in a more general context and then explore them more 

fully within the specific context of defense and security, as this has and 

continues to be a particularly difficult context.

It should be acknowledged that in the defense and security sectors, 

as with other aspects of life, the advances in digital technology have had 

and continue to have a major role to play in our thinking of how we do 

things and the art of the possible as a result of future advances. According 

to Cukier & Mayer-Schoenberger, more information is being digitized and 

“datafied” than ever before, with digital information now representing 98 

percent of all stored information, up from 25 percent in the year 2000.6

Enabled by other developments, FitzGerald & Sayler highlight that “cloud 

computing, data integration and analytic suites are also advancing rapidly. 

Together, these developments in information technology are revolutionizing approaches to national security and military operations.”7

The combination of increased processing power, ability to communicate remotely, and miniaturization has led to a large number of new capabilities over the last decade and it is fully expected that this trend will 

not only continue but will accelerate. This point is highlighted in the rapid 

growth in the number of unmanned systems that now exist globally covering all domains (air, sea [above and below surface] and land), and although they were initially used for intelligence gathering, they are increasingly being used to deliver kinetic effect. This of course introduces other 

dimensions, such as rules of engagement, the need for “man in the loop,” 

and the legal implications that flow from the use of such technology. In 

an article by Rogers, he states that in the air domain alone it is conservatively estimated that as of 2012 more than 800 drones of varying types 

and capabilities exist, and this is based on data from just 11 countries and 

notably, due to lack of data, this excludes China and Russia.8

 Some have 

argued that when China starts actively exporting drones it will be the case 

that within the next decade, any country will not only be able to purchase 

them but by that time they will also be a lethal weapon. The Stockholm 

International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) estimates China became 

the second country in the world to openly export armed drones when it delivered five of them to Nigeria in 2014. Nigeria, which had vainly sought 

unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) from the US, has used them against the 

militant group Boko Haram.
161

Analysis by Rajagopalan notes that China has previously had limited 

success exporting manned military aircraft, but is hoping to do better with 

UAVs given that they are cheaper and easier to manufacture. He quotes a 

retired major general,

“Research and development on drones in our country has now entered a phase of high-speed progress,” said Xu Guangyu, a retired 

Major General in the People’s Liberation Army. “We have some 

distance to catch up with developed countries – that’s certain – but 

the export market is growing.”9

Given that more recent figures for drone numbers are not readily available, a sense of the growth in this industry is evident from market research 

by Forecast International which pegged the value of production for military drones worldwide at $942 million last year. It predicts that it will 

grow to $2.3 billion by 2023.

China’s biggest drone maker, Aviation Industry Corp of China (Avic), 

is predicted by Forecast to become the world’s largest maker of military 

drones by 2023. Its Wing Loong drone sells for just $1 million, according 

to Chinese media reports. The US-made MQ-9 Reaper, to which it has 

sometimes been compared, is priced at around $30 million.

This aspect becomes significant when such capabilities are in the 

hands of terrorist groups where the notion of rules of engagement or humanitarian issues do not feature in their thinking or actions. Although this 

technology started life being described as UAVs they are now generically 

called unmanned aerial systems (UAS) and they are increasingly playing a 

much greater role than that associated with the military. 

Cyber is another dimension of digitization that has become more 

prominent in recent years where we have seen attacks on businesses and 

even on a nation, as was the case of the attack on Estonia. Such attacks 

can give the perpetrators access to sensitive information, which can harm 

or even destroy the company. It is one thing when the attack is obvious, 

but even more sinister when the hacker can be present within the system 

without being detected and use the fact to their advantage. The cyber issue 

is one of the biggest threats to nations today, and it has the potential to 

become even more significant in the coming decades from a defense and 

security perspective.

The implications of such developments need to be reflected in the 

learning interventions that pertain to the development of military staff. 

Although it applies to ALL ranks, it is particularly relevant to the Officer 

corps. The author believes that it is fair to say that most Command and 
162

Staff courses in Western nations are intensive and little scope exists for 

the addition of new material or perspectives. In order to add new material, something has to be removed, and this has proved to be both difficult 

and painful. Recent experience suggests that rather than remove existing 

material, the course designers are more likely to take a softer approach of 

adding some key words over a range of topics and call it a thread, or if 

done extensively, a “golden thread.” A most recent example of this was 

the recognition that cyber was a growing concern, and so a raft of lectures 

on Information, Communications and Knowledge Management (to name 

a few areas) suddenly included the word “cyber.” However, this certainly 

did not represent the breadth and depth of coverage that the subject deserves. In addition to this, one finds that specific training courses through 

to Masters level are also available to those whose role is cyber-specific. 

This rather misses the point that the cyber issue is relevant to everyone in 

the military and indeed everyone in society.

Many Command and Staff courses contain a significant amount of 

military history, and while it is accepted that such material can be of great 

interest and lessons that are relevant to current and future operations may 

exist, the author would argue that their value is diminishing. The military 

readily accepts that preparation based on the last war means defeat in the 

next. The West’s Cold War thinking was a major contributing factor in 

the difficulties faced by Western nations in the conflicts in both Iraq and 

Afghanistan.

Consequently, the author would argue that in preparing our military 

leaders of the future, there needs to be a change in thinking about the 

curricula covered in learning interventions such as Command and Staff 

courses and that this needs to feed back through the general university 

system and into the secondary school curriculum at our high schools. The 

challenge of technology advances is so fundamental to all in a society that 

it needs to have a much higher profile and feature in education systems at 

an early stage.

Drivers for Technology Development

Many of the technological advances that can be found in the average 

household today have a history based in the R&D activity that took place 

in the defense and/or space industry of three or more decades ago. For 

example, materials development that has resulted in stronger and lighter 

materials that feature in many everyday products, and were spin-offs from 

years of investment in defense/aerospace and space projects. However, 

this situation is changing dramatically and today it is the defense industry 
163

that is looking to the commercial sector for innovation and solutions to 

its challenges. There are at least two reasons for this situation; firstly in 

the areas of telecommunications the greatest demand for new products/

services arise from the general population and this is a highly competitive 

market. As a consequence, companies have to be agile and innovative simply to survive, and there are many examples of companies that have not 

been able to keep up with the pace of change and as a result have failed. 

The appetite for innovation is huge and this has clearly been the backbone 

of the success of companies such as Apple with their development of the 

iPhones and iPads and their latest invention – the smart watch. In addition 

in the area of applications, there are relatively few barriers to entry, so a 

company can become established, develop a product, and either promote 

it themselves, or sell it to a required host such as Apple or Samsung or 

any of the other network and search engine providers such as Google. A 

lack of barriers to entry is a recipe for innovation, and defense companies 

that fail to recognize this are probably going to suffer in the long run. The 

number of defense companies (in North America and Europe) has reduced 

considerably as a result of consolidation driven by the need to be of a scale 

to compete in the global market, combined with the recognition that in 

recent decades and into the future there will be far fewer large contracts 

being placed.

Another factor that is underpinning this argument is the fact that most 

nations are facing economic pressures that have (and continue) to put pressure on public expenditure and hence departmental budgets. Defense is no 

exception to this, and the United Kingdom is the classic case of a nation 

that had aspirations well beyond its means when it allowed its defense 

equipment procurement program to become unaffordable to the tune of a 

£38bn black hole. The consequence of the financial pressure is that defense 

in general and defense companies in particular need to look for solutions 

to capability requirements that are available and affordable. This has led 

to a focus on the use of Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) and Modified 

Off The Shelf (MOTS) [sometimes also referred to as Military Off The 

Shelf] and that bespoke first principle solutions should be a last resort. By 

definition, the use of COTS has also resulted in new entrants coming into 

the defense and security sectors providing innovative solutions to today’s 

and tomorrow’s challenges. In support of this, the UK MOD has been 

proactive in finding ways to engage with a wider stakeholder audience in 

the pursuit of innovation, and in the USA the DoD is also pursuing similar 

thinking with its Defense Innovation Initiative (DII).
164

For example, in November 2014 US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel made the DII announcement and in excerpts he made a number of key 

observations that support the thrust of the points covered in the preceding 

sections. “Continued fiscal pressure will likely limit our military’s ability 

to respond to long-term challenges ... so to overcome challenges to our 

military superiority we must change the way we innovate, operate and do 

business,” the secretary explained.10

As part of the initiative, Hagel said, a new Long-Range Research 

and Development Planning Program will help identify, develop, and field 

breakthroughs from the most cutting-edge technologies and systems, especially in robotics, autonomous systems, miniaturization, big data, and 

advanced manufacturing, including 3-D printing. “We all know that DoD 

no longer has exclusive access to the most cutting-edge technology or the 

ability to spur or control the development of new technologies the way we 

once did,” the defense secretary said. “So we will actively seek proposals 

from the private sector, including firms and academic institutions outside 

DoD’s traditional orbit.”11

These considerations lead to the conclusion that military staff need to 

have a much greater appreciation of industry to include:

•	 How it works.

•	 Where and how to seek innovation.

•	 Forms of partnership.

•	 Pathways to develop for mutual benefit.

This aspect needs to be reflected in the content of military learning 

interventions and perhaps a much greater use of secondments so that the 

classroom content can be grounded in “hands-on experience” to fully understand how businesses operate.12

In the same way that technological innovation exists in our personal 

and professional lives, it is also true that technological advances have a 

role to play in how we train and educate individuals. In reality, we have a 

generational problem in the domain of education, as those military officers 

being taught are increasingly of the digital generation and those doing the 

teaching are not. Taking the point raised earlier about teachers at the high 

school and college levels, it can also be applied to the delivery of learning interventions to our officer corps which may take place at Defense 

Academies, Command and Staff Colleges or indeed at universities. For 

some training interventions, especially in the area of becoming familiar 

with new equipment, there has been an increased use of simulators over 

and above the more traditional uses with flight simulators. Many of these 
165

simulators also involve 3-D systems that provide a realistic experience and 

can be most effective in training interventions. However, in the education 

domain, thought must be given to where these technologies will be effective and where they will not. There are subjects that can benefit from use 

of digital technology (financial modelling, risk profiling, decision making 

models or business simulation by way of examples) and other subjects that 

do not lend themselves in such an obvious way. For example, the subjects 

of doctrine or policy making or military history are typically presented by 

way of lectures with discussion and debate. Hence it would be wrong to 

try to force the use of digital advances across the board, and a judgement 

needs to be made as to where and how these modes of delivery should be 

applied.

Implications for Defense and Security

The issues highlighted so far have centered on what the rate of change 

in technological advances (in particular digital technology) means for a 

nation state in terms of being able to meet the challenges associated with 

defense and security, and the connection this has with education/training 

interventions. The other side of this argument concerns the changing nature of the threats being faced and the opportunities that this presents for 

potential adversaries.

For the last few decades, it has been recognized that state-on-state 

conflict, while always a possibility, has not been the focus of military interventions and that terrorist groups of a variety of persuasions have been 

the opposition. Some take action for political reasons and a desire to function within a more democratic society, some groups have felt disadvantaged and want previous wrongs to be corrected, while others are basing 

their activities on religious grounds and ideology of one form or another.13

Whatever way you look at it, the point to note is that the enemy does not 

mirror Western military constructs, does not acknowledge things like rules 

of engagement, and most importantly does not behave in the predictable 

ways that Western militaries have trained for and to which they know how 

to respond.

Irregular warfare against terrorist groups presents a number of major 

challenges for Western organizations charged with providing defense and 

security at a time when many parts of the world are in turmoil and tension. 

In particular it has drawn into question the true value of having a military 

in a form that many Western nations have come to trust and value. As 

noted by Kinzer,
166

For much of history, power has been won on the battlefield. Victory depended on your army. If it was bigger, stronger, and better 

led than the enemy, you would probably win. That charmingly 

simple equation is now evaporating. In the emerging new world, 

cultural forces and webs of global politics and economics bind 

nations together in ways that make the exercise of military power 

more difficult. The idea that a big power can easily stop, win, or 

decisively intervene in an overseas conflict by applying massive 

force is a relic of past centuries. Potent armies are less valuable 

than they once were.14

The use of Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs), whilst very simple 

and cheap, has again had a disproportionate impact on Western militaries. 

This is one example where technology has had an impact since it is no 

longer necessary to rely on mechanical elements such as a trip mechanism. Terrorists can, through innovative approaches, use digital technology such that they can detonate IEDs at a time of their choosing from a safe 

distance. Use of such approaches had an impact on doctrine associated 

with soldiers going on patrol and created the need for side protection on 

vehicles such as Land Rovers or the need for shaped hulls on personnel 

carriers. Such issues are captured in the term asymmetric warfare, and it 

represents a mismatch in the military capabilities that need to be deployed 

to counter a threat.

One of the most notable examples of asymmetric confrontation is 

within the security sector and the growth of piracy in international waters 

such as those off the coast of Somalia. The consequence of attacks on 

commercial shipping by pirates in inflatable boats, armed only with machine guns and RPGs, is that nations such as the UK have to deploy a £1bn 

Type 45 destroyer to defend ships.

The other dimension of technology and its role in the actions of terrorist groups is that played by digital communications. In the same way that 

nation states had to be aware of the CNN factor with military actions being 

broadcast live around the world and the impact that had on public opinion, 

today’s terrorist groups are adept at using global communications to their 

advantage. For example, the cell structures used by Al-Qaeda combined 

with simple use of open public networks such as email, SMS, and mobile 

phones meant that they could keep in contact very easily, but it also made 

it difficult for Western militaries to track them down. 

Other examples of the use of digital technology to coordinate activities can be seen in the Arab Spring uprising, where social media was used 
167

to very good effect to organize rallies against the government and force 

through change. It also meant that they could bring their case to the world 

via a variety of mediums. While this might be argued as a force for good, 

it should also be noted that the likes of Islamic State (IS) are today using 

social media to reach out to recruits both male and female. The case of 

three teenage girls who recently travelled to Syria from the UK to support/

join IS is a case in point, as they were influenced via social media and this 

has raised grave concerns in the UK government about the scope to be able 

to screen and protect against such forms of recruitment. 

Digital technologies have been used by activists and terrorists to make 

their case, to facilitate their operations, and to recruit new members, and 

although this is a major concern today, one can only conclude that the 

technologies of tomorrow will make this a more difficult challenge to 

overcome.

The points being made are two-fold: firstly, digital technology has enabled terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda, IS, and the Taliban to leverage 

some relatively simple technology capabilities (such as IEDs) to deliver a 

disproportionate effect. They have also been able to use this technology to 

enable them to communicate in ways that gives them agility while at the 

same time making it difficult to track them down. Secondly, such groups 

have been able to use social media in such a way to help them spread their 

message, and while many are disgusted by things like public executions, 

it also serves as a recruitment mechanism to present messages that appeal 

to some sections of society.

The nature of the threats being confronted today (and in the immediate future) are of an asymmetric nature, and Western militaries are not 

well-equipped to deal with the challenges they present. This is because the 

equipment used by militaries that have been involved in recent theaters 

of operation have been born out of the Cold War and the thinking of that 

era, and as such have been found wanting in the conflicts of the last two 

decades in the Middle East. 

Recent changes in the structures, roles and responsibilities within the 

UK MOD that are intended to devolve budgets and responsibilities to the 

commands are, in part, intended to make the military really think hard 

about what it needs and can afford to be able to deliver their component 

to the defense of the UK, and support the aspirations and commitments of 

government.

The final element from a defense perspective is that while recent conflicts have (and continue to be) against terrorist groups, it would be a great 
168

mistake to abandon a requirement for major platforms and big military effect by tailoring current acquisitions to meet asymmetric threats. A nation 

has to remember that it needs to be in a position to defend itself (or make 

a valid contribution to a coalition operation) in the context of a state-onstate conflict. This is a particularly challenging time for Ministries of Defense around the world in view of the recent actions taken by Russia in the 

annexation of the Crimean peninsula from Ukraine in 2014. Tensions have 

increased significantly since then due to Russia undertaking a range of activities close to national borders, conducting patrols close to other nations, 

and significant investments in the modernization of its military assets. The 

consequence of this is that nations (in particular NATO members) need 

to ensure that they can meet the needs of asymmetric and state-on-state 

warfare at a time when defense budgets are under greater pressure than 

ever before.

Conclusions

The essence of this chapter can be captured under a few headings that 

highlight the key points. 

A nation needs a military that is fit for purpose to defend the nation 

(and its interests) and contribute to wider actions as part of a coalition. 

However, the nature of current threats is such that many of the capabilities 

held by Western nations do not sit well in an asymmetric conflict situation 

when having to deal with terrorism that is often based on ideology and operates in ways that are not consistent with historical military operations. At 

the same time, a nation needs to have appropriate capabilities that would 

be suitable for a possible future nation-on-nation conflict, and they have 

to achieve both dimensions within an environment of reducing defense 

budgets. One consequence of this situation is that the military needs to 

have a faster, more agile defense acquisition process given that much of 

its capability is now tied to digital technologies and their development is 

moving forward at an exponential rate.

Security and defense now need to be seen as a joined up effort and 

where possible, military intervention needs to be seen as the last resort; 

potential threats should be captured early through comprehensive security services identifying risks before they become a potent threat. This 

idea presents many challenges in terms of the access that security services 

would need to personal data and the potential of infringing what might be 

commonly held as civil liberties and the rights that every citizen should 

have in freedom of speech and action.
169

As much as the advances in technology (in particular digital technology) can help those involved in defense and security, they are equally available to those that wish to do harm to a nation, not only against its civilians 

but also against the nation itself through cyber-attacks on its economy.

An appreciation of the rapid changes in technology, in particular digital technology, is so fundamental to all societies because it impacts on citizens at all levels and in all aspects of life. In light of this, the author proposes that a nation’s education system needs to recognize the importance 

of this dimension from an early stage. Such an approach should capture 

two aspects: namely, what is taught (the curricula), and how it is taught 

(technology enhanced learning – [TEL]). Having laid the foundations in 

schools, this should be consolidated through the higher education system, 

bearing in mind that within a period of three to five years many digital 

technologies will have advanced.

From a defense and security perspective, the author challenges the 

designers of learning interventions such as Command and Staff courses to 

ensure that both the curricula and the TEL is relevant and reflective of the 

digital world in which military staff have to operate. In order to achieve 

this, it may be necessary to remove topics that can be described as interesting and replace them with topics that should be considered as essential.

The author is of the view that the advances in digital technology are 

such that for training and educational establishments, the challenge borders on being a wicked problem in that those charged with exploiting the 

advances in the delivery of learning interventions are themselves behind 

the curve. Educators need to discriminate in terms of subjects where the 

use of TEL has application and then determine the content of the curricula 

together with the scope for the use of TEL in the delivery of the intervention. This is no simple task, but educators like a challenge if nothing else.
170

Notes

1. Ted Hailes and John Geis, “Observer Warrior: An Unwanted Necessity,” 

in Crosscutting Issues in International Transformation, eds. D. Neal, H. Friman 

and L. Wells (Washington, DC: Center for Technology and National Security 

Policy, National Defense University, 2009), 152.

2. Nathaniel Barr, et al., “The Brain in your Pocket: Evidence that 

Smartphones are Used to Supplant Thinking,” Computers in Human Behavior

48 (2015): 473-480.

3. Also known as the “Flash Crash.”

4. Silla Brush, Tom Schoenberg, and Suzi Ring, “How a Mystery Trader 

With an Algorithm May Have Caused the Flash Crash,” Bloomberg News, 

21 April 2015, accessed 25 April 2015, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/

articles/2015-04-22/mystery-trader-armed-with-algorithms-rewrites-flash-crashstory.

5. Ben FitzGerald and Kelley Sayler, Creative Disruption: Technology, 

Strategy and the Future of the Global Defense Industry (Washington, DC: 

Centre for a New American Security, 2014), 41.

6. Kenneth Neil Cukier and Viktor Mayer-Schoenberger, “The Rise of Big 

Data,” Foreign Affairs, 92(3) (2013).

7. Cukier and Mayer-Schoenberger, “The Rise of Big Data,” 9.

8. Simon Rogers, “Drones by Country: Who Has All the UAVs?” Datablog 

on TheGuardian.com, 3 August 2012, accessed 16 May 2015, http://www.

theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/aug/03/drone-stocks-by-country/.

9. Megha Rajagopalan, “Eyeing Exports, China Steps Up Research Into 

Military Drones,” Reuters.com, 29 April 2015, accessed 15 May 2015, http://

www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/29/china-drones-idUSL4N0XB5ZU20150429.

10. Chuck Hagel, “Hagel Announces New Defense Innovation, Reform 

Efforts,” DOD News, 15 November 2014, accessed 3 May 2015, http://www.

defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=123651.

11. Chuck Hagel, “Hagel Announces New Defense Innovation, Reform 

Efforts,” DOD News, 15 November 2014, accessed 3 May 2015, http://www.

defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=123651.

12. A secondment is when one organization places a staff member into 

another organization for a defined period of time at their own cost in order to 

develop skill and knowledge that is transferable back to their own organization. 

An example would be an MOD employee spending time in a Defense industry 

company.

13. It should be noted that most of these drivers for conflict can also be 

applied at a national level and result in state-on-state conflict.

14. Stephen Kinzer, “Conventional Military Has Lost Power,” 

Boston Globe, 1 August 2014, accessed 12 May 2015, https://www.

bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/08/01/conventional-military-has-lost-power/

L2J75AdS4Iu79JSXEYfbYM/story.html.
171

Chapter 10

Applying Innovative Learning to a National Security Problem: 

Addressing the Challenges of Job Replacement by Automation 

and Artificial Intelligence

Linton Wells II and Theodore Hailes

Abstract

This chapter examines the accelerating replacement of jobs by automation and artificial intelligence (AI) and provides thoughts on how innovative approaches to learning can mitigate social unrest that may be 

generated by new technology.1 Much valuable work has been published on 

the impact of automation and artificial intelligence on labor markets and 

this analysis draws on it to address three areas. The first part of the chapter 

focuses on the kinds of domestic and international social unrest that could 

be created by this transition between now and 2030, and the national security implications. The second part explores the concept of a “complexity 

lens” as a tool to examine intersections and interactions among the many 

elements of these issues.2 The third part looks at the role of “innovative” 

and “adaptive” learning, coupled with approaches such as life-long learning supported by point-of-need content delivery, in reducing the impact of 

job displacement by technology. A key conclusion is that innovative learning can have significant benefits for individuals and targeted workforces, 

but scaling it across broad markets, national labor pools, and the growing 

global youth bulges will need sustained engagement by multi-sector, public-private, and transnational partners. Since many of the issues raised are 

beyond the planning cycle for government and private sector organizations, the chapter’s intent is to inform the debate as it evolves and help develop a research agenda to support policy options that can be implemented 

when the time is right.

Will there be a Workforce Crisis by 2030, and What National 

Security Concerns Might it Pose?

Background

The underlying question is: by 2030, will there be a workforce “crisis?” If so, how much social unrest and what security concerns might it 

cause?

The analysis focuses on 2030, a date chosen because (1) the burden of 

aging baby boomers on a smaller labor force will be near its peak in many 

countries, (2) there will be major youth bulges in many parts of the Islamic 

and developing worlds, which may have trouble finding meaningful work, 
172

(3) AI and automation capabilities will be significantly, and non-linearly, 

enhanced – driven by exponential increases in technological capabilities, 

and (4) 2030 is beyond the planning and budgeting horizons for politicians, businesses and even many militaries, so motivating mitigation steps 

now is hard. 

Much valuable analysis has been done on workforce and automation 

issues, e.g., The Race Against the Machine, and its successor, The Second 

Machine Age, as well as other works such as The Lights in the Tunnel and 

Rise of the Robots, but views still differ about how much of a problem the 

workforce question will be.3 Some people will thrive amidst the accelerating technological change, while others will find it hard to adapt. Some 

observers argue that productivity and the overall size of the economic pie 

are likely to grow and that new jobs will be created as they have in the 

past. Others fear that rapidly improving automation and AI capabilities 

will displace more jobs than they create, further widening the gap between 

winners and losers in society. This can exacerbate existing national and 

international security issues, and create new ones, to include increases in 

social tensions, radical ideologies, mass migration, virulent nationalism, 

protectionism and widespread unrest. 

Besides workforce questions, other security issues also are likely in 

the 2030 time frame. Thomas Piketty, in Capital in the Twenty-First Century, predicts that capital and income (and political power) increasingly 

will be centralized in the hands of the few, challenging the underpinnings 

of democratic governance.4

 Many have criticized Piketty’s work, but his 

views need to be considered. Various other studies, including NASA-sponsored work and Sir John Beddington, the UK government’s former chief 

scientific advisor, warn of shortages in food, water and energy in this time 

frame, coupled with population pressures.5

 Thomas Friedman, in a forthcoming book notionally titled “Thank You for Being Late,” looks at the 

interlocking impacts of “the Market, Mother Nature (climate change) and 

Moore’s law (the rate of technology change).” He draws on the analogy 

outlined by Eric Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee in The Second Machine Age to the story of how the inventor of chess supposedly was compensated – one grain on the 1st square, two on the 2nd, four on the 3rd, 

etc.6 The full impact of these changes doesn’t become apparent until the 

“2nd half of the chessboard,” which each of these impact areas is now 

entering.7

 This chapter focuses on one aspect of these interconnected problems – a possible workforce crisis – but the potential dynamism of the 

2030 era needs to be kept in mind. 
173

Framing the Problem

Too often planners try to move directly to attempt to solve very complex problems without taking enough time to “frame,” or understand 

them.8

 Several questions can help frame 2030 workforce problems. They 

also suggest the complexity of potential answers:

•	 What is the operating environment/problem space for these questions? What are the key drivers of this environment? How will 

such drivers be affected by the accelerating pace of technological 

change?

•	 Who are the stakeholders? What are their equities?

•	 What authorities/statutes/laws govern US department/agency 

contributions to the task? How are public and private sector actors 

likely to respond? What governance methods or policies might be 

most effective in the emerging operational environment?

•	 What mechanisms/authorities/incentives/disincentives facilitate 

(or discourage) collaboration with private sector entities and international partners?

•	 How might international perspectives differ from those in the US? 

What perspectives might be common across borders?

•	 What would be the implications of government and/or private sector actions or inaction?

•	 Is this likely to develop into a crisis, or not? If yes, what safety 

valves or mitigation measures might be available? If no, how can 

the concerns raised in the rest of this chapter be addressed, or 

discounted?

•	 Why might this generate a national security threat?

The workforce topic was explored during a recent course on “Wicked 

Problems” taught at the US National Defense University (NDU) and the 

above questions were used as part of the “framing” section of the analysis.9

 The students assumed organizational roles (cabinet secretaries, labor 

advocates, business leaders, etc.) and began discussing how the US government could respond to this problem, in collaboration with the private 

sector and international partners. The results of these discussions are reflected throughout the chapter.

Rates of Technological Change

A key premise of this analysis is that exceptional increases in science 

and technology (S&T) capabilities over the next 15 years will have social 

impacts as well. The rate of technological change is important. If a capability, say computing power per unit cost, doubles every eighteen months, 
174

in five years there will be a 900 percent increase, in ten years 10,000 percent and in 15 years over 100,000 percent. Even if the doubling period is 

two years, in fifteen years the change is nearly 20,000 percent. Some predict the rate of growth will slow, which it may. On the other hand, dramatic 

increases in certain types of capabilities may be introduced, such as the 

wide adoption of quantum cryptography. In any case, linear projections 

cannot work, however comfortable they may be. 

Figure 7 refers only to generic rates of change (doubling every 18 

or 24 months). Some, though not all, aspects of information technology seem to be on this path, e.g., computing power per unit cost.10 At the 

same time, some elements of biotechnology are changing even faster than 

computations per dollar (for example, the cost of sequencing a human 

genome dropped 6 orders of magnitude – a million-fold – in about 10 

years); autonomous vehicles soon will be ubiquitous, from driverless cars 

to many kinds of drones; nanotechnology is entering widespread use, from 

batteries to medicine to energetic explosives; and the energy that underpins everything is undergoing several different types of transformation. 

Although this chapter focuses on automation and AI, changes across all 

these domains: Biotech, Robotics, Information, Nanotech, and Energy 

(BRINE, for short) need to be considered, along with their interactions.11

These technological advances, plus others like additive manufacturing, 

Figure 7. Growth in Computing Power per Unit Cost. Created by authors.
175

e.g., 3-D printing, will have significant impacts on future jobs.12 The resulting complexity also will change the way that decisions are reached, 

problems solved, and humans interact. These are issues for policy makers, 

ambassadors, and commanders, not just technical specialists.13

The 2030 Workforce

A thoughtful analysis by Rainer Strack considers the state of the German and the global workforce in 2030 by juxtaposing workforce demographics with the differential impacts of technology.14 He concludes that 

by 2030 there will be a global workforce crisis, with three components: 

An overall labor shortage, significant mismatches between skills and job 

requirements, and cultural challenges as labor moves across borders. 

There will be a shortage of workers in most of the [developed] world 

due to the substantial decrease in the birth rate, exacerbated by particular 

shortages of highly skilled workers. In an aggregate sense, technology is 

likely to boost productivity, but it also will replace numerous jobs. The impact will be uneven across industries. For example, the auto industry has 

bought about 40 percent of industrial robots each year.15 Recent history 

indicates that while jobs are displaced by robotics and AI capabilities, new 

positions also are created. The salient difference, however, is that most of 

these new jobs are highly skilled positions requiring further education and 

training, making entry into them difficult. But projections suggest that by 

2030 more than 50 percent of the production costs of a car will be caused 

by electronic parts (up from 10 percent in 1980). This will require new 

jobs, which may not even exist yet, such as a “cognitive systems engineer” 

for the smart interfaces in a self-driving car. 

So technology will create new jobs, but it also will worsen the mismatch with the available skills, forcing people to move in search of jobs. A 

survey of over 200,000 job seekers in 189 countries found that more than 

60 percent were willing to work abroad, with Russian, German, and the 

US workforces being the least interested in moving overseas.16 Most of 

those surveyed would seek jobs in the US, UK and Canada. Interestingly, 

salary was less important than work relationships and a sense of being appreciated for their work (daily). People are looking for recognition.

The UK Commission for Employment and Skills (UKCES) has produced a valuable report – The Future of Work: Jobs and Skills in 2030.

17

The report analyzes:

Trends that are already shaping the future of UK jobs and skills, 

and forecasts the most likely disruptions to those trends. It then 

plots four anticipated scenarios of what the UK’s work landscape 
176

might look like in 2030, and importantly, the skills that will be 

required under these conditions.18

One of the disruptors is: Artificial intelligence (AI) and robots, penetration of AI and automation into highly skilled occupations.

Most countries will face pressures from their own trends and disruptors and will need to formulate sophisticated people strategies. An October 2014 special report by The Economist on “Technology and the World 

Economy” concludes:

Broadly speaking, there are three ways of dealing with the labor 

imbalance: raising the productivity of less-skilled workers, turning less skilled workers into more-skilled workers; and providing 

income support for those who find it hard to earn a living in this 

new world. 19

Choosing among these will require answers to hard questions – for 

example, how to forecast supply and demand; how to attract great workers; how to educate, upskill and retain the best people; and how to provide 

opportunities for those without access to traditional education systems?20 

Both the public and private sectors will need to change attitudes toward 

workers, incorporating new ways of thinking about educating, recruiting 

and training the workforce, which will integrate with migration policies 

and all the attendant social tensions. Human resource (HR) considerations 

need to become an integral part of the national security process.

Automation, Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning

Research into these topics is exploding and there are many excellent references and projections into futures that range from exhilarating 

to terrifying. Tim Urban provides a comprehensive summary of current 

research in his fascinating blog Wait But Why.21 He concludes: “what’s 

happening in the world of AI is not just an important topic, but by far THE 

most important topic for our future.”22 This is outlined in a lengthy, twopart post titled “The AI Revolution: the Road to Superintelligence,” which 

includes a discussion of three calibers of AI: 

AI Caliber 1) Artificial Narrow Intelligence (ANI): Sometimes referred to as Weak AI, Artificial Narrow Intelligence is AI that specializes in one area. There’s AI that can beat the world chess champion in 

chess, but that’s the only thing it does. Ask it to figure out a better way 

to store data on a hard drive, and it’ll look at you blankly.

AI Caliber 2) Artificial General Intelligence (AGI): Sometimes 

referred to as Strong AI, or Human-Level AI, Artificial General 
177

Intelligence refers to a computer that is as smart as a human across 

the board – a machine that can perform any intellectual task that a 

human being can. Creating AGI is a much harder task than creating 

ANI, and we are yet to do it. Professor Linda Gottfredson describes 

intelligence as “a very general mental capability that, among other 

things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think 

abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly, and learn from 

experience.” AGI would be able to do all of those things as easily as 

you can.

AI Caliber 3) Artificial Superintelligence (ASI): Oxford philosopher 

and leading AI thinker Nick Bostrom defines superintelligence as “an 

intellect that is much smarter than the best human brains in practically 

every field, including scientific creativity, general wisdom and social 

skills.”23 Artificial Superintelligence ranges from a computer that’s 

just a little smarter than a human to one that’s trillions of times smarter 

– across the board. ASI is the reason the topic of AI is such a spicy 

meatball and why the words immortality and extinction will both 

appear in these posts multiple times.24

Urban concludes: “As of now, humans have conquered the lowest caliber of AI – ANI – in many ways, and it’s everywhere. The AI Revolution 

is the road from ANI, through AGI, to ASI – a road we may or may not 

survive but that, either way, will change everything.”25 The blog includes 

estimates of when we will get to the various categories, with a median expert prediction of 2040 for “having” AGI, and about 2060 for ASI. Since 

this chapter is focused on 2030, the emphasis will be on the implications 

for the workforce of spreading ANI and the beginnings of AGI. 

Jeremy Howard summarizes recent developments in machine learning 

in a TED talk, “The Wonderful and Terrifying Implications of Computers 

that Can Learn,” which highlights how fast machines are getting smart 

today and what this may mean for jobs.26 A key change from previous 

“programming” approaches is that present machine learning algorithms 

like “Deep Learning” have no theoretical limitations. The more data they 

are fed, the better they typically get. He cites several examples and observes that computers are now at the stage where they can see, hear, read 

and write. 

But computers also are learning to do more abstract, conceptual tasks. 

For example, they have “discovered that the cells around a cancer are as 

important as the cancer cells themselves in making a diagnosis, which is 

the opposite of what pathologists had been taught,” and Deep Learning 
178

is improving this performance, especially when working together with 

people.27 They also have shown the ability to recognize the concept of 

a vehicle and “diagnose” types of cars from diverse images after a short 

period of training. 

These developments offer enormous opportunities and reflect the 

powerful upsides of automation and AI. For example, the developing 

world needs many times more physicians than are likely to be available 

through traditional approaches. Now much of this work can be automated 

or centralized, with diagnosis and direction provided remotely, as is done 

in the Australian outback today. Another potentially huge upside is AI’s 

growing ability to recognize verbal queries. This may one day let speech/

image-recognition apps bring direct internet access to illiterate populations. This could offer exceptional opportunities for innovation and other 

networked benefits to the some 775 million adults (two thirds of them 

women) who cannot read or write, in much the same way that cell phones 

have leapfrogged traditional infrastructures to bring communications to 

previously unserved areas.28

But, on the downside, most service jobs, which represent some 80 percent of employment in the developed world, potentially will be replaceable by machines. A 2013 Oxford study estimated that “around 47 percent 

of total US employment is [at high risk for being replaced by “computerization”] . . . perhaps over the next decade or two.”29 The futurist Thomas 

Frey has projected the disappearance of two billion jobs by 2030, with 

particular changes coming in the power industry, automobile transportation (going driverless), education, 3D printers, and bots.30

Many new jobs certainly will be created, but historical precedent may 

not offer much insight into what these will be. The UKCES report is explicit: “It is not possible to predict the future. 20 years ago, there was 

widespread belief among commentators that the defining feature of the 

future UK labour market would be radically reduced working hours and 

increased leisure time.”31 In the Industrial Age, major innovations often 

represented a “step function” in capability, which then generally was introduced and improved along an “S-curve.” But smart machines are likely to 

be different, since they are learning and improving exponentially.32Nonetheless, important evidence suggests that combinations of people and AI 

perform better together than either alone. For example, teams of relatively 

modest chess players with AI support routinely best both grandmasters 

and exceptional chess computers that act alone.33 It will be essential to 

make use of blended approaches where people, automation and AI work 

together as ANI continues to proliferate and AGI enters the market. 
179

Synthesis

Many of the points from the above references were integrated in The 

Economist’s October 2014 special report on “Technology and the World 

Economy,” noted earlier.34

The Economist report focuses on the “3rd Industrial Revolution,” the 

first described as having been in the late 18th century and the second in the 

late 19th. A key conclusion is that technological change today offers lots 

of promise for those able to adapt. But the pace of change and the lack of 

opportunity for those with “modest skills,” or lack of motivation, are only 

likely to widen the have/have-not divide. 

The report is not all doom and gloom, and suggests some remedies 

in several areas. However, given the youth bulge in so many places with 

“modest skills,” and the likely displacement of workers in developed 

economies (some reports talk of high structural unemployment even in 

the US by 2030), it also concludes that the potential for domestic unrest, 

political grandstanding, and scapegoat-finding is high unless governments 

and the private sector are particularly skillful in managing “new demands 

for intervention, regulation and support.”35 Recent experiences in many 

capitals provide few grounds for optimism on this score.

Reinforcing this are recent reports from the World Economic Forum 

that by 2016, one percent of the world’s population will control over 50 

percent of global assets and that the richest 85 people will have more 

wealth than the poorest 3.5 billion. The potential for further radical nationalism and social tension generated by these inequalities – at home, in 

friendly nations, in competitors and in emerging markets – should be part 

of the national security debate.

One projection is that, besides the benefits to individuals with motivation and persistence, the increased productivity from these technologies also will generate more goods and services, probably increase wealth 

overall, and produce entirely new kinds of jobs, as previous technology 

revolutions have done. Serious observers argue that this increased productivity will allow people across the economy to adjust without major social 

disruptions, and that there may not be a workforce crisis at all. Catherine 

Rampell, for example, notes “This track record [of past job replacement 

by technology] makes today’s automation fears look somewhat silly, or at 

least shortsighted.”36

However, there also may be significant differences from the past – 

the accelerating pace of machine learning can complicate technology 

assimilation. The time frame also is important. Even if alternative 
180

employment can be devised for displaced workers, there are likely to be 

disruptive periods on the way to the stable end state. In the process, there 

will be intense public policy debates between those who believe in market 

forces and those who favor social safety nets. Moreover, many around the 

world may not be able to benefit personally from such changes, or live 

where the economies or political systems may not adapt quickly enough. 

All this could generate significant unrest, and increase the attractiveness of 

radical responses among those who don’t see themselves as having a stake 

in the global, or local, economic systems. 

What can help the workforce? In Howard’s view, what does not seem 

to help workers, surprisingly, are solutions like better traditional education and more incentives to work, since traditional jobs will not be there. 

This is an important point that suggests that new approaches to learning 

and incentives will be needed. Some suggest very unconventional approaches like separating labor from earnings and encouraging more craftbased economies. Many propose resource transfers to provide for basic 

living standards, including a negative income tax, expansion of initiatives 

like the US Earned Income Tax Credit, implementing a “basic income” 

approach, and incorporating more equity into long-term goals such as reducing overall scarcity. 37

Paul Tudor Jones II describes a related issue – the absence of “justice” 

in modern capitalism. He is concerned that the corporate world’s laser 

focus on profits is, as he puts it, “threatening the very underpinnings of 

society,” and proposes steps to restore a sense of fairness.38 In the past 

something similar has been described as “participatory capitalism.” There 

is a famous story about Henry Ford increasing his workers’ pay to $5.00 

per day. Explanations differ as to whether this was done to make sure 

his employees made enough to buy his cars, or whether it was to reduce 

personnel turnover, but in any case, it acknowledged the value of having 

adequately compensated workers as part of a corporate strategy. A related, 

more holistic approach has been proposed by John Fullerton in Regenerative Capitalism.39

Boiling these diverse topics down to core issues is important. Change 

has always been a critical component of human life. What is dramatically 

different today, and accelerating into tomorrow, is less the basic nature 

of change than the rate at which it is being driven. Change always brings 

winners and losers but, as reaction times shorten, the potential downside 

for losers increases and the consequences of backlash from the losing side 

grow more immediate and potentially more serious. Even if specific policy choices may not yet be clear, it seems wise to start to understand what 
181

might mitigate the worst conditions for the losers and provide opportunities for more rewarding paths, or at least reduce the most incendiary 

problems for those who feel disenfranchised. 

A Complexity Lens

To help cut through large amounts of data, expert opinions, and partisan arguments, Mr. Jan Wouter Vasbinder, of Nanyang Technological University in Singapore, has proposed a “complexity lens” to filter details and 

amplify links and interactions. He challenges the premise of reductionist 

science, the idea that 

. . . we can learn the workings of a complex system (like a biological system) by taking it apart and examin[ing] its components in 

isolation. We cannot. We cannot because, if taken apart, complex 

systems lose precisely the character that makes them complex.40

In his view, through the complexity lens:

Figure 8. Using the Complexity Lens to Focus on Interactions Among: “People, 

Organizations, Processes and Technology.” Created by authors.
182

. . . we can start to see . . . the connections between the parts of 

the system. And because we can see these interconnections we 

can search for ways to study the dynamic interactions that take 

place along those connections . . . [T]he complexity lens might be 

a way to implement, what already in 1975, Joël de Rosnay, called 

the macro-scope. In his view . . . the complexity lens within the 

macro-scope filters details and amplifies that which links things 

together.41

This chapter applies the complexity lens concept to workforce issues 

in three steps. The first look focuses on the “macro-scopic” intersections 

and interactions among four areas: “People, Organizations, Processes and 

Technology” (POPT), in order to establish a baseline for deeper examination. The POPT framework is by no means the only approach, nor the most 

comprehensive, but it has been used over several years by the International 

Transformation (ITX) Chairs network and has provided valuable insights, 

and so provided a way to get started.42

In addressing these intersections and interactions using the POPT 

framework, 

• The category of “People” is considered mainly to include the 

workers in both public and private sectors who would be most affected by the replacement of jobs by automation and AI. This also 

could include well educated workers whose jobs will be affected, such as radiologists or paralegals. The attitudes and actions of 

managers, owners of businesses (focused on high tech and manufacturing, in this analysis), and government policy-makers are 

considered within the organizations of which they are members. 

The “people” category must take into account demographics – the 

composition of the 2030 workforce is largely known, with aging 

populations in most developed nations and China (mitigated in the 

US by immigration), with the major youth bulges noted above.

• “Organizations” in this analysis include: The US government (especially the Departments of State, Defense, Commerce, Labor, 

and Education), allied or partner governments, companies in the 

high tech and manufacturing sectors, labor organizations, institutions of learning (training, experiential learning and education), 

and humanitarian Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs). 

• “Processes” include: diplomacy, trade promotion, maintenance 

of alliance relationships, use of force, customs and border 

protection, promotion of US economic growth, legislation and 

regulation, labor-management relationships, forecasting of future 
183

labor markets and matching of anticipated worker skill sets to job 

demands, and the evaluation of the potential of innovative (and 

adaptive) learning to mitigate social disruptions.

• “Technology” focuses on the trends discussed earlier.

Focusing the Investigation

The POPT taxonomy helped to focus discussions and research during 

the “Wicked Problems” class noted above. In future studies, big data analytics and AI could be applied to the vast amount of information available 

on workforce and automation issues to expand the inputs and complement 

discussion-based analysis.

Insights from the Discussions

The positions taken during the discussions varied widely, from promoting laissez faire economics aggressively, to arguing for strong protectionism, from extolling the virtues of capitalism’s “creative destruction,” 

to voicing humanitarian concerns, from expressing worries about alliance 

relationships and the global economic system, to advocating virulent nationalism. The discussion themes grouped themselves into nine areas (in 

no particular order):

• Labor issues 

• Opportunities provided by learning innovation, and their limitations 

• Trade and alliance relationships 

• The velocity and impact of technological change 

• Migration43

• Timing of decisions needed to effect meaningful 

• Inequality of wealth and possible ways to redistribute it 

• Role of government 

• Role of the private sector

The complexity lens was then refocused as shown in Figure 3 to combine the POPT rows with a new set of columns based on the discussions.44

To focus further on the learning components of the problem, the complexity lens was adapted in a third iteration to examine the intersection 

of the “People” row in Figure 3 with all the columns, and the “Learning” 

column with all the rows. The results are integrated throughout the paper. Overall, the complexity lens proved to be a useful analytical tool. 

The concept was examined in more detail by several speakers during a 

Complexity Lens Workshop in Singapore in July 2015 and will be refined 

going forward.45
184

Contributions of Innovative (and Adaptive) Learning

A recurring point throughout the analysis concerned the ability of people to reinvent themselves. The “cost of entry” to learn about new and 

potentially profitable things to do is now very low and entrepreneurs can 

act quickly, even without traditional degrees or workforce experience. In 

many countries the stigma associated with failing and trying again in business is much less than it used to be (“start fast, fail quickly, try again” 

seems to be a watchword now, even in DOD research). There are credible, 

free online courses available through organizations like Coursera and EdX 

to expand one’s horizons in just about any area. The comment that “Success is creating your own opportunities” has rarely seemed more appropriate.46 At the same time, it is important to understand how much difference 

these emerging educational opportunities really can make, both to individuals and to the workforce as a whole.

Figure 9. Refocusing the Complexity Lens “Macro-Scope” on Workforce Replacement Issues. Created by authors.
185

The rest of this paper focuses more on “learning” than just education. 

“Learning” is considered to be a mix of training, experiential learning, and 

education, reinforced by appropriate incentives. The goal is to motivate 

people to learn throughout their lives, and support them with point-of-need 

content delivery. This can either make them more effective employees, 

enhance their opportunities should traditional employment opportunities 

diminish, or open paths that may not have been available before. Some 

certainly will not take advantage of these opportunities, but the impending 

changes described above make it important to encourage as many as 

possible to prepare themselves for evolving work environments.

Innovative and Adaptive Learning

One possible contributor is known as “innovative learning.” Many of 

its characteristics are well known in the education community, but the 

changing world and work environment now means it must be made broadly available and implemented successfully. The essence of innovative 

learning “is not job-specific – no one knows what the future economy 

will demand. Instead, the main goal is to develop self-directed learners, 

students with “adaptive expertise.”47

An article prepared for the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) on The Nature of Learning, provides a fuller 

perspective and rationale for innovative learning:

Over recent years, learning has moved increasingly center stage 

and for a range of powerful reasons. A primary driver has been 

the scale of change in our world, the rapid advances in ICT [Information and Communications Technology], the shift to economies 

based on knowledge, and the emphasis on the skills required to 

thrive in them. Schools and education systems around the world 

have to reconsider their design and approach to teaching and 

learning. What should schooling, teaching and, most especially, 

learning look like in this rapidly changing world?48

New educational approaches that embrace the changing world and 

prepare students for the unique challenges outlined above are prerequisites for implementing innovative learning. There is no doubt that some 

individuals will thrive in such learning environments. But it is not clear if 

these approaches can scale to enhance the number of winners enough and 

reduce the disruptive impacts of the inevitable losers. 

There also is the ever-present danger in transitional periods of 

overshooting the mark – implementing change for change’s sake and, in 

this case, throwing out many time-proven principles of good learning. To 
186

provide perspective and help control unnecessary excessive swings among 

approaches, it is worthwhile to look at a few of the emerging learning 

issues. Two areas stand out. The first is the balance between passive and 

active learning and the second is the mix of deep specialization (mastery) 

and broader inter-disciplinary approaches.

Passive versus Active Learning

Education has places for both passive and active learning, just as 

there is value both in mastering a narrow subject and in taking a broad, 

cross-disciplinary view of the world. It appears that the future workplace 

will demand more of the latter than the former, in each case, but the degree 

and speed of that shift require serious study and policy review.

Passive learning traditionally emphasizes the role of the teacher – conveying information, and hopefully knowledge, to their students who absorb it and feed it back (sometimes referred to as “the sage on the stage”). 

It provides a relatively structured environment, with fewer distractions. 

Active learning, by contrast, strives to:

create a learning environment in which student is engaged and 

motivated even before the actual learning starts and student can 

restructure and merge the prior knowledge with the new information and get the new insight and start practicing it, i.e., “active 

learning”. The active learning puts the responsibility on student 

and encourages them to get and stay engaged in class discussions 

and exercises and compel them to read, speak, listen and think.49

The teacher’s role in active learning is more of a coach (“the guide on 

the side”). In the complex, interactive approaching world, where disparate 

knowledge must be gathered and mixed in unique and unexpected ways, 

active learning provides more useful skills than passive. At the same time, 

not all students are inherently ready for active learning. The challenge is 

to prepare as many people as possible to deal with impending change and 

to give them the tools and incentives to learn from available, evolving, 

resources.

Inter-disciplinary Approaches (“T Skills”)

Just as many current jobs did not exist 15 years ago, so there will be 

many jobs in 15 years that are not imagined today. Workers are almost 

guaranteed that their work will change fundamentally in the course of their 

careers. Given this, it may be advantageous for managers to consider not 

only a potential hire’s deep mastery of a particular area, but also their mix 

of inter-disciplinary and social skills that could help them transition as 
187

new areas emerge. Sometimes these are referred to as “T” skills – being 

very deep in one area, while also having enough expertise in other fields to 

reach out to build bridges or become part of teams as needed. 

Other Learning-Related Developments

Balancing skills and job opportunities will be very important, but not 

everyone is cut out to be an entrepreneur, and some will not learn well 

in unstructured situations. As The Economist article notes, “the critical 

question is just how much of the world’s available labor will find productive work in the supercharged new economy.”50 The trick will be how to 

enable, and encourage, enough people to learn actively to get meaningful 

jobs to reduce the likelihood of significant unrest. The global scope of 

markets and the ability of disruptions to cross borders means that solutions 

must have both national and international components. 

In this context, it will be important to understand what emerging learning opportunities might look like and how far they can scale. Between 

distance learning tools, online courses such as Massively Open Online 

Courses (MOOCs), virtual reality, and the pending provision of internet 

coverage to underserved regions, the opportunity to convey information 

and education support is exploding.51 This can be reinforced by new means 

of credentialing, such as oDesk certificates and Udacity nanodegrees, 

which can give credibility to non-traditional learning approaches, opening 

new opportunities for employment based on individual initiative. More 

traditional education venues, such as vocational schools and community 

colleges, can be re-purposed to address emergent issues.52 Other innovative approaches, such as efforts by the Cyber Initiative at the Middlebury 

Institute of International Studies (MIIS) at Monterey to promote “digital 

fluency” across all the curricula at the Institute can broaden graduates’ 

technical understanding, and probable employability. The peer-to-peer 

(P2P), or sharing, economy also offers opportunities for people outside 

the traditional workforce.

Many analyses focus on retraining existing workforces, but attention 

also must be paid to creating employment opportunities for non-traditional 

job seekers, like those in the youth bulges, who are just entering the labor 

force. If these youth bulges are likely to be the source of future unrest or 

migration pressures, they deserve serious attention. It may be that traditional barter economies will continue to provide essential goods and services, which would make the unavailability of traditional jobs less threatening. At the same time, education and jobs do not preclude radicalization. 

Two-thirds of the 25 planners and hijackers involved in 9-11 had attended 
188

college.53 This area needs to be understood better from a national security 

perspective.

Scenarios

Solutions can’t be addressed in a vacuum. They need to be tested 

against a range of alternative futures (scenarios). The point is not to predict which outcome is most likely, but to choose solutions that can be effective across the widest range of environments. Scenarios are often used 

in foresight, versus forecasting approaches.54

Several scenarios have been developed around workforces. For example, the UKCES Future of Work report outlines 4 scenarios focused on the 

UK economy:

Forced Flexibility (business-as-usual): Greater business flexibility 

and incremental innovation lead to moderate growth in the economy, but 

this flexibility often results in fewer opportunities and weakened job security for the low skilled. 

The Great Divide: Despite robust growth driven by strong high-tech 

industries, a two-tiered, divided society has emerged, reinforcing the economic position of the “haves” and “have nots.”

Skills Activism: Technological innovation drives the automation of 

white-collar work and brings large-scale job losses and political pressure, 

leading to an extensive government-led skills programme.

Innovation Adaptation: In a stagnant economy, improved productivity 

is achieved through a rigorous implementation of Information and Communications Technology (ICT) solutions. 

Three broader scenarios also might be considered that put the workforce issues in national security contexts: 

Scenario 1: The Market Mostly Works It Out. The vision of many high 

tech businessmen is realized: Innovation generated by automation and AI 

increases productivity and creates adequate numbers of new jobs, and the 

economic system is able to absorb the disruptions, much as it has in the 

past. Little government intervention is needed domestically. Internationally, labor-related unrest does not pose significant cross-border challenges.

Scenario 2: Dystopian Future. The magnitude and velocity of change 

are greater than many people can absorb. Policy choices are not effective, 

leading to significant domestic and international tensions and social unrest 

that become national security issues.
189

Scenario 3: Mitigation Measures Reduce Some Tensions. A 

combination of effective policies, adequate governance and collaborative 

approaches manages the worst of the stresses. Such measures could 

include: the widespread application of adaptive learning to help workers 

(and managers) cope with rapidly changing job markets, coordination 

among alliance partners to keep tensions (like different views on migration 

questions) from becoming full-fledged national security issues, avoidance 

of “beggar-my-neighbor” trade policies, and adequate coordination on 

mass migration challenges.

As noted above, the specific solutions chosen (focused on learning 

in this case) need to be those that can be bundled effectively with other 

approaches across the widest possible range of the workforce and national 

security scenarios.

Way Ahead

Given the uncertainties, the principal objective of this analysis is to 

help inform the various debates that will emerge around these complex 

issues – how to “adjust our social structures and economic structures to 

take advantage of the new reality [of machine learning]?”55 Since 2030 is 

beyond the planning horizon of most political leaders, bureaucracies, and 

businesses, and since the details of the problem are not yet clear, the intent 

is less to provide answers now than to encourage a research agenda to tee 

issues up and generate a base of knowledge and data to permit informed 

decisions when the time is right. 

Overall, the results of the examination highlighted four key points:

• First, governments should be cautious about intervening at this 

stage, given the lack of clarity on which to base policy. 

• Second, whichever path is taken, all types of business will have 

a key stake in having a workforce that is appropriately prepared 

for the new environment. But, given the trends in workforce replacement by automation and AI outlined above, the protection 

of workers’ interests cannot be left solely to business. Moreover, 

these issues can’t be focused only on one nation.

• Third, individuals will need to take more responsibility for their 

own futures. 

• Fourth, the difficulty of implementing effective education reform, 

in the United States at least, shows just how hard these changes 

will be. Success is by no means assured.
190

Together, these imply the need for a long-term, ecosystem approach, 

with a strong business component, but engaging government, learning 

professionals, workers, and international stakeholders.56

Given this, four near-term steps can be taken that would be useful 

under any of the alternative scenarios. These include:

Gather data on which to base future policies. This must be a 

well-designed, sustained, consistent information gathering program to allow for data-based decisions in the future. Begin now with two questions: 

(1) How many jobs actually are being lost to, and how many are being created by, automation and artificial intelligence? (2) Given the importance of 

blended man-machine approaches, how can people learn to work better in 

conjunction with automation and AI? What are some metrics?

Pursue public-private partnerships on workforce issues. Recognize that governments alone aren’t likely to anticipate these changes 

very well. Neither is business, nor any other single group. Public-private, 

whole-of-government, transnational partnerships can be a better approach 

than any one team, but they need to be enabled to do so, e.g., by reducing 

regulatory impediments to collaboration. Foresight-focused thinking, versus just forecasting, needs to be an integral part of this process.

Understand better the pending impact of income and wealth inequality. Wealth and income inequalities cannot, and actually should not, 

be eliminated if innovation and entrepreneurship are to be encouraged. 

However, serious research must consider options to keep such inequities 

from becoming trigger points for large-scale social unrest. What learning 

and income redistribution measures show the most promise for mitigating 

social unrest, and how do these vary by region? What evidence will be 

needed for policy formulation?

Start teaching children early so they can make informed decisions 

and take more responsibility for individual actions. K-12 students need to 

know about the “looming shadow of the future,” the importance of becoming adaptive learners, how to develop work skills and the risks if they do 

not. Research should focus on understanding which segments of the population are likely to learn to adapt well enough through innovative learning 

and whether this will be large enough to meet the society-wide challenges 

of automation and AI. How should the concerns of the remaining population segments be addressed?
191

Notes

1. This chapter is dedicated to the late Bruce van Voorst, whose broad 

interests, intellectual curiosity, and boundless energy stimulated the authors’ 

interest in this topic.

2. A complexity lens can be considered as a “macro-scope” to focus on 

intersections and interactions among many variables, rather than the myriad 

details of the component problems. See Jan Wouter Vasbinder, The Complexity 

Lens, presentation to conference in Alpbach, Austria, 23 August 2014.

3. Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee, Race Against the Machine: How 

the Digital Revolution is Accelerating Innovation, Driving Productivity, and 

Irreversibly Transforming Employment and the Economy, (ebooks, 2011); and 

The Second Machine Age: Work, Progress, and Prosperity in a Time of Brilliant 

Technologies, (New York: W.W. Norton, 2014); Martin Ford, The Lights in the 

Tunnel: Automation, Accelerating Technology and the Economy of the Future, 

(Acculant Publishing, October 5, 2009), and Rise of the Robots: Technology and 

the Threat of a Jobless Future, (Basic Books, 2015).

4. Thomas Piketty, Capital in the Twenty-First Century, (Belknap Press, 

2014).

5. Cited in IK Mullins, A Critique of Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the 21st 

Century, (Brief Concise and to the Point Publishing, 2014), 85-87.

6. Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee, The Second Machine Age.

7. Thomas. L. Friedman, conversations with author, January-May, 2015.

8. A widely repeated quote says “If I had only one hour to solve a problem, 

I would spend up to two-thirds of that hour in attempting to define what the 

problem is.” Attributed by William H. Markle (Vice President, Stainless 

Processing Company, Chicago, Illinois) to an unnamed head of the Industrial 

Engineering Department of Yale University, in William H. Markle “The 

Manufacturing Manager’s Skills,” in Robert E. Finley and Henry R. Ziobro, 

The Manufacturing Man and His Job, (New York: American Management 

Association, Inc., 1966), 15-18. A similar quote: “If I had an hour to solve a 

problem I’d spend 55 minutes thinking about the problem and 5 minutes thinking 

about solutions,” has been attributed to Albert Einstein, but can’t be verified. In 

any case, the point is that significant time needs to be spent on understanding a 

problem before trying to solve it.

9. A problem can be considered “Wicked” when there is no agreement 

among many stakeholders on the definition of a problem, much less on the 

solution. There is an extensive literature on Wicked problems beginning with 

the seminal work by Horst W. J. Rittel and Melvin M. Webber, “Dilemmas 

in a General Theory of Planning,” Policy Sciences 4 (Amsterdam: Elsevier 

Scientific Publishing Company, 1973), 155-169. One of the best summaries 

of Wicked Problem issues and references is a paper by Ozzie Mascarenhas 

SJ, Ph.D. Innovation as Defining and Resolving Wicked Problems, May 

11, 2009, accessed August 3, 2015, http://weaverjm.faculty.udmercy.edu/

MascarenhasLectureNotes/MascarenhasWickedproblems.doc.
192

10. See Luke Muehlhauser and Lila Rieber, “Exponential and NonExponential Trends in Information Technology,” Machine Intelligence Research 

Institute (MIRI), accessed August 3, 2015, https://intelligence.org/2014/05/12/

exponential-and-non-exponential/.

11. James Kadtke and Linton Wells II, “Policy Challenges of Accelerating 

Technological Change: Security Policy and Strategy Implications of Parallel 

Scientific Revolutions,” Defense and Technology Paper 106, (Washington, 

D.C.: National Defense University, Center for Technology and National Security 

Policy, September 2014), accessed August 6, 2015, http://ctnsp.dodlive.mil/

files/2014/09/DTP106.pdf.

12. Connor M. McNulty, Neyla Arnas, and Thomas A. Campbell, “Toward 

the Printed World: Additive Manufacturing and Implications for National 

Security,” Defense Horizon 73, (Washington, D.C.: National Defense University, 

Center for Technology and National Security Policy, September 2012), accessed 

August 6, 2015, http://ctnsp.dodlive.mil/files/2013/07/DH-073.pdf.

13. James Kadtke and Linton Wells II, “Technology Is a Strategic National 

Security Component,” Signal Magazine, January 2015, accessed August 6, 

2015, http://www.afcea.org/content/?q=technology-strategic-national-securitycomponent#sthash.kr1VZJXX.dpuf.

14. Rainer Strack, “The Surprising Workforce Crisis of 2030 and How to 

Start Solving it Now,” TED Talk, accessed August 5, 2015, http://www.ted.com/

talks/rainer_strack_the_surprising_workforce_crisis_of_2030_and_how_to_

start_solving_it_now.

15. International Federation of Robotics (IFR), “World Robotics 2014 

Industrial Robots,” accessed August 3, 2015, http://www.ifr.org/industrialrobots/statistics/.

16. However, US workers historically have been very willing to move 

within the US for work opportunities.

17. UK Commission on Employment and Skills (UKCES), The Future of 

Work: Jobs and Skills in 2030, Evidence Report 84, February 2014, accessed 

August 5, 2015, www.ukces.org.uk/thefutureofwork.

18. UKCES, The Future of Work, xi

19. Ryan Arent, “The Third Great Wave,” The Economist Special Report, 

October 4, 2014, accessed August 5, 2015, http://www.economist.com/news/

special-report/21621156-first-two-industrial-revolutions-inflicted-plenty-painultimately-benefited.

20. Rainer Strack, TED talk.

21. Tim Urban, “The AI Revolution: The Road to Superintelligence,” Part 

1, in Wait But Why, accessed August 3, 2015, http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/

artificial-intelligence-revolution-1.html.

22. Urban, plus Part 2, accessed August 3, 2015, http://waitbutwhy.

com/2015/01/artificial-intelligence-revolution-2.html.

23. Nick Bostrom, “How Long Before Superintelligence?” (revised with 

fourth postscript 12 March 2008), accessed August 3, 2015, http://www.

nickbostrom.com/superintelligence.html.
193

24. Urban, plus Part 2, accessed August 3, 2015, http://waitbutwhy.

com/2015/01/artificial-intelligence-revolution-2.html.

25. Tim Urban, Part 1.

26. Jeremy Howard, “The Wonderful and Terrifying Implications of 

Computers that Can Learn,” TED Talk, November 2014, accessed August 3, 

2015, http://www.ted.com/talks/jeremy_howard_the_wonderful_and_terrifying_

implications_of_computers_that_can_learn.

27. Howard, TED talk.

28. Source: UNESCO Statistics on Literacy, accessed July 7, 2015, http://

www.unesco.org/new/en/education/themes/education-building-blocks/literacy/

resources/statistics. 

29. Carl Benedikt Frey, and Michael A. Osborne, “The Future of 

Employment: How Susceptible Are Jobs to Computerisation?” paper presented 

to the workshop on Machines and Employment, hosted by the Oxford University 

Engineering Sciences Department and the Oxford Martin Programme on the 

Impacts of Future Technology, September 17, 2013, accessed July 5, 2015, 

http://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/downloads/academic/The_Future_of_

Employment.pdf. The highest risk jobs were in transportation and logistics, 

office and administrative support, and “production occupations” were at highest 

risk, but that service occupations also were endangered. The study also implies 

that “as technology races ahead, low-skill workers will reallocate to tasks that 

are non-susceptible to computerisation – i.e., tasks requiring creative and social 

intelligence. For workers to win the race, however, they will have to acquire 

creative and social skills.” Other studies suggest that this may be hard for many.

30. Thomas Frey, “2 Billion Jobs to Disappear by 2030,” accessed August 

3, 2015, http://www.futuristspeaker.com/2012/02/2-billion-jobs-to-disappearby-2030/.

31. UKCES, The Future of Work, vi.

32. Some have suggested that the exponential capability growth should 

really be considered a very rapid series of “S” curves.

33. “Now called freestyle chess matches, these are like mixed martial arts 

fights, where players use whatever combat techniques they want. You can play 

as your unassisted human self, or you can act as the hand for your supersmart 

chess computer, merely moving its board pieces, or you can play as a “centaur,” 

which is the human/AI cyborg that Kasparov advocated. A centaur player 

will listen to the moves whispered by the AI but will occasionally override 

them – much the way we use GPS navigation in our cars. In the championship 

Freestyle Battle in 2014, open to all modes of players, pure chess AI engines 

won 42 games, but centaurs won 53 games. Today the best chess player alive is 

a centaur: Intagrand, a team of humans and several different chess programs.” 

Kevin Kelly, “The Three Breakthroughs That Have Finally Unleashed AI On 

The World,” Wired magazine, accessed August 6, 2015, http://www.wired.

com/2014/10/future-of-artificial-intelligence.

34. Arent, “The Third Great Wave.”

35. Arent, “The Third Great Wave,” 4.
194

36. Catherine Rampell, “The Robots and Your Job,” the Washington Post, 

April 10, 2015.

37. Dylan Matthews, “Basic Income: the world’s simplest plan to end 

poverty, explained,” accessed August 3, 2015, http://www.basicincome.org/

news/2015/05/dylan-matthews-basic-income-the-worlds-simplest-plan-to-endpoverty-explained-2/. A much more optimistic future is postulated by Peter H. 

Diamandis and Steven Kottler in Abundance: The Future is Better Than You 

Think, (New York: Free Press, 2012 and 2014).

38. Paul Tudor Jones II, “Why We Need to Rethink Capitalism,” 

accessed August 3, 2015, http://www.ted.com/talks/paul_tudor_jones_ii_

why_we_need_to_rethink_capitalism?utm_source=newsletter_daily&utm_

campaign=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_content=button__2015-04-16). 

39. John Fullerton, Regenerative Capitalism, Capital Institute, April, 

2015, accessed August 3, 2015, http://capitalinstitute.org/wp-content/

uploads/2015/04/2015-Regenerative-Capitalism-4-20-15-final.pdf.

40. Jan Wouter Vasbinder, The Complexity Lens, presentation to conference 

in Alpbach, Austria, 23 August 2014.

41. Vasbinder, The Complexity Lens.

42. The “People, Organizations, Processes and Technology” analytical 

framework has been used by the International Transformation (ITX) Chairs 

Network since 2009. See Derrick Neal, Henrik Friman, Ralph Doughty, and 

Linton Wells II, eds, Crosscutting Issues in International Transformation: 

Interactions and Innovations among People, Organizations, Processes, and 

Technology, (Washington: Center for Technology and National Security 

Policy, December 2009), accessed August 3, 2015, http://ctnsp.dodlive.mil/

files/2009/12/Crosscutting-Issues-in-International-Transformation.pdf.

43. The views here are mixed: Senator Jeff Sessions, Chairman of the 

Senate Judiciary Committee’s Immigration Subcommittee, in the April 10, 

2015, Washington Post, warns of the negative effects of continued high levels 

of immigration into the US At the same time, others feel that immigration will 

be essential to future US economic growth in the face of an otherwise aging 

workforce. 

44. There are seven columns in this lens, versus the nine original discussion 

threads since the “Velocity and Impact of Tech Change” section from the 

discussion threads was folded into the “Technology” row and the “Timing of 

Decisions” section was folded into the “Processes” row of the refocused lens.

45. “Workshop on Complexity Lens” held during Singapore Foresight Week 

2015, July 9-10, 2015, led by Jan W. Vasbinder, Director, Para Limes, Nanyang 

Technological University

46. Mr. Fred Israel, comment to author, May 30, 2015.

47. Katrina Schwartz, “7 Essential Principles of Innovative Learning,” 

KQED News, February 1, 2013. 

48. Instance and Benavides Dumont, “The Nature of Learning,” OECD, 

accessed August 3, 2015, http://www.oecd.org/edu/ceri/50300814.pdf.
195

49. Ajay Upadhyaya, “Active Vs Passive Learning,” EduTrends, January 24, 

2013.

50. Arent, “The Third Great Wave,” 14.

51. Mike Elgan, “Why Google and Facebook need balloons, drones and 

rockets,” COMPUTERWORLD, December 6, 2014, accessed August 3, 2015,

http://www.computerworld.com/article/2855979/why-google-and-facebookneed-balloons-drones-and-rockets.html.

52. Everett Community College in Washington has developed an 

arrangement with Boeing to train workers to handle composite fibers. See Debra 

Vaughn, “Everett-built carbon fiber wings key to Boeing’s future,” The Herald 

Business Journal, January 19, 2015, accessed August 3, 2015, http://www.

theheraldbusinessjournal.com/article/20150119/BIZ/150119997.

53. Peter Bergen and Swati Pandey, “The Madrassa Myth,” New 

York Times, June 14, 2005, accessed August 3, 2015, http://www.nytimes.

com/2005/06/14/opinion/the-madrassa-myth.html?_r=0.

54. Forecasting often focuses on extrapolated predictions, based on already 

identified trends, while foresight is about anticipating the broader range of 

possibilities that could emerge from developing strategic conditions. 

55. Jeremy Howard TED talk.

56. Richard Riley, Sandra Feldman, Sofie Sa, Bruce S. Cooper, Diana 

Wyllie Rigden, Ted Kolderie, Hans Decker, G. Alfred Hess, Jr., Allyson Tucker 

“Educating the Workforce of the Future,” Harvard Business Review, MarchApril 1994, accessed August 6, 2015, https://hbr.org/1994/03/educating-theworkforce-of-the-future. The authors included the US Secretary of Education 

and the President of the United Federation of Teachers in New York. This 

follows Bernard Avishai’s article “What Is Business’s Social Compact?” 

Harvard Business Review, January–February 1994, and is part of a discussion 

on “...the nature of business’s social responsibility in a competitive environment 

that has superseded Adam Smith’s division of labor.” The authors argue that 

business must take a much stronger role in education. Although focused mainly 

on the failings of the US public school system, their key message also applies in 

other quarters: “Business leaders must apply the lessons of the marketplace to 

education reform: competition breeds quality; investment without productivity 

is wasteful; and producers must be accountable to consumers. These principles 

suggest that markets, rather than bureaucratic monopolies, should deliver the 

service of education to US students.” However, in light of the changing nature of 

capitalism, will a business-led approach really address the core unemployment 

and social unrest questions generated by the replacement of labor by automation 

and AI?

197

About the Authors

Professor Peter J. Denning is a distinguished professor of computer science at the US Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA. He is chair of 

the computer science department and director of the Cebrowski Institute 

for Information Innovation. He has published extensively on computing 

and education subjects. His most recent books are The Innovator’s Way

(2010) and Great Principles of Computing (2015). He holds 26 awards for 

technical and educational accomplishment. He is a former president of the 

Association for Computing Machinery and is editor of the online Ubiquity, an ACM magazine devoted to the future of computing.

Dr. Ralph O. Doughty is Professor and Chair of Interagency and Multinational Studies at the US Army Command and General Staff College at Fort 

Leavenworth, Kansas. He holds a PhD in Mechanical Engineering from 

the University of Alabama, and is a retired US Army Major General. General Doughty commanded at battalion, brigade, and division level during 

his 34-year military career. Prior to his current assignment, Dr. Doughty 

served as Professor and Transformation Chair at the US Army Command 

and General Staff College. He was president of a civilian enterprise software consulting company in the US for 10 years prior to returning to Fort 

Leavenworth.

Dr. Cathy Downes is Professor at the National Defense University’s Information Resources Management College (iCollege), Washington D.C. 

She holds a PhD in Political Studies from the University of Lancaster, 

United Kingdom. She is also a graduate of the Australian Department of 

Defence Industrial Mobilization Course and holds a US Department of 

Defense Chief Information Officer Certificate. Prior to joining the iCollege in 2003, Dr. Downes served as a senior civilian executive in the New 

Zealand Defence Force, leading enterprise transformation initiatives and 

as a defense policy writer and adviser to the New Zealand Secretary of 

Defence. In her current position, she leads the iCollege’s Multi-Agency 

Collaboration graduate course and teaches on the College’s Cyber-Leadership and JPME II Cyberspace programs. Her research interests include: 

national security strategy, concepts of international cyberspace relations, 

strategic thinking and strategy formulation, constructing an interagency 

collaborative maturity model, futures assessments of technology, and digitally-enabled learning environments.

Dr. David T. Fautua is Chief, Individual Training & Learning, Joint 

Training, J7 Joint Staff. He holds a PhD in American History from the 
198

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and attended the National 

War College in 2005-2006 as a research fellow. He formerly served as US 

Joint Forces Command Academic Chair, held an appointment as visiting 

associate professor at the Joint Forces Staff College, and was special assistant to two NATO Supreme Allied Commanders. He was the principal 

investigator of two award-winning research projects: 2015 I/ITSEC Best 

Paper on the institutionalization of blended learning into joint training, 

and the 2010 NTSA award-winning Border Hunter research project. 

Colonel (R) Theodore C. Hailes retired from the US Air Force after a 

48 year career. The first thirty years in uniform he flew the F-4, 0-2A, 

F-5 and the F-15 and served in Vietnam as a Forward Air Controller. The 

second phase of his career was in the academic arena serving as a professor, teaching at the graduate level at the Air War College. In 1997 he 

co-founded the Center for Strategy and Technology, a research center that 

studied advanced technologies 20 years in the future, assessing the strategic impact of rapid technological change on the Air Force. His civilian education includes an undergraduate degree in history and a master’s degree 

in International Relations. His principal areas of interest in the academic 

world have been in International Relations and the strategic implications 

of accelerating technological change. 

Dr. Grant T. Hammond is a Research Professor at the USAF Center for 

Strategy and Technology. He holds a BA from Harvard and MA and PhD 

from SAIS, Johns Hopkins. Prior to his current assignment, Dr. Hammond 

served as Provost at Air University and Dean of the NATO Defense College in Rome, Italy. He is the author of Plowshares into Swords: Arms 

Races in International Politics; Countertrade Offsets and Barter in International Political Economy; and The Mind of War: John Boyd and American Security, scores of articles and book chapters, and briefings to all the 

US military services Command and Staff Colleges and War Colleges and 

invited presentations to military and civilian audiences in 13 countries.

Ms. Susan L. Higgins is a Research Associate in the Information Science 

Department and the deputy director of the Cebrowski Institute for Information Innovation at the Naval Postgraduate School. She is a retired Navy 

Commander and a plank owner in the Navy’s Information Professional 

Community. While on active duty she held numerous leadership positions 

in commands with missions focused on information technology, space 

systems, and communications. At the Naval Postgraduate School she led 

the development of the distance learning program and has designed and 

taught courses for executive education as well as graduate level courses in 

command and control and military transformation.
199

Dr. Jack D. Kem serves as a Supervisory Professor of Joint, Interagency, and Multinational Operations at the US Army Command and General 

Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. Prior to his current position, 

Dr. Kem deployed for two years to Afghanistan as a member of the Senior 

Executive Service, serving as the Deputy to the Commander for NATO 

Training Mission – Afghanistan (NTM-A) / Combined Security Transition 

Command – Afghanistan (CSTC-A). He entered the US Army in 1974 and 

retired in 1998 as a Military Intelligence Colonel. Dr. Kem holds a MPA 

from Auburn University and a PhD from North Carolina State University.

Dr. Guillaume Lasconjarias is a researcher at the NATO Defense College in Rome, Italy, where he is the Transformation Chair. He holds a PhD 

in history from La Sorbonne University, and graduated from the École 

Normale Supérieure in France. Prior to his current position, he worked 

for the French Ministry of Defense. His areas of expertise cover counter-insurgency, amphibious operations, capacity building and conventional 

forces. He is the rapporteur of the NATO Conference of Commandants, 

which gathers all commandants and deans in charge of Professional Military Education. An infantry reserve officer, he has deployed several times, 

including to Afghanistan.

Dr. Richard Meinhart is Professor of Defense and Joint Processes at the 

US Army War College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania. He holds a Doctorate 

Degree in Higher Education Administration from The George Washington 

University, a Master’s Degree in National Security and Strategic Studies 

from the Naval War College, a Master of Arts Degree in Management 

from Central Michigan University, and a Bachelor of Science in Chemistry from Lehigh University. He has taught at the Army War College since 

1997 and held the college’s General Brehon Burke Somervell Chair of 

Management, the Defense Transformation Chair, and the General Matthew B. Ridgway Chair of Leadership. His military experiences include 

almost 30 years of active service in the Air Force, which involved assignments on the Joint Chiefs, Army, and Air Force Staffs at the Pentagon 

and in supply and logistics operations at three stateside bases and three 

overseas locations.

Professor Derrick J. Neal is Professor of Defence Strategic Change 

at the Defence Academy of the United Kingdom. He also serves on the 

faculty at Cranfield University. He has been Associate Dean and Faculty 

Dean and was previously the Course Director for the Defence Acquisition 

Management MSc. Professor Neal consults in the areas of strategy/

change management and works with a number of organizations within 

the Public Sector and the UK Ministry of Defence in particular. He is the 
200

UK representative in the International Transformation Chairs network. He 

is also a member of an international external review team supporting the 

Commission for Academic Accreditation operating in the UAE.

Ms. Emilie Reitz is a Research Analyst at Alion Science and Technology. 

She holds an MA in International Studies from Old Dominion University. She is currently supporting the Joint Fires Division of Joint Staff J6, 

Deputy Director for Cyber and Command, Control, Communications and 

Computers Integration (C5I). In this capacity, she is the data collection 

and analytical working group lead for Bold Quest. Her research focuses 

on integrating joint capabilities into modeling, simulation, and training, 

as a performance enabler. She was the lead research analyst on the 2010 

NTSA award-winning Border Hunter project and co-author of the 2014 I/

ITSEC best paper for the institutionalization of blended learning into joint 

training. 

Dr. Sae Schatz currently serves as the director of the Advanced Distributed Learning (ADL) Initiative. She holds a PhD in Modeling & Simulations 

from the University of Central Florida. Before joining ADL, she worked 

as a performer in both industry and academia, and she earned accolades 

for her technical work. In 2010, Dr. Schatz led the team which received 

an NTSA Modeling & Simulation Award for Training, and she has received the I/ITSEC best paper award twice: first in 2012 for her work on 

the Marine Corps’ Making Good Instructors Great, and again in 2014 for 

her work on Joint Blended Learning. She is an applied human-systems 

researcher, professional facilitator, and cognitive scientist.

Mr. Julian Stodd is the Founder and Captain at SeaSalt Learning, helping 

organizations get fit for the Social Age. He writes widely around social 

media in learning, learning design and mobile technology. He has authored seven books, including Exploring the World of Social Learning and 

A Mindset for Mobile Learning, as well as his most recent Social Leadership Handbook, which explores the role of social authority within formal 

hierarchies. He is a proud global mentor with the Cherie Blair Foundation 

for Women, and a trustee of Drake Music, a charity that works to break 

down disabling barriers to music through education and research. 

Dr. Linton Wells II has more than twenty years of senior civilian leadership experience with the US government in national security affairs, including service as acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks and 

Information Integration and Department of Defense (DoD) Chief Information Officer (CIO). Other executive positions have been related to Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence (C3I), and the interface 
201

between decision-making and technology. From 2010 to 2014 he led the 

Center for Technology and National Security Policy, a research center at 

the US National Defense University. He was also a career naval officer. 

He completed 51 years with DOD in 2014 and is now dividing his time, 

one-third volunteering/giving back, one-third family, one-third business.


The Army Press

Fort Leavenworth, Kansas