REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

1. REPORT DATE (dd-mm-yy)

May 2001 

2. REPORT TYPE

Final 

3. DATES COVERED (from. . . to)

June 2000 – March 2001

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER

Commanders’ Survey: Armor Captains’ Career Course (Distance 

Learning) 5b. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

0602785A

5c. PROJECT NUMBER

A790

6. AUTHOR(S)

William R. Sanders (U.S. Army Research Institute) and CPT Chester 

W. Guyer (U.S. Army Armor School) 5d. TASK NUMBER

211

5e. WORK UNIT NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

U.S. Army Research Institute for the U.S. Army Armor School 

 Behavioral and Social Sciences ATTN: ATSB-DAS 

ATTN: TAPC-ARI-IK 2369 Old Ironsides Avenue

2423 Morande Street Fort Knox, KY 40121 

Fort Knox, KY 40121

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER

10. MONITOR ACRONYM

ARI

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

ATTN: TAPC-ARI-IK

5001 Eisenhower Avenue

Alexandria, VA 22333-5600

11. MONITOR REPORT NUMBER

Research Report 1771

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words): 

The U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI) Armored Forces Research Unit (AFRU) at Fort 

Knox supports the U.S. Army Armor School (USAARMS) by conducting training research and development. The USAARMS

has recently introduced a revised Armor Captains’ Career Course (AC3) delivered primarily through Distance Learning (DL). 

In June 2000, the Director of the USAARMS requested that the AFRU provide Technical Advisory Service in the development

and evaluation of a survey of both students and leaders involved with AC3 DL. This report describes the results of the survey

developed to gather information regarding factors limiting participation in the AC3 DL course to include Reserve Component 

policies, monetary and non-monetary incentives, course impact on the student's other unit responsibilities, and factors 

contributing to student attrition. This report examines both course content and Reserve Component policies impacting distance 

learning time requirements and computer equipment support. Results of the survey were briefed to the Director of the 

USAARMS, and the Director of Training, National Guard Bureau in December 2000. 

15. SUBJECT TERMS

Distance Learning Armor Captains’ Career Course 

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF

16. REPORT

Unclassified

17. ABSTRACT

Unclassified

18. THIS PAGE

Unclassified

19. LIMITATION OF 

ABSTRACT

Unlimited

20. NUMBER

OF PAGES

29

21. RESPONSIBLE PERSON

(Name and Telephone Number)

Dr. James W. Lussier

DSN 464-2613

i
Research Report 1771 

 Commanders' Survey: Armor Captains' 

Career Course (Distance Learning) 

William R. Sanders

U.S. Army Research Institute 

CPT Chester W. Guyer 

U.S. Army Armor School 

Armored Forces Research Unit

Barbara A. Black, Chief 

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences 

5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22333-5600 

April 2001 

Army Project Number Personnel Performance and 

20262785A790 Training Technology 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited

iii
iv
FOREWORD__________________________________________________________________ 

The Future Battlefield Conditions (FBC) Team of the Armored Forces Research Unit 

(AFRU), U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI) has a work

package (211) FUTURETRAIN: Techniques and Tools for C4ISR Training of Future Brigade 

Combat Team Commanders and Staffs. Recent work under this work package has involved 

research and development concerning training for digital staffs. 

The U.S. Army Armor School (USAARMS) has recently introduced a revised Armor 

Captains’ Career Course (AC3) delivered primarily through Distance Learning (DL). In June 

2000, the Director of the USAARMS requested that the AFRU provide Technical Advisory

Service in the development and evaluation of a survey of both students and leaders involved with 

AC3 DL. This request was supported by an existing Memorandum from USAARMS requesting

technical assistance entitled “Technical Assistance in Support of Armor Captains’ Career Course 

Distance Learning,” dated 24 June 1999. 

This report describes the results of the survey developed to gather information regarding

factors limiting participation in the AC3 DL course to include Reserve Component (RC) policies, 

monetary and non-monetary incentives, course impact on the student's other unit responsibilities, 

and factors contributing to student attrition. This report examines both course content and RC 

policies impacting distance learning time requirements and computer equipment support. The 

survey instrument was distributed by the USAARMS to the full population of AC3 DL students 

and their unit leaders. Responses were compiled and analyzed, and are presented in this research 

report. 

 

The information provided in this report is valuable to the USAARMS and other 

organizations involved in training soldiers and leaders through distance learning methods. It

provides feedback on RC personnel and training policies that can impact successful AC3 DL

course completion. Updates were provided to Armor School representatives and results were 

briefed to the Director of the USAARMS, and Director of Training, National Guard Bureau in 

December 2000. 

 

 ZITA M. SIMUTIS 

 Technical Director 

v
vi
COMMANDERS' SURVEY: ARMOR CAPTAINS' CAREER COURSE (DISTANCE 

LEARNING) 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY_______________________________________________________ 

Research Requirement:

 The Director of the Armor School requested the U.S. Army Research Institute for the 

Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI), Armored Forces Research Unit (AFRU) at Fort Knox

provide assessment support to the U.S. Army Armor School's (USAARMS) review of the Armor 

Captains' Career Course Distance Learning (AC3 DL). The assessment targeted factors limiting

student participation in the course to include Reserve Component (RC) policies, monetary and 

non-monetary incentives, course impact on the student's other unit responsibilities, and factors 

contributing to student attrition. The information gathered will be used to guide further course 

development and to identify RC policies that support successful course completion. 

Procedure: 

ARI worked with USAARMS training developers and instructors to develop a survey of 

both students and unit leaders involved with AC3 DL. The USAARMS distributed the survey

instrument by email to a total of 352 AC3 DL students and unit leaders involved with the course. 

The survey requested demographic information, and presented 14 open-response items. 

Responses were compiled and analyzed by ARI, and are presented in this research report. 

Findings: 

Respondents provided recommendations placed in the context of current RC policies as 

well as realistic constraints. Policy changes were identified that might support the students'

successful course completion. Both students and unit leaders responses were generally positive 

regarding the course, and described it as an improvement over the previous paper-based 

correspondence course. Concerns about the length of specific portions of the AC3 DL course

were identified which can be used in restructuring specific sections of the training. Both students 

and unit leaders contributed useful feedback and identified change recommendations based on 

their differing perspectives. As an example, students identified conflicts between unit drill and 

AC3 DL course time requirements, while unit leaders identified ways in which command 

emphasis on AC3 DL training could enhance successful completion of the course. 

Utilization of Findings: 

 

This report examines both course content and RC policies impacting distance learning

course requirements and computer equipment support. It provides feedback on RC personnel 

and training policies that can impact successful AC3 DL course completion. This report can 

provide training developers and Army leaders with a better understanding of the current needs of

the AC3 DL training program, and might provide course design insights generalizable to a broad 

vii
range of DL training programs. Findings suggest policy decisions that would promote training

program success. 

viii
COMMANDERS' SURVEY: ARMOR CAPTAINS' CAREER COURSE DISTANCE

LEARNING 

CONTENTS___________________________________________________________________ 

 Page 

INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1 

 Curriculum Background................................................................................................. 1 

 Evaluation Background.................................................................................................. 1 

 Method ........................................................................................................................... 2 

 Instrument ...................................................................................................................... 2 

 Survey Administration................................................................................................... 2 

RESULTS .................................................................................................................................. 2 

 Respondent Demographics ............................................................................................ 2 

 Survey Response Format ............................................................................................... 3 

 Factors Limiting Asynchronous Training Participation ................................................ 4 

 Factors Limiting Synchronous Training Participation................................................... 4 

 Reserve Component Policies for Asynchronous Training............................................. 5 

 Reserve Component Policies for Synchronous Training............................................... 6 

 Leader Confidence in Web-Based Training .................................................................. 8 

 Non-Monetary Compensation for Synchronous Training ............................................. 8 

 Monetary Compensation for Synchronous Training...................................................... 9 

 Computer Support to Distance Learning ....................................................................... 10 

 Distance Learning Impact on Unit Responsibilities...................................................... 10 

 Distance Learning Enrollment Process.......................................................................... 11 

 Student Computer Skills................................................................................................ 11 

 Factors Contributing to Student Attrition ...................................................................... 12 

 Overall Perceptions of the Course ................................................................................. 12 

 Additional Factors Impacting on the Course ................................................................. 13 

SUMMARY............................................................................................................................... 14 

DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................15 

APPENDIX A. List of Acronyms........................................................................................... A-1 

 B. Survey of Policies and Practices Supporting The Armor Captain’s 

 Career Course - Distance Learning ............................................................... B-1

ix
CONTENTS (Continued)_________________________________________________________ 

 Page

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1. Survey Population Demographics ............................................................................. 3 

 2. Question1. What factors might limit participation in the ASYNCHRONOUS 

 self-study portion of the AC3 DL course (equipment, employment, 

 Army Policies)? ......................................................................................................... 4 

 

 3. Question 2. What factors might limit participation in the SYNCHRONOUS 

 self-study portion of the AC3 DL course (equipment, employment, 

 Army Policies)? ......................................................................................................... 5 

 4. Question 3. What Reserve Component policies would support participation 

 in AC3 DL self-study ASYNCHRONOUS training?.............................................. 5 

 5. Question 4. What Reserve Component policies would support participation in 

 AC3 DL self-study SYNCHRONOUS training?...................................................... 7 

 6. Question 5. Do leaders believe web-based training is effective for AC3 DL 

 content? ..................................................................................................................... 8 

 7. Question 6. What types of non-monetary compensation would increase 

 participation in AC3 DL weekend SYNCHRONOUS training?.............................. 9 

 

 8. Question 7. What types of monetary compensation would increase participation 

 in AC3 DL weekend SYNCHRONOUS training? ................................................... 9 

 9. Question 8. Do units have Internet-linked computers available to support 

 Distance Learning? ................................................................................................... 10 

 10. Question 9. Does AC3 DL weekend SYNCHRONOUS training time detract 

 from the student's other unit responsibilities?.......................................................... 10 

 

 11. Question 10. Do students have the computer skills necessary to work through 

 AC3 DL training? .................................................................................................... 11 

 12. Question 11. What are some difficulties or issues with the enrollment process 

 that you have experienced?...................................................................................... 11 

 13. Question 12. What are factors that have contributed to students leaving the 

 course? ..................................................................................................................... 12 

 

x
CONTENTS (Continued)_________________________________________________________ 

 Page 

 14. Question 13. What are your overall perceptions about the course? (Does it 

 provide quality training? Is it seen as equivalent to the resident course, etc.?)...... 13 

 15. Question 14. List other factors which you think impact either positively or 

 negatively on the course.......................................................................................... 13

xi
COMMANDERS' SURVEY: ARMOR CAPTAINS' CAREER COURSE (DISTANCE 

LEARNING) 

Introduction 

Curriculum Background

The U.S. Army Armor School (USAARMS) has redesigned the Armor Captains' Career 

Course (AC3), formerly known as the Armor Officers' Advanced Course (AOAC) for Reserve 

Components (RC) using the Total Army Training System Conversion (ATTRS) process. The 

course previously consisted of 24 paper-based modules with multiple choice knowledge tests 

taken by correspondence, followed by a two-week resident Active Duty Training (ADT) period 

at Fort Knox. The focus of the course was strictly on company team operations. 

The redesign of AOAC(RC) has resulted in an expanded course delivered largely through 

Distance Learning (DL). The redesigned AC3 DL consists of three major phases: Phase I

providing 240 hours of asynchronous (with an instructor "in the loop") Internet lessons delivered 

over a one-year period; Phase II providing 120 hours of synchronous lessons using

videoteletraining, a virtual tactical operations center (VTOC), and a small group instructor 

during 10 consecutive Inactive Duty Training (IDT) weekends (60 hours of additional 

asynchronous training are included in this phase); and Phase III providing 120 hours of resident 

training during an ADT period at Fort Knox. The expanded AC3 DL is modeled after the Active 

Component (AC) AC3 and trains officers to be company commanders (Co CDRs) and to 

perform as assistant operations officers at battalion and brigade levels. The AC3 DL represents a 

prototype of future Army training. 

Evaluation Background 

In June 1999, the Director of the USAARMS requested that the U.S. Army Research 

Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences’ Armored Forces Research Unit (ARI AFRU) at

Fort Knox provide Technical Advisory Service to assist in assessment of the pilot AC3 DL. The 

request referred specifically to an assessment of Phase I. In response the ARI AFRU formed an 

ad hoc team of three personnel to work part-time with Armor School personnel on AC3 DL

assessment. The initial or pilot delivery of the course was completed in November 2000. 

In June 2000, the Director of the USAARMS further requested that ARI AFRU provide 

Technical Advisory Service to assist in an assessment of the AC3 DL course. This request 

specifically called for gathering feedback on the AC3 DL from both students actively involved in 

the course, and also the leaders of the units involved. The School desired expanded feedback 

regarding factors limiting student participation in the course to include RC policies, monetary

and non-monetary incentives, course impact on the student's other unit responsibilities, and 

factors contributing to student attrition. The present report presents the feedback gathered and 

findings derived from this survey of AC3 DL students and their unit leaders. 

1
Method 

The ARI researchers worked with USAARMS training developers and instructors to 

develop the survey instrument. The survey was mailed electronically by the USAARMS to a 

total of 352 AC3 DL students and unit leaders involved with the course. The survey requested 

demographic information, and presented 14 open-response items. Demographic questions were 

selected for inclusion to allow comparisons to the other course evaluations. Where possible, 

questions were worded in the same format as those to be presented to the initial AC3 DL twoweek resident class as part of the AC3 DL Phase I evaluation. Specific questions were selected 

to gather feedback on factors limiting student participation in the course to include RC policies, 

monetary and non-monetary incentives, course impact on the student's other unit responsibilities, 

and factors contributing to student attrition. 

Instrument 

Survey of Policies and Practices Supporting the Armor Captain's Career Course - 

Distance Learning (AC3 DL) is provided at Appendix B. The survey includes a cover sheet

explaining the goals of the survey and a brief description of the course and key terms. The first 

section of the survey records demographic information from the respondent. The second section 

of the survey consists of 14 open-response format questions investigating factors limiting student 

participation in the course, to include RC policies, monetary and non-monetary incentives, 

course impact on the student's other unit responsibilities, and factors contributing to student 

attrition. 

Survey Administration 

Of the 352 surveys mailed out electronically, 304 reached the intended students and unit 

leaders (48 addresses had changed resulting in undelivered surveys). Data collection was 

conducted from October through November 2000. Of the 208 surveys reaching students, 33 

(15.9%) were completed and returned. Of the 96 surveys reaching unit leaders, 31 (32.2%) were

completed and returned. 

Results 

Respondent Demographics 

The survey population was almost evenly split between RC students enrolled in the AC3 

DL course, and RC unit leaders (includes Readiness Training Detachment [RTD]). Table 1 

provides a description of the survey population in terms of their duty position, rank, and 

familiarity with the asynchronous, and synchronous portion of the AC3 DL course. The survey

response rate is low and limits our ability to generalize opinions expressed in the survey to the 

total population of AC3 DL students and leaders. While it is risky to generalize the opinions 

expressed, the number of respondents might be adequate for purposes of identifying usability

problems associated with the courseware, and for generating “good ideas” and policy change 

recommendations. 

2
Table 1 

Survey Population Demographics 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

 

 Students Leaders 

Duty Position N % N %

RC Student 33 100 0 0 

RC Not Student 0 0 15 48.4 

AC Advisor (RTD) 0 0 5 16.1 

Other 0 0 10 32.3 

No Response 0 0 1 3.2 

Total 33 100.0 31 100.0 

 Students Leaders 

Rank N % N %

BG 0 0 1 3.2 

COL 0 0 3 9.7 

LTC 0 0 8 25.8 

MAJ 0 0 9 29.0 

CPT 11 66.7 7 22.6 

LT 22 33.3 3 9.7 

Total 33 100.0 31 100.0 

 

 Students Leaders 

Familiarity Asynchronous N % N %

Not Familiar 2 6.1 4 12.9 

Somewhat Familiar 4 12.1 15 48.4 

Very Familiar 27 81.8 12 38.7 

Total 33 100.0 31 100.0 

 

 Students Leaders 

Familiarity Synchronous N % N %

Not Familiar 6 18.2 5 16.1 

Somewhat Familiar 20 60.6 20 64.5 

Very Familiar 7 21.2 6 19.4 

Total 33 100.0 31 100.0 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Survey Response Format

The written feedback provided by each respondent was analyzed and tabulated. The 

open-response format of each question allowed the respondent to identify more than one factor 

impacting the AC3 DL course. The tabled data present the percentage of respondents providing 

a specific comment to each question. As an example, in response to Question 1 (see Table 2) 16 

of 33 students cited employment as a factor limiting participation in the AC3 DL program, 

3
resulting in the 48% statistic for students on this factor. In comparison, in response to Question 

1 only 11 of 31 unit leaders, or 39%, mentioned employment as a factor limiting participation. 

Statements in response to survey questions are presented in order from highest to lowest 

percentage of students providing each response. The percentage of leaders providing a similar 

response is provided for comparison. Responses to the Survey of Policies and Practices 

Supporting the Armor Captain's Career Course - Distance Learning (AC3 DL) are presented in 

Tables 2 - 15. 

Factors Limiting Asynchronous Training Participation 

The statements in Table 2 indicate that the competing demands of civilian employment 

were viewed by both students and leaders as a limiting factor on participation in the AC3 DL

asynchronous training. While students more frequently cited specific technical difficulties such 

as Internet lesson download time and modem requirements, unit leader responses cited computer

equipment availability, and course time requirements as factors limiting student participation. 

Table 2 

Question 1. What factors might limit participation in the ASYNCHRONOUS self-study portion 

of the AC3 DL course (equipment, employment, Army policies)?

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Students Leaders

48% 39% Employment. 

45% 23% Equipment technical problems. 

18% 29% Family. 

15% 23% Course format. 

12% 48% Course time requirements. 

12% 3% Competing unit drill requirements. 

 3% 55% Equipment availability problems. 

 3% 3% Other school enrollment. 

 3% 6% Personal motivation, working alone. 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Factors Limiting Synchronous Training Participation 

Statements in Table 3 indicate that both student and unit leader respondents view 

competing civilian employment, and unit drill requirements, as limiting participation in the

synchronous portion of AC3 DL training. This synchronous training employed a Virtual Tactical 

Operations Center (VTOC) and required one weekend per month for ten months to complete. 

Both students and leaders cited synchronous training competition with other unit drill 

requirements as a challenge, as participation in unit drills was viewed as an essential part of the

officer's/AC3 DL students' professional development.

4
Table 3 

Question 2. What factors might limit participation in the SYNCHRONOUS self-study portion of 

the AC3 DL course (equipment, employment, Army policies)?

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Students Leaders

45% 45% Employment. 

33% 39% Competing unit drill requirements. 

18% 6% Equipment technical problems. 

15% 19% Course time requirements. 

12% 3% Lack of compensation. 

 9% 13% Family. 

 9% 25% Equipment availability problems. 

 6% 0% Army policies. 

 6% 10% None. 

 3% 6% Personal motivation, working alone.

______________________________________________________________________________ 

 

Reserve Component Policies for Asynchronous Training 

Statements in Table 4 present respondent suggestions regarding RC policies that could 

support participation in AC3 DL asynchronous self-study. Students suggest that support could 

be provided in the form of computer equipment capable of handling the AC3 DL software and 

Internet download requirements. Students also suggest that providing more structure to course 

completion with progress updates could support participation. Some students also suggest that 

AC3 DL training be conducted in lieu of regular unit drill requirements. Unit leaders suggest 

providing computer equipment and Internet service to those officers selected for the AC3 DL

course, and recommend compensating students for time spent on the course.

Table 4 

Question 3. What Reserve Component policies would support participation in AC3 DL selfstudy ASYNCHRONOUS training?

______________________________________________________________________________ 

NO POLICY CHANGES IDENTIFIED: Students Leaders

Don't know. 27% 16% 

No response. 15% 13% 

None, no policy changes needed. 9% 19% 

EQUIPMENT SUPPORT: Students Leaders

Provide computers and net service. 9% 26% 

State provides location and 6% 0% 

 equipment to train as a group. 

 table continued 

5
Table 4 (Continued) 

COURSE FORMAT: Students Leaders

Structure/scheduling: Establish fixed time 9% 6% 

 limit [1 year], progress updates. 

Content: Develop an RC Pre Mobilization 3% 0%

 Program of Instruction (POI) and execute it 

 to standard, rather than training the entire 

 Active Component (AC) POI.

Collective training: Train as a group. 3% 3% 

Enrollment: Automatically enroll officers 3% 0%

 from same unit into the same small group. 

Staffing: Additional manpower for 0% 6% 

 Fort Knox course support. 

Content: Refine training materials. 0% 3% 

COMPETING UNIT DRILL REQUIREMENTS: Students Leaders

Self-study in lieu of drill. 9% 6%

Count AC3 as Multiple Unit Training Assembly 3% 3% 

 (MUTA), with two Additional Training (AT) 

 periods for AC3 DL course away from unit. 

PERSONNEL POLICIES: Students Leaders

Restrict out key leaders (Co CDR) 

 and those in civilian education. 6% 0% 

Set up “School” positions in Modified Tables 

 of Organization and Equipment( MTOE), 

 put students in staff slots. 3% 0% 

Promotion policies. 0% 3% 

Retirement points. 0% 3% 

 

COMPENSATION: Students Leaders

Compensate for hours. 6% 13% 

Paid Readiness Maintenance Assembly (RMA)/

 Additional Training Assembly (ATA) status. 3% 0% 

Compensate like Active Component units Tables 

 of Distribution and Allowances (TDA) status. 3% 0% 

Compensate for course completion. 0% 3% 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Reserve Component Policies for Synchronous Training 

Statements in Table 5 present respondent suggestions regarding RC policies that could 

support participation in AC3 DL synchronous collective training. Compared to asynchronous 

self-paced training, more leaders suggest that students complete VTOC synchronous training

weekends in lieu of drill. Likewise, compared to self-paced asynchronous training, a greater 

6
number of students and leaders suggest that students be compensated for VTOC synchronous 

training weekends. 

Table 5 

Question 4. What Reserve Component policies would support participation in AC3 DL selfstudy SYNCHRONOUS training?

______________________________________________________________________________ 

NO POLICY CHANGES IDENTIFIED: Students Leaders

Don't know. 18% 16% 

No response. 12% 9% 

None, no policy changes needed. 3% 13% 

EQUIPMENT SUPPORT: Students Leaders

State provides location and 3% 0% 

 equipment to train as a group. 

Provide computers and net service. 0% 13% 

COURSE FORMAT: Students Leaders

Structure/scheduling: Establish fixed time 9% 6% 

 limit [1 year], progress updates. 

Content: Develop an RC Pre Mobilization 3% 0%

 POI and execute it to standard, rather than 

 training the entire AC POI.

Collective training: Train as a group. 3% 0% 

Enrollment: Automatically enroll officers 3% 0%

 from same unit into the same small group. 

COMPETING UNIT DRILL REQUIREMENTS: Students Leaders

VTOC Collective study in lieu of drill. 6% 26%

Count AC3 as MUTA, with two AT periods 3% 0% 

 for AC3 DL course away from unit. 

PERSONNEL POLICIES: Students Leaders

Restrict out key leaders (Co CDR) 3% 0% 

 and in civilian education. 

Set up “School” positions in 3% 0% 

 MTOE, put students in staff slots 

Promotion policies. 0% 3% 

COMPENSATION: Students Leaders

Compensate for hours. 12% 19% 

Paid RMA/ATA status. 3% 3% 

Compensate like AC units TDA status. 3% 0% 

Compensate as IDT for unit drill, travel orders. 0% 6%

Compensate for course completion. 0% 0% 

7
Leader Confidence in Web-Based Training 

Statements in Table 6 indicate that more than half of the student and leader respondents 

reported that the course is effective, or has the potential to be an effective training mechanism. 

However, a number of leaders responded that the course is either not effective for teaching AC3 

content, or not as effective as the AC resident course. Student respondents are generally more

positive about course effectiveness than are unit leaders.

Table 6 

Question 5. Do leaders believe web-based training is effective for AC3 DL content?

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Students Leaders Comments

45% 29% Yes. 

12% 3% Yes, better than book correspondence course. 

12% 0% Don't know. 

 9% 9% Maybe. 

 6% 16% No. 

 3% 13% No, not as effective as AC resident course. 

 3% 0% Same as book correspondence course. 

 0% 0% No response. 

 0% 19% Has the potential to be. 

 0% 13% Time requirement/management is a problem. 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Non-Monetary Compensation for Synchronous Training 

Statements in Table 7 indicate that some student and unit leader respondents believe that 

allowing participation in AC3 DL in lieu of unit drill requirements could increase participation in 

AC3 DL weekend synchronous training. However, students also mentioned that participation in 

unit drills is an essential part of an officer’s professional development. Suggested forms of nonmonetary compensation included college credit for work completed, and command emphasis on 

tracking student progress through performance reports.

8
Table 7 

Question 6. What types of non-monetary compensation would increase participation in AC3 DL

weekend SYNCHRONOUS training?

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Students Leaders Comments

15% 19% In lieu of Drill. 

15% 3% None. 

12% 10% Provide computers and Internet service. 

12% 6% Retirement points.

 9% 0% College credits. 

 6% 3% Don't know. 

 6% 19% No response. 

 6% 6% Not necessary. 

 3% 13% Informal recognition, performance reports.

 3% 10% Train collectively as a group and pay (IDT/Active Duty for 

 Special Work [ADSW]/RMA funds). 

____________________________________________________________________________ 

Monetary Compensation for Synchronous Training

Statements in Table 8 indicate that both student and unit leader respondents believe that 

providing some form of monetary compensation for synchronous training weekends could 

increase participation. The suggested monetary compensation is generally consistent with the 

compensation schedule already provided for weekend drills and TDY. 

Table 8 

Question 7. What types of monetary compensation would increase participation in AC3 DL

weekend SYNCHRONOUS training? 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Students Leaders Comments

48% 61% RMA/ATA/ADSW status. 

12% 10% No, not necessary. 

 9% 3% MUTA.

 3% 3% Yes, any type of compensation. 

 3% 0% Yes, placed on orders. 

 0% 3% Don't know. 

 0% 10% Travel pay, paid meals, paid billeting. 

 0% 3% Pay for second phone line. 

 0% 3% Pay for completion of course phases. 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

9
Computer Support to Distance Learning 

Statements in Table 9 suggest that computers are present in units for about half of the 

student respondents. However about half the time these machines are not available to support 

student distance learning, being dedicated to full-time personnel tasks, logistics tasks, and other 

requirements. Both students and unit leaders mention that the distance from the student's

residence to the unit, and the need to work in the evening, reduces the utility of unit computers as

a support to distance learning. 

Table 9 

Question 8. Do units have Internet-linked computers available to support Distance Learning?

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Students Leaders Comments

36% 23% Yes, but not available for students. 

30% 55% Yes, available. 

15% 16% Yes, available, but constraints (distance to unit). 

 9% 0% Yes, available, but could not connect. 

 6% 0% Don't know. 

 3% 3% Not all (Some do, some don't). 

 3% 6% Very few. 

 0% 3% Technical glitches limit use, limited support. 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Distance Learning Impact on Unit Responsibilities

Statements in Table 10 clearly indicate that both student and unit leader respondents view 

synchronous weekend training as competing with the student's other unit responsibilities. Some 

suggest that the synchronous training be done in lieu of unit training requirements, but students 

also state that training with the unit is necessary for leader development. Both students and 

leaders have suggested monetary compensation for weekend synchronous training, however, 

they also state that monetary compensation is not a solution to limitations in available weekend 

time.

Table 10 

Question 9. Does AC3 DL weekend SYNCHRONOUS training time detract from the student's

other unit responsibilities?

Students Leaders Comments

58% 74% Yes. 

15% 19% Maybe/sometimes. 

 9% 0% No, I do both as separate responsibilities. 

 6% 3% No. 

 6% 0% Don't know. 

 3% 0% NA. 

 0% 3% Should not/self-discipline. 

10
Distance Learning Enrollment Process 

Statements in Table 11 indicate that both student and unit leader respondents perceive

that most AC3 DL students have the computer skills necessary to work through the training. 

Table 11 

Question 10. Do students have the computer skills necessary to work through AC3 DL training?

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Students Leaders Comments 

73% 48% Yes. 

21% 45% Most do. 

 0% 3% No. 

 0% 3% Don't know. 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Student Computer Skills

Statements in Table 12 identify difficulties experienced with course enrollment. Unit 

leader responses identify a number of issues, such as providing course introduction packets, that 

can suggest specific enhancements to the enrollment process. 

Table 12 

Question 11. What are some difficulties or issues with the enrollment process that you have 

experienced? 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Students Leaders Comments

36% 32% None. 

12% 6% Difficulty with Army Training Requirements and Resource System

 (ATRRS). 

 9% 3% Had to coordinate directly with Fort Knox. 

 3% 3% Lack of info about the enrollment process. 

 0% 6% Don't know. 

 0% 3% Takes too long after enrollment to start course. 

 0% 3% Problem getting Personal Identification Numbers to students. 

 0% 6% Need to identify computer technical requirements. 

 0% 3% A nightmare to try to enroll. 

 0% 6% Need to counsel young officers on the need for this education

 for their career. 

 0% 3% Need a better introduction packet describing the course prior

 to enrollment. 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

11
Factors Contributing to Student Attrition 

Statements in Table 13 point to the time demands associated with the AC3 DL course as

being a primary factor contributing to students leaving the course, conflicting with other unit, 

employment, and family responsibilities. Some students suggested that the requirements for high

performance computer resources and on-line time demands could be greatly reduced by

transferring course content to Compact Disk Read Only Memory (CD ROM) format rather than 

requiring that the material be downloaded (and in some cases printed out as a student reference 

source).

Table 13 

Question 12. What are factors that have contributed to students leaving the course?

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Students Leaders Comments

36% 29% Time demands.

18% 10% Course design is too time consuming.

15% 16% Conflicts with unit responsibilities . 

15% 29% Employment conflicts. 

12% 0% Lack of computer resources. 

12% 35% Family.

 3% 16% Lack of motivation/laziness. 

 3% 0% Lack of access to instructors. 

 0% 10% Student/unit elects to go with Infantry Officer Advanced Course, 

 (IOAC) as it is a shorter course. 

 0% 3% Excessive on-line demands. 

 0% 3% Need for progress reports. 

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

 

Overall Perceptions of the Course 

Statements in Table 14 indicate that student and unit leader respondents perceive that 

AC3 DL is a good course, though a number of unit leaders reported that it can't replace the 

resident course. Some students stated that there is a need for reference sources for the course 

material, and that this might be resolved by providing students with a CD ROM containing

course content material. The CD ROM could serve as an alternative to much of the Internet

download time requirement for the course, and eliminate or reduce students desire to print hard

copies of Internet-delivered lesson material as a reference source.

12
Table 14 

Question 13. What are your overall perceptions about the course? (Does it provide quality

training? Is it seen as equivalent to the resident course, etc.?)

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Students Leaders Comments

45% 32% Good course. 

15% 0% Need reference sources for review (books, Field Manuals [FMs]). 

12% 35% Good course, can't replace resident. 

12% 10% Good course, but it takes too much time. 

 9% 13% Not sure. 

 9% 0% Not quality training (e.g., Students scan material for 

 answers to pretest questions). 

 6% 16% Good course, beats the correspondence books. 

 6% 0% Need better feedback, computer explanations inadequate. 

 3% 10% Need more real-time interactions with others. 

 3% 0% Technical glitches limit course. 

 3% 0% Should not teach full AC content to part-time reserves. 

 3% 0% Content too detailed/not relevant. 

 3% 0% Learning Mapedit/VTOC navigation wasted a lot of 

 training time. 

 0% 6% Need better equipment support for students. 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Additional Factors Impacting on the Course 

Statements in Table 15 reiterate a number of issues raised throughout the survey. 

Responses document concerns that the course takes too much time to complete and that this 

leads to conflicts with other unit duties, employment, and family responsibilities. Specific issues 

raised include a requirement for additional instructor support, and a reduction in on-line time 

requirements. This later concern might be partially addressed by making some course materials 

available on CD ROM.

Table 15 

Question 14. List other factors which you think impact either positively or negatively on the 

course. 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Students Leaders Comments

27% 23% Course takes too much time. 

15% 10% Conflict with unit duties.

12% 13% Computer resources a problem. 

 table continued 

13
Table 15 (Continued) 

12% 10% Conflict with job. 

12% 0% Technical glitches limit course value.

 9% 6% Need reference sources for review (books, FMs). 

 9% 3% Conflict with family time.

 6% 19% Good course. 

 6% 13% Need more real-time interactions with others. 

 6% 3% Lack of compensation. 

 6% 0% Not as good as resident. 

 6% 0% Download/on-line time a problem. 

 6% 0% Reformat/chunk lesson material for smaller units. 

 3% 0% Content too detailed/not relevant. 

 3% 0% Mapedit/VTOC interface wasted a lot of training time. 

 3% 0% The course is not quality training. 

 0% 10% Need more command emphasis. 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Summary

The present research effort was successful in gathering feedback on the AC3 DL program

from both students actively involved in the course, and also the leaders of the units involved. 

The survey provided feedback regarding factors limiting student participation in the course to 

include RC policies, monetary and non-monetary incentives, course impact on the student's other 

unit responsibilities, and factors contributing to student attrition. Respondents provided 

recommendations placed in the context of current RC policies as well as realistic constraints. 

Responses identified policy changes that might support the students' successful course 

completion. Both students and unit leaders were generally positive about the course, and 

described it as an improvement over the previous paper-based correspondence course. 

Shortcomings with regard to computer equipment and Internet access support were identified. 

Concerns about the length of specific portions of the AC3 DL course were identified which can 

be used in restructuring specific sections of the training. Both students and unit leaders 

contributed useful feedback and identified change recommendations based on their differing

perspectives. As an example, students identified conflicts between unit drill and AC3 DL course

time requirements, while unit leaders identified ways in which command emphasis on AC3 DL

training could enhance successful completion of the course. 

The low response rate and self-selection aspect of the sampling limit our ability to say

that the opinions expressed in the survey are representative of the total population. While it is 

risky to generalize the opinions expressed, the number of respondents might be adequate for 

purposes of identifying usability problems associated with the courseware, and for generating

“good ideas” and policy change recommendations. 

14
Discussion 

Based on the results of the survey several actions were identified that might enhance AC3 

DL program effectiveness. With regard to student personnel issues, an effort could be made to 

select officers for AC3 DL when they first make lieutenant, or early in their career. Where 

possible, students could be assigned to secondary staff positions, or be held in a school status. 

Actions should be taken to finalize the retirement points issue. The USAARMS could identify

the course hours for each phase of AC3 DL training, and RC leaders could then establish a 

standard for the awarding of retirement points for successful completion of each phase of 

training. The Guard Bureau should also lobby for additional funds, and develop a policy for 

states to compensate students for time spent in Synchronous VTOC training. 

With regard to course content, actions are underway to restructure some course material 

to separate long lessons into several shorter lessons. The USAARMS could also work to identify

where AC3 DL Asynchronous self-study material could be provided on CD ROM media as one 

alternative to on-line coursework, and downloads. This could greatly reduce the on-line time

requirement, make training more portable, and provide students with subject matter 

documentation, reducing or eliminating the need to print paper copies of lesson materials. 

Addressing course administrative support requirements, leaders should explore 

opportunities to integrate AC and Active Guard Reserve (AGR) instructors to counter a shortage 

in authorized instructor personnel. The DL format does not lead to a reduction in the 

requirement for instructors, as instructors are essential to on-line training success for DL

students. Staffing levels and policies are needed that will provide support for students at 

regularly scheduled "office hours", and also provide "on-call" instructor availability on weekends 

to respond to student needs. Finally, survey results suggest that there is a need for the Guard 

Bureau to get information down to the user level, describing how the web-based ATRRS can be 

used to enroll students in DL courses. 

15
Appendix A 

List of Acronyms 

 

AC Active Component 

AC3 Armor Captains’ Career Course 

AC3 DL Armor Captains' Career Course Distance Learning

ADSW Active Duty for Special Work 

ADT Active Duty Training

AFRU Armored Forces Research Unit 

AGR Active Guard Reserve 

AOAC Armor Officers' Advanced Course 

ARI U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

AT Additional Training

ATA Additional Training Assembly

ATRRS Army Training Requirements and Resource System 

CD ROM Compact Disk Read Only Memory

Co CDRs company commanders

DL Distance Learning

FBC Future Battlefield Conditions 

FM Field Manual 

FUTURETRAIN Techniques and Tools for C4ISR Training of Future Brigade Combat 

 Team Commanders and Staffs 

IDT Inactive Duty Training

IOAC Infantry Officer Advanced Course 

MTOE Modified Tables of Organization and Equipment 

MUTA Multiple Unit Training Assembly

POI Program Of Instruction 

RC Reserve Component 

RTD Readiness Training Detachment

RMA Readiness Maintenance Assembly

TDA Tables of Distribution and Allowances 

USAARMS U.S. Army Armor School 

VTOC Virtual Tactical Operations Center 

A-1 
Appendix B

Survey of Policies and Practices Supporting the Armor Captain's Career Course - Distance

Learning (AC3 DL) 

Goals of the survey: 

 The U.S. Army Armor School (USAARMS) is asking you to provide your good ideas 

about the issues surrounding Distance Learning (DL). We will use this information to develop 

the final version of a survey that will be sent out to a large number of soldiers involved in Army

DL. This first questionnaire is a preliminary one to identify the key issues that the Army should 

consider in examining DL training management. Issues include perceived benefits of DL to the 

trainee knowledge base, benefits to the trainee's unit, location where training takes place, and 

whether forms of compensation might enhance DL course participation. 

Armor School Distance Learning: Armor Captain's Career Course

 The USAARMS has produced cutting edge DL courseware developed for and delivered

over the Internet. This new courseware allows soldiers to gain knowledge through self-paced 

tutorials, and also provides a virtual reality environment where geographically dispersed students 

and instructors can come together for collective training in real time. The Armor Captain's 

Career Course [Distance Learning] (AC3 DL) is one example of the new generation of DL

courses. The AC3 DL trains and professionally develops captains to command companies and to 

perform as assistant operations officers at battalion and brigade level. Until recently, training

was composed of a text-based correspondence course followed by resident training. The new 

AC3 DL course uses a combination of computer-based training and web-based instruction in a 

collaborative, virtual environment preceding the resident training. Training is provided in three 

phases. Phase 1 "Asynchronous" training involves 240 hours of Internet-delivered self-paced 

learning, typically completed at home. Phase 2 "Synchronous" training consists of 120 

instructional hours during which students and instructors working from remote locations interact 

synchronously with one another in a Virtual Tactical Operations Center to generate work 

products and solve problems. Phase 2 training is conducted on 10 Drill Weekends, or on the 

soldiers own weekend time. Phase 3 "Resident" training involves two weeks Active Duty

Training at Fort Knox. 

 

B-1
Please make an "X" next to the appropriate response, or enter your response. 

1. Duty Position 

 a. Reserve Component: Armor Captains Career Course - Distance Learning student 

 b. Reserve Component: Not enrolled in Distance Learning program 

 c. Active Component Advisor (RTD) 

 d. Other (specify) ___

2. Rank 

 a. COL

 b. LTC 

 c. MAJ

 d. CPT 

 e. 1LT 

 f. Other (specify) ___

3. Unit (specify) ___ 

4. How familiar are you with the ASYNCHRONOUS (individual self-paced study) phase of the 

AC3 DL course?

 a. Very unfamiliar: Don't know any students, don't know the course 

 b. Somewhat unfamiliar: Know a little about the content and format 

 c. Somewhat familiar: Know how students work through course

 d. Very familiar: Know students, policies that support the program 

5. How familiar are you with the SYNCHRONOUS (collective training in the Virtual Tactical 

Operations Center) phase of the AC3 DL course?

 

 a. Very unfamiliar: Don't know any students, don't know the course 

 b. Somewhat unfamiliar: Know a little about the content and format 

 c. Somewhat familiar: Know how students work through course

 d. Very familiar: Know students, policies that support the program 

 

B-2
ARMOR SCHOOL DISTANCE LEARNING SURVEY 

1. What factors might limit participation in the ASYNCHRONOUS self-study portion of the 

AC3 DL course? (equipment, employment, Army policies) 

2. What factors might limit participation in the SYNCHRONOUS collective training on 

weekends portion of the AC3 DL course? (equipment, employment, Army policies) 

 

3. What Reserve Component policies would support participation in AC3 DL self-study

ASYNCHRONOUS training?

4. What RC policies would support participation in AC3 DL collective weekend 

SYNCHRONOUS training?

5. Do leaders believe web-based training is effective for AC3 DL content?

6. What types of non-monetary compensation would increase participation in AC3 DL weekend 

SYNCHRONOUS training?

7. What types of monetary compensation increase participation in AC3 DL weekend 

SYNCHRONOUS training? 

8. Do units have Internet-linked computers available to support Distance Learning?

9. Does AC3 DL weekend SYNCHRONOUS training time detract from the student's other unit 

responsibilities?

 

10. Do students have the computer skills necessary to work through AC3 DL training?

11. What are some difficulties or issues with the enrollment process that you have experienced? 

12. What are factors that have contributed to students leaving the course?

13. What are your overall perceptions about the course? (Does it provide quality training? Is it 

seen as equivalent to the resident course, etc.?)

14. List other factors which you think impact either positively or negatively on the course. 

B-3