Research Report [AD

: TRAINING EFFECTIVENESS AND RETENTION OF

{ TRAINING EXTENSION COURSE (TEC)

INSTRUCTION IN THE COMBAT ARMS

J. E. Holmgren and A. E. Hilligoss

~~~ Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

and

A. W. Swezey and R. C. Eakins

Litton-Mellonics

• 

DOG

ARI FIELD UNIT AT FORT BEN NING, GEORGIA

c

~~~

I’1 . ______

~~~ir~~ 

H

U. S. Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

• 

A 11 1919

Appr oved for public r.I.es.; di~trib uUOfl unl imited .

- - ~~~~~~~~~~ ~: 

~ ~

— 

4 ~ — ~~ f

,

. 

— —

~

. ~~~~~ i_ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~
ii :.::

~ _______________ _____

U. S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTI TUTE

FOR TH E BEHAVIORAL AN D SOCIAL SCIENCES I

A Field Operating Agency under the Jurisd iction of the

Deputy Chief of Staff fo r Personne l

WILLIAM L. HAUSER

JOSEPH ZEIDNER Colonel , US Army

Technical ~~~~ Commander

I

Research accomplished under contrac t

to the Department of the Army

Me llonics Systems Development Division

Litton Systems , Incorporated

I

F NOTICES

QI$TRISUTION: Primery distribution of this report his been mids by ARI. Pluses eddreis cor,sspondsncs I?

cencornin~ distribution of spans to; U. S. Army Rsus*rd~ Institute for the ~slisvIorsI end Soclel Sciences.

ATTN. PERI.P. 5001 E.ssnhov.r Avenue. PJesindrie. Viiginie 22333.

FINAL D4~~’OLT1ON; This report .

~

tsy be destroyed edtsn it Is no lonpr needed. Pluses do not return It to

the U. S. Army Reesrclt Institut* for the Sslisvsorsl end SOCISI Sciences.

~~~ 

The f,ndin s m tfiis report eve not to be construed is in Olficlel Department of the Army position.

unlees so dsel nsted by other euthoriisd documents.

L ~ ~~~~ ~~~—. P -1 ~~~~~~~~~~~ 

1 i;;~l~~~:~.4lt —

F

— 

~~

— -- -
V.- — _________

UNCLASSIFIED

$ECM~tlTY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (Whir Sit. Zrt.r.4 )

/ c

~) REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE ______________________ \ i

~

’id~

sn 

~~~ -

__~ 

/ 2. GOVT ACCESSION NO S. nECI~~

IINT~S CATALOG MuNcie

Research ,~ep~~t~\2O8 _____________________________

~~~~ 

4.T~~~~~j d -.- I TYP E OP RIPONY S PImOD Covielo

( (

~~ TRA INING~~FFECTIVENE SS AJ4D~~ ETENT ION 0F.,

~

TRAINING

‘-..._-4 •JXTENSI0N,~ PURSE (TEC) JNSTRUCTION IN TR~ __________________________

I $OMBAT ARMS5 ~~~~ S. PIRFORMINO ORO. REPORT NUMIER

Lr ‘

- —

~~~‘ C. CONTRACT OR ORANTpM5E~~ .)

~g, ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

S. PERFO~~~ING ORGANIZATION wA NE AND ADDRESS ...

.

- tO. PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT . TA SK

AREA S WORK UNIT NUMeERS Mellonics Systems Development Division (

Litton Systems, incorporated ~~~~~ 2Q76373lA77~ J

1001 West Maude Ave. — Sunnyvale, CA 94081

ii. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS

U.S. Army Training Support Center, ATTSC—TP ( // Apr9 •79

Fort Eustis, VA 23604 ~~~~ Tx-NUNSEe0F PAeEI

___________________________________________________ 78

I& MONITORINS AGENCY NAME S ADDREU(U ~~ff.,ir( Sc. ConU.ItMg 010cc) tS. SECURITY CLASS. (ci mi. ,.p.st)

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral Unclassified and Social Sciences, PERI-IJ __________________________

5001 Eisenhower Ave. — Alexandria, VA 22333 Is.. g~~k~~I

~

IICA TI O NIDOWNGR ADINO

IS. ~ $TmRUTlON STATIMENT (.1 (i. ksp erf)

APProved

~~~~~~~~~

c rmi distrib

~~~~~~~~~~~~

e4

~

_r L1~

S

17. OISTRISUTIOM STATEMENT (ci IS. .b.~~~C* ered ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

IS. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

IS. KEY cocos (C.eUnu. on •V.IU It~~S U n cesc.y ,d I d.n(U

~ by block nc.b.r)

Training effectiveness Audiovisual

Retention Training Extension Courses (TEC)

Performance tests

II AuI~~~ ACT 4°~ -— — ~~

c. S.- 5 ._.. _as y - i*.fl ~ by block mNOit)

‘The Army ’s Trainin g Exten sion Course (TEC) Progra m consists of a large

number of performance—oriented self—paced lessons (mainly audiovisual) designed

to provide individual Instruction for enlisted men in Army unite . The TEC

lessons cover a wide rang e of subj ect areas in ‘which soldiers must be prof I—

cient. This report describes a research pro~

ject designed to determine the

training effectiveness and retention of TEC instruction relative to conventional classroom instruction.

00 

~~~ 

J473 1557105 Or ) NOV eS IS 05OCLITE UNCLASSIFIED

SEcuRITY CI..AS*PICATION OF Tilts PAGE (

~~ uui Dit• ScNr.~~

H __ _ 

L)

~

3

‘ —- ‘ - —- 

~~~~~~

I ‘ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

T -

~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ -.- 

- - :.:
_____ - 

“1

UN CLASSIFIED

SECURITY CLASsIFICATION OF tills PAGE(Pb.is Del. L.*.oc~~

20. Abstract (Continued)

Parallel experiments were conducted in the Active Component (AC) and the

National Guard (NC). TEC lessons in five subject areas were selected for

evaluation. The sample for each subject area was divided into five experimental groups. Two of these groups received TEC instruttion, one with pre— and’

post—testing, the other without. Two other groups received conventional instiuc

tion, one with and one without pre— and post—testing. The pro— and post—tests

are diagnostic tests included in the Lesson Administrative Instructions (LAX )

F’ that accompany each TEC lesson. The experimental design allowed evaluation of

the contribution of these tests to training effectiveness. The fifth experimen—

tal group received no instruction and no LAX pre— or post—testing. This group

served as a baseline for the other four.

The instructors for the groups receiving conventional instruction came from

the units being tested. On the day following instruction, all soldiers (inclu—

ding those in the baseline groups) were given a hands—on performance test covering the subject area in which instruction was given. Between eight and nine

weeks after the instruction, the hands—on test was readininistered to as many of

the original AC sample as could be obtained. For NC units, the test—retest -

~~~

interval sanged from seven to twelve weeks.

Averaged across the five subject areas, the TEC trained soldiers performed

better than the conventionally trained soldiers on both the initial and retention test. Soldiers given pre— and post—testing performed slightly better on

the average than those receiving instruction without pro— and post—testing , although the difference was not statistically significant. The baseline group

had the lowest level of performance in all subject areas. The four groups • receiving instruction showed about the same average amount of forgetting

between the initial and retention test. All of the above findings apply to

both the AC and the NC.

Data on TEC effectiveness, when combined with usage and cost data, allow

determination of the cost—effectiveness of the TEC program. The effectiveness

and retention findings will also be used as input to the development of an

implementation plan designed to increase the cost—effectiveness of the TEC

program.

~~~~ ThTh~

iTor -

bW S GR~&L

~~~~DAB

‘

~i in~unced

J.li tii j .c .ti ’n .__~ _ __...._ .___

B~ ___

j

~ 

trih~

t 4~~L — - -

I_I_i ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

special ~~~ Avail aid/Or

—

_______________ 

UNCLASSIFIED

SECURItY CLASSIFICATiON OF THIS PAGE(UEM, Dele L,tit e

~~

- 1 - .

‘

‘

~ ‘-~~~~ ‘-. .

.

-

‘

- -

~ , ~~~~ ‘ -

K .,‘ ‘

.. .

~~~~~ 4.. ’. - - -. - • ‘a . -q- - • - ‘

.1~ 1. *fl •, ~ ~, -

— .

______________ 

~~~~‘-~ ‘~ -~ ‘ -.
-.-- ---—--— —“ 

~~~~~~~~~~~ — -— .-.-- -- - ,,~~~

_________ - ~~~~~‘ _________________

Research Report 1208

TRAINING EFFECTIVENESS AND RETENTION OF

TRAINING EXTENSION COURSE (TEC)

INSTRUCTION IN THE COMBAT ARMS

J. E. Holmgren and A. E. Hilllgoss

Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

and

R.W. Swezey and R. C. EakiflS

Litton-Meilonics

Submitted by:

H. C. Strasel, Chief

ARI FIELD UNIT AT FORT BENNING , GEORGIA

Approved By:

E. Ralph Dusek

PERSONNEL AND TRAINING

RESEARCH LABORATORY

Joseph Zeidner

TECHNICAL DIRECTOR

U.S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VirgInia 22333

• Office, Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

Department of the Army

April1979

Army Project Number Individual Training

20163731A770

Aporwed for pu~

IIc rdsese; dISSI’IbI*ICR unllmltsd.

~ /

~~ 

“

~~ ..

“ ‘-

~~~~~ 

x•-~~ ~ - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -

~~~~ , ‘~~~~ !~~~~~

‘ - .

‘ ~~~~~~~~ .

~~~~- .

~

0

• 

. ‘ - - 

~

t

’•--~~•

~ -” - - -

~~~~- 0

~~

•

-

• - ~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ T~. T T.
~~~~T ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ “T~~~~~~

ARI Research Reports and Technical Papers are intended for sponsors of

R&D tasks and other research and military agencies. Any findings ready for

implementation at the time of publication are presented in the latter part of

the Brief. Upon completion of a major phase of the task, formal recommendations for official action normally are conveyed to appropriate military

agencies by briefing or Disposition Form.

ii

I

k ~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

:-. — - —-- —------

-F ~~~~~

-

, 

~

-

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

___________ - - ,- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ : i’ 

: _i
FOR EWORD

The research reported here is part of an on—going program of

research directed toward development of cost effective methods f or

individual and collective training . This program includes research

on multiple aspects of the design, development, evaluation, and

integration of cost and training effective training systems for the

U. S. Army.

This report is one of a series of research efforts on the Training

Extension Course (TEC) program conducted under the sponsorship of the

U.S. Army Training Support Center (USATSC) - Training Programs Direc—

torate . This program has included detailed research into the training

effectiveness and retention of TEC instruction (reported here), the current and programeed costs of the TEC program, current and projected

usage of TEC in the Active and Reserve components, and analytic examination of the cost effectiveness of TEC. Research results are to be

used by USATSC—TPD to determine both future program needs and future

models and strategies for better implementation of the TEC system as a

major component of the Enlisted Personnel Management System (EPMS).

ARI research in cost effectiveness of training systems is conducted

as an in—house effort augmented by contracts with organizations selected

as having unique capabilities for research in the area. This research

program is being performed by the ARI—Fort Benning Field Unit with

research support provided by Litton—Mellonics under contract DAHC—77--C—

0011. The project is being conducted as part of Army Project

2Q76373 1A77O , Fl 77 Work Program , and 2Q76373 1A770 , Fl 78 Work Program. This research program is directly responsive to the require—

ments of USATSC and TRADOC.

JO PU ZE

echnical Director

I
— --~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - - ~~~~~~~~~ -

~~~~~~~~ -- -—~~~~~~~~ -.- 

THE TRAINING EFFECTIVENESS AND RETENT ION 01: TEC INSTRUCTION

IN.THE COMBAT ARMS

BRIEF

Requirement :

To determine the training effectiveness and retention of Training

Extension Course (TEC) instruction relative to conventional instruction.

Procedure:

TEC lessons were evaluated in f ive subject areas , one coimnon to

all combat arms soldiers and one specif ic to each of the four combat

arms. The subject areas were (1) M60 Machinegun for all combat arms,

(2) Squad Radio for Infantry soldiers, (3) M551 Target Engagement for

Armor soldiers, (4) Gunner ’s Quadrant for Field Artillery soldiers and

(5) Target Alert Data Display Set (TADDS) for Air Defense soldiers.

Parallel experiments were conducted in the Active Component (AC)

and the National Guard (NC) . A total of 635 enlisted men were obtained

from twelve AC battalions, three battalions in each of the four combat

arms. The NC provided 539 men from thirteen battalions. Four NC Field

Artillery battalions were needed to obtain the required sample size for

the Gunner’s Quadrant subject area. All four combat arms provided men

for the M60 machinegun subject area, while the sample for each of the

other four areas came from a single combat arm .

• The sample for each subject area was divided into five experimental

groups. Two of these groups received TEC instruction, one with pre— and

• post—testing, the other without. Two other groups received conventional

instruction, one with and one without pre— and post—testing . The pre—

and post—tests are diagnostic tests included in the Lesson Administra—

tive Instructions (LAI ) that accompany each TEC lesson. The experimental design allowed evaluation of the contribution of these tests to

training effectiveness. The fifth experimental group received no

instruction and no LAl pre— or poet—testing. This group served as a

baseline for the other four.

The instructors for the groups receiving conventional instruction

came from the units being tested. On the day following instruction, all

soldiers (including those in the baseline groups) were given a hands—on

performance test covering the subject area in which instruction was

given. Between eight and nine weeks after the instructiosr, the hands—on

test was readministered to as many of the original AC sample as could be

• obtained. For NC units, the test—retest interval ranged from seven to

twelve weeks.

• 

-

~ ; • 

- 

—;• __ ,

- 1 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -

~~~~~~~~~ - -~~ - —s--
- - •

~~~~ - ~~~~~~~~~~ •

Findings:

- Averaged across the five subject areas, the TEC trained soldiers

performed better than the conventionally trained soldiers on both the

initial and retention test.

Soldiers given pre— and post—testing performed slightly better on

the average than those receiving instruction without pre— and post—

testing, although the difference was not statistically significant. —

The baseline group had the lowest level of performance in all

subject areas.

The four groups receiving instruction showed about the same average

amount of forgetting between the initial and retention test.

All of the above findings apply to both the AC and the NC.

Utilization of Findings:

Data on TEC effectiveness, when combined with usage and cost data,

allow determination of the cost—effectiveness of the TEC program. The

effectiveness and retention findings will also be used as input to the

development of an implementation plan designed to increase the cost—

effectiveness of the TEC program.

4

_ _ 

A p

s . • ____ -- 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
j

THE TRAINING EFFECTIVENESS AND RETENTION OF TEC INSTRUCTION IN -

.

THE COMBAT ARMS

CONTENTS

Page

V OBJECTIVES 3

LESSONS USED 3

PROCEDURES 4

RESULTS

Active Component Results 5

National Guard Results 7

CONCLUSIONS 9

TECENICAL SUPPLEMENT

- 

4 LESSON SELECTION 13

TEST CONSTRUCTION 17

Format 17 -

•

Content Validation 17

Tryout 18

Final Versions of Tests 19

ACTIVE COMPONENT EXPERIMENT 21

Sample 21

Design 21

Procedures 26

Results 27

_____ _________ __--

‘ 

., •

~~~~•,

- 

• • ~~~~~~~ ; 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - I

g ‘ * _

~~~ 

—

~~ 

* ~~~ .- 

~ , •-

~i~ 

~~ ~. ~

Fl •— ——-- 

• • •- - - .

.- - - • - •- 

—- ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - • • . ________
______________

Page

NATIONAL GTJARD EXPERIMENT 36 • 

-

Sample 36

Design and Procedures 36

Results 37

REFERENCES 44

APPENDIXES 45

TABLES

Table 1. TEC lessons selected for inclusion

in the effort 14

2. Performance test developmental

results 20

3. Performance tests with associated

performance measure groups 22

4. Results of test revision 24

5. AC initial performance test results 28

6. AC mean GT score and correlation (r) ‘ between CT and performance test score 30

7. AC initial and retention test mean

percen t scored CO for the retested

subsample 31

8. AC proportions estimated from

learning model 34

9. NC initial performance test results 38

10. NG mean GT score and correlation (r)

between CT and performance test score 39

11. NC initial and retention test mean

percent scored GO for the retested

• subsample 40

• - •

_____________________________________ 

--- 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

“

~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~-•- -- --~~~.-~~ •~~ -~~ • - •~~~

• 

~~

- --

~~~~~~
1W

-- 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Page

Table 12. NC proportions estimated from

learning model 43

- FIGURES

Figure 1. Active Component retention curves 6

2. National Guard retention curves 8

I

______________ - ~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-ç - ~ ‘

~~~ ~~~~~~ • 

~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ -

~ I- , -~ f - ~

- - • - .

•

-

~~~

- ~~~~~~~~~ 

- - 

.----~ -•---~ — ~~- -~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - - -
-I

TRAINING EFFECTIVENESS AND RETENTION OF TRAIN1N’

EXTENSION COURSE (TEC) INSTRU CTION

IN THE COMBAT ARMS

In response to an acknowledged need for better individual

training in combat arms units, the Combat Arms Training Board was

established and in 1972 began development of the Training Extension

Course (TEC) program. The TEC program was designed to assist corn—

bat arms soldiers and unit commanders in upgrading Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) and job proficiency by providing to units in

the field multimedia instructional materials prepared by the service

schools.

Since its inception , the TEC program has gone through a number

of phases of development . In the initial phase , 56 audiovisual

lessons were developed in a sound—slide forma t covering skills re—

quired of soldiers with MOS 11B. The second phase began in 1973

and involved development of a large number of lessons for eight

initial combat arms MOSs , liB and liC for Infantry, ilD and llE

f or Armor , 13A/B and 13E for Field Artillery , and 16P and 16R for

Air Defense. During this phase, TEC lessons and hardware were distributed to all combat arms battalions in the Army . The TEC program

has continued to expand during subsequent phases of development and

is currently being extended to cover combat service and service support units.

TEC differs from conventional Army training in a number of

ways. First, TEC lessons are intended to be performance oriented .

Specific performance—oriented training objectives are determined

for each lesson prior to lesson development and the lesson is

designed to teach to those objectives. Second , a diagnostic test

is included ‘with the Lesson Administrative Instructions (LAI ) which

accompany each TEC lesson. The purpose of the test is to determine

the areas covered by the lesson in which a soldier is weak. Third,

TEC lessons are designed for self—paced training. Fourth, each TEC

lesson goes through a validation process designed to insure that

each lesson provides effective training on every lesson objective.

The majority of TEC lessons (77 percent as of September, 1977) are

in the form of audio—visual packages designed for use wi th a

Beseler Cue/See viewing device. This research effort evaluated

the effectiveness of a sample of these audio—visual lessons.

A number of projects have investigated various aspects of the

TEC program, one of ‘which i~ closely related to this effort. In

• L

comserciai designations are used for precision of reporting and do

not constitute endorsement by ARI or by the Army.

• ~~

— -•-— - -—- •

- 

—.-——- • •

- - .

-

~• - -

-

. 

- • -

•

.

F

- —

~

:•- 

~~~~~~~~
~ - - — 

conjunction with investigations of TEC usage1 and costs2, Knerr , Downey and Kessler3 evaluated TEC lesson effectiveness. They

conducted a field experiment in both the Active and Reserve

Components of the Army comparing TEC training with conventional

instruction (CI) and a no—training baseline (BL) for five TEC

lesson series. The TEC soldiers were given the LAI test for each

lesson both before and after viewing the lesson. They were also

given feedback on their performance immediately af ter taking each

LAI test. The CI soldiers received all LAI tests at once,

followed by conventional instruction, followed by a second

administration of the LAI tests. Thase soldiers received no

feedback on LAI test performance. The BL soldiers took the TAI

tests in the same sequence as the CI soldiers, but with no intervening instruction. After training, all soldiers were given a

hands—on performance test covering the subject on which they were

trained. These performance tests were modified versions of existing tests.

Knerr et al.4 found that for their active component sample,

the mean percent correct on the performance test for the TEC

soldiers was significantly higher than the BL mean for four out of

• the five lesson series. TEC performance was significantly higher

than CI performance for three lesson series. For the National

Guard sample only four of the five lesson series were evaluated.

TEC was super ior to BL in all four cases and superior to CI in two

cases. There were no cases in either the active or Na tional Guard

sample for which either the CI or BL group performed significantly

better than the TEC group. An interesting finding In this investigation concerned the correlation between the General Technical

1

McClusky , Michael R. and Tripp, James M. An evaluation of the

utilization, maintenance and perceived benefits of the Training

Extension Course (TEC) (Tech , Rep. 75—18). Alexandria, VA: Human

Resources Research Organization, June 1975.

2 Teilcin, Sanford, Conolly, J. A., Marvin, M.D., Valdes , A. L.

and Caviness, J. A. A cost assessment of Army training alternatives.

ARI Research Problem Review 75—3. August 1975.

3

Knerr , Claramae S., Downey, Ronald C. and Kessler , John J.

Ttaining individuals in Army units: Comparative effectiveness

of selected TEC lessons and conventional methods. ARI Research

Report 1188. December 1975.

4

Knerr , et al., 1975, op. cit.

— 2 - .

- F
-••- --

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -- --~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ •-- 

—.- -*—- ------ --—-‘ —•:-

aptitude area (CT) scores from the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude

Battery and the performance test scores for TEC and CI groups in the

Active Component sample. While for the CI soldiers there was a significant positive correlation between CT and performance test score , the

correlation for the TEC soldiers was near zero. TEC training led to

roughly equal performance levels for low and high CT soldiers. However, in the National Guard , high CT soldiers performed better than low CT

soldiers following both TEC and conventional training.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of the presenç effort is to update and

expand upon the findings of Knerr et al.~ concerning TEC lesson

effectiveness. Besides comparing TEC instruction to conventional

instruction for a larger number of MOSs and for five lesson series

not evaluated in that effort , the present research addresses two

new questions. First, how does retention of TEC instruction compare

to retention of conventional instr”ction? Second , what do the LAI

tests and feedback on test performance contribute to the performance

of soldiers ;rained with TEC or conventional instruction? In the

Knerr et al.° project all subjects received the LAI tests both

before and after instruction. However, current data on TEC usage

patterns indicate that soldiers in the field usually do not use

the LAl tests.’ It is therefore of interest to determine how much

those tests contribute to the effectiveness of TEC lessons.

An important difference between the present effort and earlier

evaluations of TEC lesson effectivene8e concerns the performance

tests used as dependent variables. Instead of using existing tests,

a new performance test was developed and validated for each TEC

lesson series used in this project. The validation process involved

both review by subject matter experts and field tryout.

• LESSONS USED

Five TEC lesson series were selected for evaluation in this

effort. The five lesson series selected included one specific to

5

Knerr , et al., 1975, op. cit .

6

Knerr , et al., 1975 , op. cit.

7

May., P. V., Eolmgren , 3. E. and Shelnutt , 3. B. Current use,

patterns of use and f actors affecting use of the Army Training

Extension Course (TEC) Program. ARI Technical Report TR—79—A3 ,

May 1979.

0

• —3—

I

I’ -• • -

F

---- 

________
each of four major Army combat arms (Field Artillery , Air Defense

Artillery, Armor , and Infantry) and one series of lessons coimson

• to all combat arms MOSs. One performance test was developed for

each of the five lesson categories.

The selected Field Artillery lessons covered the use of a

Gunner’s Quadrant , a device employed for measuring the angle of

elevation of a howitzer tube in artillery firing tasks. The

performance test included actual measurement tasks using a

Gunner’s Quadrant , with a variable inclined plane employed as a

simulator for the howitzer tube.

Lessons on the use of the Target Alerting Data Display Set

(TADDS) were selected for Air Defense Artillery (ADA) soldiers.

The TADDS Is a receiving unit for a field radar system. The TADDS

receives and displays information from the Forward Area Alerting

Radar (FAAR) on the location of friendly and unknown incoming

aircraft.

For Armor soldiers , the selected lessons provided instruction

on engagement of targets with the M55l Armored Reconnaissance

Vehicle. The performance measures on the associated test required

the appropriate alignment of various target pictures within a

simulated M55l aiming reticle. The simulation involved manipula—

tion of plastic reticle overlays on the target pictures for various

target and range configurations.

Lessons on the use of the Squad Radio were selected for use

with Infantry soldiers. The Squad Radio performance test required

that various operational transmission and maintenance tasks be

performed using a hand—held Squad Radio.

The lessons selected as common to all combat arms soldiers

covered mechanical training along with firing and zeroing of the

M60 machinegun. The performance test required performance of a

variety of tasks including assembly , disassembly and operational

checks using an M60 machinegun. No simulators were employed.

PROCEDURES

Parallel experiments were conducted in the Active Component

(AC) and the National Guard(t4G). A total of 635 enlisted men were

obtained from twelve AC battalions, three battalions in each of -

‘

the four combat arms. The NC provided 539 men from thirteen

battalions. Four NG Field Artillery battalions were needed to

obtain the required sample size for the Gunner’s Quadrant subject

area. All four combat arms provided men for the M60 machinegun

subject area , while the sample for each of the other four areas

came from a single combat arm . The sample for each subject area

- 0

—~~~~~~~ —

- -

~~~

- 

-
• - --~~~ • • : ~~~~j

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ --~~~~- -r —.-~

,.--

~ -~ - • -~~~~~~~

was divided into five experimental groups as follows:

Group TL — TEC Instruction with LAI pre— and post—testing.

Group TO — TEC instruction only; neither pre— nor posttesting.

Group CL — Conventional instruction with LAI pre— and post—

testing.

Group CO — Conventional instructiol) only; neither pre— nor

post—testing.

Group EL — Baseline group receiving no instruction and no

pre— and post—testing.

The instructors for the groups receiving conventional instruction

came from the units being tested. On the day following instruction,

all soldiers (including those in the BL groups) were given a hands—

on performance tea t covering the subject area in which instruction

was given. Between eight and nine weeks after the instruction, the

hands—on test was readministered to as many of the original AC

sample as could be obtained . For NG units, the test— retest interval

ranged from seven to twelve weeks.

RESULTS

For all soldiers, each item on each performance test was scored

GO or NO CO. The proportion of items scored GO was computed for

each soldier and then averaged across the soldiers in each experimental group. Thi. was done for both the initial and retention

tests in each subject area. The initial performance test means for

each of the four groups that received training (TL, TO , CL and CO)

were then corrected , using the BL means, in order to estimate for

4 each- group the amount that was learned during the experimental training over and above what was known through prior training and experience.

The retention test scores were also corrected using the EL means; the

purpose of this correction was to adjust the retention test scores not

only for prior training and experience but also for the effect of the

initial test on retention test performance. The method used to make

these corrections and the underlying rationale are described in the

Technical Supplement .

Active Component Results

Figure 1 give, the mean corrected score on the initial and

retention tests for each of the four AC groups that received traini ng.

Each mean score is the avera ge across the five subject areas . The

~

0 — 5—

1’

- ~~~~~ ~~~ “

~~~~~~~

‘

,

._ ~~ ~- ;

~ F

~~~~~~~~~~~~ _ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ —-~ -- - - - ‘ 

i

~ ::~

- - - •- - -
~ -

~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~-•-~~-~~~-~~~ • - ---- --

III~~~~~~~ I Ii

l l ’ ~~ I III

• I III

II

I

/IL ?

/ 1”

/ /,!~~ i

~ç/~ —

I I

~~I

I iii LU / II’ “U

/ /j /

j/ -~~~~~~~~~~ -;

/11

4 / / 1 8

P ~

—.

___

• ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ C3~~~~~~()

L , 00 I I I -‘.4

C 

a3NIvu

L ~

I ONV O3NUV31 1N33H3d

•0

-6- 

-—

- -

~~~~~

- ; - :

~~~~ :~~~~-~~~ 

•

- - 

~

‘s-~’

. - -

~~~~~~

-—-‘

~~~~ ~~

-. -

4.. ________________

— -•.~~~~~

• 

~~~~—• _.~ ~ •.::

~ — ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ----•--••~ -—•-— ——~---•-- - ~ — —
— - 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-- - -—---

~~~~

-

~~

initial test means are based on only those soldiers who were available for the retention test. T1f~ curve passing through the two data

points for each experimental group was fitted to the data under the

assumption that the amount of learned material retained decays

exponentially over time. Statistical tests show that the TEC trained

soldiers performed better than the conventionally trained soldiers on

both the initial and retention test. As the curves indicate, it is

• projected that the advantage of TEC over conventional instruction

would persist over an extended period of time. The difference between

the performance of soldiers receiving pre— and post—testing and those

receiving no pre— and post—testing is not statistically significant. Also, there are no significant differences among the four groups in

the decay rates of the exponential curves, although the decay rates - . for both TEC trained groups are slightly less than those for the

conventionally trained groups.

Considering each subject area separately , the performance of the

TEC trained soldier was superior to the performance of the conventionally trained soldiers on both the initial and retention test in four

of the five subject areas, although for Squad Radio the initial test

difference is not statistically significant. Only for the Gunner ’s

Quadrant subject area is there no evidence of a statistically significant difference between TEC and conventional instruction. In none of

the subject areas is the difference between performance with and with—

out LA! testing statistically significant. Also, for none of the

subject areas is there a significant difference between the TEC and

conventional groups in the correlation between CT scores and performance test scores. The correlation tended to be positive for both TEC

and conventional instruction.

National Guard Results

Figure 2 gives the mean corrected performance test scores for

each of the four NC groups that received training, along with the

fitted exponential retention curves. The mean initial test score

for the TEC trained soldiers is significantly higher than the mean

for conventionally trained soldiers. The difference between TEC and

conventional performance on the retention test is not statistically

significant , although the 11 mean is significantly greater than the

combined mean of the other three groups. There are no significant

differences among the decay rates of the four NC retention curves.

The TL and CL groups have virtually identical decay rates, while the

CO group has the next highest rate and the TO group the highest.

Again considering each subject area separately, the TEC groups

performed better than the conventional groups in all areas except TADDS

on the initial test and in all areas except TADDS and Squad Radio on the

retention test. However, the diff erence between TEC and conventional

instruction is statistically significant only for the M60 and M55l

subject areas on the initial test and only for the M551 area on the

retention test. The difference between training with and without LA!

0

-7-

- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~‘

- ~~~~~ - - ••

~~~~~~~~-~~~~ -j 

-
- •----•-•—-~~~ --..——-~~~~ ------— — ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

- 1 111 I ill

I / II / I ii

I i 1I- ~~

/ I

i I

I

’!

/ i/ I

-?

/

• I

/ ,

‘ /l m c,,

I ‘ ii

(I) I s’ w S

Z / / — I I _ Q o II - 0. V K ~~~~ 0 II -‘.4 I 

, ~~ J, I— I I

•/7

Z

—a .

C

O3NIV13~

J ONV ~~N8V]1 1N33~J3d

0 — 8—

j 4.

-‘ ~-•~ • 

• - • -

• - --

~ i,.:-.~~ - - ‘ .

~~

r. - 

~~~~~~~~~ -.

~~~~~ . 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ._ ~~~~~ - • -- ______ 

• - ~1
testing is significant for the M60 and Squad Radio subject areas on

the initial test and for only the Squad Radio area on the retention

test . The Squad Radio difference i

~ in favor of training without

LA! testing on the initial test but in favor of training with LAX

testing on the retention test. This reversal may be partly explained

by the fact that the initial test result is based on the full Squad

Radio sample while the retention test result is based on only those

soldiers available for the Squad Radio retention test. The initial

test difference between instruction with and without LA-I testing is

not significant for the retested subsample.

Because of the limited availability of CT scores from sampled NC

units, correlations between CT scores and performance test scores could

be computed for only two subject areas. En one of those areas (M60) ,

the correlation for TEC trained soldiers (.59) and the correlation

for conventionally trained soldiers (— .16) -are significantly diff erent.

This dif ference is in the opposite direction of the one found by ICnerr

eta l_ 8 for their AC sample.

CONCLUSIONS

This investigation replicates the findings of Knerr et al.9 in showing that TEC instruction is on the average more effective than conventional

instruction. In fact, the mean performance test scores for the TEC trained • soldiers in the AC and NC samples, after correction for baseline perform—

ance , ~~e ramarkably similar in the two research efforts. In the Knerr

et al.’-’ project , the mean corrected performance test score was 40% for

TEC trained soldiers in the AC sample and 45% for the NC sample. En the

present effort, the comparable scores are 39% for the AC sample and 44%

for the NC sample (based on full sample for the initial test) . Comparing

the corrected mean scores 9f the conventionally trained soldiers in the

two projects, Knerr et al.’-1 found 10% for the AC sample and 31% for the

NC sample. In the present effort the AC mean is 30% and the NC mean is

34%. Thus the NC means are very similar in the two projects, while the

AC conventional instruction in this effort apparently was more effective

8

Xnerr , et al., 1975, op. cit.

9 ICnerr, et al., 1975, op. cit.

10

Xnerr , et al., 1975, op. cit.

11

Lnsrr, et al., 1975, op. cit.

-9-

__ 

—- - --•• ___ 

— ••-—• •--• - - --.• - - ____

—

F

— - _____ _____

~~~~~~

— ---
~~~~~~~~—~~~ -• -~~~~~ --- - —~~--

than in the work of Knerr et al.12 Given that the two projects used

different lesson series, different methodology and somewhat different

sample populations, the similarity of the results is striking and

provides support for the validity of both efforts.

Of the five TEC lesson series investigated in this effort, only

one of the series (Gunner’s Quadrant) produced no evidence that TEC

instruction was more effective than conventional instruction. As stated

earlier, all TEC lessons undergo a validation prior to being fielded.

Ideally, the validation involves having a sample of soldiers view the

TEC lessons and then take a performance—oriented test covering each

objective in the lesson . If the soldiers meet a prespecified criterion

on the test , the lesson is considered valid. An investigation of the

validation carried out on the two Gunner ’s Quadrant TEC lessons showed

that the test given after viewing of the lessons did not require actual

performance with the Gunner ’s Quadrant . It is likely that a more performance—oriented validation test would have resulted in more effective lessons.

With regard to the comparative performance of AC and NC soldiers, the NC soldiers tended to obtain higher performance test scores than

the AC soldiers, although the advantage of TEC over conventional instr:— tion was about the same in the two samples. However, any comparisons

between the AC and NC results must be made with caution, since the performance tests were not administered by the same soldiers in the two

cases.

Knerr et al.13 reported that for TEC trained soldiers there was

no correlation between GT scores and performance test scores in the AC

sample. This result was not replicated in the present effort. The

finding here is that for both TEC and conventionally trained soldiers

there is great variability among subject areas in the relation between

the two measures, but higher GT scores generally tend to be associated

with higher performance test scores. The advantage of TEC over conventional instruction does not appear to depend on general mental ability.

One of the objectives of this project was to look at the contribution

of LA-I pre— and post—testing to the effectiveness of bot~

h TEC and conven—

tional instruction. There is no clear evidence in this effort of a difference between instruction with and without LAX testing. However, there is

some indication that TEC instruction with LAX testing is more effective

than without that testing. While the results were not statistically

significant, soldiers in the TL groups generally performed better than

the soldiers in the TO group. Also, it is important to note that

regardless of the contribution of LA-I testing to training effectiveness,

12

Xnerr , et al., 1975, op. cit.

13

Knerr, et al., 1975, op. cit.

,

~

0

—10 —

;
~ 

• such tests serve as a useful training management tool. The LA! tests

were designed as a means of identifying those soldiers who need train—

ing in a subject; their usefulness in this regard is independent of

any contribution they might make to the learning process.

Another objective of this project was to investigate the retention

of both TEC and conventional instruction. Based on the retention interval used here, forgetting occurs at about the same rate for TEC and

conventional instruction. Thus, since TEC is more effec tive initially,

it should remain more effective over time. The extrapolation given in

Figures 1 and 2 suggests what the effectiveness of TEC and conventional

instruction might be at retention intervals other than the one used here.

• Clearly, it would be desirable to obtain data at a number of retention

intervals in order to get a better picture of the actual shape of the

retention curves.

It is important to bear in mind that all of the findings in this

project are based on a single exposure to either TEC or conventional

instruction on a topic. This effort did not address the question of

how the relative effectiveness and retention of these two types of

instruction would change with repeated exposure to the instruction.

The results given here represent a lower bound on both the effective—

ness and retention of the instruction investigated .

~

• 

— 1 1 —

~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - 

- - 

-- 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ - - - 

• 

- - T
r -

~~~‘- -- -- -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - -~~

-

~~~~~- - ----- ----- - - ---- -- -_-.~~~~~~ _ - -~~~~-

TEcHN IcAL SUPPLEMENT

THE TRAINING EFFECTIVENESS AND RETENTION

OF TEC INSTRUCTION IN TEE COMBAT ARMS

LESSON SELECTION

Table 1 shows the TEC lessons selected for use in this study.

The Status Level column in Table I shows a number which indicates

the status of distribution of each lesson to Army field units. An

entry of 1 indicates that the lesson has been distributed to the

field. An entry of 2 indicates that the lesson has completed mass

reproduction , but has not yet been distributed to the field. An

• entry of 3 indicates that the lesson is in the mass reproduction

phase of development. An entry of 4 indicates that the lesson is

awaiting final approval fo r mass reproduction.

The rationale for selection of the particular TEC lesson

categor ies involved several considerations , including the

following:

• It was necessary that one test be developed on a TEC

lesson category , the topic area of which is common to

all combat arms soldiers.

• it was necessary that one test be developed on a TEC

lesson category in each of the four major Army Combat

Arms: Field Ar tillery , ADA, Infantry and Armor.

• It was necessary that the tests be performance—

oriented and, to the extent possible, utilize a

“hands—on” testing strategy.

• The tests must be amenable to standardization in

conditions for administration.

• The tests must be amenable to administration under a

variety of situational and/or environmental testing

contexts.

• The tests must not require excessive testing time,

expensive and/or elaborate testing conditions and

equipment which is not conveniently available for

transportation to the test sites.

• It was desired that the tests be developed in a

forma t similar to that utilized in the Army’s Skill

Qualification Testing (SQT) program.

- ( - 

~~~~~~~ 

—- ______________

- 13 - ~~~CZDINQ PAGE BIaJ8c.~~~ tIIJjgD 

-

4 _______-

-

-••~~~~~~ ——------ a~~ _

~

__ _••_._ __________
r

~

rable 1

TEC LESSONS SELECTED FOR INCLUSION IN THE EFFORT

Lesson Lesson and App licable U.S. TEC Status Level

Identification Category Title Army Combat Arm (1 January 1977)

Number

M60 Machinegun All Soldiers

941—071—0078--p The M60 1

Mach inegun:

Mechanical

Training ,

Part 1

941—071—0079—F The M60 4

Mach inegun :

Mechanical

Training ,

Part 2

941—071—0080—F The M60 1

Mach inegun :

Mechanical

Training ,

Piirt 3

• 941—071—0084—F The M60 1

Machinegun :

Firing and

Zeroing

Squa d Radio Infantry

010—071—1001—F Introduction to 1

Squad Radio

010—07101002—F Operation of the 1

Squad Radio

(con tinued)

• —14 —

1’ - • -p- -

4.

_______________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Table 1 (concl uded)

Lesson Lesson and Applicable U.S. TEC Status Level

Identification Category Title Army Combat Arm (1 Jauusrv 1977)

Number

M551 Targe t

Engagement Armor

020—171—1643—F Target Engagement, 4

M551 Tank , Center

of Target Mass and

Aligning the Reticle

020—171—1644—F Target Engagement , 4

M551 Tank , Aligning

the Reticle and

Determining Range,

Gunner

Tube Artillery Field Artillery

041—061—6101—F Test of the 3

Gunner ’s Guadrant ,

Par t 1

041—061—6102—F Test of the 3

Gunner’s Quadrant ,

Part 2

Target Alert

Data Display Air Defense

• Set (TADDS) Artillery

-

. 043—441—1015—F TADDS Emplacement 1

and March Order

• 043—441—1016—F TADDS Operational 1

Checks

043—441—1017—F TADDS Operation 1

043—441—1018—F TA DDS Maintenance 1

— 15 —

4.

~~~~~~~~ —

.- ,

4.

~ h.A ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ______________
• It was appropriate to avoid use of lesson categories

which had been used in previous TEC evaluation

studies.

• It was appropriate, to the extent possible, to select

lesson categories which were not already in

widespread use by existing Army units.

The constraints that one performance test be developed in a

TEC area which is common to all soldiers, and that one test be

developed in each of four Army Combat Arms areas, severely

restricted the choice of TEC lessons available for performance

test development. In certain Combat Arms areas very few unique

TEC lessons actually existed . (For example, the Squad Radio

series was the only infantry—specific TEC lesson series available

at the time.) Elimination of a large number of TEC lessons was

thus accomplished on the basis of these two constraints. Many

more were eliminated as not being sufficiently performance—

oriented for use in the study . Knowledge—oriented lesson content

was considered to be less applicable in the present effort than

was hands—on content. From the point of view of test development,

the requirement for hands—on , performance-oriented tests for use

as dependent variables in the TEC effectiveness study dictated

that performance-oriented TEC lessons be employed.

Fur ther reduction of the pool of available TEC lessons was

accomplished by attempting to avoid lesson categories which had

been used in previous TEC program evaluation ef f o r t . (

~.i Xnerr

~~~al.)l4 and by the attempt to select TEC lesson categories which

had not been widely distributed throughout the Army. The TEC

status level entry in Table 1 was used as a basis for selecting

prospective lesson categories for inclusion in the study. The

attempt was made wherever possible to select status level 3 or 4

materials. As can be seen from Table 1 however, this was

accomplished only in the cases of the Artillery and Armor

categories. In the cases of the other categories, many of the

existing TEC lesson series were incomplete and therefore were

inappropriate for inclusion in the present effort. In several

situations, especially in the ADA category , many lessons were

eliminated on the basis that they required extremely bulky and/or

esoteric equipment and thus were not suitable candidates for

inclusion in the study. Ease of transportation of the equipment

was a major considera tion in the overall exper imental effor t for

which the present tests were to be employed as dependent

variables.

14

Knerr , et al., 1975, op. cit.

• —16 —

- ‘I 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~ • -
- - —- -,—---• -

~~ -

~~ c.--- -~

•,— ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ •-

In several cases, the absolute number of TEC lessons in the

content series was sufficiently large to preclude the development

of a test which could be feasibly administered in f ield

situations. For such lesson series, the test’s length would be

prohibitive if all reasonable TEC lesson content objectives were

to be cover ed by the performance test. This constraint also

effectively eliminated many TEC lessons from consideration.

Thus the actual selection of specific TEC lesson categories

for inclusion in the study was severely constrained by the factors

discussed. In the case of the Squad Radio selection, the choice

was dictated by the fact that this was the only available TEC

lesson series which was Infantry specific. Armor and Field

Artillery selections were influenced particularly by the TEC

status level (j~

.e., undistributed) character of the lessons. The

ADA selection was singularly affected by equipment constraints and

the common selection by the degree of performance orientation of

the subject matter content.

TEST CONSTRUCTION

Format

- 

• The organiza tion of the tests was similar to the forma t used

in the Army SQT testing program . Each test was divided into

administrative information and performance measures.

Administrative sections included a foreword; an introduction

describing the purpose of the test; references (doctrinal content

validation); a description of the duties of testers; a description

of required personnel, facilities and equipment; and instructions

to examinees. The performance measures were grouped according to

content. Each section identified as a Performance Measure Group

was further divided into administrative information, and a section

• describing precisely how to administer the test.

Content Validation

The process of determining perfo rmance criteria on the basis

of ( information obtained directly from) job required skills

defines a content valid criterion. Thus criterion—oriented tests

which are derived from appropriate job/task/training analyses

of ten provide the best ava ilable measure of performance

objectives. No better criterion exists upon which to validate the

instruments. A test may be considered to be content valid if the

items are carefully based upon the performances, cond itions and

standards specif ied in the training objectives and if the test

appropriately samples the objectives. Thus a careful test

— 17—

- - • • _ • - -

4.
-- 

~~~~~~~~~~~ -

construction process will, itself, go a long way toward

establishing a content valid instrument.

In the present study, content validation was a two stage

process. The first stage involved a series of systematic

comparisons between the applicable content domains and the

performance measure groups. Available Army literature and

doctrine was thoroughly reviewed for each group . The technical

content of the performance meaSures was defined by the content of

the appropriate Army training literature and doctrine, as well as

the content of the TEC lessons.

The second phase , a content review by Army exper ts, involved

detailed discussions of each performance measure group ; includ ing

required performances, appl icable conditions and scoring • standards , as well as administration feasibility and standardization of testing conditions. Content experts were noncommissioned

officers who represented the relevant Army service school training

departments in the appropriate content area.

The purpose of the content reviews was: to ensure that the

content of each test was consistent wi th prevailing Army doctrine ;

to review the time limits set for specific performance measures;

and to review the adequacy of the scoring requirements , administration requirements, testing conditions, standards for

successful performance, and indicators of successful performance

for each measure.

Following the content validation, performance measure groups

were revised as appropriate based upon content expert comments.

Typical revisions involved such areas as: time allocations for

performance measures, revisions in the scoring standards, and more

precise descriptions of desired behaviors on the part of

exam inees.

Tryout

Following the content validation and associated performance

measure revision, an empir ical tryout of each performance measure

group was conducted . A simple chi—square approach which assessed

performance measure score against an independent criterion of task

mastery was used . Each performance measure was assessed in a

2 x 2 contingency table format which compared task masters

(defined as soldiers who have completed AlT and regularly work in

the task content area at appropriate Army Service schools) and

non—masters (defined as basic trainees) against their performance

measure score (GO , NO-GO). Each of the five performance tests was

administered to an independen t group of 40 soldiers (20 masters in - 

4

— 18 —
r 

- -

the area of test content — for example, M60 machirtegun use, and 20

non—masters). A chi—square of less than 3.84 (2C.05, df—1 ) was

considered to be sufficiently low to indicate that the performance

measure did not discriminate adequately between masterR and non—

masters, and was therefore a candidate for revision. All such

performance measures were thoroughly rev iewed and appropr iate

content and/or scoring revisions made. Several performance

measures were completely dropped from the tests as a result of

this analysis. Based upon the content validation and performance

measure tryout phases, f inal performance measures were selected.

Nex t, a test—retest reliability analysis was conducted . The

same independent groups of 40 soldiers (for each of the f ive

performance tests) were retested one day following the initial

administration. Two separate analyses were performed on these

data. First, Pearson correlation coeff icients were computed on

the test—retest data, yielding a basic index of test—retest

reliability. Second , the t statistic was employed to assess the

significance of the difference between the master and non—master

mean score on the first test administration. A t of greater than

2.025 (2<.05, 38 df) was considered to be sufficient as to

indicate that scores on the two mastery groups were significantly

different.

Table 2 shows data resulting from the test tryouts. Test—

retest correlation ranged from a high of .83 for masters on the

Gunner ’s Quadrant test, to a low of .18 for non—masters on the M60

test. The t statistic shown in the third column of Table 2

provides information on the significance of the differences among

means on the total test score (i.e., number of performance

measures scored CO per test). All tests, with the exception of

that on the Target Alert Data Display Set (TADDS), showed an ability

to discriminate significantly between masters and non—masters on the

first test administration. Discussion with content experts indicated

that several of the TADDS performance measures were of sufficient difficulty to cause a substantial subset of masters to score NO GO. Also ,

the unit tha t provided the masters had not yet been issued the TADDS;

therefore a number of the men classified as masters had little hands—

on experience with the TADDS. This accounts in part for the lack of

significance of the t statistic.

Final Versions of Tests

Following the tryouts, the performance tests were reviewed in

light of the item statistics and test—retest indices. Final

revisions were developed as appropriate to provide total test

packages which were judged by all involved to accurately and

reliably assess the performances required by the tests. Table 3

-19 -

L.

_ - 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

• ~~~ - • - -±

~~~-~~• 

• 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - -- - - - — — A
- 

_ rT 

- 

_____ _________________ 

~~~

-

~~

—-

~~ a—-— ~~

Table 2

PERFORMANCE TEST DEVELOP1€NTAL RESULTS

Masters Non—Masters Master Versus Non—

Test—Retest Test—Retest Master Comparison

Reliability Reliability on First Test

Test Coefficients Coeff icients Administration

M60 r .48 r — .18 t — ll.4

***

Squad Radio r .44 r — .38 t — 4.Ol

***

M55l r .63 r a .71 t a 2.78*

Gunner ’s Quadrant r .83 r a •49 7.l7

***

TADDS r .70 r a •75 a 1.47

* 05

pt.O01

I

—20 —

-

~ 

. 4. -~ 

~~ir~~~~~ - - •

- - . - ~~~~. 4 •

~ $ .

- • -

- , )

~•• • • •.

• •••.

~~

•— - .*.

• -

~~ — . - _

~• 4~

• 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

• : - -

- -- 

I

’

—— — -— — -• -•

~~

--‘--- -

-

~~~~~~

-

~: 

~~~~~~~~~~ .— ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ 

. 
___________

gives the final set of perfo rmance test groups for each of the

five performance tests.

The methodology discussed above resulted in a number of major

changes in the five tests as described . Performance measures were

revised on a variety of counts including: time requirements,

clarity of instructions, order of administration, testing

conditions, and adequacy of standards. Table 4 shows the numbers

of performance measures in each content~ group as originally

developed, and in the final version of the five tests. As is

evident, drastic reduc tions, eliminations and/or regroupings

occurred during the validation and tryout phases of test

development.

ACTIVE COMPONENT EXPERIMENT

Sample

The AC was tasked to provide a total of 660 enlisted men with

pay grade ES or lower , 55 in each of 12 combat arms battalions.

Three battalions were selected from each df the four combat arms

(Infantry, Armor, Field Artillery and ADA). The sampled

battalions were located at Port Bliss in Texas, Fort Carson in

Colorado and Fort Riley in Kansas.

Each Infantry battalion was tasked to provide 45 men with MOS

111 and 10 with MOS llC; each Armor battalion was tasked for 16

men with l b S llD and 39 with lbS liE ; each Field Artillery

battalion was tasked for 49 men with IIOS 13B and 6 with MOS 13E;

each ADA battalion was tasked to provide 34 men with MOS 16? and

21 with lbS 16R. Within each combat arm, the number of men

required for each MOS was proportioned to the number of men in

those two MOS, in the total army.

Design

Each of the f ive selected lesson series was evaluated by

dividing the subjects into five experimental groups. The five

groups for each lesson series constitute a 2 x 2 factorial design [ with an added baseline control group.

The first experimental group Wa. the TEC-with—LA I (TL) group.

For each lesson category, the TL group took the Lesson Administra—

tive Instructions (LAI) pre—tests, followed by the TEC lessons,

followed by the pre tests given again as post—tests. They were

informed of the correc t answers after both the pre— and post—

tests. After administration øf all lessons and LAI tests for the

•

1 —21 —

~~~~ 

-

1

~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ •
Table 3

PERFORMANCE TEST WITH ASSOCIATED PERFORMANCE MEASURE GROUPS

Performance Test: Performance Measure Groups:

M60 Machinegun

(for use by all soldiers) 1. Demonstrate changing the barrel

of the M60 machinegun to prevent

overheating.

2. Demonstrate the 3 assault posi—

tions fo r firing an M60 machinegun .

3. Assume correct position and grip

fo r firing a bipod emplaced M60

machinegun.

4. Zero a bipod mounted 1460 machine—

gun on target.

5. Clear ammunition from an M60

machinegun.

— 

6. Perform a general disassembly of

the 1460 machinegun into its 8

groups .

7. Perform assembly of an M60 machine—

gun so that it functions properly.

Performance Test : Performance Measure Groups :

Use of the Squad Radio

(for use by Infantry 1. Per form a preventive maintenance

branch only) inspection.

2. Assemble the transmitter and

receiver.

3. Perform an operation check with

the squad radio.

4. Q~

eck for a faulty radio or

j amming .

(continued)

—22 —

~~ 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

_ -

• - 

- 

4.

—.‘. ~~~~~~~ ~~ - -

— -‘

!

‘ •

‘

~~~~ .

~ ~~

‘

~~~-~~ -

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - __~

J___ _

~~~~~
Table 3 (concluded)

Performance Test: Performance Measure Groups:

Target Emgagement, 14551 Tank (for use by 1. Aligning the missile reticle.

Armor branch only)

2. Aligning the target and

gun/launcher retitle.

3. Aligning the target and coax

inachinegun reticle.

4. Employing the coax machinegun

against troops.

5. Determining range with the reticle.

Performance Test : Performance Measure Groups:

Tube Artillery Tests of

the Gunner’s Quadrant 1. Set quadrant values.

(for use by Field

Artillery branch only) 2. Perform a micrometer test .

3. Perform a positive end—for—end

test.

4. Perform a negative end—for—end

test.

Performance Test: Performance Measure Groups:

Target Alter Data

- , Display Set (TADDS) 1. Set up, energize, perform opera—

(for use by Air tion checks, and perform a march

Defense branch only) order for a TADDS.

2. General knowledge regarding set up

and operation checks for a TADDS.

3. Using the TADDS.

4. Perform maintenance of the battery.

•

0

—23 —

-

~~~

- - -

~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

— -

~~~~~~~~~~ 

-• • - — —

~~~

- _________ • —

~~~~~~~~~

4 ‘

~

‘

-i 1

,

~ ‘r

’

~

~~~~~~~ 

- 

- ~~~~~~ • - _______

~~~~~~

-- - - ~~~~~~~~~~~~ - - -- - 

—
r 

:

~~~~~~~~~~~ =~~~~~

—- ---- -:-- --

~~

-

Table 4

RESULTS OF TEST REVISIONS

Number of Number of

Task Performance Measures Performance Measures

in Original Draft in Final Version

1460

Performance Measure Group 1 3 2

Performance Measure Group 2 4 Eliminated

Performance Measure Group 3 4 3

Performance Measure Group 4 3 1

Performance Measure Group 5 11 3

Performance Measure Group 6 2 1

Perfromance Measure Group 7 2 1

Performance Measure Group 8 3 2

Squad Radio

Performance Measure Group 1 13 4

Performance Measure Group 2 6 4

Performance Measure Group 3 2 2

Performance Measur e Group 4 2 1

Performance Measure Group 5 7 Eliminated

14551

Performance Measure Group 1 6 Eliminated

Performance Measure Group 2 3 1

Performance Measure Group 3 8 7

Performance Measure Group 4 4 3

Performance Measure Group 5 5 4

• Performance Measure Group 6 4 3

Gunner’. Quadrant

Performance Musur e Group 1 9 8

Performance Measure Group 2 5 4

Performance Measure Group 3 11 9

Performance Measure Group 4 12 10

TADDS

Performance Measure Group 1 26 16

Performance Measure Group 2 14 6

Performance Measure Group 3 7 6

Performance Measure Group 4 14 4

~~24-

- -n---
- - - - - - - -

category, the performance teat for these lessons was given on the

following day. The tests were administered by military personnel

supervised by ARI and/or Litton Mellonics staff.

The second group was the TEC-Only (TO) group . This group

received TEC instruction but without LAI testing or feedback.

The third group was the Conventional—vith—LAI (CL) group.

This group received conventional instruction but took the pre— and

post—tests in the same manner as the TL group; that is, a set of

pre-tests, followed by conventional instruction covering the same

material as the corresponding TEC lessons, followed by the pretests given as post—tests. They were given the correct answers

immediately after both the pre— and post—teats. Thus the pre— and

post—testing procedure for the CL group was identical to that used

for the TL group. The CL group received conventional instruction

administered by personnel from the sampled battalions normally

responsible for giving instruction. The instructors did not have

access to the TEC lessons and lesson administrative instructions,

but were given the information provided in the LAl for each

relevant TEC lesson. This information consists of references and

general lesson objectives.

The fourth group was the Conventional—Only (CO) group. This

group received the same conventional instruction as the CL group ,

but without the LAI testing and feedback.

The fifth group was the Baseline (3L ) group. In place of

instruction, the soldiers in this group went about their normal

military duties. On the following day they took the sane

performance test as the other groups.

This design allows evaluation of TEC vs. conventional

instruction, LAl pre— and post—testing vs. no pre— and post— • testing and the interaction of instruction mode with testing mode.

The baseline group (EL ) was included to allow correction for

effects of prior training and also for the effect of the initial

performance test on the retention test.

For four of the five lesson series evaluated , each experimental group was designed to contain 24 subjects, eight from each of

three battalions in a single combat arm. For the 1460 inachinegun

lesson series, each experimental group was designed to contain 36

subjects, three from each of the twelve sampled AC battalions.

Between eight and nine weeks after the initial training and

testing, the perfo rmance test for each lesson series was

readministered to as many of the initially tested subjects as

could be obtained . For purposes of retention analyses, the only

0

—25 —

I.

I- I.-

• -

~~~~~~~~~- -- - - - - - - --- - -~~~ ---~~~ — -~~~-

______________
-— -• -,- •.— —- — -. ------ ——-. ——

scores used were those for subjects who indicated no training of

any kind in the relevant subject area between initial testing and

retention testing .

Procedures

Each battalion visited was tasked at least one month prior to

the visit to provide 55 men and four i

~

tstructors. Each unit was

told to task the instructor in the normal manner for ~iat unit.

Two of the instructors were to provide MGO machii~ gun instruction, one for the CL group, the other for the CO group. The other two

provided instruction in the subject area selected for that

particular combat arm. The instruc tors were provided with lesson

objectives and references as given in the LAIs for the TEC lessons

covering that subject area, but they were specifically instructed

not to view the TEC lessons (if available) for that subject. The

information provided to instructors is given in Appendix A.

At the beginning of the visit to a battalion, the 55 subjects

were randomly divided into ten groups, five groups of eight

subjects for the combat arm—specific instruction and five groups

of three each for the M60 machinegun instruction. Both TEC and

conventional instruction were then given during the initial day of

the visit. Both the TEC and conventional instruction subjects

were provided with any necessary equipment (gunner’s quadrants, machineguns, etc.) for use during instruction.

On the second day of the visit, the procedure called for each

of the 55 subjects to be given a hands—on performance test, 40

subjects receiving the combat arm—specific test and 15 the M60

machinegun test; however, in some units a few soldiers were

unavailable for testing. No feedback was given to subjects at

this time as to their performance on the tests. The tests were

administered by enlisted personnel from Army Training Centers

specifically trained for that purpose. The same team of testers

administered the tests for the two subject areas in all three

battalions of a given combat arm. Between eight and nine weeks

later the testing team returned to readminister the performance

tests dur ing a one—day visit to each battalion. The sampled units

were asked to provide the CT scores of all initially tested

- 

- subjects at the time of the revisit.

Prior to both the initial perfo rmance test and the retention

te st , each subject completed a brief questionnaire. For the

initial test, the subjects provided name, rank , MOS, time in

service and information on prior training (TEC or other)

pertaini ng to the subject of the performance test. For the

retention test , each subj ect indicated whether he received any

• 0 

-26 -

4. -

I.

,

___ _______________ -
type of training in the relevent subject area between the dates of

the initial and retention tests. Examples of the two questionnaires are given in Appendix C.

Results

Scoring Method. Each performance test was scored in two ways.

First, the percent of performance measures on which the subject

received a GO was determined for each subject. Second , the

percent of performance measure groups on which the subject

received a CO was determined for each subject. A subject was

given a CO for a performance measure group if he obtained a GO on

each measure in the group . The results were essentially the same — under both scoring methods , hence results for only the first

method will be presented here.

Initial Performance Test. Table 5 gives the mean and standard

error for the percent of items scored GO on for the initial

perfomance test in each subject area, along with the sample sizes.

A 5x3 analysis of variance (ANO VA) was performed on the data from

each of the four combat arms—specific subject areas (experimental

groups by sampled battalion). For the 1460 machinegun data a 5x4

ANOVA was performed (experimental groups by combat arm). For none

of the four combat arm—specific subjects was there a significant

battalion effect or a significant interaction between battalions

and experimental groups (p~

..O5 in all cases). For the 1460

machinegun data, the combat arm effect was significant but the

interaction was not significant. The significant combat arm

effect is due to the fact that the M60 testers for Field Artillery

battalions administered the performance measure group on barrel

change under a different initial condition than in the other

combat arms. The Field Artillery testers put the M60 bolt to the

rear instead of forward prior to having subjects attempt the

barrel change. This makes passing the two measures in the group

much easier. When the combat arms are compared with the barrel

change items eliminated , the combat arm effect is no longer

significant (p’ .OS)

The experimental group effect was broken into four

independent contrasts for each subject area. These compared TEC

to conventional instruction, LAI testing to no LAl testing , the

interaction (i.e., TL—TO-CL4CO) and the BL mean to the mean of the

other four groups combined . For all five subject areas, the

effect of LAl testing was not significant (p,- .OS) while the

difference between the EL mean and the mean of the other groups

was significant (p c .001). The instruction effect was

significant for 14551 (p ~ .001) TADDS (p .01) and 1460 (p’.OOI)

but not for Squad Radio (p — .55) and Gunner’s Quadrant (p — .10).

0

— 27 —

4.

I- p. 

_ :

~~ 

i

~ -s -- ~~~~~~~~~ ~

- .-
~

-- - • -

Table 5

AC INITIAL PERFORMANCE TEST RESULTS

Experimen tal Group

Test TL TO CL CO BL

1460 mean % scored GO 57.7 54.5 42.6 42.8 12.7

standard error

of mean a 3.3 3.5 4.2 4.0 2.1

sample size 34 35 35 34 37

Squad mean Z scored GO 69.5 62.8 65.0 63.3 45.5

Radio standard error

of mean 4.0 4.1 3.2 3.0 3.8

sample size 20 24 21 23 22

14551 mean % scored GO 52.9 52.8 40.5 35.9 32.7

standard error

of mean 3.6 2.9 3.0 2.4 2.7

sample size 23 24 24 24 27

Gunner ’s mean Z scored GO 31.3 25.9 28.1 43.2 8.3

Quadrant standard error

• of mean 4.6 4.5 3.9 4.8 3.2

sample size 24 24 24 25 24

TADDS mean Z scored CO 73.5 71.7 64.8 61.8 36.7

standard error

of mean 5.5 3.6 2.3 3.0 3.8

sample size 19 22 19 24 23

Average mean 2 scored CO 57.0 53.5 48.2 49.4 27.2

a 

1460 standard errors are corrected for differences among combat

arms.

0

—28 —

I f

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ • •f•

~

i

~~~; ~~~ - -; - - 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

p..
--

~~~~~~~ -- -~~~~~~~~~~~~ - — - _ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - -~~~~~~~~~ ---~~~~~ —-- - --—~~~~ --- -

The interaction between instruction and LAI testinS was

significant only for Gunner’s Quadrant. As can be seen in Table

5, this inzeraction is due to the superior performance of the CO

group relative to the other three.

CT Score Findings. CT scores for the sampled soldiers have

been provided by all but one battalion (Armor). Table 6 gives the

mean CT score and the correlation between GT and performance test

scores for each experimental group in the five subject areas.

Because of the missing battalion, the M60 and Armor statistic.p are

based on less than the full sample. Recall that Knert et al.’5

found positive correlations for their AC Conventional Instruction

groups but near—zero correlations for the AC TEC groups. This

result was not replicated here.

For the Gunner’s Quadrant subjects, the mean CT score of the

CO group was high in comparison to the other experimental groups.

Fo r this reason, an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA ) was done on

the performance test scores using CT score as the covariate. The

intent of the analysis was to determine if the significant

interaction between LAI testing and type of instruction is

accounted for by the variation in CT scores. The ANCOVA showed an

insignificant interaction (p — .094) along with insignificant main

effects.

Retention Test. Table 7 gives initial and retest results for

that portion of the sample on which retest scores were obtained .

Only soldiers with no training intervening between the two

administrations of the performance test are included in Table 7.

As will be noted from the sample sizes given in the table, nnly 56

percent of the initial sample is included in the retest results.

Of the soldiers initially tested , 35 percent were unavailable for

retesting and 9 percent were eliminated because of intervening

training . Nonetheless initial test results for the retested

portion of the sample are quite close to the results for the total

sample.

• The same set of planned comparisons reported above for the —

full sample was carried out on both the initial test and retest

data for the retested subsample. The statistically significant

effects for the initial test data in the subsample were the same

as those found for the full sample. The retest results duplicated

those for the initial test with two exceptions —— for Squad Radio

the method of instruction effect was significant (p <.01) and the

B~. mean did not differ significantly from the mean of the other

fi ui groups (p — .66).

15 —

Knerr , et al., 1975 , op. cit.

- ~~-~~~~~~~~~~—~~~~~~ -- -

-

- 

- 

~~~~~ - ~~ s - ~ -

- - - -—-.

____

~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ -
-

~~- --- -~~~~~~--.

-

~~~~~~- 

-__

Table 6

AC MEAN CT SCORE AND CORRELATION (r) BETWEEN

CT MD PERFORMANCE TEST SCORE

Experimental Group

Test TL TO CL CO BL

M60 Mean 107.8 101.1 99.0 104.6 100.9

a * r — .02 .22 — .36 — .14 .03

N 31 34 33 32 35

Squad Mean 104.5 104.6 109.2 100.1 100.7

Radio 

r .27 — .17 .11 — .21 .33

N 20 24 19 21 20

M55l Mean 97.6 98. 8 99.1 98.6 102.6

r .42 — .06 — .05 .27 — .06

N 10 12 12 11 20

Gunner’s Mean 103.5 99.4 100.8 108.9 101.5

Quadrant r .53 * .20 .10 .46 

*

.36

N 22 24 22 24 22

TADDS Mean 102.2 98.3 101.9 96.2 98.6

r .36 .23 .59 

**

.02 — .31

N 16 21 18 21 23

a 1460 r corrected for differences among Combat Arms

* p <.05

**

p <.01

0

-30 —

- p.

______ _______________________ s—~~

-~.
Table 7

AC INITIAL AND RETENTI ON TEST MEAN PERCENT SCORED CO

FOR THE RETESTED SUBSAMPLE

Experimental Group

Test TL TO CL CO BL

1460 initial test 59.6 54.3 43.6 33.3 15.4

retention test 56.9 46.6 42.9 37.9 21.7

subsample size 20 17 21 15 17

Squad initial test 62.0 66.4 67.7 63.1 50.8

Radio retention test 70.7 68.2 51.2 61.5 65.4

subsample size 9 14 11 13 10

14551 initial test 51.8 52.4 38.. 37.2 32.7

retention test 50.0 54.0 41.7 40.6 37.7

subsample size 9 14 18 13 19

Gunner’s initial test 37.6 24.8 28.8 43.7 11.0

Quadrant retention test 28.3 20.6 28.0 38.0 20.7

subsamp le size 9 16 15 18 12

TADDS initial test 79.9 71.6 64.7 61.8 33.7

retention test 72.1 67.5 60.5 57.6 39.8

subsample size 12 10 14 14 15

Average initial test 58.2 53.9 48.6 47.8 28.7

retention test 55.6 51.4 44.8 47.1 37.1

0

~- “~ T.. ~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ 

- •

~~~~~~~~~~~ ‘.: :;‘-- 

~~~~~~

____________ —- —‘— _ — -_-— — .-..- —•-—.-——— 

— - - - -
r 

- ____

In order to determine whether there were differences in

retention among the experimental groups in each subject area, an

ANCOVA using the initial test score as the covariate was done on

the retest scores in each subject area. The only significant

effect in all five ~NCOVAs was the type of instruction effect for

the Squad Radio (p <.02). The Squad Radio TEC groups shoved

significantly greater retention than the conventional instruction

group .

Application of Learning Model. Note that for every subject

area ta Table 7 , the mean retest baseline score is higher than the

mean initial test score . This is most likely due pr imarily to

learning occurring as a result of the initial test. Since this

same type of learning occurs for subjects in the four groups

receiving training , it is desirable to correct the retention

scores for this effect. To this end , a simple learning model was

applied to the data which allows correction of initial test scores

for the effect of training prior to the experiment and correction

of retest scores for the effect of both prior training and initial

testing. The model involves a slight pxtension of traditional

“correction for guessing” procedures)0

Basically, it is assumed in the model that on the initial

test, soldiers receive a “Go” on a performance test item for one

of two reasons. First , the correct response to some proportion of

the test items, POt), is knowe as a result of prior training

and/or experience. Second , the correct response to some

proportion, P(L), of the remaining items is learned through

training given in the experiment. That is,

P(C ) — POt) + P(L) ri — P(K )

~ where P(G ) is the proportion of items

scored GO on the test. Solving for P(L),

P (L) — 

~ (c) — P(K ).

1— P ( K )

In other words, since 1 — POt) is the proportion of items not

known through prior training or experience, P(L ) is tha t

proportion of these unknown items learned through training given

in the experiment. P(L) can be estimated from the data by

assuming that the proportion of items scored “GO” for the baseline

group , P(BL), is an estimate of POt). Under this assumption,

P(L) — PiG) — P(BL). (1)

1 — P (BL)

16

Woodworth, R.S. Experimental psychology . New York: Henry

Holt and Co., 1938.

0

—32 —

4.

_____________________
For the retest, it is assumed in the model that there are

three ways to receive a GO on an item. First, the item may be

known through prior training and/or experience. Second, the item

may be learned during training given in the experiment and

retained over the period between the intital teat and the retest.

Th ird , the item may be learned during the initial test and

retained until the retest. Under the assumption that the

proportion of items scored GO for the baseline group on the retest

P(BL ), reflects both prior training (and/or experience) and

information acquired during the initial test, an estimate can be

obtained f or P(L ’), the proportion of the initially unknown items

learned in experimental training and retained until the retest.

It can be shown that

P(L ’) — P(G’) — P (BL’). (2)

1 — P (BL ’)

Finally, by taking the ratio of P(L) and P(L’), an estimate is

obtained for P(R), the proportion of those items learned during

experimental training that were retained until the retest. That

is,

P(R ) — P(L ’). (3)

P (L)

A more complete presentation of the model is given in Appendix C.

For each of the four training groups in each subject area, equations 1, 2, and 3 were used to estimate P(L), P(L ’) and P(R).

These estimates are given in Table 8. Note that for Squad Radio, M551 and TADDS, P(R) is larger for the TL and TO groups than for

the CL and CO groups. The reverse is true for Gunner’s Quadrant, while for 1460 the retention measures are somewhat equivocal. The

absence of any retention for the Squad Radio conventional

instruction groups is inferred from the fact that the performance

of these two groups on the retention test fell below the level of

the EL group, leading to negative parameter estimates.

By treating the five subject areas as a random sample from the

set of all subject areas for which TEC lessons have been

developed , it is possible to average the parameter values across

subject areas and then test these means for differences among the

experimental groups. While the subject areas were not actually

randomly sampled , the statistical tests give some feel for the

extent to which differences among the experimental groups for

these five subject areas can be generalized to the set of all

Combat Arms subject areas. The statistical approach used for each

parameter was a 2x2 ANOVA (method of instruction by presence or

-33 -

A
Tabl e 8

AC PROPORTIONS ESTIMATED FROM LEARNING MODEL

* Experimental Group

Test TL TO CL CO

1460 P(L) .523 .460 .333 .212

P(L’) .450 .318 .270 .207

P(R) .860 .691 .,810 .977

Squad P(L ) .228 .317 .343 .249

Radio P(L ’) .152 .079 0a

P(R) .668 .249 0 0

$551 P(L ) .284 .292 .082 .066

P(L ’) .197 .261 .063 .046.

P(R) .694 .894 .772 .701

Gunner’s P(L) .299 .155 .200 368

Quadrant P(L’) .096 .092 .218

P(R ) .321 0 .458 .593

TADDS P(L) .697 .571 .468 .424

P(L’) .537 .460 .344 .295

p 

P(R) .770 .806 .735 .697

Average P(L ) .406 .359 .285 .264

P(L ’) .286 .224 .154 .153

P(R) .663 .528 .555 .594

a Negative estimate set at 0.

0 — 34 —

— - r ~~~ - 

• 

-— ——

~ ~~~ - ~~ ~ -

. p.
_ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

absence of pre— and post—testing) in which all effects were

treated as within—subject area e.ffects~ with a single pooled error

term used to form all F—ratios.1

For the P(L) parameter , the effect of method instruction was

statistically significant (p c .05), indicating that on the

average, TEC instruction produces more learning than conventional

instruction. Neither the pre— and post—testing effect nor the

interaction between instruction and testing were significant

(p > .05 in both cases). The method of instruction effect was

also significant for the P(L’) parameter (p < .05), indicating

that after an eight week interval TEC instruction maintains an

advantage over conventional instruction. Again , no other effects

were significant (p ~ .05). For the P(R) parameter there were no

significant effects of any kind (p ) .05 in all cases). This

means that the proportion of learned material lost over the eight

week retention interval is not significantly different for TEC and

conventional instruction. In summary , the evidence is that more

is learned through TEC instruction than through conventional

instruction, but that forgetting of the learned material occurs at

about the same rate for the two approaches.

Since more is learned initially through TEC and forgetting

rates are the same, TEC should show an advantage over conventional

instruction at any retention interval. This prediction is

graphically illustrated in Figure 1 of the Executive Summary. The

• points plotted at zero and eight weeks are respectively the P(L)

and P(L’) estimates for each experimental group . An exponential

curve asymptoting at zero is fitted to each pair of points as a

simple approximation to the likely shape of the retention curve.

Questionnaire Information. Recall that prior to taking the

initial performance test, each soldier completed a brief questionnaire. The responses to the items on the questionnaire are given

in Appendix D. Information was also gathered from the four

individuals in each battalion tasked to give conventional

instruction. This information is summarized in Appendix E.

17

Winer , B. J. Statistical principles in experimental design. (2d ed.)

New York: McGraw—Hill, 1971.

—35 — 

T— -•— .

• • •
- -

NATIONAL GUARD EXPERIM ENT

Sample

The RC was tasked to provide a total of 660 National Guard (NC)

soldiers, 55 in each of 12 combat arms battalions. These

battalions were selected from each of the four combat arms. The

three ADA battalions were part of the 200th ADA Group in New

Mexico. The other nine battalions were from the 50th Armored

Division in New Jersey . With the exception of the ADA battalion,

the battalions were tasked for the same MOS’s in the same numbers

as the AC. Since the sampled ADA battalions had no men in MOS 16P

and 16R, the men provided were instead primarily in MOS 16F.

Due to a short—fall in the numbers of soldiers participating in

the experiment for the Field Artillery units, a fourth NC

battalion was added to the study. This battalion was part of the

118th Field Artillery Group in Georgia.

Design and Procedures

The design of the RC experiment was identical to the AC design.

The procedure was also essentially the same except for greater

variability in t-he RC test—retest interval. Each sampled

battalion was retested two drill after the initial test. Since

the weekend drill schedules for the sampled units were set well in

advance of the initial training and testing visit, the test—retest

interval could not be held constant. The intervals ranged from

eight to thirteen weeks.

The performance tests for Infantry and Armor battalions were

administered by NCO’s from the test section of the 78th Training

Division in New Jersey . The ADA testers came from the 111th ADA

• Brigade in New Mexico. Two of the testers for Field Artillery

battalions were enlisted men assigned to the ARI field unit at

Fort Beaning , GA. Three others came from a Field Artillery

battalion attached to the 78th Training Division . All performance

testers were given training in administration of the tests by ARt

and/or Litton Mellonics personnel.

In some of the sampled NG battalions, circumstances resulted in

departure from the standard procedure. Due to a concurrent

scheduled exercise , it was necessary to do the initial testing in

one of the Armor battalions on the same day as the training. One

of the Infantry battalions did not provide the necessary number of

squad rad ios; as a result of this, the TL and TC groups did not

have radios for use during the TEC training. In one ADA

battalion, the LAI post tests were not administered due to a lack

0

— 36 —

_________________________________ — - A - — ~ — - . ~~~~~~~~~ --
- - ---~~~~~—~~~~~ --—~~~~~ - - _ --- -~~~~~~ --~~~~~~~--- --— -~~~-- - ~~ -_--- --— - -~~~~~

of time before the men were released for the day . In a number of

units, the 1460 inachineguns were provided without bolts. A tester

shortage required either the ARX or Litton Mellonics representative

to serve as a tester for two of the thirteen initial visits and for

six of the thirteen retest visits.

Resul ts

Initial Performance Test. Table 9 gives the results for the

initial performance test in each subject area. The same experimental group-by—battalion ANOVA used in the AC experiment was

performed on the NC data. The only subject area for which there

were no significant differences (p).05) among battalions (combat

arms for M60) was the TADDS. For none of the subject areas was

the interaction between battalions and experimental groups significant (p>.05 in all cases).

As in the AC analyses, the experimental group effect was broken

into four independent contrasts. The difference between TEC and

conventional instruction was significant for M60 (p~ .OOl) and M551

(p<.Ol). The difference between instruction with and without LAI

pre— and post—testing was significant for $60 (p<.OO1) and Squad

Radio (p<.O5). As can be seen in Table 9 , the Squad Radio groups

receiving no LAX testing did better than those that were tested .

• There were no cases of a significant interaction between method of

instruction and LAI testing (p~ .OS for all subject areas). The

difference between the BL mean and the mean of the other four groups

was significant for all five subject areas (pc.05 for 14551, p<.OOl

for the others).

CT Score Findings. Only partial data were available on CT

Scores for the NC sample. Of the thirteen NC battalions sampled ,

two Infantry, three Armor, one Field Artillery and one ADA battalion

have provided CT Scores. The CT scores were unavailabie for a • number of the men in those battalions supplying scores. For only

two of the subject areas, M60 and $551, were enough data provided to

look at the correlation between initial performance test scores and

CT scores, and then only by combining the TL with TO data and the

CL with the CO data. The results are given in Table 10. As in the

AC sample, the~

re is no evidence of a lower correlation for TEC—trained

soldiers than for conventionally trained soldiers. In fact, for M60

the TEC correlation is signif icantly higher than the conventional

correlation (p.(.O5).

Retention Test. Table 11 gives initial and retest results

for that portion of the NG sample on which retest scores were

obtained. As with the AC sample , only soldiers with no training

intervening between the initial and retention test are included in

Table 11. Only 51 perce

~t of the initial test sample is included

0

—37 —

- -

- -

~~- ~

• 

-

p.

.

—----

~

— 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .

~~~~~~ ‘i_

~~ _ -

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

_ -• - - - • -- •-• — - —-
- -- ~--

~~~~~~ --~~~~~~~ -

Table 9

NG INITIAL PERFORMANCE TEST RESULTS

Experimental Group

Test TL TO CL CO BL

1460 mean Z scored GO 71.4 55.8 47.4- 33.0 24.9

standard error

of meana 3.3 4.8 3.7 3.2 3.5

sample size 29 32 32 28 29

Squad mean 2 scored GO 74.8 81.8 69.7 78.4 54.5

Radio standard error

of meana 4.3 2.8 2.8 2.8 4.8

• sample size 22 20 21 19 19

14551 mean 2 scored CO 47.7 45.4 37.7 36.4 30.1

standard error

of mean8 3.9 4.3 2.9 2.8 3.2

sample size 22 18 19 18 12

Gunner’s mean 2 scored CO 54.7 46.9 46.6 48.5 11.0

Quadrant standard error

of mean8 5.0 4.8 5.6 4.1 2.0 • sample size 21 22 24 21 22

TADDS mean 2 scored CO 69.4 63.7 70.3 71.3 35.1

standard error

of mean 4.3 3.6 3.4 3.3 3.7

sample size 18 19 16 18 18

Average mean 2 scored GO 63.6 58.7 54.4 53.6 31.1

a Standard errors are correc ted for differences among battalions.

0

—38 —

p •

. -

-r

I.

- 

—-

• ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

.

-

--- ~~~-~~ 

—,-- --- 

--

- -
- --~~--

Table 10

MG MEAN CT SCORE AND CORRELATION (r) BETWEEN

GT AND PERFORMANCE TEST SCORE

Experimental Group

Test TL+T0 CL+CO EL

1460 Mean 104.8 98.8 106.6

r

a 59** — .16 .04

N 20 22 13

$551 Mean 104.2 108.1 116.3

.37 .09 — .07

N 26 25 11

a M60 r corrected for differences among Combat Arms

b M551 r corrected for differences among battalions

**

p ( .01

-Ii 

I 

- i

~~ 

p

—39 —

p I 

p.

4 - 

- ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~

• .

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ -

~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ --~~~~~~~~~~

- 

- — - - - 

— --

~

• .-- 

- 

-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

~~~~~

Table 11

NC INITIAL AND RETENT ION TEST MEAN PERCENT

SCORED GO FOR TUE RETESTED SUBSAMPLE

Experimental Group

Test TL TO CL CO BL

?~0 initial test 76.2 69.8 55.4 38.5 28.9

retention test 65.4 58.8 559 43.9 35.3

subsample size 10 14 15 7 17

Squad initial test 84.1 82.6 70.9 81.8 60.0

Radio retention test 84.1 71.9 89.1 76.7 64.6

subsample size 4 11 5 9 10

$551 initial test 54.2 47.7 42.4 38.9 32.7

retention test 54.6 58.8 43.8 41.7 45.2

subsample size 12 12 8 14 8

Gunner’s initial test 56.6 44.9 45.9 46.3 8.1

Quadrant retention test 43.9 32.0 38.5 34.8 11.6

subsample size 13 13 13 14 10

TADDS initial test 71.0 68.8 69.6 73.7 29.8 • retention test 65.1 63.6 66.1 70.1 47.1

subsample size 1]. 9 15 12 11

Average initial test 68.4 62.8 56.8 55.8 31.9

retention test 62.6 57.0 58.7 53.4 40.8

—40 —

-

. ~~~~~~~ - 

- ~~~~~~~

- - ~-

p. ,

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-

in the retention test results. Of those soldiers given the

initial test, 39 percent were unavailable for retesting and 10

percent were eliminated because

~of intervening training . The

Sq uad Radio retest sample is particularly small, including only

39 percent of the initial sample. With the exception of the

M60 TO group and the Squad Radio TL group , initial test results

for the retested soldiers are close to the results for the

complete sample.

As with the AC sample, the initial test analyses done on the

full NG sample were also carried out on the retested subsample.

The results of the subsample analyses were the same as those for

the full sample , with four exceptions: The M60 LAI testing effect

was not statistically significant for the subsample , the Squad

Radio Battalion and LAI testing effects were not significant and

the 14551 instruction effect was not significant (p > .05 in all

cases). The analyses carried out on the retest data showed

significant differences among combat arms f or the M60 retest

(p .< .01), a significant instruction effect for the 14551 retest

(p < .01) and a significant LAI testing effect for the Squad Radio

retest (p < .05) . Also , the BL group mean was significantly less

than the mean across the other four group for all but the M551

retest (p < .001 for TADDS, p < .01 for 1460 and Gunner’s Quadrant

and p < .05 for Squad Radio) . There were no other statistically

significant results. As can be seen in Table 11, the Squad Radio

LAI testing effect is in favor of instruction with pre— and post—

testing. This is in contrast to the initial test result for the

full sample which was in favor of instruction without pre— and

post—testing. Note that the LAI testing result on the retest is

due primarily to the fact that the mean retest score for the five

retested soldiers in the Squad Radio CL group is over 18 percent

above their initial test mean.

Retest data for each performance test were analyzed with an

ANCOVA , using initial test score as the covariate. Recall that

• this type of ANCOVA essentially analyzes the differences among the

experimental groups in the change in performance test score from

the initial to the retention test. For the M551 test , TEC

instruction showed significantly better retention than conventional

instruction (p < .05) and the sampled battalions differed

significantly (p < .05) . For the Squad Radio test , LAI testing

resulted in significantly better retention than no LAI testing

(p .05) and again the battalions differed significantly

(p c .05). The significant LAX testing effect can again be

attributed primarily to the 18 percent increase in the CL group

mean score from the initial to the retention test. The ANCOVAs

yielded no other statistically significant effects.

— 4 1 —

p.

p.

k~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - — ~~~~-

~~~~ I-
Application of Learnin& Model. The mean NC performance test

scores were corrected for the effects of prior experience and

testing using the same model that was applied to the AC means.

Estimates of the parameters P(L), P(L ’) and P(R) are given in

Table 12. Note that for the Squad Radio CL group and the 14551 TO

group , the estimate of P(L’) has been set equal to the

corresponding P(L) estimate. According to the underlying model, P(L ’) is equal to P(L) (1—P (R)J and hence cannot be greater than

P(L); however , it is possible for the empirical estimate of P(L’)

to exceed the estimate of P(L). This was the case for the Squad

Radio and M551 estimates mentioned . A review of the data in

Tables 9 and 11 indicated that for the two groups in question, it

is likely that the estimate of P(L’) is greater than the P(L)

estimate because P(L’) was overestimated rather than P(L) being

underestimated . For this reason, the P(L’) estimate was decreased

to the value of the P(L) estimate.

Treating the five subject areas as a random sample from the

set of all subject areas covered by TEC lessons, the parameter

estimates in Tab le 12 we re taken as input to thr ee ANOVAs , as was

done for the AC sample. For the P(L) estimate, the only

statistically significant effect was the effect of type of

instruction, with TEC instruction being significantly better than

conventional (p < .05). The ANOVA for P(L’) resulted in no

significant effects. However, on closer examination, the mean

P(L’) estimate for the TL group was found to be significantly

greater than the combined mean of the estimates for the other

three groups (p < .05). Nc significant effects of any kind were

found in the ANOVA for P(R).-

Questionnaire Information. Responses of NC soldiers to items

on the questionnaire completed prior to the initial performance

test are summarized in Appendix F. Information on the individuals

• providing conventional Instruction is given in Appendix C.

others).

— 42 —

p.

‘p

~~~A ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _ ~~~~ - k—- - - ______
Tab le 12

NG PROPORTIONS ESTIMATED FROM LEARNING MODEL

Experimental Group

Test TL TO CL CO

P(L) 66.5 57.5 37.2 13.4

P(L ’) 46.5 36.3 31.9 13.3

P(R) 70.0 63.1 85.6 99.2

Squad P(L) 60.2 56.6 27.3 54.6

Radio P(L ’) 55.1 20.8 27.3~ 344

POt) 91.5 36.7 100.0 63.0

14551 P(L) 31.9 22.3 14.4 9.2

P(L ’) 17.2 22.38 0b

P(R) 53.9 100.0 0 0

Gunne r’s P(L) 52.8 40.1 41.2 41.6

Quadrant P(L’) 36.6 23.1 30.4 26.3

POt) 69.3 57.6 73.8 63.1

TADDS P(L) 58.7 55.5 56.7 62.5

P(L ’) 33.9 31.1 35.8 43.4

P(R) 57.8 56.0 63.2 69.5

Average P(L) 54.0 46.4 35.4 36.3

P(L ’) 37.9 26.7 25.]. 23.5

P(R) 68.5 62.7 64.5 59.0

Es timate reduced to theoretical ma.~

dmuzn of P(L) .

Negative estimate set at 0.

0

—43 —

- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - - -: :T~~ -

~~ ~~~~::-

~

- - 

- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - - - _____________________________ J
---- -------- —------ --- --- - - --~~~~~~~~~~~~~ --~~~~~ -—-•- - -- —~~~~--- -

~~~---

REFERENCES

Xnerr , Claramae S., Downey, Ronald G. and Kessler , John J.

Training individuals in Army units: Comparative effectiveness

of selected TEC lessons and conventional methods . ARI Research

Report 1188. December 1975.

Mays, P. V., Holmgren , J. E. and Shelnutt , J. B. Current use , p 

patterns of use and factors affecting use of the Army Training

Extension Course (TEC) Program. ARI Tec~nica1 R~p~ rt T&—79—A3 ,

May 1979.

McClusky, Michael R. and Tripp, James M. An evaluation of the

utilization , maint enance and perceived benefits of the Training

Extension Course (TEC) (Tech, Rep . 75—18) . Alexandria , VA:

Human Resources Research Organization , June 1975.

Temkin , Sanfo rd , Conolly , J. A., Marvin, M. D., Valdes , A. L.

and Caviness, J. A. A cost assessment of Army training

alternatives. ARI Research Problem Review 75—3 . August 1975.

Winer , B. J. Statistical principles in experimental design.

(2d ed.) New York: McGraw—Hill , 1971.

Woodworth , R. S. Experimental psychology. New York: Henry Bolt

and Co., 1938.

— 44 —

— —~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--- -- -

APPENDIXES

Appendix Page

A. Instructor Information 47

B. Soldier Questionnaires 53

C. Learning Model 55

D. Summary of AC Questionnaire Responses 61

Tables

D—l. AC Primary MOS distribution 61

D—2. AC pay grade distribution 62

D—3. AC time in serilce distribution 63

D—4. Viewing prior to experiment by AC

soldiers of TEC lessons in their

subject area 64

D—5. AC previous training distribution 65

E. AC Conventional Instruction 67

F. Summary of NC Questionnaire Responses 69

Tables

F—l. NC Primary MOS distribution 69

F—2 . NG pay grade distribution 70

F—3. NC time in service distribution 71

F—4. Viewing prior to experiment by NC

soldiers of TEC lessons in their

subject area 72

F—S. NC previous training distribution 73

C. NC Conventional Instruction 75

—4 5 —

p.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

- . p. 

-—~~~~~ — —-.,-— --• ..--

A ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~—— ----~~~~ -

~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ — ~~~~-

~~~~ - - --- - -- -~ ~~~~~~~ •. _ ——.- --— -—. - ----.—
_____

APPENDIX A INSTRUCTOR I!1F0RF~ATI0N

Information for M60 Instruc tors

Subject: 1460 Machinegun Mechanical Training, Firing and Zeroing

Training~Time: Approximately three hours .

Train i~g~ Objectives: Soldiers completing this instruction should be able to:

a. Clear the M60 machinegun.

b. Disassemble the 1460 into its n.ajor groups and assemblies.

c. Inspect the M60.

d. List the co on defects of the weapon.

e. Assemble the M60.

f. Perform a function check on the 1460.

g. Identify the correct position and grip for firing the M60 on

its bipod and tripod .

h. Demonstrate the three assault positions when firing an 1460 inachinegun . i. Calculate deflection correction.

j. List the weapon’s three rates of f ire and when the barrel should be

changed f or each.

References: FM 23—67, TM 9—1005—224—10 , TM 9—1005—224—24

1. The above references contain information on all of the above objectives.

Any additional references may be used with the exception of the TEC

lessons on the 1460 machlnegun. It is extremely important that instructors do not view these TEC lessons in preparing their instruction.

2. Each instructor will train a group of three soldiers. 1460 machine—

guns for use during training may be obtained from the armory.

__ -

. 

~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~ T11 ~~~~~~~~~~~ ,:* _ _ _
r ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

_______

INFORMAT ION FOR SQUAD RADIO INSTRUCTORS

SUBJECT: Introduction to and Operation of the Squad Radio

TRAINING TIME: Approximately two hours.

TRAINING OBJECTIVES: Soldiers completing this instruction shculd be able to;

a. Identify the component parts.

b. Plan battery life.

c. Identify and operate the controls properly.

d. Identif y the planning range .

e. Perform operator maintenance.

f. Assemble -the Squa d Radio correctly.

g. Operate the Squad Radio.

p 

h. Identify j amming signals and take corrective action .

i. Recognize malfunctions and identif y corrective action to be taken.

REFERENCES: TM 11—5820—549—12.

1. The above reference contains information on all of the above objectives.

Any additional ref erences may be used , with the exception of the TEC

lessons on Squad Radio. It is extremely important that instructors do

not view these TEC lessons in preparing their instruction .

2. Each instructor will train a group of eight soldiers. Squad Radios

for use during training will be made available by the battalion .

0

— 48 —

• p.

. 

~ ~~~ -

I.
~ .

--- - ‘- -. - -~~~~~~~~~—-~~~.- _ - -—-~~—_-- _~~~~ _~~~ _ .-*-- _ --.- ~~~ -

INFORMATION FOR M55l TARGET ENGAGEMENT INSTRUCTORS

SUBJECT: Center of target vulnerability, aligning the ret id e and

determining range: 14551 Gunner .

TRAINING TIME: 1 hour 15 minutes .

TRAINING OBJECTIVES: Soldiers completing this instruction should be able to:

a. Identif y center of target mass

b. Distinguish correctly and incorrectly aligned reticles

c. Correctly align the conventional reticle and determine range

REFERENCES: FM 17—12

1. The above reference containes information on all of the above

objectives. Any additional references may be used , with the exception

of the TEC lessons on 14551 Target Engagement. It is extremely impor—

tant that instructors do not view these TEC lessons in preparing their

instruction.

2. Each instructor will train a group of eight soldiers. Instructors

may obtain any equipment they wish for use during training.

— 49 —

‘

p

______ 1
- 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

FOR GUNNE R ’S QUADRAN T INSTRUCTORS

SUBJECT: Tube Artillery : Tests of the Gunner ’s Quadrant

TRAINING TIME: Approximately two hours.

TRAINING OBJECTIVES: Soldiers completing this instruction should be able to;

a. Set quadrants.

b. Use the gunner ’s quadrant for high—angle fire.

c. Perform the micrometer test.

d. Perform the end—for—end test with a positive correction.

e. Perform the end—for—end test with a negative correction .

REFERENCES: TM 9—2300—216—10, FM 6—88.

1. The above references contain information on all of the above objectives.

Any additional references may be used , with the exception of the TEC

lessons on the ~~~~~~~~ Quadrant. It is extremely important that

instructors do not view these TEC lessons in preparing their instruction .

2. Each instructor will train a group of eight soldiers . Gunner ’s

Quadrants for use during training will be made available by the

battalion.

—50 —

- . —

~~~~~~~~

--———— p. 

-

- ___ - _
- _ -

_ -.--~~~ -- -~~~~~ _ --_ -~~~ ~~~~~~~~ 

~~~~~~ _ — --~~~~ -.---~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

INFORMATION FOR TADDS INSTRUCT ORS

Subject: TADDS Emplacement , Opera tion and Maintenance

Training Time: Approximately two hours

Training, Objectives: Soldiers completing this instruction should be able to:

a. Select a site for TADDS .

b. Tune and install the antenna.

c. Deploy the ground planes.

d. Energize the TADDS.

e. Perform a march order for TADDS.

f. Perform a battery voltage check.

g. Perform a self—test check.

h. Prepare f or a radar check.

i. Perform a voice check.

j. Perform a radar check.

k. Orient the TADDS.

1. Plot the FAAR and fire unit locations on the TADDS display .

m. Respond to a TADDS alarm .

n. Perform “plot and tell” on the TADDS display .

a. Perform preventive maintenance on the TADDS.

p. Charge the battery.

q. Replace the battery.

References: FM 44-6 , TM 9—1430—589—12

1. The above references should have been received by your unit from Ft.

Bliss. Any additional references may be used, with the exception of the

TEC lessons on TADDS. It is extremely important that instructors do not

view these TEC lessons in preparing their instruction .

2. The references given above contain information on all of the above

objectives except objective n (Perform “plot and tell” on the TADDS display).

The attached pages provide that missing information .

3. Each instructor will train a group of eight soldiers. Eight TADDS for

use during training will be provided by ARI .

0 — - 51 —

p.

I.

.a*~~ 

-

~~

—-

::

-------— 

~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -~~~. _ -

~~~~~~~~ _~~~~~~~~~~~ i

___ I_,-

_ _ - - 

_ . -
r 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~

..

~~~~~~~~~

- _ __ _-_ -

~~

-_ _ _______

APPENDIX B SOLDIER ‘)UESTIONNAIRES

Name

SSAN___________________________________________________________

Primary MOS

Pay Grade_______________________________________________

Time in Service ________________Years _____________Months

1. Had you ever seen any of the TEC lessons Yes_____

on the M60 before yesterday? No______

If “yes”, when did you last view these lessons? ________

2. Did you receive any training 0~~M6O during Yes____

BCT? No_____

3. Did you receive any training on M6O during Yes____ AlT? No______

4. Have you had any training on 1460 since AlT? Yes_____

No______

I 

.p.

___

0 —5 3 —

- .

~~~

‘ 

- 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~

;

~~- - - - — p.

-.4. - 4 ~~ - - 

~~~~~~ 

- -

- ~~~~~~~~~~~~ . -: - - ~~~~~~~~~~~~ - ‘p

- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ . ~~~~~.r: -

~~~~ .

~

-.-
~ - —- _ - - -- -—-~~~~~~~ - -- .

- -

-~~~~~—-- 

NAME

SSAN

UNIT

1. Have you viewed any of the TEC lessons on the M60 Yes ____

machinegun since you last took this test? No _____

2. Have you received any type of training on the M60 Yes ____

machinegun since you last took this test? No _____

3. Have you studied any manuals on the M60 machinegun Yes ____

since you last took this test? No _____

— 54 —

0

+ jr— ~~~~ r

~~~~~~~~~

_ — —--

~~~~—--- - - ________

~ ..~~ ‘

p . - •1~ -,.. ‘ - -p..-

- .- p p l

~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ‘p

____ 

- 

~~~~ p~~~~~~~_v~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ :. - +

~ -.. .;i~ +

 - 

~~~~~~~~ -

~~~ ~

i1i.1
APPENDIX C LEARNING MODEL

The following is a simple model of the learning and retention processes

in the TEC training effectiveness experiments. The model is formulated in

terms of five states of knowledge and the probabilities of transition among

the states at successive stages in the experiment. A soldier’s level of

knowledge about any given item on a performance test is assumed to be in

exactly one of these five states at any given point in time. Transitions

among the states are represen ted by transition matrices , each of which gives

the probability that knowledge about an item will go from any one state to

any other state at a given stage of the experiment.

STATE DEFINITION S

— State K: The correct response to a performance test item in this

state is known as a result of general knowledge and/or training received

prior to the experiment. Items in this state are not subject to forgetting.

State LT: The correct response to an item in this state has been

learned through training provided in the experiment. Additional information

about the item (making it more resistant to forgetting) has been acquired

during the initial performance test.

State L: The same as State LT, except that no additional information

has been acquired during the initial performance test.

State T: The correct response to an item in this state has been learned

during the initial performance test. No information has been acquired through

experimental training.

State U: The correct response to an item in this state is unknown.

START VECTOR

All items are assumed to be in either State K or State U at the begin—

ing of the experiment. The probability of beginning in State K is k. These

assumptions can be represented by the following vector

K LT L T U

S (k 0 0 0 1—k)

0

—55 —

‘p

_______________________ ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ - +-— ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ —-~~~~~ -,- - ~~~- 
r

TRAINING TRANSITION MATRI X

The matrix ,

~~~ below gives the prob ability of an item moving from any

state to any other state during training provided in the experiment. It

is assumed that the only chan ge of state th at can occur is from State U

to S tate L. The labels on the left of the matrix give the state at the

beginning of training. The labels on the t9p give the state at the end

of training.

K LT L T U

Kr l 0 0 0 0

LTI O 1 0 0 0

4 L~~~O 0 1 0 0

T b 0 0 1 0

ULO ~ ~ ~

iNITIAL TESTIN G TRANSITION MATRI X

Af ter training an item could be in State K , State L or State U. It

is assumed that an item in State U can be learned during testing and move

to State T. Additional information can be acquired about an item in

State L , moving the item into State LT. In either case , the prob ability

of changing state is assumed to be .t.

K LT L T U

K [~l 0 0 0 0

LTI O 1 0 0 0

B — L I O .t ].— .t 0 0

H 

: : 

~ 

l:

~

0 — 56 —

a - - - .

- - 

‘p

_______----- - 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ___ —~~~ -

~~~~~~~~~- +
- - --+- - -

~~~~~---- — - -

FORGETTIN G TRANSITION MATRIX

It is assumed that forgetting can occur during the interval between

the initial performance test and the retention test for items in States

LT , L or T. An item in State LT is treated as if there were two independent pieces of knowledge stored about the item, one acquired during training and another acquired during the initial test. Both pieces of information need to be lost in order for the item to drop back into State U.

K LT L T U

K 1 0 0 0 0

LT 0 (1—~) (l— k) (1—~) k ~(1— h) ~h

F— L 0 0 l—~ 0

T 0 0 0 1—h h

U 0 0 0 0 1

VECTOI~ ~OR PROB AMLITY (J

~ A CORB~~~~. RESPONSE

The following vector gives for each state the probability that a

corre ct response will be made when a soldier is tested on an item for

which the soldier ’s level of knowledge is in that state.

K I

LT

cL 1

T

U

RESPONSE PROBABILTTIES

Theoretical expressions for all response probabilities of interest

can be given in t erma of produc ts of the above matrices and vectors. In

particular, expressiøns are desired for the following probabilities:

0

— 57 —

p.

a .

- - .

- p.

____ 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~

. -

~~ _ _ - _~~~_~

i ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ —--~ - .- - --+- -~~- p - P.-
— Probability of a correct response to an item on the initial

test for soldiers in experimental group E (where E — TL , TO

CL or Go).

~BL — Probability of a correct response to an item on the initial.

test for baseline soldiers.

— Probability of a correct response to an item on the retention

test for soldiers in experimental group E.

~BL — Probability of a correct response to an item on the retention

test for baseline soldiers .

The theoretical expressions for the above probabilities are as

follows :

- s.A.c — k+ -e (1-k)

P — s.c — k BL 

-

~BL - s.B.F.c - k+Pt(1-h) (1-k)

While not explicit in the above notation , the values of t and ~ depend on both the test being administered and the experimental group

under consideration. The values of Pt and ft depend only on the test. All

parameters are assumed to be const ant across soldiers within an experimental

group. Another point to bear in mind is that the values of the forgetting

parameters ~ and ft depend on the time interval between the initial test

and the retention test. Speci fically , the assumption made here for the

purpose of generating retention curves is that ~ and ft are exponential

functions of time . That Is ,

— l—kj~~, O< fli <1

— 1—t2 4 , O<~~2 <l

where 4 is the time interval between the initial performance test and

the retention test and k1 and ~2 are rate parameters.

PARAMETER ESTIMATES

~~menta estimates of the model parameters may be obtained by solving

the above four response probability equations for k , .f~

, ~ and -t(l—h) . The

available data do not allow separate estimates for t and ft. The following

solutions are ob t ained:

0

— 58 —

~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ --—- P. - - 

~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-

~~~~~~~~

--— —-—---———

— Pp- _

~.

+P..~~~~~_ P_++++.~ -
- -—.+.+ - -

~

+--—-----—- - - ---~~~ --

~

———- --.-- - -+— 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

—.—-—--- -——--+-— -- ----—--- - ——- --- --- - -—— -P---.,

fz = 

~BL

- ~E — ~BL - BL

= 1 — 

( l—P ~i) (P~ — 1

~ L)

(l-P~L) (

~E - PBL)

t(l— h) = ~~L — ~BL

The parameter estimates are then obtained by substituting the observed

proportion of correct responses for the appropriate response probabilities

In the above expressions. The correspondence between the quantities P(L),

P(L ’) and P(R) as defined in the Technical Supplement and the parameters

defined in this appendix is as follows:

P(L) = I

P(L ’) =

P(R) = 1—~

DI SCUSS ION

The model presented here is intended to be a highly simplified

representation of the learning and retention processes involved in the

TEC training effectiveness experiments. While a number of the simplifying assumptions included in the model might seem questionable , it can be

shown that the substitution of more detailed and complex assumptions has

little effect on the estimates of the quantities of real interest , i.e.,

P(L) , P(L’) and P(R). For instance, it is assumed that for an item in

State U, the probability of a correct response to that item is 0. It might

seem more reasonable to include a parameter that allows for the possibility

of guessing the correct response to the Item. Inclusion of such a parameter

makes the response probability expressions more complex , but has no effect

on the estimates of the critical parameters t and ~~. As another example,

it is assumed that during the initial test transition to State LT occurs

with equal probability from State U and State L. It can be argued that it

would be closer to the truth to assume that there is no State LT — that

only items in State U are affected by the initial test. However, parameter

estimates obtained under this alternative assumption are very close to those

obtained from the model with State LT. Finally, it is clearly an oversimplification to assume that the same parameter values apply to all individuals

in an experimental group . Again , however, it can be shown that allowing for

individual differences will not result in any substantial changes in the

conclusions drawn from the model.

— 5 9 —

‘

p

‘P. - — T~. + ~~~~~_ -

~~~_ —_- ~~~~~— .— -.- ----—-~~~~~~~~ -.— -—-----•

.

~~ ~~.+ _ -

~~

- +__ _ P _ _ _ ____ i_-.— --.-----
__ - - -- ---- ---- ---.-----

~~~~~~~~~~ -- - -+ -,--- ,---- -- -—--—- --

APPENDI X D SUMMARY OF AC QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSE S

Table D-l

AC PRIMARY MOS DISTRIBUTI ON

Nuaber of Men by M)S

Lesson Training llB llC lii) liE l3B 13E 16P l6R Other

Category Group

I.

~O TL 2 4 2 7 6 3 3 2 4

TO 8 2 2 6 6 3 4 2 2

CL 10 0 0 6 6 3 5 0 4

CO 5 4 3 7 6 2 3 1 4

BL 8 1 2 7 6 3 2 3 4

Squad TL 18 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Radio TO 21 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

CL 19 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

CO 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

EL 12 8 0 0 0 0 0 0

M551 TL 1 0 5 17 0 0 0 0 1

TO 1 0 5 15 0 0 0 0 2

CL 0 0 7 14 0 0 0 0 1

. CO 1 0 5 16 0 0 0 0

BL 0 0 4 23 0 0 0 0 1

Gunne r’s TL 0 0 0 0 21 3 0 0 0

Quadrant TO 0 0 0 0 21 3 0 0 0

CL 0 0 0 0 21 3 0 0 0

CO 0 0 0 0 22 3 0 0 0

BL 0 0 0 0 22 3 0 0 0

TADDS TL 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 9 2

TO 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 9 1

CL 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 8

CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 8 5

BL 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 11 4

- - - - ---.-- ~~ - . - -

~~~~~~~~ -~~~~

- 61 - __

‘

p

A ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - —
Table D-2

AC PAY GRADE DIST RIBUTI ON

Nuaber of Men in Pay Grades

Lesson Training El E2 E3 E4 E5 E6

Category Group

TL 1 5 3 19 4 1

TO 2 6 11 10 6 0

CL 2 10 10 11 1 0

CO 1 3 11 11 9 0

BL 3 9 5 11 7

Squad TL 3 2 4 10 1 0

Radio TO 2 1 6 12 2 1

CL 4 1 8 7 1

CO 0 2 10 10 1 0

EL 1 2 4 10 4 0

M551 U 0 7 2 9 6

TO 3 6 4 7 3

CL 1 4 3 12 2 0

CO 0 4 6 11 2 0

BL 0 8 5 6 8 1

Gunner’ a U 0 9 5 10 0 0

Quadrant TO 2 8 5 8 1 0

CL 1 8 4 10 1 0

CO 3 5 2 15 0

BL 2 7 2 11 2

TL 1 7 6 2 3

TO 0 5 12 2 2 0

CL 1 5 8 3 2

CO 1 8 4 8 3

BL 2 6 7 7 1 0

0 — 62 —

-

~ -~: ~~~~~~~ ..-

- -

• :- ‘p

“~~~~~

- 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Table D—3

AC TIME IN SERVICE DISTRIBUTI ON

Nuither of Men by Time In Service

Lesson Training No <1 Year 1—2 Years 2—3 Years 3—4 Years 4+Years Category Group Response

M60 TL 6 11 8 3 5 0

TO 10 11 4 2 8 0

CL 13 10 4 1 6

CO 7 9 8 2 9

EL 12 8 4 1 11

Squad TL 3 10 3 1 3 0

Radio TO 7 8 3 2 4 0

CL 3 11 3 0 4 0

CO 4 11 4 2 2 0

BL 1 11 3 3 3 0

M55l TL 6 3 6 2 7

TO 11 5 2 2 3

CL 5 8 7 0 2

CO 6 8 7 1 1 0

BL 8 7 3 1 8 1

Gunner ’s TL 10 4 5 1 4 0

Quadran t TO 8 10 0 1 5 0

CL 10 8 2 3 1 0

CO 9 9 1 1 5 0

EL 10 6 2 1 6 0

TAADS TL 8 5 1 2 2 1

TO 6 10 2 2 1 0

CL 9 5 2 1 2 0

CO 11 5 4 1 3 0

BL 9 4 6 4 0

0 — 63 —

—P

- - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

- ‘

~:- 

- 

‘p

—,- — 

-

~

___________________ ii. — - __a. ~~~~~~~ -

~ — . ~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~- — — — ~~

— —
—

Table D-4

VIEWING PRIOR TO EXPERIMENT BY AC SOLDIERS OF TEC

LESSONS IN THEIR SUBJECT AREA

Repor ts of Soldiers

Lesson Training Prior No Prior No

Category Group Viewing Viewing Response

TL 3 31 0

TO 4 31 0

CL 4 30 1

CO 2 30 2

EL 4 33 0

Squad TL 0 20 0

Radio TO 0 24 0

CL 1 20 2

CO 1 22 0

EL 2 19 1

M551 TL 1 22 0

TO 1 23 0

CL 0 24 0

CO 0 24 0

BL 0 26 1

Gunner ’s TL 2 22 0

Quadrant TO 4 20 0

ci.. 0 24 0

CO 2 23 0

BL 0 24 0

TADt~

S ri

~ 

4 15 0

TO 3 19 0

CL 1 18 0

CO 3 20 1

BL 1. 20 2

0

-‘p .

~~ .: “f ~

L ~~~~~~ _i__ - ----~~

-.

~~~~~- ~~~~ -

~

-W 9-~~~~~~ ~~ - L ~~~~~ L

~ I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
r

Table D-5

AC PREVIOUS TRAINING DISTRIBUTION

Previous Training

Initial After Both lET

Lesson Training No EntrYaTng (lET) lET and after No

Category Group Training only only lET Response

M6O TL 11 14 1 7 0

TO 10 10 6 9 0

ci 5 12 1 14 2

CO 4 15 4 10 2

BL 6 14 3 13 0

Squad TL 6 10 2 2 0

Radio TO 8 9 4 3 0

CL 6 7 0 6 2

CO 9 8 2 4 0

BL 4 7 4 5 1

M551 TL 17 3 4 0 0

TO 20 0 2 1 0

CL 17 3 2 0 0

CO 18 2 3 0 0

BL 25 1 1 0 1.

Gunner’s TL 7 4 7 6 0

Quadrant TO 10 5 4 4 1

CL 10 4 4 6 0

CO 9 4 7 5 0

BL 13 7 3 1 1

TADDS TL 7 8 2 2 0

TO 10 10 0 1

CL 9 8 1 1 0

CO 11 6 0 5 2

EL 11 10 1 1 0

a ECT and/or AlT

0

—65

- 

_

~ - ~~~~~~ _ - _ - -- .

_____

- - ~~~I

-

~~~~._ :.P ’p __ . _ -

- - :-

______ - _________________________---- -~~~~ ---
_

APPENDIX E AC CONVENTIONA L INSTRUCTION

M60: 23 instructors from 12 battalions.

All instructors were E5 or E6 (in one armor

battalion an E5 taught both M60 classes).

Mean instruction time was 2.0 hours.

Squad Radio : 6 instructors from 3 battalions.

All instructors were E5 or E6.

Mean instruction time was 1.5 hours.

M55l: 5 Instructors from 3 battalions.

2 instructors were E6, 2 were 03 and 1 was an

01 (the 01 taught 2 classes).

Mean instruction time was 1.5 hours.

Gunner’s Quadrant: 6 instructors from 3 battalions.

All instructors were ES or E6.

Mean instruction time was 1.7 hours.

TADDS: 5 instructors from 3 battalions.

1 instructor was an E4, 4 were E6 (1 E6 taught

2 classes).

Mean instruction time was 1.6 hours.

— ——~~~~~~~~~~ ~~ - - -__ _____

~~~

~~~ CzDXNG PAQ~ BLAMC-NO? tILI~~D

- — 

_ ______-- --

P

. —6 7 —

- p

~ ,~~

-

, P &~~‘ 

-

- -

- P - - - -

p P~ - ~

; p ~- ~~

• ~~~~ ‘p

____ ____ --- - - — -- ----------——-.- ——.--— 

~~~~~~~~~ A 

~

IT— ._:L_ — ~~— — - —P

_

- -P~~~~~ -~~ _ ~~~~~~~~ —~~ —— - —P— ~~~~ —— — — — —
~~ --P_ -- ~~~~~~~~~~~ -—-- - --P~~~~ _ ------—_ _ _ -~~~--- -- -— -~~~~ - -- - - — _ -—-- --- ------ --_ _

APPENDIX F SUMMARY OF NG QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES . 

-

Table F—l

RC PRIMARY MOS DISTRIBUT ION

Nui±er of Men by MOS

Lesson Training liB l].C liD llE l3B l3E l6F Other

Category Group

Ti.. 7 0 1 4 2 0 7 8

TO 7 2 1 4 3 0 8 7

CL 6 0 4 3 5 0 6 8

CO 1 5 1 4 5 0 8 4

BL 6 1 3 5 3 0 7 6

Squad TL 16 1 0 0 1 0 0 4

Radio TO 9 5 0 0 1 0 0 5

CL 15 3 0 0 1 0 0 2

CO 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 5

BL 12 3 0 0 0 0 0 5

M551 TL 2 0 2 12 0 0 0 6

TO 0 1 1 13 0 0 0 3

CL 0 0 5 10 0 0 0 4

CO 1 0 3 II 0 0 0 3

BL 0 0 1 10 0 0 0 0

Gunner’s TL 1 0 0 0 11 0 0 9

Quadrant TO 0 0 0 0 10 5 0 6

CL 0 0 0 0 19 1 0 4

CO 0 0 0 0 15 2 0 4

EL 0 0 0 0 13 2 0 7

TADDS TL 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 1

TO 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 7

CL 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 4

CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 7

BL 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 6

P . 

- - _— .- — 

~~~~~~~~

p _ --— -

~~ 

- 69 - 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ fII1~ D

- 

-i-.

-

~ /

~P P ~~~~~~~~ ~~ -

- - 

_

‘

P__• ~~~~~~~ 

- -P_ -P’ . P

~~_~~P ~ P - P.

___ ___ -

~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
P - -

Table P—2

RC PAY GRADE DISTRIBUTION

Nuaber of Men in Pay Grades

Lesson Training El E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 No

Category Group Response

M60 U 0 2 3 7 9 3 1 4

TO 1 2 5 12 8 0 0 4

CL 1 3 7 8 7 3 0 3

CO 0 1 5 8 7 3 0 4

BL 3 3 1 7 8 5 1 3

Squad U 1 5 8 2 5 1 0 0

Radio TO 0 2 2 2 3 2 1 8

CL 0 6 7 5 2 1 0 0

0 3 5 3 1 1 1 7

BL 0 2 2 7 1 1 0 7

)651 U 0 0 5 6 8 3 0 0

TO 0 2 3 4 5 4 0 0

CL 0 1 6 5 6 1 0 0

GO 0 1 2 10 4 0 1 0

EL 0 0 2 2 3 4 0 0

Gunner ’s TL 0 3 4 6 7 0 1 0

Quadrant TO 0 1 3 8 6 2 0 2

CL 0 1 3 11 5 3 0 1

CO 1 1 5 8 4 0 0 2

BL 1 2 6 5 6 0 0 2

TADDS TL 0 1 1 9 4 1 0 2

TO 0 1 2 2 8 4 1 1

CL 0 0 0 5 9 1 0 1

CO 0 0 5 5 6 1 1 1

EL 0 0 0 3 11 3 1 0

~

0

—70 —

4P

- 

- 

-

~ :~ --i. -

~~

- 

~~~~ a-’— ’ - . - 

.

-.

~~~ :: ‘

~~ 

;

~~~~~~~~~ P• ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ . 

- .‘- - -

___________ 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -P —----- - -—-- -

_-- —-
~ — - -— - ——-_ ~ - -— --- - —-- - - - _ --~~~~ -—_ --- _ _ -—_ - _ _ 

-‘

Table F—3

RC TIME IN SERVICE DISTRIBUTION

of Men by Tlnm In Service

Lesson Training Years No

Catego ry Group <1 1—2 2—3 3—4 4— 5 5—6 6—7 7— 8 8+ Response

M60 TL 1 1 3 2 2 4 7 0 5 4

TO 5 3 3 3 2 1 5 2 3 5

CL 2 4 3 2 3 4 4 0 7 3

CO 0 5 1 2 1 4 0 1 9 5

BL 4 1 2 0 4 4 3 2 8 3

Squad TL 4 4 2 2 3 4 1 2 0 0

Radio TO 1 3 1 0 1 2 1 0 3 8

CL 4 10 2 0 0 1 1 3 0 0

CO 2 4 2 1 2 0 0 0 2 8

EL 0 2 5 0 1 3 0 0 2 7

11551 TL 3 2 3 1 0 4 1 2 6 0

TO 2 1 2 2 3 1 2 3 2 0

CL 0 1 3 1 1 6 3 2 2 0

CO 0 1 2 1 4 4 1 4 1 0

BL 0 2 2 0 1 3 1 0 2 0

Gunner ’s TL 4 2 1 4 0 0 2 1 6 1

Quad ran t TO 1 1 1 4 2 2 3 1 6 1

CL 3 1 1 5 2 2 0 3 6 1

CO 3 2 2 2 2 0 0 1 5 4

BL 5 3 1 3 1 6 0 0 1 2

TADDS U 1 1 0 4 1 4 0 3 3 1

TO 2 1 1 0 0 4 1 0 8 2

CL 0 1 2 0 0 2 1 3 6 1

CO 2 2 0 1 4 1 1 1 5 2

BL 0 1 0 1 1 2 1 2 10 0

P. —71 —

4P• 4 ~~~1

p - - 

- T~~~~~~I

~~ TIIT1~ - - 

_ - . P
Table F—4

VIEWING PRIOR TO EXPERIMENT BY RC SOLDIERS OF TEC

LESSONS IN ThEIR $U~JECT AREA

Reports of Soldiers

Lesson Training Prior No Prior No

Category Group Viewing Viewing Response

TL 2 24 3

TO 2 27 3

CL 2 27 3

CO 4 19 5

BL 1 25 3

Squad U 4 18 0

Radio TO 2 10 8

CL 0 21 0

CO 1 11 7

EL 3 9 7

)651 U 1. 21 0

TO 0 22 0

CL 0 24 0

CO 1 20 0

EL 0 22 0

• Gunner ’s U 1 19 1

Quadrant TO 0 21 1

CL 2 21 1

CO 0 17 4

EL 1 19 2

TADDS TL 2 15 1

TO 0 19 0

CL 1 14 1

CO 0 17 1

EL 0 18 0

,

— 72 —

- - -

~~~~~~~ - 

--: - - - 

- 

- - --- -—

~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Table F-S

RC PREVIOUS TRAINING DISTRIBUTION

Previous Training

Initial Entry After Both lET

Lesson Training No Tng (lET) lET and after No

Category Group Training only only lET Respons e -

M60 U 7 8 7 4 3

TO 14 8 2 5 3

CL 11 8 6 4 3

CO 10 4 4 4 6

EL 13 9 2 4 3

Squad TL 10 2 3 7 0

Radio TO 3 4 3 2 8

CL 11 5 3 2

CO 4 0 5 5 7

EL 6 3 2 2 7

M551 TL 18 2 1 1 0

TO 16 0 2 0 0

CL 17 1 0 1 0

CO 16 0 1 1 0

BL 10 1 0 0 0

Gunner’s TL 12 1 5 2 1

Quadrant TO 17 4 0 0 1 • CL 14 3 6 0 1

CO 13 0 2 2 4

BL 14 1 3 2 2

TADDS TL 14 0 3 0 1

TO 16 0 3 0 0

CL 10 0 5 0 1

CO 14 0 4 0 1

EL 18 0 0 0 0

a BCT and/or AlT

— 73 —

0

______
- -

~~~~ ~~~— - ~~~~~~~

APPENDIX G NG CONVENTIONAL INSTRUCTION

M60: 19 instructors from 12 battalions .

1 instructor was an 01, 1 was an E8 and all others

were E5 or E6 (both classes were taugh t by 1

instructor in 2 armor battalions and 3 FA battalions).

Mean instruction time was 1.8 hours .

Squad Radio: 6 instructors from 3 battalions.

All instructors were ES or E6.

Mean instruction time was 1.6 hours.

M55l: 3 instructors from 3 battalions.

2 instructors were 01 and 1 was an 02 (all instructors

taught 2 classes).

Mean instruction time was 1.4 hours .

Gunner’s Quadrant : 6 instructors from 4 battalions .

1 instructor was an ES , 1 was an E6 , 2 were 02

and 3 were 03 (the ES and E6 each taught 2

classes).

Mean instruction time was 2.1 hours.

TADDS : 5 instructors from 3 battalions .

1 instructor was an ES, 3 were E6 and 1 was an 01

(1 E6 taught 2 classes).

Mean instruction time was 2.3 hours.

L __ __________

‘ P

- . p4* p

~~~ ~ .- 

- 

-

_______ — 

P.

___________ ____
- ~~~-- ~~~~~~~~~~ P- ---

~~~~ --~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -- - ---P~~

-

~~~~~~~~ 

-

DISTRIBUTION

ARI DistributIon List

4 OASO (M& RAI 2 HOUSACOEC, Ft Ord. ATTN: Library

2 HODA (DAMIPCSZ ) I HOUSACOEC. Ft Ord , ATrN: ATEC—EX—E—Hum Factors

1 HODA (DAPE.PBR 2 USAEEC, Ft Benjamin Harrison~ ATTN: Library

1 HOOA (DAMAPAR) 1 US/~PACDC. Ft Benjamin Herrigon, ATTN: ATCP—HR

I HODA (DAPE-HRE-PO( 1 USA Comm—Elect Sch, Ft Monmouth, ATTN: ATSN—EA

1 HODA (SCRO-ID) I USAEC. Ft Monmouth, ATTN ; AMSEL—CT-HDP

1 HODA (DAMI.DOT-C) 1 USAEC..Ft Monmouth, ATrN: AMSEL—PA-P

I HOD A (DAPC.PMZ-A) I USAEC, Ft Monmouth, ATTN: AMSEL— SI—C B

1 HODA (OACH-PPZ.Al 1 USAEC. Ft Monmouth, ATTN : C, Fad Jrv Br

1 HODA (DA PE.HRE) 1 USA Materia l, Sys Anal Agcy, Aberdeen, ATTN: AMXSY—P

1 HODA (OAPE~MPO-C) 1 Edgewood Arsenal, Aberdeen, ATTN: SA REA—BL—H

I HODA (DAPE-OW ) 1 USA Ord Cir & Sch, Aberdeen, ATTN: ATS L—T EM—C

I HODA (DAPE-HRL) 2 USA Hum (rig, Lab. Aberdeen, ATTN: Library /Dir

1 HQDA (DAPE-CPS) I USA Combat Armt Trig Sd. Ft Banning, ATTN: Ad Supervisor

I I-400A (QAFD-MFA) 1 USA Infantry Hum Rach Unit. Ft Senning, ATTN: Chief

I HODA (DARO-ARS-P) 1 USA Infantry Sd. Ft Binning. ATTN: STEBC—TE—T

I HQOA (DAPC.PA.S.A? I USASMA, Ft BIiss~ ATTN: ATSS—LRC

1 HODA (DUSA.OR) I USA Ale 0.1 Sd., Ft Bliss, ATTN: AT$A—CTD—ME

1 HODA (DAMO-ROR) I USA Air Oaf Sch, Ft Slit,, ATTN: Tech Lib

1 HODA (DASG) 1 USA Air Del Sd, ‘

~

t Bliss. ATT N: FILES

1 HODA (DA1O.Pl) I USA Air Def Sd. Ft Bliss . ATTN: STEBD—PO

I Chief . Consult Div (DA.OTSG) , Adelphi, MD I USA Cmd & General Stf College. Ft L.avenworth, ATTN: Lib

1 Mit AiM. Hum Ass, OODR&E . DAD )E&LS) I USA Cmd & General Stf College , Ft L.eevenworth, ATTN: ATSW—SE’.’L

I HO USARAL APO Seattle, ATTN: ARAGP.R I USA Cmd & G.nerel Stf College, Ft Le,venworth , ATTN: Ed Advisor

1 HO First Army, ATTN: AFKA.Ol.Tl I USA Combined Armi Cmbt Dcv Act . Ft Leavenworth. ATTN: DepCdr

2 HO Fifth Army, Ft Sam Houston I USA Combined Arms Cmbt Des Act, Ft Leavenworth, ATTN: CCS

1 Dl’, Army Sd Stud.a Ofc. ATTN: OAVCSA (DSP I USA Combined Arms Cmbt Oe~ Act, Ft Leavenworth, ATTN: ATCASA

I Ofc Chief of Sd, Studies Ole I USA Combined Arm, Cmbt Div Act, Ft Leavenworth, A11’N: ATCAC-O--E

I OCSPER P ATTN: CPS/OCP I USA Combined Arms Cmbt Des Act , Ft La.venworth. ATIN: ATCACC -Cl

I The Army Lib, Pentagon, ATTN: P58 Chief ¶ USAFCOM P Night Vision Lab, Ft Belvoir , ATIN: AMSEL—NV—S D

I The Army IlL,, Pentagon, ATTN: ANPAL 3 USA Computer Syt Cmd. Ft Belvoir , ATTN: Tech Libre y

I CIc, Ant Sect of the Army (R&D) I IJSAMERDC, Ft Belvoir , ATI’N: STSFB—OQ

I T.,~b Support 0Cc. OJCS I USA Eng Sd., Ft Belvoi r, ATTN: Library

1 USASA, Arlington, ATTN: lARD-I I USA Topographic Lab, Ft Belv~ir , ATTN: EU—ID— S

1 USA R,th OIc, Durham. ATTN: Life Sciencn Dir I USA Topographic Lab, Ft Belvoir, ATTN: STINFO Center

2 USARIEM , Natick , ATTN: SGRD-UE-CA I USA Topographic Lab, Ft Belvoir , ATTN: ETL—GSL

I IJSATTC. Ft Clayton . ATTN. STETC.MO-A ¶ USA Intelligence Ctr & Scfi, Ft Huachuca. ATTN: d O—MS

I USAIMA , Ft Bragg, A’fl N: ATSU-CTD-OM I USA lntellig.ince Ctr & ScIs, Ft Huachuci, ATTN: ATS—CTO—MS

I USAIMA , Ft Bragg, ATIN: Marq uat lib 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Set., Ft Huactiuca, ATTN: ATSI—TE

I US WAC Ctr & Set., Ft McClellan, ATTN: Lib 1 USA Intelligence Ctr & Sch, Ft Huachuc.., ATTN: ATSI’-TEX—GS

1 US WAC Ctr & Set., Ft McClell an , ATIN: Tng Dir I USA Intelligence Ctr & Set., Ft Huacliuca . ATTN: ATSI—CTS--O R

1 USA Q~

,.rte rm asts r Set., Ft Lee, ATTN: ATSM.TE I USA lntelligenci’ Ctr & Sd., Ft Husch uca . ATIN: ATS I—CTO—DT

I Intelligence Mater ial Des Ofc, EWL , Ft Holaburd 1 USA Intelligence Cir & Set.. Ft Huachuca . ATTN: ATSI—CTO.—C$

I USA SE Signal Set., Ft Cordon. ATIN: ATSO’EA I USE. Intelligence Ctu & Sd.. Ft Huachuca. A’fl’N: DAS/SRD

1 USA Chaplai n Ct, & Set., Ft Hamilton , ATTN: ATSC.TEPRD I USA Intelligence Cu & Sct. . Ft Huachuca , ATTN: ATSI—TEM

I USATSCH, Ft Eucti,. A’fl’N: Educ Advisor 1 USA Inetlligence Ct, & Sch, Ft Huachuca , ATTN: Library

I USA War College, Carlisle Barracks. A’fl’N: Lib I COP, HO Ft I’luac+uuca . AllIs: Tech Ref Div

2 WRAIR , Nouropsychiatry Div 2 COP . USA Electronic Prvg Grd . AT’TN: STEEP—MT— S

1 DLI , SOA. Monterey 3 Ha, TCATA, ATTNt Tech Library

I USA Concept Anal Agcy, Bethesda , ATThS M0CA-M R I HQ. TCAT A, ATTN. AT CAT.OP.Q. Ft h ood

1 USA Concept Anal Agcy , Bethesda , ATTN. MOCA-JF 1 USA RecruIt ing Cmd, Ft Sheridan . ATTN. USARCPM~

P

I USA Arctic Test Ct~, APO Seattle , ATINs STEAC.PL.Ml 1 SenIor Army Ady .. USAFA000/TAC. ElgIn AF Aux Fid No.

~ I USA Arctic Test Ctr, APO Seattl e , A’T’TNt AMSTE~

PL-TS I HQ USARPAC . DCSPER . APOSF 9655$ , ATTNs GPPE.SE

I USA Armament Cmd , pist on s Artensi , ATTN. ATS PC-TCM I Sllmson Lib, Academy of Health ScIencel, Ft Sam Houtton

1 USA Armam ent Cmd , Rock lela nd , ATTNS AMSAR-T OC I MacIn. Corps Inst.. ATTN. Dean-MCI

I FAA-NAFEC . At lant l e City, ATTNz LIbrary I HQUSMC. Comm indant , ATTNs Cod. MTMT

I FAA.NAFEC. Atiofl t Ic CIty. ATTN. Hum Enar Br I HQUSMC . Commandant , Alms Code MP1.2O.

~$

1 FAA AeronautIcal Ctr . Oklahoma CItY. ATTN. AA C’4 4 o 2 USCO Academy, New London , ATTN. Admi ssi on

2 USA FId Arty Sth. Ft Sill , ATTN . LIbrary 2 USCO Academy , New London , ATt N. Library

I USA Armo r Scfl , Ft Knox , ATTN. Library USCO Train ing Ctr , NY , ATTN. CO

I USA Armor Scas . Ft Knox , ATm, ATStI’OI ~

E I USCG.TraInIng Ct. , NY, ATTN, EduC SvC Otc

I USA Armor Set., Ft Kn ox . AT1’N: ATSB-OT~

TP 1 USCO. Pryc hol fl ea 8’, DC, ATTN. OP 1/6 2

I USA Armor Set.. Ft Knox , ATTN. ATSB-CO-AD I HO MId-Rang. B’. MC 05*. QuanhicO. ATTN. P&S Dlv

- - I l

~ EGEDI~~ PAGE BLAMC-~OT tILitlD

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ —~ - -~~~~~~~~~ -

~~~~—~ .-

~~~ , - -
---- -

~~~~ -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

---- - -

~~

1 US Marine Corps Liaision 0Cc, AMC. Alexandria. ATTN: AMCGS—F 1 Del & Civil Inst of Enviro Medicine. Canada

I USATRADOC. Ft Monroe, Afl’N: ATRO—ED I AIR CRESS, Kensington, ATTP4: info Sys Br

8 USATRADOC . Ft Monroe, ATEN: ATPR—AD 1 MIlitaerpsykologlsk T$n,ata, Cepehagen

I USATRADOC, Ft Monroe, A’fl’N: ATTS—EA I Military Attache, French Emb.sey, ATTN: Doe Sec

¶ USA Forces Cmd. Ft McPherson, ATTN: LIbrary 1 Medecln Chef, C.E.R.P.A.—Ar,eesal, Toulon/NavaI Frence

2 USA Aviation Teat Bd, Ft Puck.,, ATTN: $

~

‘

~~(3~~Ø 1 Prin Scientific Off, App1 Hum Engr Pads Dlv, Ministry

I USA Agcy for Aviation Safety, Ft Pucker, AT’TN: Ubrary of Defense. New Delhi

I USA Agey for Aviation Safety, Ft Pucker, AT1’N: Educ Advisor 1 Pert Pact. Ole Llbrvy, AKA, lsr.el Defense Forces

1 USA Aviation Sd., Ft Pucker, ATTN: PC) Drawer 0 1 Mlnlstsrls van Define)., 000P/KL AId Sod a.)

1 HQUSA Aviation Sys Cmd. St Louis, AIIM: AMSAV—ZDR Paychologieche Zak.n, The Hague, Netherlands

2 USA Aviation Sys TaM Act., Edwvda AFS, AIIM: SAVTE’- T

1 (iSA Air 0,1 Set.. Ft Bliss, ATTN: ATSA TEN

I LISA Air Mobility Rach & 0ev I.ab, MoNet. Fld, ATTh: SAVDL—AS

1 USA Aviation Sd.. Ret Trig Mge, Ft Rucker, ATTN: ATST—T— RTM

1 USA Aviation Set., CO. Ft Pucker, AIIM: ATST—D—A

1 HO, DARCOM , Alexandria, A1’TN: AMXCO—TL -

I HO, DARCOM, Alexandria , A’fl’N: COP

I US Military Academy, West Point, ATT’N: Serials Unit

-- 1 US Military Academy. West Point, AIIM: Ole of Milt Ldrahp

I US Military Academy, West Point, AIIM: MAO R

1 USA Standardization Op. UK , FPO NV, A’fl’N: MASE—OC

1 Ole of Naval Rsch, Arlington, AT’l’N: Code 452

3 Ole of Naval Rich, Arlington, AIIM: Code 458

I Ole of Nasal Rich, Arlington, ATTN: Code 450

I 0Cc of Naval Awls , Arlington. ATTN : Code 441

1 Naval Aerospc Mad Ret Lab, Pensacola , ATTN: Acous Set. Div

I Naval A.rospc Med Re~ Lab, Pensacola, ATTN: Cod. L5I

1 Naval Aerospc Med Re, Lab , Pensacola , ATTN: Cod. L5

I Chief of NavPers , ATTN: Pert-OR

1 NAVAIRSTA , Norfolk , ATTN: Safety Cu

I Nay Oceanographic, DC, ATTN: Code 6251, Charts & Tech

1 Center of Naval Anal, AIIM: Doe Cu

I NavAirSysCom , ATTN: AIR—53t3C

1 Nav BuMed,A’TTN: 713

1 NaeHellcopterSubSqua 2. FPO SF 96801

1 AFHRL (Fl) WIlliam AFB

I AFMPL (IT) Lowry AFB

I AFHRL IAS) W PAFB,OH

2 AFI4RL )DOJZ) Brooks AFB

1 AFHRL (DOJN) Lackland AF8

I HQUSAF (INYSO)

1 HOUSAF )DPXXA)

1 AFVTG (PD) Randolph AFB

3 AMRL (ICE) WPAF8, OH

2 AF Inst of Tech. WPAF B, Oil , AT1’N: ENE/SL

I ATC )XPTD ) Rindoiph AFB

1 USAF Aero Med Lib, Brooks AFB ISIJL—41, ATIM: DOC SEC

1 AFOSR (ML), Arlington

1 AF Log Cmd. McClellan AFB, AiIM: ALC/OPCRB

I Air Force Academy, CO. ATTN: Dept of Sal Sen

5 NsvPers & 0ev CIr, San Diego

2 Navy Med Neuropsyctulatric Rich Unit, San Diego

I Nay Electronic Lab, San Diego , ATTiC: Rae Lab

1 N.y TrngC.n, San Diego, ATTN: Code 9000-Lib

I NavPoctGraScl., Monterey, A’flit: Cod. 5BAa

1 NeePoetGr.Sch, Monterey, ATTN: Code 2124

1 NavTrngfqulpdu, Oriando, AiIM: Tech Lub

I US Dept of Labor. DC, A TTIC: Manpower Admin

I US Dept of .)uet,oe, DC. ATTN: Drug Enforce Admin

I Nat Bur of Standards. DC, ATDi: Computer Info Section

1 Nat Clearing House for NH—Info , Rockvilhe

1 Denser Federal Ctr, Lakewood . AiIM: BLM

12 Dafanic Documentation Canter

4 Dir Psych, Army Hg, Russell DIes, Canberra

I Scientific Advsr, MI) Sd, Army Np, Puieell Ole., Canberra

I WI arid Air Attache, Auitrian Embaisy

¶ Can Ire tie Rech.yche Des Facteurs , Humelne tie Ia Defense

National.. Brussels

2 CanadIan Joint Staff Washington

I C/Air Staff , Royal Canadi.n AF , ATIN: Pr’, Std An.) Br

3 Os~af , Canadian Del Red s Staff , AIIM: C/CRDS(W)

• 4 British Del Staff . BritIsh Embassy, Washingt on

— 78 —

- --~~ - ~