Technical Report 621

Armor Procedural Skills:

Learning and Retention

N C. Mazie Knorr, James H. Harris, aind Bridgette K. O'Brien

0 Human Resources Research Organization

Paul J. StIcha IW Decisions and Designs, Inc. r.

and

Stephen L Gol•berg

Army Research Institute

ARI Field Unit at Fort Knox, Kentucky

Training Research Laboratory

7-.- ..:T

CD MAY?71 C.3

t • . UI. . S;. A r m y ,. ..: .

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

February 1984

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited,

85 5 _07 008 r -J r. ° '
U. S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

A Field Operating Agency under the Jurisdiction of the

Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

L. NEALE COSBY

EDGAR M. JOHNSON Colonel, IN

Technical Director Comnmander

Itesearch accomplished under contract Accession for

for the Department of the Army NTIS GRA&ii

Decisions and Designs, Inc. zaow.0

Technical review by By

Susan L. Burroughs- Distributlon/

Bob G. Witmner Ava8ilobility Codes

DiPst special

NOTICES

DISTRIBUTION; Primary distribution Of this report has been mede by ARI. Lplease address correspondence concerning distributionl of reports to: U.S.

VPERI-POT, 5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22533-5600

FINAL DISPOSITION: This report may be destroyed when It Is no longer

-ýoesd. Pleas* do not return It to the U.S. Army Research Institute for

the Behavioral and Social Sclences.

NOTE: Tli, findings In this report are not to be construed as an official

Departm~ent of the Army position, unless so designated by other authorized

documents.

-,...... .. . .-v ~ **-
StuAt~CASI ~ tUNCLASSIFIED_________________

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE t31011 C0WPL31U PORN :

Technical Report 6217

1p4. '"Tt S(Am# fab.woi 1. Type o OV mPORTS P.mos coveats

ARMO~R PROCEDURAL SKILLS: LEARNING AND. Interim Report

RETENTION * P -ftwRiWO 0041. ACSPOAT ww

DD14/PR82-13- 334

~ 1. AUTIOs) CONTRACT OR GRAWT NUMIRSRt.)

C. M. Knorr, J. H. Harris, B . K. O'Brien

(HumRO) ; P. J. Sticha (DDI), S. L. Goldberg MDA 903-81-C-0517

S. PICRPOftMIMS ORGANIZATION NAM ous AO~ LUM.pmJ TM Ief. IME

Decisions and D~esigns, Zn fIAAWSEun M.~t

Suite 600, 8400 Westpark Drive 2Q26 374 3A794

McLean, VA 22101

11. CONTROLLING OIPIeCC IIAMS AND A900111 It. as1CPOaR OATS

U.S. Army Research Institute for the 'ehavioral February 1984

and ocia Scinces ATTN PER-IK s. UMOCSAOf VAGU

5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22331-5600 69

14. woNIOMIMg A-GENCYZ -NAwC & jAOOUESj(UI gIuoet fee.. co.ieimg Offlee) 1S. SIMIJAITuY CLASS, (fi 11141 Popof)

t LUNCLASS IFIED

Is& DEC~ FSIICATIONIDOWNOftADING

IS. DIST~bSUTSON STATEMENT (o# Wei Roporf)

* ~Approved for public release; di.stribution unlimited.

17. DgTISuTIROUTO STATE[MENT (of A.* obstroae antopeed is block 2. it iog.,.," he" 94"01

W* SJPPLCMEHIARV NOTIES

Technical quality of this research mo~nitored by Stephen L. Goldberg.

It. Key WORDOS (caUi'.M. an ro..,.. aid* of moco...w mi 4 UE1nt1i or Alook ma"14A.'

Skill learning, Army training,

Training, Armor training,

Armor job performance.

Retention (psychology) Modeling,-

M4 AfthACI (Cawa Aeem MVM d N mmows"- *Eedilp "~ W41"S m"nA')

ýA critical issue in planning military training is in estimating the requirements for initial and refresner training. The present research investigated the learning and retention of a subset of eight armor tanks selected to

represent tasiks that vary in length, complexity, and extent of practice in

operational units. Two data collections were conducted. one collected performance data fro~m soldiers in operational units; the other utilized soldiers

attending One Station Unit Training (OSUT) in Arimor Military Occupational L Specialty (19E). Soldiers in the operational unit samirle had been. (ContinurpA) roamV DO 143 991oso or I wow 6 it eOsai.*TE

7- SecIpmTV CLASSSIPICATION OF THIS VAGE (SIHW *.£,.,d
WVCLASSIFIED

665WPOTY COAOISPCAflON of Tots paegt(ftm 0. -0

Item 20 (Continued)

"_ut of OSUT entry training for up to 72 months.

- Ll- Spa,-icipat- a.•mg . : for tk . f96 by1 

t __•__ eks-_ator- The operational unit soldiers took a one-time performance teat on all eight tasks. Results were

consistent with previous skill retention research. Multiple regression

analysis was used to predict the slopes of the retention function for each

task for the coubined saplle.. retiton e ¢,,o aewt •-a la - SPrpwroLef--cf- -to 0_4 inte"utf

rate, 4nd aeasues- of comple•ity a-P Ant-rerg'-e. - as uI 1 i~tor, =.-

--&kill Aacay.x4Pbe The results of the OSUT, unit, and conbined samples support a representation of the skill retention curve in which rapid decay occurs soon after training with little change in performance for samples tested

later.

.. %° %

,,4"

ii SgCU:IT- CLASSIVICA!S@,I OF THIS PAORU"bt. DS tet'd
Technical Report 621

Armor Procedural Skills:

Learning and Retention

- C. Mazle Knerr, James H. Harris, and Bridgette K. O'Brien

Human Resources Research Organization

Pali J. sticha

Decisions and Designs, Inc.

and

Stephen L Goldberg

Army Research Institute

Submitted by

l Donald F. Haggard, Chief

ARI Field Unit at Fort Knox, Kentucky

Approved as technically adequate

and submitted for publication by

"Harold F. O'Neil, Jr., Director

Training Research Laboratory

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

"5001 EIsenhower Avenue, Aoekandria, Virginia 22333-000

Office. Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

S2 Oetlrtment of the Army

February 1984

Army ProJect Number Education and Training 20203743A794

Ao-'eowd for putMic Melmo; di•tribution unlimited.

• liii
ARI Research Reports and Technical Reports are intended for sponsors of

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

for implementation at the time of publication are presented In the last part

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

agencies by briefing or Disposition Form.

iv.-

'-:'2"

. •.°'°oiv
FORIWORD

Modern armor weapon systems require soldiers to learn, retain, and be

able to perform a large number of frequently complicated procedural tasks.

%be Army ;esearch Institute at Fort Knox has undertaken research to improve

methods for training those tasks and to estimate the requirements for training them in operational armor units.

Procedural tasks are performed in preparing tanks for operations and

: : during cou•at. Their correct performance prevents unnecessary damage to

equipment and helps to ensure success in combat. The present research involves a number of tasks that are initially taught in One Station Unit

S- Training (OSUT) at the Armor Center and then performed and trained intermittently in Armor units. The purpose of the research reported here is to

"provide a data base showing the acquisition and retention of armor proce-

*• dural skills. The data base will be used to build models of skill learninS

.** and retention that can be useful in management of training and to replicate

the findings of earlier skill retention research, which demonstrated the

importance of a number of variables in predicting performance over time.

" The results of this project feed into a body of research in skill re-

-" "tention performed by the Army Research Institute. The research has impli-

* cations for training designers in Army schools and for training managers

Sin urits.

Technical Director

-7.1

r .V.
ARMOR PROCEDURAL SKILLSi LEARNING AND IMTENTION

Vo."

"EXECUTIVE SUMPMARY

Requi rement:

Soldiers' performance of armor procedural skills is a complex mixture of

"training experiences, task characteristics, individual abilities, and on-thejob performance history. The present research was performed to establish a

data base for retention modeling and to replicate previous findings that

identified factors affecting skill learning and retention.

Procedure:

A subset of eight armor procedural tasks trained during One Station Unit

Training (OSUT) were selected to represent tasks that vary in length, cornplexity, and extent of practice in operational unit. Data collections were

conducted using soldiers in operational armor units and soldiers attending

"CSUT. The operational unit sample had all completed OSUT within 72 months

S'.. prior to the study. The operational unit data collection consisted of soldiers performing the eight tasks in a "round robin" fashion. Each soldier's

performance was scored. If soldiers made errors, they were given varying

levels of prompts sufficient to allow them to continue and eventually complete performance of the task. The OSUT data collection involved training and re- -'

tention testing of soldiers who had received formal training on tasks prior .

to participating in the research. Each soldier performed two of the eight "tasks. For each task tested, the soldier reported twice to the test site.

"In the first session, soldiers performed a task five times, using the same

prompting procedure described above. Approximately 4 weeks after the first

session, soldiers returned to perform the task one additional time.

Findings:

The percentage of task steps performed correctly was used as the primary dependent measure because none of the soldiers in the operational unit

sample correctly performed three of the tasks. There were no significant

" correlations in the operational unit sample between task performance and

months since graduation from OSUT, months since last Table VIII, or educa- i tion level. For the OSUT sample, learning over the first five trials was

charted as was retention between the fifth trial and the sixth trial administered 4 weeks later. The effect of learning was significant for all trials and results of analysis of variance found a significant decrease in performance for all tasks except ground guiding between trials five and six.

Both the proportion of soldiers and the average percentage of steps performed

correctly returned to approximately the level of the second learning trial

.. after the retention interval. Combining the samples and using multiple re-

. gression techniques to predict the slope of the retention functions for each

.o.

vii

*, 

.'. 

.~

•-.. ,. + ,•: • .. • .•: .+ '+.:+.,, -+ •, : •-. '-+ ., • + ,."•" .""+. •"r-r ••'-:-- ... ; • '""" ••2 +"+ • ""•. '+• "".'" "+'' """V ."".'"."", V
b

task produced an equation that accounts for 94% of the variance when number

of step* in the task, daily practice rate, and measures of complexity and

interference are used as predictors. The results of the OSUT, unit, and combined samples support a representation of the skill retention curve in which

: - rapid decay occurs soon after training, with little change in performance for

samples tested later.

Utilization of Findings:

The results of the analysis indicated some ability to predict differences among tasks in the rate of forgetting from the number of task steps,

and details about practice on the task. These findings were also consistent

with earlier research that utilized similar data collection techniques. Results of the combined analysis indicate that differences in performance practices between the training standard and unit methods will result in apparent

decline in performance even under conditions of frequent practice. Data col- --

lected here will be utilized in development of a model for skill learning and

retention.

Viii

-. ;... . . . . . . . . . .
-. :i AR1OR PROCEDURAL SKILLS i LEARNING AND RETENTION

ODNTENTS

Page '.

"INTRODUCTION .*..... . . 1. 

Level of Original Learning and Other Training Considerations . . . -

Individual Differences .................... ....................... 3

Task Variables ........................ .......................... 3

Retention Interval and Differences Between School and

Operational Unit ..................... ......................... 4

...................... SObjectives .............................. . 4

METHOD ............................. ................................. 5

* Task Selection .......................... .......................... 5

g Behavioral Analysis ..................... ......................... 5

Operational Unit Data Collection .............. .................. 6

"Subjects ......................... ............................. 6

"Procedure .......................... ............................ 6

* OSUT Data Collection ...................... ........................ 7

Subjects ............................. ........................ 7

Procedure .......................... ............................ 7

"RESULTS .............................. ................................ 7

-"Sample Demographics ......................... 7"-- SapeDngahis........................... .•.• •............

Description of the Operational Unit Sample ........... .......... 7

. Description of the OSUT Sample . . ............. . 9 -.. '.

Task Characteristics ...................... ........................ 10

• Task Experience ................. ........................... ... 12

Task Experience in the Operational Unit Sample ... .......... ... 12 STask Experience in the OSUT Sample ....... ................ ... 12

ix

-. -, ~ d ~ :-.:?- "
CONTENTS (Continued)

n3 Page

Task Performance . 12

. Task Performance in the Operational Unit Sample .............. 12

Task Performance in the OSUT Sample ..... ............... .... 13

Analysis of Combined Operational Unit and OSUT Samples ..... ..... 19

Effects of Task Length, Practice, and Interference ............ . 20

- Task Length ................... .......................... ... 21

Practice .................... .................... ....... .... 21

- Interference ...................... ........................... 21

SDISCUSSION .................... ............................... .... 22

Skill Acquisition and Forgetting ........... ................. ... 22

Effects of Individual Differences on Acquisition and Forgetting . . . 23

Effects of Practice, Task Length, and Interference ............... 24

Problems and Future Prospects ............ .................... ... 24

REFERENCES .................... .............................. .... 27

APPENDIX A. SAMPLE QUESTIONNAIRES AI1D SCORESHEETS... .............. A-!

B. PROPORTION CORRECT BY TASK ELEMENT FOR OSUT AND

OPERATIONAL UNIT SAMPLES ......... ................. ... B-I

"LIST OF TABLES

"Table i. Skills retention literature review ..... ................. 2

2. ASVAB results ..................... ........................ 9

3. Mental category distribution in operational unit .. .".-.'.....10

i e4. Mental category distribution in OSUT sample .... ......... ... 10

5. Summary of task characteristics ............ . . . . . . . . 11

6. Task experience per day in the operational unit .... ....... 12

7. Task performance summary (operational unit) .. ................. 14

8. Correlations between task performance and ASVAB scores in

the operational unit sauple . . . ............................ 15

Li• x

S........................................-
CONTENTS (Continued)

Page

Table 9. Analysis of variance of performance scores over

trials in OSUT ............. ........................ .... 16

10. Percentage of soldiers performing 100% correct (OSUT) . . .. 17

S11. Percentage of performance measures correct (OSUT) ...... ... 18

12. Correction factors for the OSUT retention trial ......... ... 19

13. Correlation of task performance with months since OSUT

in combined sample ........... ...................... .... 20

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Distribution of number of months since OSUT graduation

for operational unit sample ........... ................. 8

2. Hypothetical relationship between performance and time since training ....................... 23

L..

•.1-

xi

................ . .. . . .
ARMOR PROCEDURAL SKILLS: LEARNING AND RETENTION

"- IINTROUCT7.ON

A critical issue in planning military training is estimating the requirements for citial and refresher training. For example, certain tasks that are .'.

difficult to learn or are performed infrequently require additional initial

S training and periodic retraining. The frequency of refresher trdining, then,

depends on the amount of skill retention, the costs of training, and the minimum level of proficiency required for mission accomplishment.

Over 100 years of research and theoretical drivelopment indicates that E " skill zetention depends on the level of original learning and other training

considerations, individual differences, task variables, retention interval

variables, and transfer among tasks. These factors have been analyzed in

several comprehensive reviews that are su91arized in Table 1. The reviews

differ in the kinds of skills examined, research settings, focus, and time

span covered. The most recent review, by Rose, McLaughlin, Felker, and Hagman (in preparation), integrated research by or for the U.S. Army Research

Institute (ARI). The kinds of skills and variables in the ARI studies are L

the most relevant to the present research and therefore are emphasized in the [ K following discussion of skill acquisition and retention.

*i Level of Original Learning and Other Training Considerations

The level of original learning is perhaps the most potent factor of determining the level of performance after periods without practice. Block and

Burns (1976) analyzed 27 skill retention experiments and determined that training nificantly to a mastery more 

level (rather than to a minimum level of skill) produced sig- . retention in 17 of the experiments and nominally (but not sig- ..-

Snificantly) more in 9 other experiments.

ARI research shows that training beyond the typical Army criterion of

"one correct performance of the task improves retention (Goldberg, Drillings,

.Dressel, 1982; Hagman, 1980b; Schendel & Hagman, 1980; Shields, Joyce,

vanwert, 1979). However, Rose et al. (in preparation) pose the following

questions. How much initial training must be given? Is it cost effective?

Under what conditions is it superior to refresher training? The answers ap-

" pear to depend on such factors as the time available for refresher training

versus the costs of initial mastery training, but definitive research has yet to be conducted.

Other factors that influence skill retention are the extent of active

practice, spaced practice, and transfer of training among task clusters.

.hPerformance tests and active practice produce higher rates of skill retention

S~~tionj 'han passive presentation of the material (Hagman, 1980al Hagman, in prepara- Holmgren, Hilligoss, Swezey, & Eakins, 1979). Repetitions of the task,""I

spaced a day apart, produce high retention even when the soldiers have to

learn other tasks between repetitions of the tested tasks (Hagman, 1980c).

* However, spacing the repetitions 4 weeks apart does not enhance retention

:.. (Schendel & Hagman, 1980).

1%
WOm

.4 ewA 1

94 to

£0

Z, .4 to

wool beI do .4 4U0.40 .0 -1 s0 4 "a4 0 1 1 - a1r U I

4.4

-4 0U

400

AA 'A 04

.6 64
•'• .. °'.,j

Individual Differences

Aptitude differences influence skill acquisition and thus indirectly in-,.,*,•

fluence retention. Army research demonstrates the favorable effects of gen-

*:' eral aptitude on skills in Air Defense and Field Artillery (Department of the ' ,

Army, Training and Doctrine Command [TRADOC3 System Analysis Activity

- [TRASANA], 19771 U.S. Army Field Artillery School, 1977). Pse et al. (in

preparation) note, however, that Army research on the subject, as yet, is

inconclusive.

Five ARI projects investigated the effects on skill retention of individual ability as measured by Army aptitude tests. Vineberg (1975) found a direct .. relationship between aptitude and performance on both initial and retention

testsj however, the relationship did not hold for all tasks. Other AMI re-

"search discovered no significant relationship between aptitude and performance (Goldberg et al., 1982). Any relationship may be mediated by training methods

"(Dressel, 1980; Holmgren et al., 1979, Sullivan, Casey, a Hebin, 1978).

Task variables

Schendel, Shields, and YFatz (1978) succinctly state that "Procedural tasks

and individual discrete motor responses are forgotten over retention intervals

* measured in terms of days, weeks, or months, whereas continuous movements typ'-"

"ically show little or no forgetting over retention intervals measured in terms

of mnthe or years" (p. 5). The cognitive mechanism producing differences in

retention of procedural and continuous tasks may be the extent of memorization,

which is greater in procedural tasks. Most Army tasks, however, are procedural,

and thus the global distinctions used to characterize tasks fail to distinguish

the determinants of retention.

The differentiation of tasks into their components, skills, steps, or sub- a tasks leads to the detailed behavioral analysis of tasks to determine their

P £ stimuli, processes, and responses. These components, or subtasks, differ in

their level of retention, as shown in existing research. Rose et al. (in preparation) summarize the types of tasks that have been examined in Army skill

retention research, and note that descriptive analyses of the tasks and steps have been performed post hoc. Dimensions of task steps and tasks that appear

to reduce retention, and documents reporting this information include the

following1. Difficulty or high skill demand

Goldberg et al. (1982) "Osborn, Campbell, and Harris (1979)

ýX McCluskey, Hiller, Bloom, and Whitmarsh (1978)

Vinebsrg (1975)

Hagman (1980b & c)

2. Lack of cues from sequential steps, equipment, etc. (oftn the

safety precautions)

Goldberg at al. (1982)

McCluskey et al. (1978)

Osborn et al. (1979) *-" Shields, Goldberg, and Dressel (1979)

3~

- - *-- *' *°a.-°.. . . °.. 
3. Unclear to the soldier or of questionable relevance to the task

Osborn et al. (1979)

Shields, Goldberg, and Dressel (1979)

4. Task boundaries (first and last steps)

Osborn et al. (1979)

"5. Passive steps

Osborn et al. (1979)

6. Training and testing differences .

Goldberg at al. (1982)

Osborn et al. (1979)

w-i Shields, Goldberg, and Dressel (1979) also demonstrated that longer tasks

(more steps) and tasks that contained multiple subtaaks were forgotten sooner

than others. 7-

.Retention Interval and Differences Between School and Operational Unit

Job activities during the retention interval coplicate the relationships

among training, tasks, and individual variables. Performance decrements are - likely after the no-practice period when soldiers transfer from school to their

- unit assignments. Afterward, tasks that receive on-the-job practice show increments rather than decrements in performance (TRASAMA, 1977). Tasks specific

to the job are practiced during normal duties while comon tasks (e.g., first in aid) are practiced infrequently during early months in the unit and are not retained as well. Co mon tasks are not retained as well as job-specific ones

even if the soldiers are not assigned to a duty position for which they were

trained (Osborn et al., 1979). Therefore, practice on the job does not comn- "

pletely explain the retention differences.

I • A problem in the skill retention literature is in reconciling differences

" "in the way soldiers are taught to perform tasks in the training center (the

* by-the-book approach) with the way they perform the same tasks in operational

"* units. Somewhere along the way, soldiers learn to take shortcuts, such that

" :by the time they are tested for skill retention in their units they &ae no

longer defining tpsks the same way as the researcher, who is following the

school-taught procedure. Skill retention may look poor because of these differences. Soldiers can functionally perform the task, although not by the -

Army-prescribed procedure. Evidence of this fact can be found in the systematic errors soldiers made in a study where safety procedures were consistently not retained (Shields, Goldberg, & Dressel, 1979).

2bJectives

The effects of aptitude, task types, and initial learning on skill rettntion suggest the need to tailor training to enhance skill retention. If

effects, singly or in concert, were known they could be used to guide Sthe 

training management. For example, Rose et al. (in preparation) envision a

"tank performance book" for troop commanders to estimate proficiency and

4 -:-.c'" I;.
- training needs by task type. Recent empirical field research has investigated

skill retention in several Army Military Occupational Specialties (Mo9S) however, the expirical research is extremely expensive, even for a few skill retention variables. The high cost of field research does not allow for empirical tests of the affects of training strategies on acquisition and retention

p of AM skills.

Analytical models of skill acquisition and retention offer a potential

solution to training management problem. Models organize large quantities

of data from empirical studies to predict the effectiveness of various training strategies. A validated model can go beyond empirical results to answer

training management questions for soldiering tasks for which no data exist. .. 1.:. This report is part of a larger project to develop and validate math*-

matical models of skill acquisition and performance of procedural tasks. The

objectives of the report are to present the data collected as the basis for

model develop•ment, end to analyze those data to replicate previous skill re-

-• tention results. In particular, the data collection method was similar to

that useA by Shields, Goldberg, and Dressel (1979).

METHOD

Task Selection

The population of tasks included all tasks perfoLmed in the driver, gvnner, and loader positions in the M60AI tank. These tasiw vary in length,

complexity, and extent of practice in the unit. after initial training (One

Station Unit Treining [OSUT]). The following eight tasks were selected from S the task populaiticn to represent high and low values on these dimensions:

1. Load an M240 Machinegun,

2. Start the M60AI Tank Engine,

3. Stop the M60AI Ta:k Pnqine,

4. Perform Gunner's Prepaze-to-Fire Checis, ...

5. Perform Loader's Prepare-to-Firs Checks, S6. Enqage Targets Using Precision Fire Techniques,

"7. Comaunicatoe over Tactical Fit Radio, and

S. Comounicate Using Visual Signal Techniques.

The selection of tasks was based on a preliminary analysis of the task

population. The actual length, complexity, and extent of practice were dctermined by behavioral analysis and analysis of questionnaire data.

Behavioral Analysis

The tasks wore analyzed to determine the task elements (steps), standards,

and conditions of performance. These analyses were used to develop test scenarios and score forma.

Additional behavioral analyses of the tasks covered characteristics related to learning, performance, and retention gleaned from the literatwi• and

L". previous research. Characteristics include subtask sequence (task elements,

5

". * . *. .. *.* * ... * * .**. -. . sA-• <a".° . o A '.. °

S...• .-... :/ .... ' .. : .-. ': .'., T-.., - -:''•• -" ..... . . . . ..
connections, branches, and dependencies)I cues for task element performance

from the equipment, fellow crew members, etc. products of tasks and task ".

elements; and task characteristics related to skill acquisition and retention (feedback and interference). Project staff and noncommissioned officer

(NM) personnel who served as scorers in the data collection rated each task

element on the following 14 characteristics: i3.

1. Requires recall of knowledge,

2. Requires rule learning and using,

3. Requires guiding and steering, continuous movement,

4. Lacks cues,

5. Has stimulus-response conflict,

"6. Has aversive consequences,

7. Has feedback,

8. Unit omits the step (interference),

9. Unit performs the step differently (interference),

10. Unit performs different step (interference),

11. Step not performed in similar task (interference),

12. Step not performed in emergency or in combat (interference),

13. Difficult, and

14. critical to the overall performance of the task.

The project staff prepared the test protocols, scorer training materials,

and behavioral characteristic rating forms, and conducted data analysis in an

* operational unit and in Armor OSUT, both located at Fort Knox, Kentucky. -.- *...;.>

Operational Unit Data Collection

Subjects. Subjects were 120 soldiers from operational units of Fort

Knox, Kentucky, who had completed the OSUT program within 72 months prior to

- the study. Four soldiers who graduated before 1979 were eliminated from the

- sample since they were beyond the target population for the research. The

results, therefore, reflect the performance of the remaining 116 soldiers,

IL who completed the OSUT program within 31 months prior to the study.

Procedure. Soldiers from the operational unit were randomly assigned

Sto one of eight tes3t stations. Each soldier proceeded in a "round robin"

* fashion to the next station until he or she had performed all of the eight

"tasks. At each test station, the soldier was given one opportunity to perform a task. The scorer read a set of instructions to inform the soldiers

* of the task and any specific conditions to consider during performance (e.g., .. moving or stationary targets during precision fire engagements). After reading the instructions, the scorer did not intervene during the performance of

the task unless the soldier made an error.

If the soldier committed an error on a step, the scorer gave some assistance. If this degree of assistance was not sufficient to produce correct

performance, the scorer gave stronger assistance, until correct performance

was obtained. The following three levels of assistance were used:

Level 1 - Remind the soldier what the overall task is and tell him ir •:L or her the steps performed up to that point.

U -: . . ,'°-•°6
Level 2 - Tell the soldier what the ne•t Step is.

Level 3 - Show the soldier how to do the step.

After demonstrating the step correctly, the soldier proceeded to the

next step and continued until the task was completed.

- While the soldier performed the task, the scorer recorded data on correct performance of task steps, the order in which the soldier performed the

steps, the type of error co•itted, the leIel of assistance given, and the

p elapsed time. Questionnaires were used to collect information on each soldier's background and task-related job experience. Armed Service Vocational

Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) scores and level of education were obtained from

personnel records.

OSUT Data ColleT'

Subjects. Subjects were 471 soldiers from four OSUT companies at Fort

Knox, Kentucky, in their fifth to tenth week of training.

"* Procedure. Testing and training trials included five acquisition trials I ~and a retention trial, for a total of six performances by the soldier. Each

soldier performed two of the eight tasks. For each task tested, the soldiers

"" reported to the test site twice during a 12-week data collection period. In

V the firot session, the soldier performed the task five times using the proce- dure described for the operational unit. Approximately 4 weeks after the

first session, the soldier returned to perform the task one time. The first

session coincided roughly with formal training of the taskl the second session

coincided roughly with the gate test for that task.

Minor changes were made in the ecoresheets between the operational unit

and OSUT sessions to simplify the data collection procedure or to accomodate

changes in the Army's trairing policies. In order to ensure comparability of

scores, only those performance measures comnon to both scoresheets were considered in measuring performance.

- RESULTS

Sample Demographics

Description of the Operational Unit Sample. The soldiers had pay grades

ranging from 1 to 5 with the following percentages: E-1, 6.0%1 E-2, 27.6%;

E-3, 34.5%1 E-4, 31.0%; and E-5, 0.9%. Almost all of the soldiers in the op-

• "erational unit sample had completed OSUT in 1980 or 1981 so that they were

within 2 years of graduation (Figure 1).

"In OSUT, approximately half of the soldiers had been in each of the Armor

tracks. Until January 1982, soldiers in Armor OSUT were enrolled as either

"MOS 19E gunner/loader or MOS 19F driver. Since then, there has been only one

basic Armor training course (19E) training a general Armor crewmember. Over

48% of the research sample had been in the driver track, and over 50% had been

7 ,

::r - .. . .. .. . .. . .. . . .. .°..-'-o*'* *. -. *•.. o*. . . . . . . . . . . . .
o •:2

Si 4.'

maa ." I"-',

am- asm 1 .--.

I -* o + 

In!:•-i

l=,=l~ l'= • o•:.T0

:a::a:mam a4

,.,..a,..' 111:1 41'

"asmas"::11111

IIIII illipIll5I l I I 5m 1 4

lI am suite "1b

I • I1 -- 0

ammammg -

,mm I II llll lllllIII II I III aImI mII ml IN• ...

11 iI 1 II 1 l 1I I I I II II I aII sa IIg t • :' "

- ss uaa II Ims sa mI I - g

.'. .. •..... amaa • .am It---I•..=• marm aus.a.s m...1a . . L'

"'- o~~55 a oI, 4M""

"o.-- -. -: ( -: •. - -.• -.• -. . . -. • . . -. .- -mama -- Y.

uamau°•w",W Is- **-**'. S

smsa-smm---.CI 2 •°% - ;"r. "•-,'.,; ':",*T,•'.,r'$:•',,',::j~S-.';: "•' -• " " " """" ""•". .. "-"""' " •"" " ""°"" "" 2,*.,". .""m"""i ". ""I- -"""0.
in the gunner and loader track during their OSUT training. (The one remaining soldier graduated in 1982 when OSUT had no tracks.)

In their assigned posts, the soldiers held tank crew or truck driver

positions, and the majority (58.8%) had the position for which they were

trained in OSUT. Half had held their current duty position less than 8 months.

Three-fifths of the soldiers had participated in Table VIII gunnery exercises.

Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT) and ASVAB results for the operational unit soldiers are shown in Table 2. The scores are similar to, but

slightly lower than, the standardization population means of 50 for the AFQT

and 100 for the ASVAB composites. The AFQT distribution by mental category

is shown in Table 3. Approximately half of the soldiers were in category III,

which contrasts with Goldberg et al. (1982) where 78.1% of the sample were in

categorl II.

-- Table 2

ASVAB Results

Operational

unit samplea OSUT sampleb

Standard Standard

ASVAB components Mean deviation Mean deviation

AFQT 44.06 23.11 54.69 18.60

Combat 98.67 16.18 105.88 12.88

Field Artillery 97.47 15.92 104.06 12.97

Mechanical Maintenance 98.37 17.79 105.62 13.01

. General Maintenance 96.10 16.33 104.06 14.71

Clerical 95.28 16.01 100.95 13.03

General Technical 96.31 16.76 105.14 12.43

Electronics Repair 98.21 14.96 103.81 13.01

* Surveillance/Communications 96.39 15.54 103.01 12.90

Skilled Technical 97.14 15.18 102.65 13.66

Operators and Food Handlers 95.70 19.41 103.54 12.69

I

Note: All group differences are significant by a t-test, < .001.

.. alOa~N - 107. '

bN -370.

I

Description of the OSUT Sample. ASVAB scores were available for 370 of

471 subjects in the OSUT sample. The AFQT and ASVAB composite results for

the OSUT soldiers (shown in Table 2) indicate that soldiers' scores were higher

than the standard means on all but one of the composites (Clerical) and were

significantly higher than operational unit scores on the AFQT and all of the

ASVAB composites. The difference may be attributable to an increase in the

9

.......
enlistment standards between the time of entry of the soldiers in the two

tem ples. The distribution of OSUT soldiers by mental category is shown in

Table 4.

Mental Cate92rX Distribution in Operational Unit i'e

Mental Soldiers in unit sample

•.-category Number Percent .'-

.- I3 2.7 i '--I124 21.4

III 49 43.8

Iv 36 32.1 .-

Table 4

Mental Category Distribution in OSUT Sample

Mental Soldiers in OSUT samle

category Number Percent

"I 11 3.0

II 93 25.1

III 232 62.7

IV 34 9.2

Most of the OSUT soldiers were in the lowest Army grade, although a few

"had previous service, and therefore had higher grades, as follows: E-l, 86.8%;

E-2, 4.7%; E-3, 6.6%; E-4, 1.7%; E-6, 0.2%.

. "Task Characteristics

"T •e behavior analyses included the rating of individual task elements

on 14 attributes. Ten of these attributes were used to define indices of task I-.

complexity and task interference. Components of these two indices are as

follows:

10

.............................
* Interference

unit omits the step t.

Unit perfornm step differently

Unit performs different step

Step not performed in similar tasks

Step not performed in emergency or in com"bat

* complaxity

SRequires recall of knowledge

Requires rule learning and using

Lacks cues

Has stimulus-response conflict

Very difficult to perform

The indices combined scores on items scaled from 0 to 10, with item

scored as proportions between 0 to 1. To make the ranges of these different

types of items comparable, the items scored as proportions were multiplied

by 10. The limits of the interference and complexity indices are -10 and 40.

STable 5 smunarizes the task characteristics believed to be related to

skill retention. Means over tasks for the complexity index varied from approximately 1 for Load Machinegun to over 10 for Ground Guiding; the interference index ranged from -7.88 for Load Machinegun to 2.94 for Stop the

Tank Engine.

Table 5

Summary of Task Characteristics

index index

Task Steps Mean St. dev. Mean St. dev.

Load Machinegun 11 1.41 4.38 -7.88 2.85

SStart Tank Engine 11 4.27 2.98 -0.22 5.54

Stop Tank Engine 10 4.20 4.61 2.94 7.58

Gunner Prepare to Fire 34 4.80 2.59 -4.47 1.38

Loader Prepare to Fire 6 3.54 0.87 -5.96 5.54

Precision Fire 12 5.29 7.94 -6.25 0.72

"Radio Communication 7 1.86 3.04 -4.95 5.07

Ground Guiding 20 10.15 0.49 -6.68 2.52

. Index results over all tasks 5.11 4.26 -4.33 4.79

1..

,- ~~11":q' ° N'.

"r~
Task Ex eionce

Task Ixperience in the Operational Unit Sample. The proportion of soldiers who report practicing the tasks since graduating from OSUT ranged from

37.5% (Precision Fire) to 95.5% (Ground Guiding). The three tasks reported

to have over 90% of the soldiers practicing (Ground Guiding, Start Tanks and .%%

Stop Tank) also had large numbers of soldiers reporting practice more than ,

one time per day, as well as high average practice per day, as indicated in 8.-

Table 6. Since all of these tasks are trained in Armor oSUT, the date of

graduation from OSUT was assumed to be the time of last practice for all soldiers who reported no practice for a particular task in the unit.

Task Experience per Day in the Operational Unit

Task experience

Times each day Average

Task N 0 <1 1 >1 per day

Load Machinegun 114 42 69 2 1 0.07

Start Tank Engine 110 7 26 26 51 1.80

Stop Tank Engine 108 7 27 25 49 1.79

Gunner Prepare to Fire 113 49 62 0 2 0.08

Loader Prepare to Fire 109 45 62 0 2 0.08

Precision Fire 109 70 38 0 1 0.03

Radio Communication 110 19 81 3 7 0.37

"Ground Guiding 107 5 35 28 39 1.98

"Task Experience in the OSUT Sample. Soldiers in the OSUT sample had

just completed their initial training on the tasks when the pretest was administered for the research. The retention test for a task was timed to

coincide approximately with the gate test following training in that task.

Task Performance

Soldiers in the operational unit were tested once, while soldiers in OSUT

were tested six times (five acquisition trials and a retention test). No soldier in the operational unit achieved perfect performance on three of the

tasks; therefore, the percentage of soldiers correctly performing the entire

* task had no variance for those tasks, and could not be used as a dependent

variable. The number and percentage of task steps performed correctly were

used as dependent measures of performance.

Task Performance in the Operational Unit Sample. The task with the highest average percentage correct (99%) was Ground Guiding, which has high levels

of practice in the unit. It is a long task, as tested, but each visual signal

L12 r
in the task is short (two or three steps), and thus easy to remember. Some of

the signals occurred more than once in the testso these were removed before

the scores were analyzed so that the results reflect data for testing each signal one time only.

Three other tasks--Load Machinegun, Stop Tank Engine, and Radio Cosmunication--averaged over 70% of the steps performed correctly. All three tasks

are short and have high or moderate levels of practice in the unit. Load

Machinegun and Radio Communication are relatively simple tasks, but Stop Tank

Engine has moderate complexity.

The lowest scores occurred on the Gunner Prepare to Fire task, which is

long, complex, and has low practice in the unit. Scores on the remaining

tasks (Table 7) averaged from 52% (Loader Prepare to Fire) to 67% (Start Tank

Engine). Scores on task steps are reported in Appendix B.

Correlations between the number of correct task steps and demographic

* :. variables were examined. For one task, Load the Machinegun, task performance

"correlated significantly with the number of months since last practice (r - .20,

< .05, N - 113). Thus, higher scores were associated with less time since

the last practice of the task. No other correlations of task performance with

practice, months since graduation from OSUT, months since last Table VIII,

or education level were significant.

In general, there was a small, positive correlation between performance

and aptitude as measured by ASVAB five tasks had significant correlations

between task performance and ASVAB scores (Table 8). Load the Machineirun,

Stop Tank Engine, and Gunner Prepare to Fire task scores correlated significantly with AFQT scores. Significant correlations were obtained on ASVAB

composites for Load the Machinegun, Stop Tank Engine, Gunner Prepare to Fire,

Precision Fire, and Radio Communication scores. Scores on Start Tank Engine, Loader Prepare to Fire, and Ground Guiding were not related to AFQT or ASVAB

composites.

Task Performance in the OSUT Sample. The effects of learning, retention,

education level, and AVT were analyzed using regression analysis. A logarithmic transformation of the performance scores over trials was used to de-

" rive scores meeting the linearity assumption of the regression model. This

transformation corresponds to a learning model in which errors decrease proportionately with trials, i.e.,

P (E) - - P (E), n+l n %

where Pn(E) is the probability of an error on trial n, and k is the learning

rate. If PO(C) - p (i.e., p is the initial probability of a correct response),

then

P (C) =1- (1- k)n (l- p). n

13
414

14.

14 L

P4 O-4 r r4 m 4 N.

ZI1.M.444)014ý

0

w 14
1. 1ý 494 M r- O 4e u- fl- 

.4 $4

%0 0r fn (0 f c n V

A o *I * 9 i * *

IVor - Ln w C" IV f" q0 O m E440 7.1- ~ - N

""4c

41 4A14Wc o 0 0005 ~ 4 10 Z t 

v -4

81 8 Clw U&' 8 w0u E k4
Thus, log [Pn(W)] is a linear function of n, na•ely:

log [ n(E) - nlog(1 - k) + log(1 - p).

The dependent variable tor the learning analysis was the logarithm of

the proportion of steps performed incorrectly in trials 1 to 5. The reten- ition analysis used the proportion of steps performed correctly in trials 5

and 6 as the dependent variable. Since only two trials are used in the re7.7 tantion analysis, it was not necessary to transform scores to cbtain linear

"" predictions. .- C

The effect of learning (task performance scores increasing over trials

* 1 to 5) was significant for all tasks, and the analysis of variance results

for the effect of forgetting (task performance scores decreasing between trials 5 and 6) was significant for all tasks except Ground Guiding. These re-

"*- sults are shown in Table 9.

Table 9

Analysis of Variance of Performance Scores over Trials in OSUT

Learning Retention

(trials 1 to 5) (trials 5 and 6)

Task F df F df

Load Machinegun 250.45*0 1,431 18.31"* 1,161

Start Tank Engine 155.650* 1,358 37.72** 1,139

Stop Tank Engine 177.27** 1,413 8.85* 1,157

Gunner Prepare to Fire 929.43** 1,516 19.57** 1,194

Loader Prepare to Fire 525.93** 1,391 55.410* 1,146

Precision Fire 148.430* 1,351 45.79"* 1,135

Radio Communication 212.34** 1,550 10.65' 1,206

Ground Guiding 57.29"* 1,429 0.13 1,164

- .01. .

< .001.

The average percentage of OSUT soldiers who performed all task steps

correctly on the first trial varies from 0% (Gunner Prepart to Fire) to 31.2%

(Ground Guiding). On the last loarning trial (trial 5), the lowest percentage - with perfect performance was 50% (Precision Fire) and the highest was 97.3%

(Load Machinegun). On trial 6, administered approximately 4 weeks later, the

"averages varied from 10.8% (Precision Fire) to 84.8% (Ground Guiding). Results L for soldiers with 100% correct performance are shown in Table 10.

16t..

16 ''

............. A. - _.................................-.....° 
Table 10

Percentage of Soldiers Performing 100% Correct (OSUT)

Tas (, 1 Learning trials lRtention 4.

Task (N) 1 2 3 4 trial

Load Machinegun (110) 10.9 80.0 92.7 90.9 97.3 75.0

"Start Tank Engine (93) 11.8 51.6 71.0 80.6 94.2 45.5

Stop Tank Engine (120) 16.5 74.4 85.1 92.5 95.8 77.6

Gunner Prepare to Fire (124) 0.0 10.5 25.0 46.8 58.9 42.5

Loader Prepare to Fire (113) 4.4 43.4 69.0 91.2 94.6 47.0

Precision Fire (93) 4.7 26.1 33.3 51.1 50.0 10.8

Radio Com-unication (130) 16.2 34.6 49.2 60.8 80.8 65.5

"Ground Guiding (109) 31.2 71.6 62.4 67.0 79.8 84.8

* °

She average percentage of task steps performed correctly showed patterns

of results similar to the percentage of soldiers performing correctly. Over-

* all, scorek on the first trial ranged from 19.7% average correct (for Loader

"*• Prepare to Fire) to 93.2% average correct (for Ground Guiding). All average

scores were over 90% correct on trial 5. In the retention trial (trial 6),

the lowest average percentage of correct steps was 84.4% (Precision Fire)":4

and the highest was 99% (Ground Guiding). Results for average percent correct by task and trial are shown in Table 11.

' Although a small percentage of soldiers performed entire tasks correctly,

• "ost performed substantial portions of the task correctly. For exaq le, less

I than 5% of the soldiers executed the Precision Fire task correctly on the

first trial, but on the average, over 66% of the steps were performed correctly. On trial 5, half of the soldiers performed the entire Precision Fire

task, with 94% of the steps being performed correctly.

Both the proportion of soldiers and the averagm percentage of steps per-

, "formed correctly returned to the level of the second trial after the retention

interval (i.e., on trial 6). However, performance on three tasks, Gunner

"Prepare to Fire, Radio Communication, and Ground Guiding, remained higher than

trial 2, and on one task (Precision Fire) performance on the sixth trial was

lower than that on the second trial.

The effects of education level and AFQT were analyzed in the same regression analysis described above. The results indicate that level of education

and AFQT scores were related to learning and retention for some of the tasks. .-•.-"

A1QT scores were related to learning for two tasks : Precision Fire

(F[1,351] - 18.04, < .001) and Radio Coimunication (F[1,550] - 25.73,

- < .001)p and related to forgetting for two tasks: Gunner Prepare to Fire

(F[1,194) - 5.23, < .05) and Precision Fire (F[1,135J - 9.00, • .01).

"Education level was related to learning for two tasks: Gunner Prepare to

Fire (F[1,156] - 6.05, Z < .05) and Precisiou Fire (Ff1,135] - 4.98, p < .05);

. and to forgetting for Precision Fire (F[1,135] = 4.93, < • .05). Thus, for

1 7..... ..
r-- "% - 1 P- in OD. -" q- %n t- m

q ~ ~ d mn M~ CDD P40 *,=

0ý 0ý 0u- R 17! 9- 0!

o-4l 0%N (% n N~ (71 v mD %O0 f- 00

%a 4 N C 0 o % C en Nq OD 0%9 P-N tS

m VC CD 0 in 0 C - 0% I 0 0 &A C4C

P4 0% P4 0

MW &n 0 4-4 DU 10m p.40 0 f" In 0 P c

0n 0o 0 r sI s4 .

04 0 0q e s- . P4 

i B.

-4N C4 f 04 -4

r4* r'P,

M M 0 4 W 8

41 -0 

-4r% .444 -

4 4 41 2 - 4
t

for the Precision Fire task, AFQT and education were related to both learning

and forgetting.

Analysis of Oonbined Operational Unit and OSUT Sewles s

We combined the scores from the operational unit and OSUT samples to

"analyse forgetting in a cross-soctional design. Since the soldiers in the

*'; OSUT research sample received training in addition to that received by the

typical soldier, we corrected the retention trial soores before using them

in the combined analysis. The correction was based on the distributions of

the OSUT gate teat results for soldiers in the research sample (who received

the additional training), and for soldiers in OBUT who were not in the research (who did not receive additional training). The proportions of soldiers performing a task correctly were converted to z-scores for research and

nonresearch samples. The difference between the z-scores provided a correction factor for each task in terms of the standard deviation of the test

scores. Then, the correction factor was subtracted from the scores of the

"research soldiers on their sixth trial. However, not all tasks were tested ,.

in the OSUT gate test. For tasks not tested, the correction factor was the

average of the correction factors on the tasks that were tested. Correction

t factors are shown in Table 12. The first colum represents the correction

factor in terms of the standard deviation of the scores on the retention

test. The second column portrays the actual value used to adjust the pro- ,-

pcrtion of correct stepsi the corrected mean score is shown in the third

• ~colla. ..•

P Table 12

Correction Factors for the OSUT Retention Trial ; ... . . . .. . ,. -

Correction Corrected

factor Adjustment mean "Task multiple amount ( )

"" Load Machinegun -. 31245 -0.013113 96.3

Start Tank Engine -. 32075 -0.020430 91.9

Stop Tank Engine -. 20990 -0.016982 95.9 • Gunner Prepare to Fire -. 22780 -0.036873 88.l

Loader Prepare to Fire -. 22780 -0.031558 85.1

Precision Fire -. 13420 -0.0144656 82.9

"Radio Communication -. 22780 --0.017222 93.4

Signals -. 09160 -0.002315 98.8

The performance scores and time since OSUT for the operational unit

sample are reported in Table 7. Time since training was zero for the scores .

on trial 6 in the OSUT sample. Correlations between the parc. ntage of steps

passed (as corrected), and time since OSUT were significant for all tasks except Ground Guiding (Table 13).

19
Table 13 -* -%"

Correlation of Task Performance with Months Since C3UT in Coubined Sample

NRuber of

"Task Correlation soldiers %-7

Load Machinegun -. 57* 207

Start Tank Engine - .51" 197

"Stop Tank Engine -. 52* 212

Gunner Prepare to Fire -. 68* 187

Loader Prepare to Fire -. 37" 208

Precision Fire -. 56" 187

Radio Communication -. 46" 232 L . Ground Guiding -. 08 214

< .001.

The slope of the retention function was used as a dependent variable in

a regression analysis with task length, practice per day, complexity, and - interference as independent variables. The best-fitting regression model,

Y - -0.000484 X1- 0.010449 X2 - 0.000717 X3- 0.00189 X4 + C

where Y - the slope of the performance retention function, •-'*. -,.¶.

X1 0 the number of steps in the task,

X 2 0 the daily practice rate,

X3 = the complexity index score, and

4 the interference index score,

accounted for 94% of the variance. Regression analysis indicated the weights I'

of task length (F[1,3] - 11.76, a < .05), practice rate (F(1,3] - 16.85,

S<.05), and interference (F[1,3] - 13.95, < .05) were significantly

greater than zero. The effect of task complexity was not significant, however (F[1,31 - 0.93).

Similar analyses were performed assuming exponential and power decay

functions. Although the results differ in detail from those reported above,

the general results were the same.

: r Effects of Task Length, Practice, and Interference

The effects of task length, practice, and interference on forgetting are

"evident for some of the tasks. This section sumarizes the effects for these

20
variables which were significant in the regression analysis on the combined %

sample, although they have been tabulated separately for OSUT and unit samples elsewhere (length and task performance, Tables 7 and 12, practice,

Table 6; interference, Table 5).

Task Length. The longest task, Gunner Prepare to Fire, had high scores

Sin UST and the lowest scores compared to other tasks in the operational

unitj thus, it had high forgetting in the combined analysis. Ground Guiding, the second longest task, did not show forgetting. This task, as tested,

was composed of a series of very short subtaske. Each visual signal has only

two or three steps, and thus, according to the criterion of length, each signal should be easy to remember. The natural organisation of the Ground Guiding task into easily remembered signals may have facilitated performance.

"Three short tasks had high scores in OSUT retention and in the operational unit (Load Kachinegun, Stop Tank Engine, and Radio Communication).

Another short task, Loader Prepare to Fire, had one of the lower scores in

"both OSUT and the unit, but did not evidence much loss of performance between

the two samples.

Practice. Tasks with the highest practice ratings were Ground Guiding,

which did not show performance loss, and Stop Tank Engine, which also retained

high scores. Tasks with low reported practice were Precision Fire, Gunner

"Prepare to Fire, Loader Prepare to Fire, and Load the Machinegun. Of those

"with low practice, Gunner Prepare to Fire had the lowest operational unit

scores. Loader Prepare to Fire and Precision Fire also had low scores in

"the operational unit, and thus demonstrated skill loss in the combined sample analysis.

.Some steps within the tasks show effects of practice in detail. In the

Start Tank Engine task, for example, the steps with high scores were the ones

rated as likely to be performed in the unit under ordinary circumstances. In

I ~the Stop Tank Engine task, four steps had perfect or near perfect scores

* (place transmission in park, release brake pedal, hold engine fuel shut-off

switch on OFF position until engine stops, and turn master battery off after

engine stops) and appear to represent the way soldiers perform the task rather than the by-the-book steps.

Interference. Two of the tasks with the lowest interference, Ground "

Guiding and Load the Machinegun, also retain the highest performance in the

operational unit. Of these, Ground Guiding is the one that showed no for-

"* getting within the OSUT sample as well. Two tasks with high interference

ratings, Start Tank Engine and Stop Tank Engine, had very high OSUT scores

and moderate operational unit scores, so that they showed skill loss in the

combined analysis.

; 'While the interference ratings showed significant effects, the task

p' *.. characteristics that describe task complexity did not. Part of the reason

may be the arbitrary nature of the composite index for complexity. For example, cues had the same weight in the composite as did other variables

(since the composite was unweighted). If cues were weighted highly, the

Ground Guiding tasks would have been one of the simpler tasks, rather than

the most complex. Since that task was retained, the overall result in the ..-" combined sample might have shown an effect of complexity.

21

I . i,
DISCUSSION~

The present research has atteupted to capture the process of skill denonce capability within the first 2 year: in operational Armor units. Soldirveoeien ofrorma isolirsuctiong and an opotnthe couprctseal of theirts efr

tak they aeresponsible for learning in OSUT. After formal training,

soldiers practice tasks informally to prepare for the gate tests they must

complete to graduate. The gaete test is the last time they perform aWy given

task in OSUT. Once in an operational unit, soldiers' duty positions dictate -the tasks they perform frequently. Measures of task performance obtained

during OSUT and in the unit provide information on the effectiveness of fornal training, the contribution of the additional preparation for tasts, and 4 * ., the course of skill development or decay in units.

* Skill Acquisition and Forgetting

The first performance measure obtained from the OSUT soldiers in the

* research was administered soon after they had received all the formal instruction they were to be given on a task. In some cases, such as machine

gun operations, this measure came after a second formal class.* OSUT task

performance (Tables 10 and 11) shows that formal training was effective for

I *..*most tasks, since soldiers became adept in performing most steps. The number of soldiers who could complete all performance measures was low, however, generally under 20%. The acquisition of skill progressed in typical

form over the five acquisition trials, and performance improvement had gen- I erally reached high levels by the fourth trial. Performance by soldiers who

had not received the additional training offered in this study was estimated

from gate test scores (Table 12). This performance is superior to the ini-

* tial performance after formal training, and it points out that additional

training is beneficial in bringing OSUT soldiers up to their gate test

performance.

After the five acquisition trials, OSUTY soldiers received a sixth trial

after a retention interval of 4 weeks. F'orgetting was significant after

*this short period, but became negligible over time in the operational unit.

The curve had flattened out by the third zmonth after training, when the first

substantial number of soldiers was tested in the unit. The shape of the forgetting curves (Figure 2), therefore, is the classical one that ha. rapid * *.skill loss at first, and a decline of rate of loss over time, thius producing

* a negatively accelerating curve.

The results of the OSUT, unit, and combined samples support a contention by Rose at al. (in preparation) about the impact of time sampling along

the skill retention curve. Research samples tested early in the curve, dur-Z

ing rapid decay, show large amounts of forgetting, while samples tested

later do not show decay. The data from the OSUT sample were drawn from a

section of the retention curve in which decay is very rapid, and hence, sig-

* nificant skill loss was obtained. Data from the opera~tional unit were Sampled from an area of the curve in which forgetting is very slow.

This research supports previous findings that performance decays during

*the interval when soldiers transfer from school to their first unit assignments

22

- **~*.~**' *. . . . . **.*-.-. * .. 7,77*
(e.g., Osborn et al., 19781 TASMh, 1977). Although som research has shown

increments in performance after the solfier is in the unit for several months

(e.g., TRASANA, 1977), the present results show neither decrements nor incre-

-ments in the unit. As with prior research, the measures of practice in the . unit were simply ratings by the soldierl the ratings relied on mery and

have untested reliability and accuracy. Soldiers in the opezational unit

performed at about the same level (in percentage of steps correct) as soldiers in their initial performance after formal training. The salient task

"steps that soldiers learn initially are the ones they are likely to retain.

PERFORMANCE

. -7.

_I Yr 2 Yr

"TIME SINCE TRAINING

Figure 2. Hypothetical relationship between performance and time

since training.

Effects of Individual Differences on Acquisition and Forgetting

Earlier ARI research showed mixed effects of aptitude on skill acquiEm sition and retention. Results of this research showed higher retention with

higher aptitude on approximately half of the tasks in the operational unit,

but aptitude effects for only two tasks in the OSUT sample. Since so few

tasks correlated with aptitude measures, the types of tasks or conditions

"under which aptitude does or does not influence acquisition and retention

are unresolved.

Educational level was related to acquisition rate for only two tasks

in the OSUT sample, and for only one task in the operational unit. Thus,

23
education did not have a strong effect in this research; this finding supports that of Goldberg et al. (1982), who found no effect from educational level. overall, the results pertaining to aptitude and education, which,.,."

were the variables investigated in the present study, corroborated previous

ARI findings.

Effects of Practice, Task Length, and Interference

The effect of the extent of practice in the combined operational unit

and OSUT samples indicated that practice differentiated among tasks. Tasks

that were practiced more often retained high performance scores ov*r time.

One example, Ground Guiding, is a task likely to be practiced by the portion

"of soldiers in the operational unit who were truck drivers, as well as by

• "the soldiers who held tank crew positions. Definitive research would need

to investigate an array of comn and job-specific tasks that vary system- .. atically on the dimensions of interference, practice, and other retention

variables. Alternatively, the results of the modeling in the rese~arch phases

to follow this one may provide some information about retention under differeant conditions.

Differences among tasks in rates of forgetting were also associated

with task ler.gth and interference. As demonstrated earlier by Shields, Goldberg, and Dressel (1979), tasks that are longer (have more steps) are forgotten sooner than shorter tasks. The effect of length may be the merory demand

of the task. The results reported here replicate those of Shields, Goldberg, and Dressel (1979), even though the present results are bastod on the percentage of task steps performed correctly while those of shields, Goldberg,

and Dressel were based on the percentage of soldiers who performed the entire

task correctly. Thus, even a change in the dependent variable did not de- grade the effect of task length on retention.

Tasks that had more interference had higher rates of forgetting. Four

sources of interference combined into the interference index were whether

the step in the operational unit, as compared to the training situation,

would be (1) omitted, (2) performed differently, (3) have another step substituted for it, or (4) be omitted in a similar task. Some tasks, such as

Start and Stop Tank Engine, have steps that are omitted in the unit (e.g.,

idle the engine for a set number of minutes to cool it), And apparently

these tasks are more quickly forgotten. In contrast, tarss with steps that

are all performed under operational conditions, such as Load the Machinegun,

are better retained. Interference theory has been cited as one of the theoretical orientations most useful in explaining forgetting (Ellis, 1979;

Holding, 1965). The results of this research support that view.

Problem and Future Prospects L.

The results of the analysis indicate some ability to predict differences

among tasks in the rate of forgetting from the number of task steps, and details about practice on the task. Given that there were only eight tasks,

the ability to obtain significant results is impressive. Nevertheless, the

results task characteristics should not be and viewed experience as definitive variables. because Task of characteristics problems in measuring were K

21

.L.
measured by indices that combined several factors. With the small nmber of

" tasks used, moderate changes in the weights used to combine the factors in

these indices could have a great effect on the relationship between retention

and task characteristics. For example, tasks that involve greater recall

from memry (a positive component of complexity) often have more and stronger

"performance cues (a negative component of coplexity). Changes in the roletive weights of these two factors in determining complexity could change the

rank order of tasks on the complexity index, and hence, the overall relationship between complexity and retention.

Future research, then, should concentrate on providing refined measures

of complexity, interference, and other task factors, and should relate these

indices to retention on a large sample of tasks. Much of the work required

"is conceptual and involves the determination of appropriate factors to in-

"" clude in measures of complexity and interference, and proper rules for combining these factors into reliable indices. Other aspects involve increasing -Z

the sample of tasks used to test the effects of the skill components on

retention.

Probably the most significant aspect of the results of the combined

analysis is that it indicates that details associated with how a task is

practiced influence retention. Thus, if the tasks are performed differently

"in the unit from the way they were trained, the soldiers' performance will

"look less and less like the standards set during training, and will appear

to decline even at high rates of practice.

2S

•.,I.
REFERENCES

Annett, J. (September 1977). Skill loss: A review of the literature and

recommendation for research. Warwick, England: University of Warwick.

Block, J. H., & Burns, R. B. (1976). Nastery learning. In L. Shulman (Ed.),

Review of research in education. Itasca, IL: F. Z. Peacock.

Dressell, J. D. (February 1980). Mnemonically enhanced training (Working V.

paper). Alexandria, VAt U.S. Army Research Institute.

, Ellis, H. C. (1979). Transfer and retention. In M. H. Marx (Ed.), Learning:

Processes. London: Macmillan.

"- Gardlin, G. R., & Sitterley, T. E. (June 1972). Degradation of learned

skills: A review and annotated bibliography. Seattle, WA: Boeing

Aerospace.

Goldberg, S. L., Drillings, M., & Dressel, J. D. (1982). Mastery trainina: r

Effect on skill retention (Technical Report 513) Alexandria, VA.: U.S.

Army Research Institute.

Hagman, J. D. (January 1980a). Effects of presentation- and test-trial

training on motor acquisition and retention (Technical Report 431). .

Alexandria, VA: L.S. Army Research Institute.

Hagman, J. D. (May 1980b). Effects of training task repetition on retention

and transfer of maintenance skill (Research Report, Draft). Alexandria, VA:

U.S. Army Research Institute.

Hagman, J. D. (November 1980c). Effects of training schedule and equipment

variety on retention and transfer of maintenance skill (Research Report 1309).

Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute.

. Hagman, J. D. Effects of presentation- and test-trial

training on acquisition and retention of movement end location (Technical Report Draft) Alexandria, VA.: US Army Research Institute.

Holding, D. H. (1965). Principles of training. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

* Holmgren, J. E., Hilligoss, R. E., Swezey, R. W., & Eakins, R. C. (April

1979). Training effectiveness and retention of training extension

course (TEC) instruction in the combat arms (Research Report 1203).

Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute.

Johnson, S. L. (January 1978). Retention and transfer of training on a procedural tasks Interaction of training strategy and cognitive style

(Calspan Report No. DJ-6032-M-1). Buffalo, NY: Calapan Corp.

Knerr, C. M., Berger, D. C., & Popelka, B. A. (1980). Sustaining team performance: A esytems model (Final Report). Springfield, VA: Litton 't. Mel lonics.

27 I- %
"McCluskey, 14. R., Hiller, 3. H., Bloom, R. D., & Whituaruh, P. J. (November

1978). Skill decay of sixteen comon tasks for HO8 112 and l1C (Final

Report, Draft). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute.

Osborn, W. C., Campbell, C. H., & Harris, J. H. (Deoember 1979). The retention of tank crewman skills (Research Report 1234). Alexandria, VA"

U.S. Army Research Institute.

Prophet, W. W. (October 1976). Long-term retention of flying skills: A - review of the literature (HumRR0 Technical Report 76-35). Alexandria,

VA: Human Resources Research Organization.

Rose, A. M., McLauglin, D. H., Felker, D. B., a Hagman, J. D. (In preparation). Retention of soldiering skillsa Review of recent ARI research.

(Technical Report 530). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute.

Schendel, J. D., & Hagman, J. D. (July 1980). On sustaining procedural

skills over prolonged retention intervals (Research Report 1298). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute.

S Schendel, J. D., Shields, 3. L., & Katz, M. S. (Septenber 1978). Retention

of motor skills: A review (Technical Paper 313). Alexandria, VA:

U.S. Army Research Institute.

Shields, J. L., Goldberg, S. L., & Dressel, J. D. (September 1979). Retention of basic soldiering skills (Research Report 1225). Alexandria,

VA: U.S. Army Research Institute.

Shields, J. L., Joyce, R. P., & VanWert, J. R. (March 1979). Chaparral skill

retention (Research Report 1205). Alexandria, VA, U.S. Army Research

"* Institute.

Sullivan, D. J., Casey, R. J., & Hebin, J. M. (October 1978). Acquisition

C; and retention of cognitive versus perceptually oriented training materials (Technical Report Draft) Alexandria, VA: US Army Research Inztitute.

U.S. Army Field Artillery School. (1977). Weapon system training effectiveness analysis: The forward observer (Phase IA Baseline, Vol. 1).

Fort Sill, OK: U.S. Army Field Artillery School.

- U.S. Army TRADOC Systems Analysis Activity (TRASANA). (1977). REDEYE S." ~~weapons system training effectivenes~s analysis (TRASANA Technica----- Re- ti:i

port 21-77). White Sands, NM: U.S. Army TRADOC Systems Analysis

Activity.

* . Vineberg, R. (June 1975). A study of the retention of skills and knowledge

acquired in basic training (HumRRO Technical Report 75-10). Alexandria,

"VA: Human Resources Research Organization.

Wheaton, G. R., Rose, A. M., Fingerman, P. W., Korotkin, A. L., Holding,

F. H., & Mirabella, A. (April 1976). Evaluation of the effectiveness

of training devices: Literature review and preliminary model (Research

Memorandum 76-6). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute.

28
ii I.I..'.

'-°-

APPENDIX A

SAMPLE QUESTIONNAIRES

AND SCORESHEETS

,,.5

cis

A-1 °

-5-

;...'.-

.o-i
BACKGROUND INFORMATION

NAME: __ Social Security Nc. _ ___'. I (Last': (First) (fiiddle)

PAY GRADE: El E2 E3

(Check one) E4 E5 E'

CURRENT DUTY POSITION: (1) Gunner (2) Loader _.__ (3) Driver (4) TC -

(5) Other_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

(Describe)

i "• tWHEN DID YOU START YOUR CURRENT DUTY POSITION? Month Year_______

BATTALION: 5/33 AR COMPANY;: FO__ Platoon: 1

4/37 AR A 2

C

WHICH ENTRY LEVEL TRAINING COURSE DID YOU ATTEND?

(1) 19E OSUT_:.."-.

(2) 19F OSUT_____"_

(3) Entry trainin-gin another MOS_ _'"

WHAT OSUT TRACK DID YOU ATTEND: S (1) Driver_ ___ "(2) Gunner/Loader

(3) My OSUT did not have tracks_______

"WHAT WAS YOUR OSUT COMPANY?__ _ _ _ _ _ _

L WHEN DID YOU GRADUATE FROM OSUT? Winth Year_ _ _

WHEN WAS YOUR LAST TABLE 8? Month Year________

Have not participated in Table 8

WHAT WAS YOUR C'REW POSITION DURING YOUR LAST TABLE 8?

(1) Tank Commander (2) Gunner (3) Driver

(4) Loader (5) No Previous Table 7T

HOW DID YOUP CREW DO ON ITS LAST TABLE 8? .:

(1) Distlngdtshed (2) Oualified_______

(2) Non-ouallfied._ ,. (4) No Previous 'Tabe 8

WHAT POS:TION DO YOU EXPECT TO HOLD DURING THE NEXT TABLE 8 YOUR CRE"

PARTICIPATES IN?

(0) Tank Conhimander (2) Gunner_ ,,_,_:

(3) Dr~ver (4) Loader____

L

L: A-

. -- :. - .
0 %w

m

LAJ af Q)

E-0

L.1 t

:.j

o cl. -I

4-)- 0 .14 ". U j: IW a Q

Lj.J 4)

J- w cz )r -. \ QU~ .U ~ C) X Iq oU

Cd~~r to~~J

0D 0 0t

M~CO 13 l . = = 0 - -i OE Li w u- c-. ue- r_ CC - *-J :-3. W V) MU J.d

Li ~ 4 I..

o - ) C C ~jC. U 

~~% CO C A-3~ O W
NAME

SSAN

UNIT

"TEST FT I 2 

TRAIN [ZE] mT- E i3

LOAD AN M240 COAX MACHINEGUN

INSTRUCTIONS TO SOLDIER

"At this station you will demonstrate your ability to load an M240 coaxial machLnegun.

Assume the machinegun will be fired immediately after it is loaded. Do you understand

the instructions?" (NOTE TO SCORER: If the soldier does not, read the instructions again.)

"BEGIN."

PERFORMANCE MEASURES YES NO PROMPTS TIME

1. Clears the machinegun.

a. Pulls charger handle rearward to lock bolt back. I1 1 2 3

b. Places safety on S .................. . .. _._ 1 2 3

c. Raises cover ..... .................. . .. _._ 1 2 3

d. Lifts feedtray ...... ....... ................. ___ 1 2 3

e. Looks and feels empty chamber .......... . .. _ 1 2 3

f. Lowers feedtray ..................... .l... 1 2 3

2. Loads the machinegun.

a. Places first round in feedtray with open side

of belt face down .................... . .... _. 1 2 3

b. Pushes ammuniticn in feedtray until it comes

in contact with cartridge stops ......... .. . 1 2 3

c. Closes cover ..... ..................... 1 2 3

d. Places safety in F .................. . .... 1 2 3

e. Announces "UP" when machinegun loaded .... ...... 1 2 3

TOTAL TIME

The soldier has satisfactorily completed the task if he scores a "YES" on all of

the standards listed below:

STANDARDS YES NO

1. Completes all performance measures without assistance from scorer . ... ...................

2. Steps are performed in sequence ............... -

3. Ammunition is in feedtray and doesn't pull out

when jerked ....... ..................... .

TOTAL SCORE

TOTAL TIME

REASON(S) FOR "NO" SCORE

A-4
SS M

TEST M-$-1

TRAIN M

START THE MPiOAI TANK ENGINE

INSTRUCTIONS TO SOLDIER

'You are the driver of an IOA1 tank. You are to start the engine, assuming normal weather conditions. I will act

as other crew positions when necessary. Do you understand the instructionsT? (NOTE TO SCORER: If the soldier has

questions, read the instructions again.) 'BEGIN.'

PERFORMANCE MEASURES Y.ES NO PROhPTS TIME

1. Sets parking brake by pushing brake pedal until pressure reaches between

750-900 psi ............ ....... ....... ..................................... . 1 2 3

2. Places transmission in PARK ............ ....... ............................. . ___ 2 3

3. Releases brake pedal ...... ....... ................................ . . .. ... 1 2 3

4. Closes both drain valves ...... ..... .............................. . ...._._ 1 2 3

5. Places fuel shut-off valve handle in ON position .... .................. . .... 1 2 3

6. Places fuel pump switch in O position ........... ..... ....................... ___ 1 2 3

7. Asks crew if their electronic equipment is OFF ..... ................... .. .... 1 2 3 __

(NOTE TO SCORER: Tell soldier the electronic equipment is OFF.)

(NOTE T0 SCORER: Insure all the electronic equipment Is OFF before master

battery switch is turned ON.)

8. Turns master battery switch Oh ...... ....... ....... .......................... ___ 1 2 3

9. Check fuel levels.

a. Sets FUEL TANKS switch to position L ............. ...................... . __ 1 2 3

(NOTE TO SCORER: If a soldier performs A or B, he should be given a

"YES' for PM 9.)

10. Depresses accelerattr pedal ....... ..... ............................ . ..... 1 2 3

11. Presses starter s%%itzh until engine starts (or up to 15 seconds, whichever

comes first) ...... ....... ....... ..... .................................... __ 1 2 3

The soldier has satisfactorily completed the task if he scores a "YES" on all of the Standards listed below:

STANDORDS YES NO

1. Completes all performance measures without assistance from scorer ..............

2. Asks if electronic equipment is OFF before turning master battery switch ON ......

3. Tank engine starts ...... ....... ... ..................................

4. Performs performance measures in sequence when necessary (see sequence flowchart

on next page) ....... ....... ... .....................................

TOTAL SCORE

TOTAL TIME

REASON(S) FOR WN SCORE

A-5
SS•h

UNIT

TEST F" -1 77

TRAIN E D E

STOP THE M60A1 TANK ENGINE

INSTRUCTIONS TO SOLDIER

"You are the driver of an M6OAI tank. Assume you have driven 150 miles. You are to der•ostrate the procedure for

Sto•ping the tank's engine. I will act as tank commander or gunner when necessary. Do you understand the instructions?'

(NOTE TO SCORER: If the soldier has questions, read the instructions again.) "BEGIN."

PERFOPv.NCE MEASURES YES NO PRO.PITS TrI._

1. Sets parking brake by pushing brake pedal until pressure reaches between 7S0-900 psi .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 3

2. Places transmission in PARK...... ........ . ...... .... ................. .... 1 2 3

3. Releases brake pedal ...... ..... ................................... 1 2 3

4. Presses accelerator so that engine idles at 1000-1200 rpm .............. .. 1 2 3

(NOTE TO SCORER: Ask soldier how long engine should idle at this rpm.)

S. Soldier says engine idles at 10O0-1200 rprr for 5 minutes .............. .. . . . 1 2 3

(NOTE TO SCORER: Tell soldier to continue to next step.)

6. Releases accelerator and idles engine at 700-750 rpm ....... .................... 1 2 3

(NOTE TO SCORER: Ask soldier how long engine should idle at this rprr.)

7. Soldier says engine idles at 750 rpm for 3 minutes ... ............... .... 1 2 3

8. Asks Gunner and TC if their electronic equipment is OFF ............... .!..1 2 3

(NOTE TO SCORER: Scorer tells soldier the equipment is OFF.)

9. Holds engine fuel shut-off switch in 'SHUT-OFF" (Up) until engine stops ..... 1 2 3

10. Turns master battery OFF, after engine stops ........... ...... .................. 1 2 3

TOTAL 'Tie

The soldivr has satisfactorily completed the task if he scores a 'YES" on all of the Standards listed below:

STAN'ARDS YES NO

I. Completes all perforrance measures without assistance from scorer ...........

2. Turns master battery switch OFF, after engine stops ..... ................

3. Performs performance measures in sequence when required ..................

4. Engine stops ........... ....... ..................................

TOTAL SCORE

TOTAL TI __.

REASON(S) FOR NO' SCORE

A-6
TrST co l] E

PERFORM GUNNER'S PREPARE-TO-rIPE CHIECKS

(CNECK GUN CONTROLS)

IUSIRIUCTIONS TO SOLDItR

"Iou art the guftnnr Of an I6OA1 tank. You are doing Prepare-to-Fire checks and have already checked the firin

SwitcheS. YOU will prfors the sequence -CHECK GUN CONTROLS" after I give you the comrand. The turret Is in manual

operation. I will act &I the other crew positions when necessary. Do you understand the instructions?' (NOTE TO

SCORER: If the soldier has questions. read the instructions again.) "Remer.ber the turret must be placed into

power OPeration before Checking the azimuith indicator for accuracy or slipPage. (NOTE TO SCORER: Start the

training by saying -CHECK GUN CONTROL.-)

PERFORItANCE MEASURES YES NO PROM.TS 1l i

1. Places turret Into power operation.

a. holds down power solenoid plunger while rotating gunner's control handle

either left or right .............. ... ..............................- - 2 3

b. Molds gunner control handle in position described in (a) until zero presture is indicated on pressure gage ....... .....................- - 1 2

c. Checks hydraulic power pack oil level by removing dipstick of oil level gage. . 1 2 3

d. Tells loader to unlock turret traverse lock. . ..................... . . . .. 1 2 3

(NOTE T0 SCORER: Unlock turret lock.)

e. Announces *POWERN .............. ............................... ..... 1 2 3

(NOTE TO SCORER: Turn on mraster battery switch--announce "POwrER ON.*)

f. Turns ELEY/TRAV power switch ON ........ ........................ ..... 1 2 3

9. Squeezes ragnetic brake switch while rotating gunner's power control handles

to left and right ............. ............................... ..... 1 2 3

h. Moves handles rearward to elevate gun, forward to lower gun, while squeezing magnetic brake switch ........... ............................. ...... 1 2 3

(NOTE TO SCORER: PX g and h may be done as listed or reversed 1h then g].)

(NOTE TO SCORER: Tell soldier TC's power control handles have been operated.)

2. Checks azimuth Indicator for accuracy.

a. Looks through eyepiece on gunner's daylight periscope ......................... 1 2 3

(NOTE TO SCORER: Tell soldier the aiming point.)

b. Alines cross on aiming point using manual elevating and traversing handles. 1 2 3

(NOTE TO SCORER: Verify soldier has alined cross on aiming point.)

L. Sets azimuth indicator to zero.

- Presses resetter knob ............. ....... ... ... ............................ 1 2 3

- Turns resetter knob to aline middle scale pointer with inner scale pointer.. 1 2 3

- Turns resetter knob moving both pointers to zero .................. .... 1 2 3

- Releases resetter knob .......... ............................ ..... 1 2 3

8. Traverses turret through complete circlv using manual traversing handle ... 1 2 3

e. Brings aiming cross back on same ,iming point ......... ... ..................... 1 2 3

(NOTE TO SCORER: Verify the aiming cross Is on original aiming point by looking

through periscope.)

f. Turns head to check that azimuth indicator middle scale pointer Is within

acceptable area ....... ... ..... ... ..... ................................ 1 2 3

(NOTE TO SCORER: Use scoring aid when determining if the pointer is within

the acceptable area.)

g. 1) Proceeds to next check if middle scale pointer is within acceptable area 1 2 3

OR

2) Notifies tank commander (TC) pointer is not within acceptable area ..... 1 2 3

3. Checks azimuth indicator for slippage.

Right Side

a. Looks through eyepiece of gunner's daylight periscope ....... .................. 1 2 3

b. Uses gvuner's control handles to traverse rapidly to right ........... .. 1 2 3

c. Stops turret suddenly while traversing ....... .................. ......... 1 2 3

6. Turns ELEV/TRAV power switch OFF ....... ........................ ..... 1 2 3

a. Traverse turret left using manual traverse handle until cross is alined with

original aiming point ........... ....... ......... ............................. 1 2 3

(mOTE 10 SCORER: Verify the aiming cross is on original aiming point by

looking through periscope.)

f. Turns head to check that azimuth indicator middle scale pointer is within

acceptable area ...... ....... ................................ . . . . . .. 1 2 3

(NOTE TO SCORR: Use scoring aid when determinino If the pointer is within

A-7
NAME

SSAX

UNIT

TEST ED

TRAIN ED

PERFOM GUNNER'S PREPARE-TO-FIRE CHiECKS

(CHECK GUM CONTROLS)

(Cont'd.)

PE.FORICE .CASUR, S YES No PROTs TIS (

1. 1) Proceeds to left side check If middle scale Indicator pointer Is

within acceptable area ................ 1 2 3

CA

2) Notifies TC if both pointers are not within acceptable area ..... ........ - __ 1 2 3

h. Announces POWER ......... ................................ . . . . . .. . 1 2 3

1. Turns ELEV/TRAV powr svitch ON ............ ........................ .. 1 2 3

,.tft Side

a. Looks through eyepiece of gunner's daylight periscope ....... ............. ___ 1 2 3

b. Uses gunner's control handles to traverse rapidly to left ...... ........... .1- 2 3

C. Stops turret suddenly while traversing ........... .................... ._ 1 2 3

d. Turns EL[V/TRAY power switch OFF ........ ... ....................... . 1 2 3

a. Traverses turret righ' using manual -traverse handle until cross is alined

with original aiming point ........ .......................... 2 3

(NOTE TO SCORER: Verify aiming cross is on original aiming point by looking

through periscope.)

f. Turns head to check that middle scale pointer is within acceptable area .... 1 2 3

(NOTE TO SCORER: Use scoring aid wen determining If the pointers are within .

acceptable area.)

g. 1) Stops check if pointer is within acceptable area ............... .. 1 2 3

OR

2) Notifies TC i" n.-inters are not within acceptable area ...... ........... 1 2 3

"TOTAL TIME

The soldier has satisfactorily campleted the task if he scores a 'YES' on all of the standards listed below:

-SYANDARDS YES NO

1. ConTpletts-all performance m. . .. .......... . . ..... ....

2. Announced *POWER before turning EL[V/TRAV switch ON ..... ................

3. Pointer of aziamuth indicator is within range shown on scoring aid after accuracy . -

4. Pointers of azimuth indicator are within range shown on scoring aid after each

slippage test ............ ...................................

S. Cross is alined with aiming point after accuracy checks ..... ..............

6. Performs performance measures in sequence when necessary (see. sequence flowchart

below) .............. ....... ....... .. ....................................

TOTAL SCORE

TOTAL TIME

REASOMMS FOR 'NO* SCORE

SEQUENCE

A-B imuth Ind. Accuracy PH 2a-9

r n sequence

P" 4 l-h

in segue I

Azimutth Ind. Slipiale

PM• 3&-g (right side)

and 3a.-gNleft side)

in sequecmce
UNIT_

TIEST D i D

TRAIN QiL) D

PERFORM LOADER'S PREPARE-TO-FIRE CHECKS

(CHECK MAIN GUM FIRING SWITCHES)

INSTRUCTIONS T0 SOLDIER

"You are the loader of an M6OA1 tank. You are doing the Prepare-to-Fire checks and will demonstrate the section

"CHECK MAIN GUN FIRING S.;TCHES.' I will act as the other crew positions when necessary. Do you understand the

instructlons?* ('D.TE TC SCU.ER: If the soldier has questions, read the instructions again.)

(NOTE TO SCORER: Star: the training trial by saying 'CHECK MAIN GUN FIRING SWITCHES.")

PERFORKMWCE MEASUR[S YES NO PROWTS TIME

1. Closes breech by tripping extractors with block of wood ......................... 1 2 3

2. Inserts circuit tester into opening between rear face of gun tube and front

face of breechblock. ....... ....... ..... ..... ... ................................ 1 2 3

3. Moves main gun safety switch to FIRE position ..... ................... . ..... 1 2 3

4. Announces *UP . ............ ....... ....... ..... ................................. 1 2 3

(NOTE TO SCORER: Turn master battery switch ON, then turn the main gun

switch Oh. Momentarily press the comrmander's control

handle palm switch. Circuit tester should not light.)

5. Tells gunner to squeeze main gun triggers .......... ..................... . -

(NOTE TO SCORER: Squeeze the trigger on each handle and the trigger on

manual elevation control. Rotate the manual firing

handle very rapidly in a clockwise direction. Announce

ON THE WAY each time you squeeze a trigger. Circuit

tester should light.)

6. Tells TC to squeeze main gun L-igger ......... ....................... . .

(NOTE TO SCOUER: Squeeze and hold Override palm handle, then squeeze trigger.

Announce 'ON THE WAY.' Circuit tester should light.)

7. Moves main gun safety switch to SAFE ...... ....................... ..... 1 2 3

S. Tells gunner to press trigger on manual firing handle ...... ................- - 2 3 .

(NOTE TO SCORER: Squeeze the trigger on manual firing handle. Announce

*ON THE WAY." Turn manual firing handle very rapidly in

clockwise direction. Announce *ON THE WAY.* Circuit

tester should not light.)

9. Tells gunner to turn rain gun OFF. . .. ..... . . . . . . . . . . ... . ..-- 3-.

10. Removes circuit tester from breechblock ........ ....... ..... ...................... 1 2 3

TOTAL TIME

STANDARD YE S NO

1. The soldier has satisfactorily completed the task If he scores a *YES* on all

of the performance measures.... ......... ..... . ...... .............

2. Performs performance measure in sequence when necessary (see sequence

flowchart on next page).

EASON(S) FOR -NO' SCORE

A-9
NAME

SSAN

UNIT

[EZ--ZI, J SERIES 2 __ __

Yes N~o 1 2 T irL.

Encaiement 1 1. Turns main Sun switch ON. . . . ............ - - i 2 3

(PtriscC-: dazagtd) 2. Indexes ammunition . . ............- 2 3

Gunner

HEP 3. Announces IDENTIFIED . . . ................. - - i 2 3

Moving Truck NOTE: Scorer says UP

1000 NOTE: Scorer says FIRE

4. Looks through correct sight ........ 1 2 3

Periscope

Telescope -3-

5. Selects correct reticle ...... 1 2 3

Periscope

SABOT/iHP-'-

_ HEAT . - 20 6. Lays crosshair at center of the target -- (with lead applied) . . .. . . .. 1 2 3

Periscope crosshair

1. .SABOT 2000M range line, 2.5 mil lead

REP 1000M range line, 7.5 mil lead T

HEAT 180CM range line, 5.0 mil lead

- 7. Says ON THE WAY ................... . .. _1 2 3

20 *

PTOD~t S Yes No 1 2 3 Time

Engagement 2 1. Turns main gun switch ON ................ * 2 3

(Periscope dazaged) 2. Indexes acmunitioD. ................ . 1 2 3

Gunner

HEAT 3. Announces IDENTIFIED ............... ... 1 2 3

Moving Tank NOTE: Scorer says UP

1800 NOTE: Scorer says FIRE

_ _4. Looks through correct sight ........ 1 2 3

Periscope

Telescope_•

5. Selects correct reticle ............ . 1 2 3

Periscope

SABOT/iEP

HEAT

.4 :6. Lays crosshair at center of the target I (with lead applied) ............ 1 2 3

Periscope crosshair

___ -- - SABOT 2000M range line, 2.5 nil lead

.HEP lO00M range line, 7.5 mil lead

HEAT 1800M range line, 5.0 mil lead

7. Says ON THE WAY. . ..... . . . . . . . .... 1 2 3

A-10
NAME

S SAN

UNIT

SERIES 2 Prorptz YeN_ o 1 2 3 Tit,

Eý.te-::.ent 3 1. Turns Uain gun switch ON .. 23

(rvri-cc;•, damaged) [2. Indexes ammunition . . l 2 3

SAL3T 3. Announces IDENTIFIED. . 2 3

Moving Tank NOTE: Scorer says UT

201; NOTE: Scorer says FIRE

] 4. Looks through correct sight......... 1 2 3

Periscope

Telescope T

5. Selects correct reticle .......... ... 1 2 3

Periscope

sABoT/HEP -

HEAT

6. Lays crosshair at center of the target - (with lead applied). ............ 1 2 3

Periscope crosshair

m - .- SABOT 2000M range line, 2.5 nil lead

HEP 1000M range line, 7.5 nil lead

..J.. NHEAT 1800M range line, 5.0 nil lead

1 7. Says ON THE WAY . ............. 1 2 3

Prompts

Yes No 1 2 3 Time

Engagement 4 1. Turns main gun switch ON ...... ......... . 1 2 3

Gunner 2. Indexes ammuiuitlon .................. 1 2 3

HEP

'ruck 3. Announces IDENTIFIED .............. . .. _1 2 3

NOTE: Scorer says UTf

NOTE: Scorer says FIRE

4. Looks through correct sight ..... ........ 1 2 3

- Periscope V

Telescope

5. Selects correct reticle .......... . 1 2 3

Periscope V

SABOT/HEP

HEAT

6. Lays crosshair at center of the target

(with lead applied) ............... .. 1 2 3

Periscope crosshair V

SABOT 20001 range line, 2.5 nil lead

HEP l000M range line, 7.5 nil lead

NEAT 1800M range line, 5.0 nil lead

7. Says ON THE WAY ... .............. . .. _1 2 3

A-11
NAME

SSAN

UNIT

TEST I] M

TRAIN M•ci m- -

COMMUNICATE OVER TACTICAL FM RADIO AN/VRC-64

PERFORMANCE MEASURES YES NO PROMPTS TIME

1. Places CVC helmet switch in center position ..... 1 2 3

2. Calls net control station ................... 1 2 3

3. Identifies himself before giving the messages .... . 1 2 3

4. Tells net-c-ont-rol---s.tation -number-of-messages--.- - -_ __ I 3-

5. Tells-net- control station- precedence-of.aiessages--.- -

6. Transmits Message ........ ................. __ 2 3

7. Uses phonetic alphabet as required . ....... 1 2 3

8. Pronounces numbers correctly .. . . . . . . . .... 1 2 3

9. Says OVER after Message ...... ............... . 1 2 3

STANDARDS YES NO

1. Each performance measure completed with a YES...

2. Steps are performed in sequence ..............

TOTAL TIME

INSTRUCTIONS TO SOLDIER

"At this station you will demonstrate your ability to communicate a message over a tactical FM radio AN/VRC-64. I will be the net control

station. Here is the information you need to transmit the message."

(NOTE TO SCORER: Hand soldier the attachment, a pencil and a sheet of

paper.) "You will have two minutes to review the attachment before we begin. Do you understand the instructions?" (NOTE TO SCORER: If the

soldier does not understand the instructions, reread them.) "You may

review- the message information now."

A-12
irSl ED] 230

TVIlN ED] CEl M

CM UICATE usIaG VISUAL SIGNALLIN 1[ouoQUES: OUND UDIOG,

*At this tlatiot ye will be tested aft ylvrg abili to U aio guide a tantk frm the STAJI point to the fTlISH point gf a drf-icq cari.t The CwRSO it Clearly marked for Yo. I will be the task; whatever direction I as facimi will be the dirc.. Ito the task is fatten. I an Pak.t"dn ith Not e poojl IV egitn is mot rwmjnlt. •Wh get 1to the FINISM pints. %i$usu

that I mOst be moving atyre today. go you wldarstiw tow istructlmsy- (COTM TO SOkR: If soldier does rot underinsuni I M i k ft t r u c t ti m s . r Wl o od t h e m . ) M O NIl .$

Putro~enct PeAstrats !MI r s ____ 7 _l_

I. gites signal to Start 1nsite.

a. Islends arm toard freit at walst level ......... . . . . . . 1 2 3

b. m I. towtei .0tcal .............. ..... . - 1 2 ]

2. CGite SipN1 ite Recet ft everst.

lts buth k. heds n to sholder level .l............. . - -. 

b. Placets Pilts U fronct .t.................. .- ..2.

C. Riovs honds fervard and bactward as if pushing vehicle away. 1 3

3. Gives slgnal to Stop Tank iNmbe t.

a. Clasps hMid% ................ ............................ . - 3

b. Places heeds at chi" leovel ........ ..... ..................... . .1 3

4. Gi:ts signal to Yo.e Vehicle forward.

a. Positions both palms toward Cast ..... . .............. . 3 b. monves am% and heeds backwar and forward............. . 3

S. Gives signal to turn Left.

a. Rtail#%s hands to spouldler level is front of bodyT. . .$

b. rams clenched flit of arm inilcatisg direction ten Is to he malde (a% so by taski driver) .................... 1 )

c. Pokes heckonlng action with other cre to Wing vehicle farward 1 3

I. Gtive signal t rave vehicle Forward.

a. Poeitios both palos toward chest . .......................... 1 2 3

b. hoves arsi and hads bOckward aid forward. . ........... .............. 1 2 3

7. gives signal to Stop Tack Hoecwnt.

a. Clasps hands ....................... ............................ .1 2 3

b. Places heads at chic lavel ........... ........ ..................... 1 2 3

1. G•Ces signal to Steer Neutral (Loft).

a. Crosses wrists at throet ...... ...................... ...... 1 2 3

b. Points inata finger to tank driver's lift ............. ............ .1 2 3

t. Clenches fist of other hid ....... ......... ............ .... 1 2 3

IOTt: If soldier gives left turn sigsil. tell hie to give thM sigal

for mtral steer lift. Do •ot work the PV MO.*

9. Gitves tinal to Poor Vehicle Forwrd.

a. Positions both palms toward ckaSt ...................... .. .. .. 1 2 3

b. Roves anms aid heads backward and forward ................ ..... 1 2 3

10. Gives stiil to Tar light.

a. Ruites heids to Shoulder level in frost of body ...... ........... .- 1 2 3

b. roams tlenched flit of am edicatitig dlrection turt Isto be

made (aS teea by toas driver)o. . . ............ .... . . .... . .. 1 2 3

C. •okes becko•ing notion with other are U brilg vehicle forward 1 2 3

i1. givies sigal to move vehicle Forward.

a. Posltions both palms tord chest ..............................

b. Roaes arms and hinds hebcsord aid forard ........................ 1

12. Gives signal to Stop Tank Kovemet.

a. Clasp heads ......................... ............................ 1

b. Place$ heids at chin level ......... .......... ..................... 1 2 3

13. gives signal to Stop Engiues.

a. Positicns right heid Palo down .... ................... ...... 1 2 3

b. D'twi hand across sect Ir "thrtat cutting' motion from left U

right. 1 2 3

SItaNDAI 1TS a0

I. Coletes acah performance eatut without assisUIne from Scorer ...

2. Grcai ?wide si•nals pIvic is sequence indicated .................

3. Correct grued guide signal lives.. . ..... ....................

MOAL T7119 ___

A-13
3. ,-.., • =

APPENDIX B

" PROPORTION CORRECT BY TASK ELEMENT FOR OSUT

AND OPERATIONAL UNIT SAMPLES

va

B.."1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

CHARGER BACR + 0 +

SAFE + 0+

+

RAISE COVER +

+ +.',:

FEEDTRAY UP + 0 +

+ +

FEEL CHAMBER + o +

+- +

FEEDTRAY DWN + 0+

ROUND IN + 0+

4. + .. .

PUSH AMMO4 +

.- 4- +4_

CLOSE COVER + 0+

4. +

SAFETY FIRE + 0 +

4-.. +

SAYS "UP" + O +

S" 4-..---+----+----+-----.----+----+--.-------.----+----+

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

LOAD THE 14240 MACHINEGUN

PROPORTION CORRECT BY TASK ELEMENT

IN OPERATIONAL UNIT (N-116)

3-2

,.. . , f .. . -... . .**** °, 

, ,. **~* . .. \..*;. 

". . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * ..
i' N Vt N - - - - - - --

Trials

Task Element 1 2 3 4 5 6

P Charger Back 96 100 100 100 100 100

Safe 99 100 100 100 100 100

. Raise Cover 85 93 95 95 100 88

Feedtray Up 100 100 100 100 100 100

Feel Chamber 57 98 99 100 100 95 L

Feedtray Down 98 100 99 100 100 100

* Round In 100 99 99 100 100 100

Close Cover 100 100 100 99 100 100

S safety Fire 68 98 100 99 99 100

Says "Up" 41 88 99 98 100 92

LOAD THE M240 MACHINEGUN PROPORTION

CORRECT BY TASK ELEMENT IN OSUT (N-110)

IL,

... '

I .- "

B-3

. 2..:::
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

PRESS BRAKE + 0 +

:+ + : i

,TRANS PARK + 0

+ +

RELEASE BRK + o +

+ +

DRAIN VALVES + 0 +-

4- +.- -

FUEL SHUTOFF + 0 +

4,'. .+.

FUEL PUMP ON + O +0

4+ +

EQUIPMNT OFF + o +

4-.•- +..',

M.B. SWITCH + o

FUEL LEVELS + 0 + 4. . + ii ]

GENERATOR ON + + +-

+ .+ II 4

ACCEL. DOWN + 0+

"" STARTER SW. + 0+' 4....".

+ + ...

GEN. BLOWER + o +

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

""TART THE M60A1 TANK ENGINE

PROPORTION CORRECT BY TASK ELEMENT

L IN OPERATIONAL UNIT (N-116)

r-4
Trials STask Element 1 _2 3 4 5 _6 .

I.- (..q

""Press Brake 98 100 100 100 100 100 ;=

":Trans. Park 99 100 99 99 99 100•.:'L

: Release Brake 93 98 98 99 100 99 -..

Drain Valves 90 94 100 100 100 99

Fuel Shutoff 99 100 100 100 100 100 ... Fuel Pump On 100 100 100 100 100 98

Equipment Off 89 99 98 99 100 99

• "sM.sB. Switch 39 74 19 93 100 621

Fuel Levels 96 99 98 100 99 95

EupAccl. Down 86 89 93 92 97 90

"Starter 91 91 96 98 99 91

START THE M60Al TANK ENGINE

PROPORTION CORRECT BY TASK ELEMENT IN OSUT (N-93)

I- L-

* .g*, .*.--.-- -.- * * . . * . . .
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

PRESS BRAKE + O 0.

TRANS PA2RK *

RELEASE BRK + o

SET 1000 RPM + o +

-, + +

IDLE 5 MIN. + O +

i..+ +

SET 750 RPM + o - .o4

IDLE 3 KIN. + o +

++

EQUIPMNT OFF + 0 +

i ~++

* FUEL SHUTOFF + o

. M.B. SWITCH + o

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

STOP THE M60Al TANK ENGINE

PROPORTION CORRECT BY TASK ELEMENT

IN OPERATIONAL UNIT (N-116)

B-6
'I"y

• "Trials

Task Element 1 2 4 5 6Z.

S...... (.... ,

I Press Brake 97 100 100 100 100 100

Trans. Park 97 99 100 100 100 100

Release Brake 97 97 98 99 98 100

Set 1000 RPM S1 97 98 98 99 97

Idle 5 minutes 62 97 100 100 99 94

Set 750 RPM 95 99 100 100 100 99

Idle 3 minutes 78 97 99 100 100 95

Equipment off 92 99 100 99 100 100

Fuel Shut-Off 57 92 95 98 99 94

MB Switch 60 93 95 98 100 95

PROPORTION CORRECT BY TASK ELEMMENT IN OSUT IN-120)

B-7

., .*f ..
"0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

+- -- - - - -- - -- ----------- - -4- - - -- - --- n"..

UHOLD PLUNGER + 0 +

ZERO PRESSUR + + +.

CHECK OIL + 0 +

UNLOCK TRAV. + a +

SAYS "POWER" + o +

ELEV/TRAV ON + 0 +

LEFT/RIGHT + o

' ELEV./LOWER + o +

PERISCOPE + o +

': ALINE CROSS +o +

PRESS RESET + o +

TURN RESET + o +

ZERO RESET + o +

RLS RESET + o +

-TRVRS CIRLCE 0 +

RETURN CROSS +

CHECK INDIC. + +

GO ON/NOTT.F. + O +

PERISCOPE +o

TAVRS RIGHT o

SUDDEN STOP o +

* ELEV/TX•V OFF + 0

: MAN. RETURN +o +

"* CHECK INDIC. + 0 +

GO ON/NOTIF. + 0 +

- . qpmt-.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

"PERFORM GUNNER'S PREPARE-TO-FIRE CHECKS

"PROPORTION CORRECT BY TASK ELEMENT

IN OPERATIONAL UNIT (N-116)

"B-8

S-.

r,..,.~
.. " %;

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

SAY "POWER" + o

"ELEV/TRAV ON + 0 +

PERISCOPE o +

TRVRS LEFT +o +

SUDDEN STOP + o +

ELEV/TRV OFF + o +

MAN. RETURN + o +

CHECK INDIC. + 0 +

STOP/NOTIF. + 0 +

0 i0 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

K ,° .o.

PERFORM GUNNER PREPARE-TO-FIRE CHECKS

PROPORTION CORRECT BY TASK ELEMENT

IN OPERATIONAL UNIT (N-116)

(CONTINUED)

B-9

1' .,m,
Trials

Task Element 1 2 3 4 5 

6

Hold Plunger 19 84 97 99 100 87

Zero Pressure 40 94 100 100 100 94

Check oil 35 93 95 98 100 97

Unlock Tray. 7 72 90 96 99 86

Say "Power* 22 66 so 90 94 

7

Elev/Trav on 36 92 93 99 99 96

Left/Right 27 76 89 92 97 85

Elev/Lower 32 80 91 95 98 93

Periscope 15 77 86 94 98 90

Aline Cross 23 68 83 89 93 75

"Press Reset 8 90 90 90 95 87

Turn Reset 11 98 99 99 100 96

Zero Reset 11 98 99 99 100 96

Rls Reset 30 99 99 99 99 94

Trus Circle 11 54 68 81 90 77

Return Cross 31 98 99 99 100 96

Check Indic 29 93 98 98 100 95

Go On/Notif. 46 98 99 98 100 97

Periscope 5 84 93 96 100 91

STrus Right 2 81 91 95 99 90

Sudden Stop 4 88 94 98 100 92

Elev/Trv Off 5 69 82 90 96 92

Manual Return 20 58 76 89 93 82

Check Indic 42 95 98 98 100 94

Go On/Notif. 45 92 98 98 99 96

Say "Power" 51 85 94 93 98 95

"Elev/Trav On 63 90 96 98 99 97

Periscope 67 94 99 98 99 97

GUNNER PERPARE TO FIRE PROPORTION

CORRECT BY TASK ELEMENT IN OSUT (N-114)

I 3-10 -'" e .- - I-s -
"Trials

-Task Element 1 2 3 4 5 6

TRVS Left 70 93 99 98 100 96

..Sudden Stop 72 94 99 98 99 97

Elev/Trv Off 67 92 95 96 99 96

Manual Return 58 87 96 97 96 92

"" Check Indic. 74 96 98 98 100 93

- Stop/Notif. 80 96 99 98 100 95

I ., .-

"*- GU'NNER PREPARE TO FIRE PROPORTION

CORRECT BY TASK ELEMENT IN OSUT (N-114)

- (CONTINUED)

. . oo -,

r -,"-

!a

...-.. ,

- - -'.. ,
i..

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

---------------------. + --.... . .. .. - . -- ---4-- ---.

"CLOSE BREECH + 0 +

+- +

TESTER IN + + +

+ +

SET TO FIRE + o +

+ + 4'.

SAY "UP"++

S .+ +--"

* -. TELL CDR. + O ..- + +.-• •

SET TO SAFE + 0 +

+ +

TESTER OUT + o +

o 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

PERFORM LOADER'S PREPARE-TO-FIRE CHECKS

PROPORTION CORRECT BY TASK ELEMENT

IN OPERATIONAL UNIT (N-116)

~V

p-

.. •., .- "..- '-

-. ý11:1.1111 1111111,.,4 1 l 1ý11 l1 -,ok 
* Trials

Element 1 2 3 4 5 6 

Breech 17 100 100 100 100 97 

Tester In 22 98 96 98 100 95

Set to Fire 17 80 90 99 99 86

Say "Up" 26 81 91 97 99 91

Set to Safe 17 95 96 100 100 90

Tester Out 21 65 84 98 96 70

g ~ PERFOR~M LOADER' S PREPARE-TO-FIRE CHECKS

PROPORTION CORRECT BY TASK ELEMENT IN OSUT (N-113)

B•13

y~. 0 5•

o'. .*o .

S.. . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
o4

"0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

+--- -+- -- -+--- -- ------ 4 4 - - - - ------ ---

MAIN GUN ON + O +

+ +

INDEX AMMO +' +

PERISCOPE + 0

.4 4.'+' '

"IDENTIFIED" + 0 +

CROSSHAIR + O + + + :::?

"ON THE WAY" + 0+

+ +

TELESCOPE + O +-.

+ +

SABOT/HEP + 0 +

*+ +

CROSSHAIR +o +

+ + i':

HEAT RETICLE + o

CROSSHAIR +o +

+ +.!l•i

CROSSHAIR + +

+ .+..

4--------------------------------------------.. .---... ---...-----

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

ENGAGE TARGETS USING PRECISION FIRE TECHNIQUES

PROPORTION CORRECT BY TASK ELEMENT

IN OPERATIONAL UNIT (Nll6)

s-- 14

..............................-. -
U ~Trials L

Task Element 1 2 3 4 5 6

Main Gun On 83 96 98 98 99 96

Index Ammo 84 99 99 99 99 98

Periscope 86 100 97 99 98 99

"Identified" 77 99 96 99 99 98

Crosshair 19 73 94 86 97 29

"On the Way" 43 91 94 97 98 87

Telescope 97 98 99 100 99 100

SABOT/HEP 66 90 86 98 98 92

Crosshair 29 51 67 80 76 65

HEAT Reticle 87 100 96 100 99 89

Crosshair 79 95 81 92 81 68

Crosshair 32 60 57 71 82 93

ENGAGE TARGETS USING PRECISION FIRE

TECHNIQUES PROPORTION CORRECT BY TASK

ELEMENTS IN OSUT (N=93)

. . . . . . . .

:.:. ": M.gu .-
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 l

SSWITCH ON + o + -

+ + .

CALL CONTROL + 0 +

IDENTIFIES + 0 +

- '.-+ + , .. '

NUMBER MSGS + o +

- + +..-,

PRECEDENCE + 0

+ +

7 MESSAGE #1 + 0

+

•. -ALPHABET +4 o +

+ +

* •..SAYS "OVER" + 0 +

- 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

COMMUNICATE OVER TACTICAL RM RADIO AN/VRC-64

PROPORTION CORRECT BY TASK ELEMENT

IN OPERATIONAL UNIT (N-116)

LB-16 12 -.- 3..6•.

- ~ *,*..*.t-*..*-.".*
-- w A

L0

Trials

Task Element 1 2 3 4 5 6

Switch On 87 100 99 98 100 96

Call Control 77 90 90 98 98 99

Identifies 92 93 98 98 99 99

No. Messenger 69 94 94 90 95 100--

Precedence 41 61 75 87 92 71

Message #i 45 66 83 92 94 97

Alphabet 67 79 83 78 96 83

Numbers 78 78 90 92 91 92

Says "Over" 97 98 98 100 100 100

COMMUNICATE OVER TACTICAL FM RADIO AN/VRC-64

PROPORTION CORRECT BY TASK ELEMENT IN OSUT (N-130)

L -s--7

"•' ii• ~.-:..

° -o° ._ oo
It6

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90100 l

ARMS FRONT + 0 +

CIRCULAR MTN +0

PALMS-CHEST + S-. 

BACK & FORTH +

RAISE HANDS +

CLENCH FIST + 0o L-,.

BECKON + 0

CLASP HANDS + o

HANDS-CHIN + o

CROSS WRISTS + 0

POINT FINGER + 0

"i"•.CLENCH FIST + 0•-'

RAISE HANDS + 0

w ~CLENCH FIST +o-..

BECKON +

RAISE HANDS + o

PALMS FRONT +

BACK & FORTH + 0

"* RT PALM DOWN + .

CROSS THROAT + 0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

COMMUNICATE USING VISUAL SIGNALLING TECHNIQUES

"PROPORTION CORRECT BY TASK ELEMENT

IN OPERATIONAL UNIT (N-116)

B.-i-S" "r •
Trials V.

*Task Element 1 2 A O

*ARMS FRONT 93 97 97 9999 100

CIRCULAR MTN 98 98 98 99 100 100

PALMS-CHEST 93 100 99 100 99 100

BACK &FORTH 95 100 98 100 99 100

*RAISE HANDS 88 96 97 99 100 97

-CLENCH FIST 90 93 91 94 94 98

BECKON 97 99 98 99 100 99

CLASP HANDS 90 98 99 99 98 98

HANDS-CHIN 94 100 100 99 100 97

CROSS WRISTS 78 96 95 98 97 99

POINT FINGER 90 94 97 98 97 9S

CLENCH FIST 94 100 100 100 97 100

RAISE HANDS 94 97 98 99 100 97

CLENCH FIST 89 9! 98 97 99 98

BECKON 97 99 98 100 100 99

*RAISE HAI'DS 95 99 100 100 100 99

*PALMS FRONT 97 100 100 100 100 100

BACK & FORTH 96 100 100 100 99 100

RT PALM DOWN 96 100 99 100 100 100

CROSS THROAT 99 100 100 100 100 100

16

COMMUNICATE USING VISUAL SIGNALLING TECHNIQUES

PROPORTION CORRECT BY TASK EL.EMENT

IN OSUT (N-109)

B-19