Room: Thai House 9:00 a.m. – 10:30 a.m. 1. Teaching Critical Thinking Room: Auditorium Teaching Competitive Intelligence Room: 1123 Teaching Law Enforcement Intelligence Room: 2100 10:30 a.m. – 10:45 a.m. Break 10:45 a.m. – 12:15p.m. 1. Teaching Structured Techniques (#2) Room: 2100 2. Teaching Intelligence Technologies Room: 1123 Teaching Critical Thinking (#2) Room: Auditorium 12:15 p.m. – 1:30 p.m. Lunch Room: 1:30 p.m. – 2:45 p.m. 1. Teaching Law Enforcement Intelligence (#2) Room: 2100 Teaching Military Intelligence Room: Auditorium Teaching Intelligence Technologies (#2) Room: 1123 2:45 p.m. – 3:00 p.m. Break 3:00 p.m. – 4:30 p.m. 1. Teaching Predictive Intelligence Room: Auditorium Core Competencies for Analysts Room: 2100 Teaching Intelligence Through Discovery (#2) Room: 1123 4:30p.m. – 5:00p.m. Wrap up/Adjournment Room: Auditorium Note: Exhibits will be open throughout the conference. Snack foods and drinks are available from 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. each day.
Competing Hypotheses or ACH) for evaluating multiple hypotheses. 2. Analyze Dissect the problem into parts to determine how they relate to one another or to an overall structure or purpose. Combine the parts into a new integrated whole. They identified all potential hypotheses such as Iraq was training troops to conduct a demonstration. They listed evidence and arguments for and against each hypothesis. They designed a matrix containing each alternative hypothesis in an attempt to disprove as many as possible. 3. Evaluate Make judgment about the value based on criteria and standards through checking and critiquing. They rated the evidence as consistent, inconsistent, or not related. They reviewed the findings and evaluated them to identify gaps and need for additional evidence. 4. Create (highest level) Construct a report that provides your findings, recommendations, and value judgments. Prepare an oral presentation They questioned their analysis and tried to draw conclusions about the likelihood of each hypothesis. They identified consistency or inconsistency of assumptions and generated a report that includes findings and summary of all alternatives and reasons for rejections. They provided recommendations and milestones as indicators for future analysis. Table 1 uses examples of a structured analytical technique called Analysis of Competing Hypothesis (ACH) to describe higher order cognitive levels from an intelligence analyst’s perspective. ACH is a hypothesis testing methodology that uses a matrix for rudimentary visualization (Van Gedler, 2006). Intelligence analysts also resort to statistical hypothesis testing. Oftentimes though, the data are incomplete and have limited usefulness. In addition to the cognitive processing dimension, the Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy identifies the knowledge dimension that includes four levels of knowledge: factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive (Pickard, 2007, p.48). Intelligence analysts also need different types of knowledge to accomplish the tasks of providing mission-critical analysis to decision-makers. Table 2 describes the levels of knowledge and maps them to examples from intelligence analysis. Table 2: Knowledge Dimension of the Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy and Intelligence Analysis Types of Knowledge (Wilson, 2006) Intelligence Analysis Examples (Marshall, 2005) 1. Factual knowledge basic to specific disciplines essential facts, terminology, or history that students must know in order to understand the discipline or solve a problem History of the intelligence community Different kinds of evidence: people (HUMINT), imagery (IMINT), technical signals (SIGINT), open source (OSINT), physical science (MASINT)