Proposal:

Improvement of the Army Learning Enterprises’ Strategic Organizational Learning Plan

Tyler Jackson

Park University
 Table of Contents

I. Overview

II. Introduction to Army University

III. Current Army University Strategic Learning Plan

IV. Recommendations for Improvement

V. Funding

VI. Conclusion

VII. References
 I. Overview

This assessment focuses on the structural aspect of the Army’s strategic learning

organizational plan. Setting the foundation is critical prior to any implementation of a learning

strategy for an organization. Several gaps were found along with recommended solutions to close

said gaps. 

II. Introduction to Army University

In July of 2015 the United States Army established the Army University as an effort to

provide a single authority on the development of professional military education within its

branch. Today "Army-U," as its colloquially referred, synchronizes the quality and content of

over 100 training and educational institutions within the United States Army to ensure that

soldiers have the best training and education possible to continue to defend the nation (Army

University Proclamation, 2015).

The All volunteer force system of 1973 started the progressive officer and

noncommissioned officer professional development courses and was the second milestone after

the "Montgomery Bill of rights "following WWII. The establishment of Army University is seen

by the Army as the third pivot in educational reforms within the modern era. 

Army University impacts all soldiers within the Army's active, reserve and National

Guard components by working specifically with the American Council on Education (ACE) to

provide accreditation to specific training and educational programs (Kem et al., 2017). Making

sure that soldiers professional experiences translate to the "Joint Services Transcript" (JST). The

Army University works closely with ACE to bring lesson plans, and educational programs of

instruction under ACE guidelines to ensure earned credits stay with the soldiers who earned
them. This enables soldiers to continue building upon hard-earned skills as they move through

their adult lives whether they stay within the armed forces, seek external professional

opportunities, or continue their academic education.   

III. Current Army University Strategic Learning Plan

The Army University framework for training and education is developed into three

learning domains. These domains are institutional (formalized schooling), operational (actual

standing units), and self-develop (individual independent learning).  Within this framework

various branches/MOSs (military occupational specialty) are tasked to develop training and

education plans to meet the specific needs of their branch, along with the operational force (TP

525-8-2).
 (TP 525-8-2)

Each branch in theory begins to evaluate what their military occupational specialties

(MOS) need to expertly function while performing tasks in pursuit of assigned missions.  They

do this by modifying those required competencies to perform in that MOS from skill level 1 to

skill level 6. From there, each branch then develops an institutional training plan that serves as

the individual Soldiers training plan for that specific job. This system is largely task based and

has served the Army well since at least the 1940s (Army University, 2017). Each task can be

broken into its component knowledge, skills, as well as each performance step or “learning step

activity” (TR 350-70, 2017).

(TP 350-70-1)

As it stands neither knowledges, nor skills are currently standardized, linkable, or

trackable across job domains, nor standardized within the developmental database tool used to
build these tasks.  Additionally Lesson plans that are then built to teach these tasks are also not

standardized within the same developmental tool, Training Development Capability (TDC).

TR 350-70

Given that the foundation of each task are their performance steps, skills, and knowledge,

moving into a system that could show a connection with higher order educational strategies will

be troubling. Additionally the accreditation process attempts to assess how well lesson plans

connect with common standards of educational theory (TR 350-70, 2017). By not having a task-

lesson plan connection, external accreditors who are not subject matter experts cannot determine

the quality or rigor to Army education. Two broad strategic categories have been identified for

analysis; Horizontal, and Vertical. Alignment of Army Universities horizontal and vertical

educational frameworks would ensure a logical connection throughout the learning enterprise

and close gaps found within the strategic organizational learning plan. Without both of these

concepts a “gap” would not emerge. 

 The Army Learning Areas (ALAs) are derived from foundational Army doctrine and are

areas of interest that focus common training and education across the force. The Army views

these topics as critical to developing Army Soldiers and leaders across all professional cohorts,

officers, warrant officers, Non-commissioned Officers, in a common effort to meet the Army

wartime missions (TP 525-8-2, 2017). topics are areas that are common to all Soldiers within the

Army. From there General Learning Outcomes (GLOs) are developed as educational objectives

and become a “Common Core” curriculum that every military professional will be educated and

trained on. These ALAs should provide training and educational developers with the general

statements of the essential outcomes resulting from training, education, and experience along the

career continuum of learning (Army University, 2017). GLOs could lead to course outcome

statements that specify what learners will know, do, or demonstrate when they have completed

the instruction. GLOs for officers, warrant officers, and noncommissioned officers promote

progressive and sequential learning, enable cross-cohort integration, improve the quality and

clarity of course outcomes, and focus assessment efforts in both classroom and unit contexts (TR

350-70).
 TR 350-70-1

The ability to understand how learning outcomes in training and education relate to each

task is a fundamental element of Army accreditation and serves as the method of linking

TRADOC (Training and Doctrine Command) and FORSCOM (Forces Command) for

evaluations and corrections of content (Kem et al., 2017). In theory FORSCOM in conjunction

with the Career-Long Learning Continuum established by Army University would use learner

inventories as well as competency mapping to identify, assess, and recording individual learned

competencies to improve individual development, better talent management efforts in assigning

personnel to jobs that best match individuals’ capabilities, or best support their continued

development for future leadership positions and enhanced unit readiness. ( Additionally, each

task and terminal learning outcome has a level of performance in terms of skill level that should

be associated with Bloom's Taxonomy levels for terminal learning outcomes (TP 350-70-14,

2017). 

IV. Recommendations for Improvement

Problem #1: Each Army school develops its own course work independently from

external subject matter experts that own some of the Army Learning Areas (ALAs). Schools are

relying on course developers at the individual proponent schools to group each education module

and training task according to the Army Learning Area construct described in TRADOC

Pamphlet 525-8-2. This has made for extreme variance in the quality of learning products. 

Recommendation: Army University should perform an individual task analysis  to

determine the job performance requirements of each task performed on the job. Individual task

analysis identifies how to perform the task correctly, under what conditions to perform the task
on the job, and how well the individual must perform the task. The individual task analysis

process provides a breakdown of the performance steps and performance measures, knowledge,

skills, attitudes, and activities that constitute the individual task using the Rigor/Relevance

Framework to determine the qualitative measurements need to assess success (Jones, 2010). This

in turn would be connected to the ALA framework through course outcomes and scope

statements. 

Problem #2: All learning content within a learning outcomes-based environment should

be associated with one or more competencies or their subordinate parts, through the ALAs and

within general learning outcomes (GLO) individual competencies framework.  This is not

currently able to take place. 

Recommendation: Develop a task map hierarchy for all job profiles.  

This framework attempts to ensure a linkage between individual and collective competencies,

which without, has a real world direct impact on unit readiness and our warfighters ability to

perform at expert levels. Individual competencies should be captured within an easily accessed

and maintained information system which is not currently being done. Each competency should

include a modular breakdown of supporting knowledge, skills, abilities, behaviors, and

experiences, which may be nested into multiple subordinate levels (Connecting credentials

framework, 2016). Successful completion of learning experiences whether in formal, informal,

or operational contexts, should award credit towards these outcomes, and when possible, be

further recognized through formal credentialing. 

Problem #3: As it stands, the Army can not currently connect the competencies at the

individual task level to their corresponding Army Learning Areas for each completed training,

education, and vocational experience.

 Recommendation:  Army University should conduct a job analysis for all MOS profiles

in accordance with TP 350-70-14 to determine what the job holder must know or do on the job.

Developers conduct a job analysis whenever mission and collective task analysis, needs analysis,

new doctrine, MOS consolidation, change in weapons systems, new equipment requirements,

technology updates, or other sources indicate major changes have occurred in the structure or

content of a job or skill. The Job analysis will produce the following outputs; Total task

inventory (TTI), Knowledge, skills and attitudes required in order to do the job, Field survey

data, Individual task performance data.

V. Funding

Army University gets its funding through the annual appropriations established yearly within

the discretionary United States Federal budget as apart of normal appropriations addressed by

title 10 code B and is further delineated down to the Assistant Chief of staff G-3 under BA3:

Training and recruiting, sections 31-336 3 (Williams & Heitshusen, 2016).  It is important to

note that funding is at best, an educated guess. This is due, in large part to the structural

requirements by law that require accounting for things like workload management surveys,

personnel salaries, and unknowable operating costs that are at best, estimations as well as the

appropriations process starting with the United States Congress. Therefore, all estimations would

fall short of creating a common operating picture without more in-depth workload management

research.

VI. Conclusion

Army University operates under the primary assumption that value is found through a

measurable, and logically connected learning system that enables the tracking of a soldiers
performance and skills throughout their career. If this is possible, then the gaps identified will

need to be closed before their organizational learning goals can be realized. 

VII. References: 

Army University. (2017). The Army University – Army learning strategy. Fort

Leavenworth, KS: Retrieved from

https://armyu.army.mil/sites/default/files/documents/Army_Learning_Strategy_24_July_

2017_(Signed).pdf

Connecting credentials framework. (2016). Retrieved from

http://connectingcredentials.org/framework/

Jones, R. P. (2010). Rigor and relevance handbook. Rexford, NY: International Center

for Leadership in Education, Inc. 

Kem, John S., (MG)., LeBoeuf, Eugene J.,(BG)., Martin, James B.,(PhD). (2017) What is

Army University?. Journal of Military Learning. October. 

United States Army. (2015). Army University Proclamation, Army University website.

http://armyu.army.mil/sites/default/files/documents/ArmyU%20Proclamation.pdf.

United States Army. (2017). Army Learning Policy and Systems. TRADOC Regulation

350-70.

United States Army. (2017).  The U.S. Army Learning Concept for Training and

Education. TRADOC Pamphlet 525-8-2. 

United States Army. (2017). Training and Education Development in Support

of the Institutional Training Domain. TRADOC Pamphlet 350-70-14. 

United States Army. (2019).Training Development in Support of the Operational

Training Domain. TRADOC Pamphlet 350-70-1

Williams, Lynn B., Heitshusen, Valerie. (2016). Defense Primer: Navigating the NDAA.

Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.