Running Head: Training Support 1

United States Air Force Test Site Training Support

By

Corey R Welch
`

EDU 120: Principles of Instructional Design


Instructor: Barbara Hall


6 Oct 2014























Support 2



United States Air Force Test Site Training Support

The department of defense has been ridicule and considers as terrorist in the many wars they
have fought protecting not just the United States but the world. In more recent wars such as Iraq
and Afghanistan many deaths have occurred using conventional weapons and causing
considerable collateral damages. Secretary of the Air Force Deborah Lee has charged the Air
and Education Training Command to develop a training program that will train our men and
women of the armed forces on a new state of the art weaponry that will pinpoint only the
aggressor reducing damages to building and innocent civilian casualties.

Introduction: United States Air Force Test Site Training Support

The United States Air Force test site, Edwards Air Force Base, California is responsible for
providing training for all states of the art weapons that keeps the United States as number
one super power. Our institute vision is to apply design theories that provide the most effective
technological education to enhance Air Superiority on the ground, Air, Space, and cyberspace.
This vision is achieved by using an instructional system design that save time, money, resources,
and ensures the best and most effective way to learn, is in place. This will be accomplished by
using cognitive and intellectual strategies approaches to design lesson plans and courses
curriculums for teaching and learning actives in which learning in organized; in addition, Our
institution strives to motivate students to learn by analyzing what is to be taught, determining
how it is to be taught, conducting tryout and revision, and assessing whether learner did learn
(Isman, 2011). Our courses are to transition the men and women of the armed forces from a
garrison environment to a deployment atmosphere. The focus will be to trained on this new
weaponry system before these members are deployed and give them the essential tools on how to
accurately operate this new weaponry system. Members will have the best chance for success
Support 3



being proficient on their required piece of weaponry, to ensure freedom and the future of not just
the United States, but freedom and the future of the world. Our Memorandum for: General
Robin Rand, Commander of Air Education and Training Command, From: United States Air
Force Test Site, Subject: Having a specific theory of learning, learning context, and sources to
the guide the proper instructions that are tailored to military personnel is why our institution is
requesting permission to implement instructional design for the CX2014 new weaponry.
Job Description: Instructional System Designer
The United States Air Force is looking for an instructional system designer responsible for
providing current and effective state of the art course information on weaponry systems.
Designer will design lesson plans while constantly using design theories approach to updates
course curriculums and principle of instruction guides and staying up to date with the daily
changes of technology. The selected candidate must adhere to Instructional system design
standards set forth by the Air & Education Training Command (AETC) and AFI36- 2306 for all
Air Force course requirements certification; the AETC is an agency that set requirements for any
employment within the training development and answer directly to the department of the Air
Force which include Sectary of the Air Force and Chief of Staff of the Air Force. The AFI36-
2306 is the governing directive. Responsibilities: The candidate must be able apply design
theories to provide the most effective technological education. Candidate must assess the
cognitive understanding by identifying the scope of influence for enhancing students self-
regulated learning (Leutwyler & Merki, 2009). In-addition, candidate will be fielding, training,
and providing instructional support and functional on- site application and software support for
all active, reserve, and air nation guard personnel serving in this field. An evaluation of target
audience must be measure to ensure course validity and reliability for achieving its intended
Support 4



purpose. Background: United States Air Force has added to their arsenal of weaponry, an
innovative weapon that reduces collateral damages of women, children, and sentimental
monuments. This new weaponry uses GPS technology and relies on critical accurate information
to target the enemy, taking the threat out and not destroying anything around it. Qualification:
Member must have bachelor degree in instruction system, at least five year experience in the
field of instructional design, self-motivated, innovative thinker, very strong verbal and written
communication, and well verse in Microsoft Office products. Member must also be able attain a
secret clearance and have no criminal record. Salary will range from $65K-$85k depending on
experience.
Scenario: Requiring Assessment
The instructional system should be designed to validate the learning objectives if the intent of the
objective is not being achieved. When this occurs the process should have a solution in place
ready to go. After graduating from our newly refine course in the latest technological weaponry
system, numerous feedbacks have addressed the United States Air Force Test Site Training
Support Team. It has been noted that most of our men and women who has graduated from our
course were not successfully achieving what these weapons are designed to do; consequently,
causing propaganda in the favor of the terrorists.
Justification: Choice of need assessment
One of the first rules in instructional design is to determine a need for it. Three models I will
address are the problem model, innovation model, and discrepancy model (Smith & Ragan 2005,
pg44). Justification for choice of a needs assessment has been related to employees
performance in the deployment environment which may exist in the training environment (Smith
& Ragan 2005). For this issue the problem model is best suited to identify this particular issue
Support 5



despite this being a new weaponry system. After conducting a survey to the target audience in
the field, it is noted that 1. There is a large percentage of students who were not successful in
operating the new weaponry, this will account for who say there is a problem and who is affected
by the problem. 2. The accuracy of the weapon is not there for these students is why there is a
problem. 3. A small percentage seems to have great success where they do not see it as a
problem (Smith & Ragan 2005, pg45); this also dispel environmental issue in the working
environment. Now we have asses the seriousness of the problem we have determine that
problem is related to learners performance in the educational environment because of the small
percentage with great success in the same climatic condition (Smith & Ragan 2005, pg45). When
we look at the training environment, a large percentage of the learners never got the opportunity
to demonstrate that they have achieved the require performance. This is because of the climate of
the agency is allowing only a few students to demonstrate comprehension on the simulators on
how to operate the new weaponry. This practice was instituted to reduce time of class room
instruction. If corrected allowing all students the opportunity to display comprehension on the
simulators, it will resolve our issues in the field. This completes step four of the problem model
by offering instruction to the learning goal allowing the actual performance with the established
goals of the institution (Smith & Ragan 2005, pg45).
Instructional Context
Elements of the instructional system (context) to be considered is solely centered around the
Learner and the leaners environment where he or she is expected to apply knowledge and
skills acquired (Trif, L., 2014). But context is not just a place with physical realities, it is the
temporal and social environment that is part of the learning process itself (Richey & Tessmer,
cited in Smith & Ragan, 2005). At the testing institute traditional class room instruction will be
Support 6



provided consisting of videos, power point, guided discussion, and providing hands-on
experience in a simulated field like conditions. These activities will be guided by the AETC
Instructor Hand Book, that there will be no more than 12 students for every one instructor. Due
to the high aptitude of the learner class room instruction will be allocated 1.5 - 2 hours because
learners can apply knowledge on the simulator. The training prototype of the new weaponry
system will be in the form of simulators that utilize real data from GPS satellites. The learners
are expected to work in groups to share different experiences building team work and comradery.
It is here that the true evaluation comes to light being able to assess the intellectual skill,
cognitive strategies, and psychomotor learning. The intellectual skill of the learners will be
assess by them being able to recall what was taught in class and applying it to program a weapon
system with the global position satellite coordinates. The cognitive strategies will be assess to
see if the learners really understood what was being taught giving the final execution to the
psychomotor learning by physically operating all aspects of the weapon system. This validates
that all instructional system context aids in determining the physical attributes of what a class
room or training environment should consist of.
Learning Objectives
Learning objectives is really trying to capture everything you need to satisfy a behavior or
specific goal. One will have to assess the need and ask question such as what am I trying to
achieved in this instruction. What is given or denied to the learners to help aid in completing the
task. How well are they expected to complete the task, and how can we measure this task
showing that the learner has completed the task successfully. The learning objective for the
weaponry system program has been constructed so at the end of the course conclusion the learner
will be able to accurately operate the new weaponry system in deployment environment and
Support 7



reduced collateral damages by 98%.
Learners Analysis
For the most part, many instructions have been created and sometime the designer do not even
consider the most important aspect which is the learner; however, in order for it to be successful,
the instruction has to be focus on the preconceived learning of the target audience.
A learners analysis was conducted to assess the learners for the weaponry program. The key
is to design an instruction centered around the learners as this knowledge will be important in
created a program that not only effective but interested to the learners (Smith & Ragan 2005,
pg58). Requirements being asses are cognitive ability, computer and technology knowledge,
good physical condition, motivation to learn, ability to read map, and military experience.
Members must meet the basic requirement of the Air Force Enlisted Classification Directory in
this area of expertise following the stipulation of not being colorblind, having at least 20/20
vision or better, and have a high mechanical aptitude. In-addition, the target audience is
mandated by AETC regulation to be only members of the armed forces who are well verse in the
rules and regulation of the Law of Armed Conflict governed by the Geneva Convention. Map
reading is crucial requirement and will prove it worthiness when it is time to program global
position satellite coordinates. A cognitive ability of basic weapon handling is required; this prior
learning gives an edge and allows learners to keep up with the fast pace of the class room
instruction. A good knowledge of computers and staying up with technology is required to keep
up with the pace of this class room instruction. Good physical condition is required to keep up
with the demanding condition of a deployment environment. Lastly, learners must have the
mental capacity to be resiliency or understand the concepts to be resilience.
Physiological Characteristics: Students attending this institution is of a large demographic
Support 8



consisting of 70% Caucasian, 10% African American, 8% Hispanic, 2% Asian, and 10% foreign
allies. Target audience age group will range from 21 -45 year of age. They will consist of senior
and junior officers and enlisted men and women. These diversities of difference backgrounds
and cultures when unified as one, forms a powerful team similar to the demographic make-up of
the United States.
Moreover, members must be motivated to learn which usually demonstrates high cognitive
abilities where the learner is required to compound upon his or her learning making
understanding seamless (Smith & Ragan 2005). A class room with students that all have high
cognitive and high aptitude will be better off using a generative strategy for all class room
instruction. Social Characteristics: The target audience being members of a professional
organization, have the tendency of speaking the same type of cultural dialect which creates better
communication. There is a common expectation that these learners believe in honor, respect, and
integrity and foster teamwork to work as one team. Where one person lacks in execution a task
another is there to pick up the slack. These attributes will prove worthy in the instructional
context for the class room environment.
Description: Learning Styles
Description of the learning styles start with organizational strategy which is used to determine
the content to be presented and to sequence the instruction (Smith & Ragan, 2005, p129). It is
within the organizational strategy where generative and suplanative derive from. Delivery
strategy is to decide media selection and management is how the resources are scheduled and
allocated (Smith & Ragan., 2005). Learners Characteristics is broken down into two area,
generative strategy and suplanative strategy.
Support 9



Justification: The task and context analyses in the institution program is geared to select the
generative strategies because the target audience will have extensive and frequently used prior
knowledge allowing them to absorb the material well (Smith, P, L & Ragan, T. J., 2005, pg142).
This is also one of the reasons why they the learners being military personnel were selected as
the target audience because of their breadth of experience in this military field of weaponry.
Moreover, the generative strategy will allow the learners to build upon their prior learning
allowing them to formulate their own understanding. This will ensure the understanding is long
term and not short term and will prove its worthiness in field conditions. In other words,
Generative strategy requires greater mental effort and consequently leads to greater depth of
learning (Smith & Ragan, 2005, pg143). In-addition, with the high aptitude and cognitive
knowledge, it allows the learner to understand tasks that would normally be complex, easy to
learn, while increasing their motivation (Smith & Ragan, 2005, pg143 ). Having experience
learners, the characteristics of the task and the context are, the leaners will be highly motivated
and have the opportunity to apply the knowledge of how to operate the new weapon system
learned during the instruction in a simulated combat environment. This aspect creates realism,
prepares the leaners, and clears up any misunderstanding on the true operation of this highly
sophisticated weaponry. It is better to apply the knowledge here and make mistakes in the
training environment and learn from them than to makes these mistakes in real combat situations.
This approach also rules out pitfalls that the instructor and learners generally falls into such as
error of standard, error of logic, and error of hallo. At the end of the course, students will know
how to program the new weapon system and they will know how to operate it accurately. The
overall principles of learning styles may guide designers in determining the optimal level needed
for instructional support (Smith & Ragan, 2005).
Support 10



Instructional Strategies
The learners who are the great men and women that wear the uniform signed that dotted line to
defend our constitution. With that in mind, the need to be trained on weapon is part of their
duties giving them frequently used prior knowledge on how to operate weapons. For this reason
is why the generative strategy is selected to allow quick absorption of the provided information.
Due to ample time as explained in Smith & Ragan, 2005 diagram figure 7.2, the institution has to
provide an accelerated instruction because it is a pre-deployment course, which enforces the need
for a generative strategy (pg143).
Generative strategy when applied to the correct leaner will ensure the understanding is long
term with each learner applying his or her own way of learning and will prove its worthiness in
field conditions. Students will need to formulate their own understanding of the weaponry
system because there are many different scenarios that may take place in field condition. The
target audience will have a large breadth of experience in the field of weaponry and should be
able to develop a well depth of knowledge of the operation of the new weaponry system; this
increase the chances of defeating the many challenges that will be faced in the field conditions.
The task and the context of the leaners will be highly motivated and have the opportunity to
apply the knowledge of how to operate while watching out for safety violations learned during
the instruction in a simulated combat environment. It is very important what strategy has been
implemented based on the learners analysis which could result in failures if the wrong learning
style is applied. This is one matter the United States Air Force Test Site Training institution takes
seriously in setting every student up for success.
Motivational Strategies
Support 11



The suggested instruction strategies will be conceptual knowledge only because this strategy
falls under intellectual skills. With intellectual skills being similar to declarative knowledge,
learner will not only have the ability to retained and to recalled detailed information, the ability
to apply the knowledge (Smith & Ragan, 2005). The instruction will also fall under the
cognitive strategy recalling information, procedural knowledge giving instruction on the order of
operation, and psychomotor learning because of the physical aspect of applying what was taught
during the simulation. For the conceptual instructional approach the comparison of two
motivational strategies, were observed. One motivational strategy as explained in the Smith and
Ragan, 2005, used boldface type or highlighting new terms to draws learners attention. This
prompts the learner that further discussion will develop from the highlighted word (Smith &
Ragan, 2005). Moreover, inquiry strategies provokes attention that are high, interest that are
arousing and motivating, but how does that compare and contrast with Kellers ARCS (Smith &
Ragan, 2005).
Kellers ARCS focus on attention, relevance, confidence, and satisfaction; to get the learners
attention you have to arouse their curiosity, you have to make the instruction relevance to
something of personal value, you have to give them encouragement that they will succeed to
strengthen their confidence, and you have to satisfy their goals and needs within the learning
experience (Keller, 2008). The learners will be encouraged to develop a tentative hypothesis as
to the concept underlying the categorization (Smith & Ragan, 2005p175).
Looking at the two models and going with my personal experience, Kellers ARCS
motivational factors coincide with everyday needs like what keeps the learners going and their
need to satisfy basic necessities as explain in Herzbergs Theory of Motivators and Hygiene
factors. Kelllers ARCS is more personal getting to know the learner and what make him or her
Support 12



sparks. The students will be able to think of their own personal concept, apply it and receive
feedback regarding the accuracy of their example (Smith & Ragan, 2005, p175). No guaranteed
that a boldface type or highlighted word will get every learners attention; but, getting the learner
personalize what is being taught and make the information their own will reinforce long term
memory. To reference these four steps stating the purpose of this new weapon system, the need
for this new weapon system, and the benefits to the learners, will connect the learner to the
instruction and prepare them to receive the instruction. Showing relevance of how this could
affect the learner in their day to day mission is key! Practicing simulation application will
promote confidence, and the satisfaction will come knowing that no innocent people are harm as
the United States continues to fly, fight and win wars.
Conclusion:
Having a specific theory of learning, learning context, and sources to the guide the proper
instructions that are tailored to military personnel is why our institution is requesting permission
to implement instructional design for the CX2014 new weaponry. Our process will fulfil the
intent of the request from the secretary of the Air Force Deborah Lee. Our institution vision is to
apply design theories that provide the most effective technological education to enhance Air
Superiority on the ground, Air, Space, and cyberspace. Our staff processes the required
qualification of the highest quality and will abide by all rule and regulation by the Air Force and
it subordinate Major Commands. Instructional system design (ISD) of this new program will
have the require ISD model to evaluate program and offer solution eradicate problems.
Moreover, this program will center on the needs of our men and women of the armed forces
completing an entire analysis to provide an environment catered to learning. When these groups
of professional complete our course they will be able to accurately operate the new weaponry
Support 13



system in deployment environment and reduced collateral damages by 98%.
Contact: Please direct all questions and concerns to my office at 940-555-5555 or email:
TestSiteTraining@us.edward.af.mil

//SIGNED//
Corey R. Welch, GM15, USAF
Director of Operation & Training
















Support 14



Reference:
ISMAN, A. (2011, January). Instructional Design in Education: New model. TOJET : The
Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10(1)


Keller, J. M. (2008). First principles of motivation to learn and e3-learning. Distance Education,
29(2), 175-185. doi:10.1080/01587910802154970

Leutwyler, B., & Merki, K. M. (2009). School effects on students' self-regulated leaning: A
multivariate analysis of the relationship between individual perceptions of school processes and
cognitive, metacognitive, and motivational dimensions of self-regulated Learning. Journal for
Educational Research Online, 1(1), 197-223.

Mixon, K. (2004). Three learning styles... four steps to reach them. Teaching Music, 11(4), 48-
52. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/227153336?accountid=32521

Smith, P. L., & Ragan, T. J. (2005). Instructional design (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons
Trif, L. (2014). Influences of Behaviorism In Designing Instructional Models Which Might
Prove Useful In Developing Multimedia Materials. 2 523-528.