University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Pre-deployment training effectiveness for Army National Guard units mobilized to deploy in support of combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan: an evaluation study

(USC Thesis Other)

Pre-deployment training effectiveness for Army National Guard units mobilized to deploy in support of combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan: an evaluation study

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 1

Pre-deployment Training Effectiveness for Army National Guard Units Mobilized to Deploy in
Support of Combat Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan: An Evaluation Study
by
Vincent Lee Jackson III

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

December 2018

Copyright 2018 Vincent Lee Jackson III
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 2

Table of Contents
Introduction to the Problem of Practice 4
Organizational Context and Mission 5
Importance of Addressing the Problem 6
Organizational Performance Goal 7
Stakeholder Group of Focus and Stakeholder Goal 7
Purpose of the Project and Questions 9
Methodological Approach 10
Review of the Literature 11
Soldier Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences 15
Summary of Influences 25
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Soldiers’ Knowledge, Motivation
and the Organizational Context 26
Methods of Data Gathering 31
Data Collection and Instrumentation 31
Data Analysis 36
Results and Findings 37
Recommendations for Practice 66
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences 67
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan 82
Conclusion 98
References 100

Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 3

Appendix A: Participating Soldiers with Sampling and Recruitment
Criteria for Surveys and Interviews 107
Appendix B: Interview Protocols 110
Appendix C: Survey Questions 113
Appendix D: Credibility and Trustworthiness 117
Appendix E: Validity and Reliability 118
Appendix F: Ethics 120
Appendix G: Limitations and Delimitations 122
Appendix H: Topic Sentence Outline 124
Appendix I: Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan 128
Appendix J: Warrior Tasks and Battle Drills 136
Appendix K: Proposed Home Station Training Timeline 139
Appendix L: Military Acronyms 140
Appendix M: Military Definitions 141

Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 4

Introduction to the Problem of Practice
A survey of 1,200 deployed troops serving in the Illinois National Guard cited poor
training as a major factor in the deployment experience (“Memo: Survey shows low morale”,
2005). This survey points to a potential problem with the effectiveness of pre-deployment
training for Army National Guard Soldiers. Pre-deployment training is vital to the safety of
Soldiers designated to deploy in support of combat operations. The problem of practice being
studied in this dissertation is the effectiveness of pre-deployment training for Army National
Guard units mobilized to deploy in support of the Global War on Terrorism. These units are
required to, upon notification of mobilization, conduct training at one of several pre-selected
training locations and upon completion of training, be certified through one of the two training
centers before deploying in support of operations connected to the global war on terrorism.
Ambrose (2010) stated that the Army National Guard, through training and improved pre-
mobilization screening, can increase the effectiveness of the Army National Guard as a military
organization. Nationwide, the approximately 350,000-member Army National Guard has
deployed soldiers 190,000 times since 9/11, which is a national average of just over 550
deployments per 1,000 troops (Freedberg, 2007). That is over half of the population of Army
National Guard Soldiers deploying in support of combat operations since 9/11. These numbers
are staggering considering that many of these Soldiers are not conducting regular training as like
their active duty counterparts.
According to Freeberg Jr. (2014), Army leaders have long argued that troops who train
part time cannot mobilize fast enough for the short-notice, high-complexity expected in the
future and that the proof of this argument is that Guard combat brigades were rarely assigned the
most demanding missions in Afghanistan and Iraq. The argument made by senior Army leaders
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 5

shows that the training of the Army National Guard is not only a contentious point between the
active duty Army and the Army National Guard, but proof that the Army is concerned about the
capability of the Army National Guard to conduct combat operations now and in the future.
Organizational Context and Mission
The ARNG is a citizen force that that was originally organized to protect families and
towns from hostile attacks (National Guard, 2016) and today consists of Soldiers that hold
civilian jobs or attend college while maintaining their military training part time to be prepared
in the event of an emergency (National Guard, 2016). The “guard” has both state and federal
missions. During peacetime, each state National Guard is under the control of the leadership of
that state. During National emergencies, the President reserves the right to mobilize the
National Guard, place them in federal status, and have them execute the mission assigned to
them by the Geographic Combatant Commander in the theater in which they will be operating
(Army National Guard, 2016). The mission of the Army National Guard is to maintain properly
trained and equipped units, available for prompt mobilization for war, national emergency, or as
otherwise needed (Army National Guard, 2016).
The Army National Guard is organized into one National Guard organization per state,
the three territories, and the District of Columbia. There are 14 Command and Control
Headquarters, 27 Brigade Combat Teams, 45 Multifunctional Support Brigades, 51 Functional
Support Brigades and Groups, and 514 Battalions making up 39% of the Army Operational
Force structure (Army National Guard, 2016). As of Fiscal Year 2016, the ARNG has
approximately 342,000 Soldiers, making it the largest reserve force in the Department of
Defense (Army National Guard, 2016). Their headquarters facility is called the National Guard
Bureau, located in Washington, District of Columbia.
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 6

Importance of Addressing the Problem
The problem of effective pre-deployment training for Army National Guard units is
important to solve for a variety of reasons. Solving this problem assists the Department of
Defense (DoD) in determining the effectiveness of their current pre-deployment unit training
program and provides the Department of Defense with insight as to what actions can be taken to
ensure that Soldiers are provided relevant and current training. This will instill confidence in the
Soldiers’ ability to effectively execute their mission in combat and ultimately save lives during
their deployment.
The Army National Guard, since 9/11, has mobilized 353,474 Soldiers (House Armed
Services, 2011). The consequences of not solving the problem are the direct effect on the
morale and the safety of Soldiers during deployments. According to a survey of Illinois Guard
members, many soldiers felt poorly informed, inadequately cared for, and that training in their
units was boring and unorganized (Janega, 2005). The Department of Defense is also affected
by not solving the problem. A combination of an inability to retain personnel, experience level,
and training are causing a strain on the Army National Guard. The Army National Guard has
raised concerns over the prospect of cuts designed to save the Pentagon money, and they are
fighting to maintain the guard’s ability to be a player in the total force by overseeing its
transformation from a strategic reserve to an operational reserve (Taylor, 2006).
The Army Forces Generation Cycle (AFORGEN) is the cyclic process the Army uses to
man, equip, and train units to meet Combatant Commander (CCDR) requirements (Army
National Guard Directorate, 2011). The cycle consists of a reset phase (0-12 months), a train-
ready phase (12-48 months), and an available phase (48-60 months) for a total of a 5-year cycle
(Army National Guard Directorate, 2011). This cycle means that changes to training take
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 7

approximately five years from implementation of the new training to the execution of that
training. Understanding this concept means that data and assessments from as far back as 10
years prior to deployment are relevant to this study and can be referenced when assessing the
effectiveness of current pre-deployment training for National Guard units.
Organizational Performance Goal
The goal of the Department of Defense is to provide comprehensive and relevant training
to the National Guard enabling them to present forces that can provide for the defense of the
nation and its interests and the execution of missions directed by the governors of the 50 states
and territories. The Department of Defense has further refined that goal into a performance
requirement that it will train and certify 100% of National Guard deployable Soldiers so that they
can safely and effectively execute their mission in combat, humanitarian, and homeland defense
and return home from deployment.
Stakeholder Group of Focus and Stakeholder Goal
Although a complete analysis would involve all stakeholder groups (Soldiers, instructors,
and the organization) for practical purposes, the stakeholder group of focus for this dissertation
was the Army National Guard Soldier group. The reason for selecting Soldiers that were
designated for deployment to combat as the focus stakeholder group was because they were the
group that was directly affected by the training being developed by the Department of Defense
and implemented by the trainers. The Soldiers were the most likely to provide relevant feedback
on the effectiveness of the training that they received. This group provided an honest assessment
of training and recommended changes or modifications to training that the Department of
Defense can receive, assess, develop, change, and implement into a more up-to-date and
effective training program. The goal of the Soldiers prior to deployment was to learn and
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 8

demonstrate proficiency in their MOS specific job skills, warrior tasks, and battle drills taught
during pre-deployment so that the Soldiers were able to successfully execute the pre-deployment
training once deployed to the theater of operations.
The process used to determine the stakeholder goal for the Soldiers was derived from the
goal of the Department of Defense which is to provide comprehensive and relevant training to
Soldiers deploying in support of combat operations. The measurable level of achievement was
determined based on the goal developed by the Department of Defense of ensuring that every
Soldier and unit receive the proper training to safely conduct combat operations and accomplish
their combat mission. The measures used to track the progress were the specific measures
related to the Soldiers such as basic rifle marksmanship, individual movement techniques, and
combat patrol operations. The records related to this type of training are maintained by the units
responsible for presenting the training, the Army National Guard, and the Department of
Defense. It was critical that the Soldiers achieved the goal established by the Department of
Defense because it allowed the Army National Guard to present a force capable of conducting
combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The risk of not achieving the organizational goal of
the Department of Defense was that the Soldiers would not have been adequately trained for
combat operations, increasing the potential of severe injury and death to Soldiers.
The Soldiers were broken up into three distinct categories for analysis: The Junior Soldier
category, the mid-career Soldier category, and the senior Soldier category. The junior Soldier
category consisted of Soldiers that were just beginning their military career and received training
that consisted of the Initial Entry Training (IET) and Advanced Individual Training (AIT)
received upon joining the military and in some cases, Warrior Leadership Course training for the
Soldiers in the rank of Specialist (E-4). The Officers in the rank of 2
nd
Lieutenant/1
st
Lieutenant
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 9

(O-1/O-2) received training through the Basic Officer Leadership Course (BOLC) and their
branch specific Officer Basic Course (OBC). The mid-career Soldiers category received all the
training that the previous category with additional advanced training to include the Advanced
Leadership Course (ALC) for Soldiers in the rank of Sergeant/Staff Sergeant (E-5/E-6), The
branch Captains Career Course (CCC) for officers in the rank of Captain (O-3), and Intermediate
Level Education (ILE) from the Command and General Staff College CGSC) for officers in the
rank of Major (O-4). The senior Soldier category consisted of the most senior Soldiers that
received all the training provided to both the junior and mid-career Soldier categories with the
addition of the Senior Leadership Course (SLC), First Sergeant Course, and Sergeants Major
Course (SMC) for Soldiers in the rank of Sergeant First Class (E-7), Master Sergeant/First
Sergeant (E-8), and Sergeant Major/Command Sergeant Major (E-9) and Senior Service College
(SSC) for Soldiers in the rank of Lieutenant Colonel (O-5) and above. For the purposes of this
study, the Warrant Officer ranks (Warrant Officer One through Chief Warrant Officer Five) will
be considered as part of the mid-career Soldiers category for data analysis.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this study is an evaluation of the extent to which the Department of
Defense is achieving its goal of training and certifying 100% of National Guard deployable
Soldiers who can implement 100% of the knowledge and skills taught during pre-deployment
training while deployed in support of combat operations. A complete evaluation project would
focus on all stakeholders contributing to the effectiveness of pre-deployment training. The
evaluation of their pre-deployment training took place after they have completed the required
combat rotation that the Soldiers were assigned by the Department of Defense. The research
questions are as follows:
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 10

1. To what extent is the Department of Defense meeting its organizational goal of
training and certifying 100% of National Guard deployable Soldiers that can safely
and effectively execute their mission during combat deployment to Iraq and
Afghanistan and return home from deployment?
2. What is the Soldiers’ knowledge and motivation related to displaying proficiency
in all unit and individual tasks?
3. What are the interactions between Department of Defense and Army National
Guard organization culture and resources and the Soldiers’ knowledge and
motivation?
4. What are the recommendations for the DoD’s organizational practice in the areas
of knowledge, motivation, and organizational resources for the Soldiers designated to
deploy in support of combat operations?
Methodological Approach
This study utilized a mixed methods approach to gather data for analysis. The data was
gathered using surveys and interviews. The rationale for this decision was based on the
definition of mixed methods research as an approach to inquiry involving collecting both
qualitative and quantitative data, integrating them and using distinct designs that may involve
philosophical assumptions and theoretical frameworks (Creswell, 2014). The benefits of
qualitative methods are that it can employ phenomenological research, a design of inquiry in
which the researcher describes the lived experiences of individuals about a phenomenon as
described by the participants (Creswell, 2014). Soldiers going through both individual and unit
training share these lived experiences throughout the training which not only serves to foster a
bond between Soldiers and reinforce initial training received during basic combat training. The
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 11

benefits of quantitative methods are that the variables can be measured using instruments and
analyzed using statistical procedures (Creswell, 2014). The use of quantitative data, gathered
from Soldiers provided the level of experience, assessment of training, and attitude towards
training data that added reliability and validity to the study.
Review of the Literature
The United States military is viewed globally as the premier fighting force in the world.
According to the Global Firepower (2018) ranking, the United States military is ranked number
one among all the militaries in the world with Russia’s military ranked second. This is a
confirmation of a trend in United States military strength that has presented itself for some time.
In 2015 a report provided by Business Insider (2015) ranked the United States as the number one
military, followed by Russia as well. This is not by mistake, but because of a commitment of
both training and resources that has been unmatched by any other military in the world. In 2017
alone, the United States spent 601 billion dollars on its defense which is more than the next nine
countries combined (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, 2017). It is because of
this commitment that the United States military has and will remain the premier military in the
world. Foreign militaries often enter into agreements to participate in training that the US
military conducts both inside the United States and at training facilities worldwide. The
Department of Defense must ensure that the training it provides to its own Soldiers remains at
the highest level to continue providing the strongest and most respected force in the world to
protect the interests of both the United States and its allies worldwide.
The Department of Defense develops the strategy for the effective training of Soldiers in
the Army National Guard for deployment in support of combat operations. A critical part of this
strategy is the establishment of pre-deployment training requirements for these Soldiers in
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 12

preparation for their deployment. Once established, the implementation of the training is the
responsibility of the Army National Guard using resources (both financial and physical) with the
goal of certifying Soldiers in the skills required to safely and effectively execute the mission
assigned to them by the Department of Defense. The pre-deployment training and certification
begins at home station training and culminates with pre-deployment training and certification at
one of the National Guard training centers as a requirement for Soldiers to deploy in support of
combat operations.
There are several National Guard Training Centers located throughout the United States, all
of which are owned and operated by their state National Guard Adjutants under a mandate by the
Governor of the state. Some examples of these training centers are Fort McCoy Total Force
Training Center in Wisconsin, Camp Atterbury and Muscatatuck Urban Training Center in
Indiana, and Camp Shelby Joint Forces Training Center in Mississippi. The strategic goals set
forth by the Department of Defense are implemented through the training that is provided at
these locations using federal funding to resource the training requirements. The mission of the
Army National Guard Training Centers is to command, operate, manage and administer the
use of infrastructure resources and provide baseline levels of support and services for
administration, engineering, logistics, training and operational support to assigned, attached,
transient and tenant units, as well as joint forces activities and on order, conduct operations in
support of state and/or federal missions (Army National Guard, 2015). Each of the training
centers has a further mandate to conduct a specific type of training to the Soldiers and units
based on their mission, goals, and composition. The specific unit training is determined by the
Department of Defense prior to the arrival of the Soldiers for pre-deployment training and
monitored by the Inspector General of the Department of Defense for effectiveness.
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 13

The Inspector General is responsible for determining if the units designated to deploy are
receiving the training necessary to effectively conduct operations in a combat environment. In
2008, the Inspector General conducted an audit with the objective of determining whether US
ground forces supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom received the training necessary to meet
operational requirements in the Iraq theater of operations. In addition to the required Warrior
Tasks and Battle Drills, the Inspector General discovered that Central Command (CENTCOM)
established 14 theater training requirements for Soldiers deploying to Operation Iraqi Freedom
(Iraq) and Operation Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan). The Inspector General observed that
these 14 requirements were incorporated into mandatory pre-deployment training (Inspector
General United States Department of Defense, 2008). The Inspector General collected lessons
learned from Soldiers in combat to provide a baseline assessment of the quality of pre-
deployment training provided to Soldiers designated to deploy to the theater.
As the operational deployment tempo of the Army increases, pre-deployment training
resources both fiscally and educationally must increase to ensure that the Soldiers continue to
remain at the forefront of tactical and technical relevance in combat operations. Grant (2010)
stated that there are four resources that need to be maximized in order to effectively conduct
training: 1) Fiscal resources - funding allocated towards training review, development and
implementation, 2) Educational resources - research and development of training and proper
allocation of personnel certified to present training, 3) Time constraints on training - aggressive
training timelines that could potentially hinder effective training, and 4) Assessment and
implementation of training changes - after action reviews of the effectiveness of training during
and after deployments. The Department of Defense must account for these four resource
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 14

constraints when considering and developing the strategic goals for the training and certification
of Soldiers for deployment.
The Department of Defense has developed strategic goals relating the Army National Guard
and the training requirements they must support the training of Soldiers for the dual mission of
homeland defense and combat operations through the year 2020. The Army National Guard
(2016) has a stated mission of maintaining properly trained and equipped units, available for
prompt mobilization for war, national emergency, or as otherwise needed. This is codified in the
goals of the National Guard to provided ready forces for the defense of the nation and its
interests, and to States for missions directed by the Governors of that state (Army National
Guard, 2016). The Guard, in partnership with States, Services, DoD, and interagency, the
National Guard will: provide trained and ready operational forces, act as effective stewards of
our resources, sustain the National Guard community, and forge and maintain partnerships
(Army National Guard, 2016). Accomplishing this strategy is critical to the success of the
Department of Defense and the Army National Guard. It is therefore vital that the Department of
Defense develop and implement a relevant and effective curriculum to enable the development
of Soldier factual, procedural, and conceptual knowledge and understanding prior to deployment.
The DoD has developed their pre-deployment training curriculum through various methods
to include field observations and strategic working groups designed to analyze the effectiveness
and relevance of training as it relates to current combat operations and enemy tactics. The
Inspector General (2008) outlined the procedures for recording after action review statements
and observations to include taking notes of the interview, video recording, audio recording, and
format for the submission of comments by the interviewers as well as providing links to the
Center for Army Lessons Learned (CALL) website where Soldiers can submit comments in real
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 15

time for evaluation and assessment. The purpose of collecting these observations is to provide
the DoD with data that can be analyzed and assessed to determine the quality of the training
curriculum and what, if any changes need to be made to make it more effective and relevant for
the Soldiers participating in the training. This assessment drives the continued development of
the Warrior Tasks and Battle Drills that Soldiers are required to certify in prior to combat
rotational deployment.
The previous sections of this literature review have culminated in the further
development of the Army Warrior tasks and Battle Drills. The Army Warrior Tasks and Battle
Drills form the foundation for the deployment certification of units and personnel designated to
deploy in support of combat operations. The United States Army (2008) in the Army Posture
Statement presents the Army Warrior Tasks to include qualify with assigned weapon, call for
fire, and evaluate a casualty (Appendix E), the Army Battle Drills to include react to ambush,
react to chemical attack, and evaluate injured personnel from a vehicle (Appendix E), and
discusses the relevance of these tasks and drills in the development of an effective fighting
Soldier. The Warrior Tasks, Battle Drills, and MOS-specific training represent the pre-
deployment training requirements being evaluated for effectiveness in this study.
Soldier Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences
Knowledge Influences
This section reviews literature that focuses on knowledge-related influences that are
pertinent to the achievement of goals of the Soldiers. According to Krathwohl (2002), there are
three categories of knowledge influences that the stakeholder uses in the learning environment:
declarative (factual and conceptual), procedural, and metacognitive. Declarative knowledge
consists of both factual knowledge, which is the understanding of the basic definitions and
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 16

isolated knowledge of the subject and conceptual knowledge, which is the more complex
understanding of the knowledge. Conceptual knowledge, as defined by Hiebert and Lefevre
(1986) is knowledge that is rich in relationships and can be thought of as a web of knowledge
where the network in which the linking relationships takes place are as prominent as the discrete
pieces of information residing within the network. Procedural knowledge is the knowledge of
how to do something. Metacognitive knowledge is knowledge of cognition in general, as well as
awareness and knowledge of one’s own cognition (Anderson &Krathwohl, 2002).
An example of the knowledge influences and how they are integrated into the overall
knowledge of the Soldier is understanding of the M4 rifle. Declarative knowledge is the
information of the type of weapon system the Soldier possesses, the ammunition that is
compatible with it, and the maximum effective range of the weapon system. These three pieces
of information are factual in nature and are designed to provide a basic understanding of the
weapon system. The knowledge of how to take the weapon apart, clean it, and put it back
together makes up the procedural knowledge required to ensure that the weapon will function
properly. Procedural knowledge, as it relates to the M4 itself, also includes loading of the
magazine, the inserting of the magazine into the weapon system, the proper procedures to
chamber a round and fire the weapon, and the actions to take when a misfire of the weapon
occurs. Another procedural knowledge requirement for the M4 marksmanship is being able to
implement the steps necessary to apply smooth trigger squeeze, while maintaining a good sight
picture and firing the weapon with the intent to take a life. It is important to ensure that the
knowledge influence is properly categorized by the DoD so that the efforts to assess and
implement change are focused properly based on the level of knowledge deficiency in the
Soldier.
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 17

The foundation of knowledge lies in a Soldier’s understanding of the factual knowledge
of the subject matter required to properly execute tasks that are required for success within the
Department of Defense. Soldiers require this basic understanding before moving on to the more
complex, conceptual and procedural knowledge type. Soldiers require a procedural knowledge
of basic warrior tasks and battle drills such as properly donning and doffing the protective mask,
basic combat lifesaver practices, navigation, and call for artillery fires concepts. The United
States Army (2008) defines warrior tasks and battle drills as an individual Soldier skill that is
deemed as essential to Soldier survival (warrior tasks) and group skills designed to teach a unit to
react and survive in common combat situations (battle drills). These skills are the foundational
skills that are taught when Soldiers join the military and arrive at Initial Entry Training (IET).
These basic skills are reinforced through repetitive training conducted during the subsequent
professional development schools Soldiers attend during their career life cycle.
Paramount to the Department of Defense’s understanding of the effectiveness of pre-
deployment training is understanding the basic knowledge of the Soldiers. Understanding the
factual knowledge and how it develops Soldier understanding of procedural knowledge will
allow the Department of Defense to design and implement training that develops the conceptual
knowledge of the Soldier. The Department of Defense must determine whether the Soldiers
received sufficient training in the basic skills and that the training was reinforced as the home
station training prior to the Soldier arriving at the installation for pre-deployment training. This
knowledge type will be assessed using surveys and follow-on interviews consisting of questions
designed to assess the level of training knowledge retained from their IET, through their
professional development and culminating in their arrival for training at the deployment training
location.
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 18

Soldiers must understand the procedures necessary to conduct warrior tasks and battle
drills and the procedural requirements for the execution of the mission assigned to their unit in
the theater of operations. The Department of Defense is responsible for providing the Soldiers
with the foundation of basic knowledge necessary to learn the declarative knowledge, reinforcing
the procedural knowledge of the Soldiers in the warrior tasks and battle drills, and developing
that procedural knowledge using a cohesive and well-defined training strategy designed to
provide clear and concise guidance on how to execute the mission in the theater of operations.
The Department of Defense is additionally responsible for ensuring that the Soldier training is
aligned with the certification process of the pre-deployment training locations.
The Soldiers’ conceptual knowledge is deeply rooted in the capability of the Department
of Defense to implement an effective basic skills training strategy. This training strategy must
present these basic skills in a format that can be received and understood by the Soldier. Once
the Soldier understands these basic skills, they form the foundation of factual knowledge for the
Soldier during their initial training.
A review of the literature on knowledge influences within the Department of Defense
shows how important knowledge is to the development of Soldiers and their understanding of the
mission and goals of the Department of Defense. Weiss (2008) makes a key point that there are
54 different states and territories that, because they are under the control of each governor, could
potentially conduct training 54 different ways because the policies are non-standard. This poses
a dilemma when it comes to the factual, procedural, and conceptual knowledge influences. Units
must be proficient at all levels and for squads and platoons, this means mastering the
fundamentals of operating as a team, shooting, moving, and communicating (Zubik, Hastings, &
Glisson, 20140. The Soldier must have a clear understanding of how their factual, procedural,
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 19

and conceptual knowledge influences fit into the overall objectives of the Department of
Defense.
The conceptual and procedural knowledge influence aspects can be affected by the
difference in training from state to state. The Soldiers in this Department of Defense all have the
same goal but are attempting to accomplish that goal through non-standard training. The unique
problem inherent in this is when units of Soldiers must conduct combined operations with units
of Soldiers from other states. There is a potential that Soldiers will have different levels of
conceptual and procedural knowledge which can affect the confidence of the individual Soldier.
There are also inconsistencies when it comes to the training timelines for like units. An example
of this inconsistency is that it took approximately 300 days to train a specific helicopter battalion
for a deployment while it took the same type of helicopter battalion from another state
approximately 100 days (Army National Guard, 2015). The was due to the receipt of new model
helicopters that required additional training for the unit that took significantly longer to conduct
training.
Motivation Influences
Motivation is defined as the level of enthusiasm for a goal, and the willingness to pursue
that goal (Thompson & Gignac, 2003). The Soldiers require high levels of motivation to help
shape their learning potential for the Department of Defense. Soldier motivation within the
Department of Defense is a combination of interest (intrinsic value) and utility value coupled
with self-efficacy. A significant predictor of choosing to engage in tasks, persist at them and
invest the necessary effort is self-efficacy. Bandura (1994) defines self-efficacy as an individual's
belief in his or her capacity to execute behaviors necessary to produce specific performance
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 20

attainments. This section is a review of literature which focuses on the motivation-related
influences that are essential to the development of knowledge for the Soldiers.
Soldiers must have an interest in the topic they are learning. Without an interest in the
topic, the stakeholder could potentially experience little or no learning. Intrinsic value is the
enjoyment the individual gets from performing the activity or the subjective interest the
individual has in the subject (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). In discussing utility value, Eccles and
Wigfield (2002) state that utility value is determined by how well a task relates to current and
future goals, such as career goals.
Soldiers must have a sense of self-efficacy in their ability to perform the tasks that they
are required to perform within the organization. It is vital that Soldiers feel like they are
contributing to the overall success of their unit and the Department of Defense. Interviews with
Soldiers revealed that Soldiers were training on tasks that were not in their specific occupational
specialty (Sanders & Schaefer, 2009). Soldiers want to contribute to the overall effectiveness of
the Department of Defense. When the Department of Defense forces a Soldier to learn the
aspects of a job that is not the one that they trained for, the Soldier has the potential of being
disinterested in learning the topic because they feel like the organization does not care enough
about the stakeholder’s professional development within his/her own occupational specialty
(Sanders & Schaefer, 2009). The self-efficacy of Soldiers in this situation is directly tied to the
utility value of gaining the knowledge of the tasks and how to effectively execute them as part of
their job. This leads to the belief that Soldiers feel that they can contribute to the overall success
of the team and the Department of Defense and their belief that they are a valued member of the
team. The self-efficacy of the Soldier can be assessed through surveys and interviews using both
open-ended questions and scale ratings on job satisfaction and job significance.
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 21

Organizational Influences
Understanding the organizational culture that drives the Department of Defense (DoD)
requires first that there is an understanding of what organizational culture is and how it
influences the member of that organization. Schein (2010) defines culture as the foundation of
the social order that we live in and of the rules we abide by. He discusses four types of culture
which are macrocultures, organizational cultures, subcultures, and microcultures. Within
organizational cultures he lists private, public, non-profit, and government organizations. It is in
this type of culture where the DoD resides as a government organization within the United States
government. The concept of culture is interwoven as well. The DoD serves as the
organizational culture being discussed, but the Soldiers as the stakeholder within this research
project also for what would be considered a subculture within the DoD. A subculture is an
occupational group or groups within an organization (Schein, 2010). Reviewing the literature
related to the DoD and how its organizational culture influences not only the knowledge and
skills of the Soldiers directly, but the motivation of the Soldiers both directly and indirectly, will
provide insight into how the DoD influences the effectiveness of pre-deployment training. It is
critical to understand the significance of the culture within the DoD and how it influences the
ability of the Soldiers to gain and retain the information relevant to their ability to perform their
job in a combat environment.
The Department of Defense has the responsibility for training ARNG units that are
designated for deployment in support of combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The
National Guard Bureau (NGB) is responsible for providing oversight on the training of the
ARNG units that are selected to train in anticipation of deployment. The ARNG units belong to
the Governor of the state that they reside in and have a dual status mission of homeland defense
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 22

and when tasked, deployment for combat operations. The DoD recognizes that these units are
based throughout the United States and that, like the active duty army, it is difficult and, in some
cases, impossible to conduct pre-deployment training at their home station. In response to this
limiting factor, the DoD has designated several locations to serve as combat training centers for
both the active duty Soldiers and the National Guard soldiers to prepare them to conduct combat
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
There are several National Guard Training Centers located throughout the United States,
all of which are owned and operated by their state National Guard Adjutants under a mandate by
the Governor of the State (Army National Guard, 2015). The training focus of the centers is
dictated by the requirements of the Department of Defense as well as the mission set and
composition of the unit that is designated to receive the training (Army National Guard, 2015).
This statement shows that the DoD determines the focus of the training for the units it has
designated to deploy. The DoD’s influence on the training determines the knowledge that the
Soldiers take into their deployment. Therefore, it is essential for the DoD to ensure that the
strategic goals it has for the units designated to deploy is not only relevant, but effective enough
to accomplish the mission with as much safety for the Soldiers as possible. That is also why
there is a sub-organization within the DoD that is responsible for ensuring that the training is
effective and that is the DoD Inspector General (DOD IG). An example of how the DoD IG
contributed to the development of training is the Training Requirements for U.S. Ground Forces
Deploying in Support of Operation Iraqi Freedom that outlines the 14 mandatory training tasks
required of all units to deploy and provides lessons learned from prior deployments (Inspector
General, 2008). These lessons learned help to assess how effective the training is in combat
because they are gathered after units return from deployment and in some cases midway during
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 23

the deployment. The purpose for this is to get the latest information on tactics, techniques, and
procedures that are working for both the Soldiers and the enemy, back to the training centers for
changes to training and the implementation of procedures and tactics for future deployment
cycles. None of this however is free, and doesn’t take place without a cost, which is why the
DoD’s ability to provide resources both fiscally and physically is a significant influencer on the
knowledge and skills of the Soldiers training for combat deployments. Zubik, Hastings, and
Glisson (2014) argue that ARNG units will find it difficult to obtain a higher level of readiness
without adequate resources and that the ARNG must acknowledge that requirements exceed
training time available. It is therefore vital that the ARNG analyze its near-term and long-term
budget as well as training timelines to ensure that it is properly allocating the resources necessary
to ensure the readiness of units to execute the missions assigned to it by the DoD.
As the operational deployment tempo of the Army increases, pre-deployment training
resources, both fiscally and educationally must increase to ensure that the Soldiers continue to
remain at the forefront of tactical and technical relevance in combat operations. Grant (2010)
talks about the need to maximize both fiscal and educational resources to effectively conduct
pre-deployment training. Because Soldiers are so reliant on the effectiveness of the training
curriculum, it is essential that resources also be allocated to the education of the instructors that
will be tasked with training the Soldiers during pre-deployment training. The Rand Corporation
(2015) lays out the curriculum and requirements and states that it is critical that the competency
and experience of the instructors be vetted to ensure that it is current and relevant and can
significantly enhance the Soldiers learning experience which will effectively assist the Soldiers
in retaining the knowledge they are being presented. Considering the effective use of monetary
and educational resources continues and even increases, the DoD must continuously assess its
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 24

strategic goals for the training and certification of Soldiers for deployment, requirements for
instructor training, certification, and re-certification, and the further development of curriculum
and program development for deploying Soldiers.
The DoD influences the Soldiers knowledge from the very beginning of a Soldiers’
career. Soldiers must have a basic understanding of the Warrior Tasks and Battle Drills
associated with combat operations (Weiss, 2008). They receive this in Initial Entry Training
(IET) and Advanced Individual Training (AIT) when they first join the ARNG. This training is
developed and delivered by the DoD. That means that the DoD dictates the factual and
procedural knowledge while at the same time providing a strong influence as to the conceptual
knowledge that the Soldier develops because of the merging of the factual and procedural
knowledge. This aspect of influence directly affects the Soldiers and indirectly affects their
motivation. Soldiers within the DoD are motivated to learn their jobs because it contributes to
both their self-efficacy as a member of a team within the DoD and their confidence in their
ability to perform the tasks that are required of them as members of the DoD (Sanders &
Schaefer, 2009). There is also a strong sense of wanting to take care of the person next to them,
not necessarily to make the DoD a better organization. The DoD capitalizes on this “take care of
your comrades” mentality to help accomplish its strategic goal of having 100% of Soldiers
designated to deploy trained and able to execute their mission in combat. It also helps the
Soldiers accomplish their goal of being able to deploy to combat and conduct operations safely
and return home from deployment.

Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 25

Summary of Influences
The following table is a description of the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences that are relevant to Soldiers and their ability to retain the information necessary to
safely execute their mission and return from their deployment. The intent of the table is to
categorize the influences that directly affect the Soldiers and their ability and desire to learn and
retain the knowledge.
Table 1

Summary of Assumed Influences on Soldiers’ Understanding of How to Effectively Implement
Pre-Deployment Training in a Combat Environment

Knowledge Influences
Soldiers must have a factual
understanding of the Warrior Tasks
and Battle Drills as taught during their
Initial Entry Training (IET/Basic
Training) course
(United States Army, 2008; Weiss, 2008)
Soldiers must demonstrate that they
can execute the procedural steps
of their specific Military Occupational
Specialty (MOS/Job) as it relates to
combat operations
(Army National Guard, 2015; Weiss, 2008)
Soldiers must have a conceptual
understanding of Warrior Tasks and
Battle Drills and how they are
implemented both individually and
collectively in combat operations
(Army National Guard, 2015; Weiss, 2008)
Motivational Influences
Soldiers must to feel confident about
their ability to safely implement the
training they receive during pre-
deployment in a deployed
environment
(Bandura, 1994; Sanders & Schaefer, 2009)
Soldiers must feel like what they are
learning is important to overall
success of the mission that the
Department of Defense has of
protecting the United States.
(Bandura, 1994; Eccles, 2006; Pintrich, 2003;
Sanders & Schaefer, 2009)
Soldiers must have an interest in (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002)
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 26

Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Soldiers’ Knowledge, Motivation
and the Organizational Context

Maxwell (2013) defined the conceptual framework as the system of concepts,
assumptions, expectations, beliefs, and theories that informs and supports the research and is a
key part of the research design. Maxwell (2013) goes on to say that the most important thing to
understand about the conceptual framework is that it is primarily a conception or model of what
is out there that the researcher plans to study, what is happening and why it is happening, and a
tentative theory of the phenomena that the researcher is investigating. The conceptual
framework will not only drive the research design but assist the researcher in the justification of
the study (Maxwell, 2013). The design of the research, which is a conceptual roadmap for the
study, and the justification of the study are essential to the successful development of quality
the topic they are learning. Without
an interest in the topic, the stakeholder
could potentially experience little or
no learning.
Organizational Influences
The Department of Defense is
responsible for determining the pre-
deployment training requirements for
the National Guard Soldiers.
(Army National Guard, 2015; Grant, P.M.,
2010)
The Department of Defense is
responsible for effectively training
Soldiers on how to conduct
operations in a combat
environment by codifying training
into simple segments to manage
intrinsic load and ensuring that the
Soldiers’ memory capacity is not
overloaded.
(Army National Guard, 2015; Kirshner et al.,
2006; Kirshner, Kirshner, & Paas, 2006)
The Department of Defense needs to
develop and synthesizing the core
training curriculum to ensure the
effectiveness of pre-deployment
training for the Soldiers prior to the
beginning of training.
(Army National Guard, 2016; Inspector
General United States Department of
Defense, 2008; Rand Corporation, 2015;
United States Army, 2008)
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 27

research and the presentation of credible results. The potential influencers listed in the previous
section are not meant to be viewed in isolation. The conceptual framework will demonstrate
how these influencers interact with each other in several ways that not only affect the Soldiers’
knowledge and motivation, but how the Department of Defense contributes to and is affected by
those influencers in the overall accomplishment of their goal as well as the goal of the Soldiers.

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

1. The DoD is responsible for determining the pre-deployment
training requirements for National Guard Soldiers.
2. The DoD must develop and synthesize the core training
curriculum to ensure the effectiveness of pre-deployment
training.

Soldiers receive training required for certification to deploy and display proficiency in all unit
and individual tasks within 30 days of deployment in support of combat operations. Soldiers
will safely and successfully execute the pre-deployment training once deployed to the theater
of operations.

SOLDIERS
Declarative and procedural
knowledge of basic warrior
tasks and battle drills taught in a
controlled environment versus
practical application of the skills
in a simulated combat
environment

Soldier intrinsic, and self-
efficacy motivation to learn the
training that is presented to
them for the benefit of the team
vs the benefit of the DoD
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 28

The conceptual framework presented by Figure 1 provides a visual representation of how
the knowledge, skills, and motivation of the Soldiers interact with the cultures and goals of the
Department of Defense to accomplish the overall goal of the Soldier. This framework shows
how the motivation of the Soldiers to successfully acquire the knowledge and skills necessary to
safely execute combat operations prior to their deployment is nested with the overall strategic
goal of the Department of Defense. While it is important to understand how these two groups
interact, it is just as important to understand that there are self-efficacy, utility values, and
intrinsic values to the Soldiers’ motivation to gain the knowledge that, while not directly tied to
the goal of the Soldiers as stated above, help them accomplish that goal and ultimately helps the
DoD accomplish the overall goal.
The large blue circle represents the goal of the Department of Defense and both the role
and responsibility the DoD has in accomplishing that goal. Soldiers rely on the DoD to provide
them with relevant training that, when applied in a combat environment, will allow them to
safely execute their mission and safely return home from deployment. If the DoD provides them
with quality training, the Soldiers will execute the mission that the DoD has assigned them to
accomplish. That is a contract between the DoD and the Soldiers where trust is being placed in
the DoD to ensure the safety of the Soldier through that quality training. Rath and Conchie
(2009) state that followers want their leaders to be trustworthy, compassionate, stable, and hope-
filled. Building trust between the Department of Defense and the Soldiers is essential to overall
success of the Department of Defense as well as the Soldiers. The DoD can develop and solidify
that trust through keeping its promise of providing quality relevant pre-deployment training to
the Soldiers.
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 29

The orange circle within the blue circle represents the knowledge and motivation of the
Soldiers. The knowledge is the factual, procedural, and conceptual knowledge gained through
the various avenues of training presented to the Soldier to include Initial Entry Training (IET),
Advanced Individual Training (AIT), Home-Station Training, and the pre-deployment training
presented to them before deploying in support of combat operations. The motivation consists of
the intrinsic value, utility value, and self-efficacy of the Soldiers and how they contribute to the
learning and understanding of the concepts presented in the training of the warrior tasks and
battle drills as well as the retention of the knowledge gained by the training. One concept that is
critical to understand when it comes to knowledge and motivation is the intent of the motivation.
Based on the knowledge and experience of the researcher, Soldiers are motivated to gain the
knowledge to support the efforts of their fellow Soldiers and to develop a more cohesive unit that
can survive the dangers and rigors of combat. Soldiers learn to benefit themselves and their
teammates, and in doing so, help the DoD in accomplishing both the goal of the Soldiers and the
overall goal of the DoD.
The arrow is the link between the DoD’s culture, roles and responsibilities, and overall
goal, coupled with the knowledge and motivation of the Soldiers, and how they work together to
accomplish the goal. Soldiers need to be confident in their ability to meet the challenges of their
deployment. Soldiers must also see the value of training in preparation for the challenges of
their deployment. The goal in the box is what the Soldiers want to accomplish using their desire
to keep each other safe as motivation to gain the knowledge necessary to perform their duty in a
combat environment. Providing effective and relevant training for Soldiers to safely execute
their mission is the responsibility of the DoD.
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 30

The conceptual framework discussed in this section will help guide the research to
discover and analyze potential gaps in the training that could contribute to a degradation in the
quality of training as well as the overall effectiveness of the pre-deployment training. The DoD
Inspector General (2016) noted that both the Army and Army National Guard have developed
guidance on the training of units, but that the guidance is not clear and concise and often contains
conflicting information. This is an area in the process of the development of training that can be
researched to identify potential gaps. A gap between the training Soldiers receive during their
IET and AIT phase of training (initial indoctrination in the concepts of warrior tasks and battle
drills) and the reinforcement training received during Home-Station and pre-deployment training
can potentially have adverse effects that will manifest themselves during the combat deployment.
This is a gap that the DoD will want to eliminate to assist the Soldier in accomplishing their goal,
which will effectively allow the DoD to accomplish its strategic goal.
Soldiers in the National Guard that have been through pre-deployment training and have
deployed in support of combat operations will be the focus group of this study. The ideal
participant has no more than two deployments as a member of the Army National Guard and has
conducted two iterations of the pre-deployment training prior to their combat rotation. Soldiers
that have more than two deployments and pre-deployment training iterations, while contributing
to the overall study by bringing in a greater amount of experience and understanding of the
implementation of concepts in a combat environment, are not desirable for that very same
reason. Soldiers, after multiple rotations in combat and multiple iterations of pre-deployment
training have the potential to discard the pre-deployment training, relying on their experiences
through multiple combat operations to serve as their guide. This could adversely affect the
research based on their perspective of the training not replicating their combat experience. There
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 31

is the potential that they could discard the training from the beginning or not be receptive to the
pre-deployment training and significantly drive the research to produce data that is not
representative of the population and ultimately lead to questions as to the validity of the study.
Methods of Data Gathering
The methods for gathering data consisted of several components used to determine the
qualification of subjects to take part in the research for this paper. The components were survey
sampling criteria and rationale, sampling strategy and rationale, interview sampling and
rationale, and interview sampling strategy and rationale. These components explained and
justified the reasoning for the selection of the sampling pool of participants. The components are
addressed in appendix A.
Data Collection and Instrumentation

The methods used for the collection of data to answer the research questions listed above
were in the form of a mixed methods approach. According to Maxwell (2013), the data in a
qualitative study can include virtually anything that is communicated to the researcher during the
conduct of the study. Surveys provided quantitative data to form a baseline response while the
interviews shaped a more complete understanding of the effectiveness of pre-deployment
training. Surveys provided an assessment of the knowledge, skills, and motivation of the
Soldiers’ retention of the training that they received during their Initial Entry Training and their
ability to apply this training in a deployed combat environment. The interviews provided more
specific and qualitative data designed to answer the research questions related to the extent to
which the Department of Defense set the conditions for an environment that effectively
presented the training in a format that could be understood, comprehended, and implemented in a
combat environment.
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 32

Surveys
Surveys were used to gather quantitative data for the study. The data was used to
establish a baseline profile of the Soldiers and their perspective on the training they received
during their pre-deployment training prior to their operational deployment. Surveys for this
research were conducted exclusively in an online format with the survey link delivered to the
respondents via email. The use of surveys in the online format was a significant advantage
because the participants were able to respond to the survey from any location and at a time of
their choosing as opposed to setting up a time and a place to meet with them and have them fill
out a written survey. This administrative approach was vital because in this research, the
participants were personnel that required as much anonymity as possible because they were
responding to questions that related to their perspective on how their employer was preparing
them for critical training that potentially could mean life or death in a combat operation. The
participants could have potentially been concerned about their answers being linked to them and
the organization seeking retribution for any negative comments made by the participants. This
concern was mitigated by ensuring that demographic and personally identifiable information was
omitted from the survey. The ranks, schools, deployments, and experiences were grouped so that
there was virtually no combination of information that could have been combined to differentiate
one participant from another.
Surveys have many advantages that can assist in providing significant data for analysis.
According to Creswell (2014), surveys allow the researcher to generalize results for the
population being studied. This is critical because it is highly unlikely that the researcher will
have to opportunity to survey everyone in the field to get the rich data needed to conduct an
effective analysis and produce valid and reliable results and inferences. It is essential that a
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 33

demographic survey be done to establish a baseline of responses that complement the overall
picture and the interviews that will serve to provide more in-depth data that further expounds on
the survey data. Surveys are less expensive and less time consuming than conducting interviews
and field observations. Another advantage of surveys is that data collection is quick and
anonymous, which is a major advantage when conducting research on the Department of
Defense.
There are some disadvantages to surveys that could impact this study. A major
disadvantage could potentially arise if there is a low response rate to the surveys. In a study
looking to assess the research questions listed above, the response rate is critical to the validity of
the research. A low response rate will not provide enough rich data to support the interviews and
to generalize to the population at large. It is essential to have high response rates to ensure that
there is enough rich data to compliment the interviews. Another disadvantage of surveys is the
possibility of participants misleading or exaggerating their responses which could provide
inaccurate data and there will not be an opportunity to clarify any discrepancies or large
deviations in the answers to the survey questions. An additional disadvantage of surveys that is
most concerning is the development of the right questions to get the rich data required for an
effective assessment of the pre-deployment training. These disadvantages that come with
conducting surveys are a direct threat the validity and reliability of the data collected and must be
addressed before the surveys can be conducted. Surveys were conducted using the criteria listed
appendix A.

Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 34

Interviews
The goal for this study was to conduct one-time interviews with nine Soldiers, three from
each of the categories listed below to provide an equal representation of all groups being studied.
The objective was to conduct interviews with the following categories of Soldiers: junior
Soldiers (Soldiers in the rank of E-1 to E-4 and officers in the rank of O-1 to O-2), mid-career
Soldiers (Soldiers in the rank of E-5 to E-6 and officers in the rank of O-3 to O-4), and senior
Soldiers (Soldiers in the rank of E-7 and above and officers in the rank of O-5 and above). The
justification for breaking up the interview categories was based on the experience level of the
Soldiers. A goal of qualitative research is to deliberately select individuals that are critical for
testing the theories that were generated at the beginning of the study (Maxwell, 2013). Selecting
these three groups to conduct interviews provided an opportunity to establish what Maxwell
(2013) calls a productive relationship that will best enable the research question to be answered.
It also allowed for a comparison of answers between the groups to provide insight into possible
concerns that transcend all the groups in the study.
In addition to the training differences of the categories, the deployment experience of the
Soldiers served as a justification for the division of the Soldiers into interview categories. The
assumption made in this research was that the junior Soldiers being interviewed would have less
than two deployments, the mid-career Soldiers between one and two deployments, and the senior
Soldiers two deployments or more in support of combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The interviews were unstructured and informal. The highly structured/standardized interview
was not used because according to Merriam and Tisdell (2016) highly structured interviews are a
problem in qualitative research based on how they rigidly adhere to predetermined questions and
may not allow access to participant perspectives and understandings of the world. Conversely,
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 35

the advantages of the informal interview in this research was that it allowed for open-ended
questions, was more conversational in nature, was flexible, and had the goal of learning from the
interview to formulate future interview questions to further clarify views. Interviews were
conducted with Soldiers based on their availability both in person and online. In instances where
in person and online interviews could not be conducted, telephonic interviews were utilized as an
alternative option. The reason for conducting the informal interview was to increase the level of
comfort for the junior Soldiers. Understanding that Soldiers value their time, no interview was
longer than one hour in length except in instances that Soldiers went past the time limit to further
describe their experiences and assessments of the training.
Documents
The documents collected for this research project were used to certify that all Soldiers
completed the basic level training certification in the procedures and concepts of the warrior
tasks and battle drills gained during Initial Entry Training. Every Soldier must certify their
knowledge and understanding of the warrior tasks and battle drills as a condition of meeting the
requirements of graduation from Initial Entry Training. In addition, these tasks are revisited
during subsequent professional military education courses and are required to be trained on
throughout the year during the battle assembly conducted one weekend every month and two
weeks every year as a requirement for successful membership in the Army National Guard. The
documents consisted of statistical data reported by the Department of Defense on the Soldiers in
the Army National Guard that have completed their Initial Entry Training and documents
showing that Soldiers that have deployed in support of combat operations have attended and
completed pre-deployment training prior to that deployment. These statistics are public record
and contain no identifiable information for Soldiers either being interviewed as part of this
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 36

research project or Soldiers taking part in the survey. The research project did not require the
use of Soldier sensitive data as its sole purpose is to provide validation that every Soldier
deploying in support of combat operations has received the training designated by the
Department of Defense as required training for Soldiers to deploy to combat and execute the
missions assigned to them by the Department of Defense.
Data Analysis
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) stated that data analysis in qualitative research studies
focuses not only on what happens but also how it happens. That makes the understanding of the
data being gathered critical to the study itself. Analyzing the data with the intent on
understanding what makes the data relevant and why will be accomplished through the
interviews conducted as part of this study. The interviews will provide the rich data necessary to
explain the overall quantitative date presented by the surveys. According to Creswell (2014),
there are six steps to data analysis and interpretation. The six steps are reporting information
about the number of members of the sample who did and did not participate, discuss the method
by which response bias will be determined, discuss a plan to provide a descriptive analysis of
data for all independent and dependent variables in the study, if the proposal contains an
instrument with scales or a plan to develop scales identify the procedure, identify the statistics
and the statistical computer program for the testing, and present the results in tables or figures
and interpret the results from the statistical test (Creswell, 2014). This study will follow the
steps outlined by Creswell to conduct data analysis for the interviews and surveys.

Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 37

Results and Findings
The findings and results presented in this study were a result of data gathered using
mixed methods research that provided both quantitative and qualitative data for analysis. A
mixed methods approach was vital to providing valid and reliable data while establishing
credibility and trustworthiness using qualitative data to reinforce the perspectives presented
during the quantitative survey. The qualitative data gathered through interviews provided the
rich data necessary to drive the recommendations and implementation plan that the Department
of Defense requires to develop effective and relevant training the ARNG can present to Soldiers
prior to deployment.
Quantitative Data Results
The survey developed for this study was designed to establish an experience baseline in
combat deployments, training, and professional military education. 21 respondents participated
in the survey and 100% of the questions presented in the survey were answered by the
respondents. The goal of the survey was to establish a level of experience and education that
would provide data that was valid and reliable based on Soldier application of pre-deployment
training during a combat rotation. Soldiers of all ranks are an invaluable source of raw data on
the effectiveness of training. The survey was conducted using an online software delivery and
data gathering method.
The respondents’ identity remained anonymous through the exclusion of personally
identifiable information. An additional protection for the anonymity of the Soldier was added by
removing any question that requested the Soldier’s rank/grade and the establishment of Military
Occupational Specialty (MOS) job categories, rather than requesting specific MOS job codes.
The justification for the omission of rank and the creation of job categories instead of specific
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 38

job codes is based on the desire to protect the identity of Soldiers that might otherwise not be
willing to take part in the survey for fear of potential retribution. As stated in previous sections,
the Army National Guard is a state controlled and state funded force that is a component of the
Department of Defense. Members of the Army National Guard do not change duty stations like
their active duty counterparts. Soldiers in the Guard could spend most of their career in a single
unit or within their state guard. Because of this, National Guard members that move up in ranks
become more identifiable by a rank and job code specification. The omission of these two pieces
of identifiable information ensures that individual Soldier responses will not be attributed to the
Soldiers themselves while still contributing vital responses for data analysis.
Military occupation group. The Army offers training in more than 150 career paths
(US Army, 2018). This training culminates in the awarding of a MOS job specialty skill code.
The MOS jobs of the Army are grouped into four categories: 1. Operations Division (Infantry,
Aviation, Armor, Engineer, Military Police, Chemical, Field Artillery, Air Defense Artillery,
Special Forces) 2. Force Sustainment Division (Acquisition, Adjutant General, Finance,
Transportation, Ordnance, Quartermaster, Logistics, Chief Warrant Officer) 3. Health Services
Division (Army Medical Corps, Army Dental Corps, Army Veterinary Corps, Army Nurse
Corps, Army Medical Specialist Corps, Army Service Corps) 4. Operations Support Division
(Military Intelligence, Signal, Cyber, Foreign Area Officer, Functional Areas).
The operations division consists of the combat-oriented MOS jobs that have, as their sole
requirement for certification of the job code, the demonstration of not only proficiency, but
mastery of the procedures and concepts associated with the Warrior Tasks and Battle Drills. The
force sustainment, health services, and operations support divisions all have the requirement to
demonstrate proficiency in the Warrior Tasks and Battle Drills, but not mastery to the level of
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 39

the operations division because, unlike the operations division, the Warrior Tasks and Battle
Drills are not the sole certification requirement for the awarding of the MOS job.
The figure below shows the breakdown of respondents by their MOS associated category.

Figure 2. Occupation Group
The force sustainment division was represented by over 60% of the respondents followed by the
operations division with over 30%. The operations support division was third with just over 5%
and there was no representation from the health services division. These results are beneficial to
the study for two reasons. Over 65% of the respondents represent jobs in the military where
competency in the Warrior Tasks and Battle Drills are a component, but not the singular
component of their MOS. Their assessment of the training comes from the perspective of a
group that does not regularly conduct training in the Warrior Tasks and Battle Drills with the
goals of demonstrating mastery of the skills, but a proficiency required to safely and confidently
execute the tasks associated with these skills. The 33% percent of respondents that comprise the
33.33%
61.11%
0.00% 5.56%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
OPERATIONS DIVISION FORCE SUSTAINMENT
DIVISION
HEALTH SERVICES
DIVISION
OPERATIONS SUPPORT
DIVISION
OCCUPATIONAL GROUP
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 40

operations division are required to train on these skills to demonstrate mastery through repetitive
iterations of training in procedural concepts. Their declarative, procedural, and conceptual
knowledge has been refined through repetition and reinforcement which allows them to provide
a more comprehensive assessment of training based on this knowledge and experience in the
Warrior Tasks and Battle Drills.
Deployment frequency. The establishment of deployment experience is essential to the
accurate assessment of the effectiveness and relevance of training. Soldiers with deployment
experience have trained and implemented the concepts developed by the DoD and presented by
the ARNG. Deployment experience was a requirement for participation in this survey because it
would be impossible to provide an accurate assessment of training if a Soldier has not attempted
to implement the training received during pre-deployment in a real-world combat environment.
The chart below represents the number of combat deployments participated in from the
minimum of one deployment through four or more deployments. For this study, deployments are
not limited to the theaters of Iraq and Afghanistan. Deployments include any combat
deployment or peacekeeping mission where the implementation of MOS, Warrior Tasks, and
Battle Drills skills were required for the successful execution of the mission assigned to the
Soldier.

Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 41

Figure 3. Number of Deployments
55% of Soldiers surveyed had two to three operational deployments while 33% percent had at
least one deployment. The remaining 11% participated in four or more deployments. The
Soldiers surveyed have the required deployment experience to provide insight as to the
effectiveness of the training because they have participated in at least one pre-deployment
training iteration, followed by a combat deployment. The Soldiers’ responses to this survey were
based on their understanding of the concepts associated with MOS, Warrior Tasks, and Battle
Drills and have attempted to implement them in an actual combat operation.
Deployment location. Soldiers deploy to a variety of locations both to conduct combat
operations and to execute the mandates of peacekeeping missions. Soldiers that deploy to Iraq
encounter cultural challenges associated with the numerous religious differences in the country
as well as the outside state and non-state actors trying to influence the direction and future of the
country. In Afghanistan, Soldiers must understand the dynamics of a country that has been
33.33%
55.56%
11.11%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
1 2 TO 3 4 OR MORE
OPERATIONAL DEPLOYMENTS
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 42

divided under years of rule by the Taliban and the security issues associated with a porous border
between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Understanding the complex system of local politics, trade,
and interaction between tribal villages and local religious leaders of Iraq in no way can be
translated to the system in place on the ground in Afghanistan. It is vital that data be gathered to
from Soldiers who have deployed to Iraq, Afghanistan, Iraq and Afghanistan, or peacekeeping
missions around the world. As part of the pre-deployment training program, cultural awareness
training is presented to the Soldiers prior to deployment. This training must be relevant and
focused on the specific region where the Soldiers are deploying to so that it can assist them in
accomplishing the tasks associated with their combat deployment.
The figure below is a breakdown of the deployments by location. Nearly 37% of the
Soldiers polled deployed to Iraq while 21% deployed to Afghanistan. Almost 32% have
deployed to both Iraq and Afghanistan and just over 10% have participated in a deployment to
some other location. The Soldiers that have deployed to a single location provide a more
focused assessment of training based on their experiences in one theater of operations. Soldiers
that have deployed to both Iraq and Afghanistan provide an advantage to this survey because
their assessments are rooted in their ability to compare the effectiveness of the training as it
pertains to one theater versus the other theater. This is added value to the survey because it
allows the DoD to determine if it needs to adjust the training focus for one theater or if wholesale
changes need to be made to the entire program.

Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 43

Figure 4. Deployment Location
The topography, climate, and development differences between Iraq and Afghanistan
significantly affect the perception of the effectiveness of pre-deployment training. Soldiers
participating in pre-deployment training will have vastly different views of how effective their
training was based on the theater they deploy to for combat operations. An example of this is the
Warrior Task 25. Navigate from one point to another dismounted. Because of the mountainous
terrain present in Afghanistan versus the majority flat terrain of Iraq, Soldiers could potentially
perceive the training as relevant or irrelevant based on their experiences in combat. Navigation
is far less of a physical strain over the flat terrain in Iraq as opposed to the extremely difficult
terrain present in Afghanistan. Determining the deployment location of the participants is vital
to the accurate analysis of perceived effectiveness of training because of the variables associated
with the very different theaters of combat.
34%
22%
33%
11%
DEPLOYMENT LOCATION
IRAQ
AFGHANISTAN
IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN
NEITHER (DEPLOYED TO ANOTHER
LOCATION)
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 44

Professional military education. Professional Military Education (PME) contributes to
the overall experience of Soldiers by building on the concepts presented from the initial training
received throughout the career of the Soldier. Determining the highest level of PME completed
by the survey participants can strengthen the validity of the survey. This is accomplished by
providing a pool of participants that have completed training at increasing levels of difficulty.
This allows them to make a more informed assessment of the effectiveness of the pre-
deployment training. The figure below displays the highest level of PME completed by the
survey participants.

Figure 5. Highest Level of Professional Military Education (PME) Completed
The top three highest level of PME completed responses were Intermediate Level Education
(37%), Captains Career Course (37%), and Senior Leader Course (10%). These results show
that there is a significant amount of academic experience among the survey participants that,
coupled with both the deployment experiences and locations deployed, provides this survey with
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
45.00%
HIGHEST LEVEL OF PROFESSIONAL MILITARY
EDUCATION (PME) COMPLETED
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 45

data on the effectiveness of training from the perspective of experienced Soldiers that have
applied their MOS, Warrior Tasks, and Battle Drills during combat operations. Their combined
academic and practical experience contributes to the validity and reliability of the research.
The establishment of the experience level of the Soldiers taking the survey in the
previous sections leads into the assessment of the training from the point of view of the Soldiers.
Soldier feedback is vital to assisting the DoD and the ARNG in developing and implementing
training that will ensure the Soldiers are prepared to safely execute their mission in future
combat operations. The second part of the survey consisted of four questions pertaining to the
effectiveness of training from the perspective of the Soldiers who participated in the training and
subsequent combat rotation. A final section of the survey was included where participants could
provide any comments they felt were pertinent to the survey topics presented. The four
questions were presented with the answers provided in the form of a Likert scale. Questions
five, six, and seven utilized a Likert scale rating with the answers ranging from strongly disagree
to strongly agree. Questions eight and nine used a Likert scale rating from one to ten with one
being not at all satisfied and ten being very satisfied. The questions for the survey can be found
in appendix C.
Pre-deployment training assessment (prior to deployment). Soldiers were asked to
rate their level of confidence in the following pre-deployment training categories: home station
battle assembly training, professional military education, specific MOS training, pre-deployment
training at home station, and pre-deployment training at the training centers. For the purposes of
this study, the difference between home station battle assembly and home station pre-deployment
training is that home station battle assembly training is focused on training that occurs outside of
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 46

the Warrior Tasks and Battle Drills training required for deployment certification prior to
deployment.

Figure 6. Pre-Deployment Training Assessment (Prior to Deployment)
Table 2
Pre-Deployment Training Assessment (1=No Confidence through 5=Full Confidence)

Confidence in Training Mean Standard
Deviation

Home Station Battle Assembly Training

2.84 1.04
Professional Military Education 3.33 0.94
Specific MOS Training

3.58 1.09
10%
0%
5%
17%
5%
26%
28%
5%
17%
5%
37%
17%
42%
39%
26%
21%
50%
21%
28%
37%
6%
6%
26%
0%
26%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Home Station Battle Assembly Training
Professional Military Education
Specific MOS Training
Home Station Pre-Deployment Training
Pre-Deployment Training at the Training Centers
PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING ASSESSMENT
Full Confidence 4 3 2 No Confidence
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 47

Pre-Deployment Training at Home Station 2.78 1.03
Pre-deployment Training at Training Center 3.74 1.07

Prior to deployment, Soldiers expressed the highest percent of confidence/full confidence
in the training received at the pre-deployment training centers (63%) while the highest
percentage of Soldiers that had little or no confidence in training was from the training
conducted during the home station battle assembly training (36%). An interesting statistic from
this chart is the level of confidence in the home station pre-deployment training where 34% of
the Soldiers polled had little or no confidence in the training prior to their deployment. From
these statistics, it can be deduced that there is a deficiency in home station training prior to
Soldiers attending their pre-deployment training at the training centers. Soldiers had confidence
or full confidence in their PME (56%) over their specific MOS training (47%) prior to their
deployment. This shows that there is a gap in the MOS training because less than half of the
polled Soldiers were confident in their MOS-specific skills. It is vital that Soldiers have
confidence in their ability to safely execute the tasks associated with their specific MOS job
skills.
During/post deployment training assessment. Soldiers were asked to rate their level of
confidence in their pre-deployment training using the same categories listed in the previous
section. The justification for this assessment of training was based on goal of discovering
whether the procedures and concepts presented in the training were effective when the practical
application of that training occurred in a real-world combat environment. This assessment was
critical to the survey because it provided data that could be used as a comparison between the
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 48

perceptions of the pre-deployment training confidence prior to deployment and the confidence
after attempting to implement the training in an actual combat operation.

Figure 7. During/Post Deployment Training Assessment
Table 3

During/Post-Deployment Training Assessment (1=No Confidence through 5= Full Confidence)

Confidence in Training Mean Standard
Deviation

Home Station Battle Assembly Training

2.95 0.76
Professional Military Education 3.26 1.12
Specific MOS Training

3.32 1.13
5%
5%
5%
21%
5%
16%
21%
21%
10%
15%
58%
31%
31%
42%
21%
21%
26%
26%
21%
42%
0%
16%
15%
5%
15%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Home Station Battle Assembly Training
Professional Military Education
Specific MOS Training
Home Station Pre-Deployment Training
Pre-Deployment Training at the Training Centers
DURING/POST-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING
ASSESSMENT
5 (Full Confidence) 4 3 2 1 (No Confidence)
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 49

Home Station Pre-Deployment Training 2.79 1.15
Pre-deployment Training at Training Center 3.47 1.09

The figure above shows that the highest confidence in training was the pre-deployment
training conducted at the training centers (57%). While this training was once again the training
that Soldiers had the most confidence in, the confidence in the training went down 6% after the
Soldiers applied the training during combat operations. An analysis of the training that was rated
by the Soldiers as the training where they had the second highest confidence, PME (42%),
showed that there was a significant drop in confidence from the pre-deployment assessment of
PME which was 56%. This was a drop of 14% which was the largest drop in confidence/full
confidence by a single training category and more than double the next highest drop in
confidence. The training that Soldiers had the least confidence in after their deployment
remained the same (home station pre-deployment training), but the percentage of Soldiers that
had little or no confidence in the training was reduced from 34% to 31%. This means that a
small percent of Soldiers found that training more valuable after applying it in combat
operations.
Statements on training. The question presented to Soldiers for analysis was designed to
gather data on their level of agreement with the following eight statements about pre-deployment
training:
1. I felt like I was prepared to deploy after completion of my pre-deployment training
2. I learned new skills during my pre-deployment training
3. The time spent training on the Warrior Tasks and Battle Drills was sufficient for my
deployment
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 50

4. The pre-deployment training focused on areas that were critical to combat operations
5. The pre-deployment training was a reinforcement of knowledge and skills that I had
previously learned
6. The training was presented in a clear and concise manner that was applicable to real
world combat operations
7. The training that was presented was relevant to current tactics in combat
8. The training aids were effective in reinforcing the procedures and methods of conducting
the warrior tasks and battle drills in combat operations
The answers for the questions ranged from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The purpose of
this question was to get Soldier feedback based on the presentation of declarative statements
about training that would be useful to the Department of Defense in training development and
the Army National Guard in training implementation

Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 51

Figure 8. Statements on Pre-Deployment Training
Table 4

Statements on Pre-Deployment Training (1=Strongly Disagree through 5=Strongly Agree)
Training Statements Mean Standard
Deviation

Prepared to deploy after completion of pre-deployment training

3.32 0.76
Learned new skills during pre-deployment training 3.47 1.14
Time spent on Warrior Tasks/Battle Drills was sufficient

3.21 1.00
0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00%
I felt like I was prepared to deploy after completion of
my pre-deployment training
I learned new skills during my pre-deployment
training
The time spent training on the Warrior Tasks and
Battle Drills was sufficient for my deployment
The pre-deployment training focused on areas that
were critical to combat operations
The pre-deployment training was a reinforcement of
knowledge and skills that I had previously learned
The training was presented in a clear and concise
manner that was applicable to real world combat…
The training that was presented was relevant to
current tactics in combat
The training aids were effective in reinforcing the
procedures and methods of conducting the warrior…
STATEMENTS ON TRAINING
Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree or Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 52

Pre-deployment training focused on areas critical to combat

Pre-deployment training was a reinforcement of previous skills

Training presented in clear and concise manner

Training presented was relevant to current tactics in combat
3.42
3.58
3.68
3.68
1.04
1.04
0.92
0.92
Training aids were effective in reinforcing procedures 3.58 1.04

The above figure displays the results of the respondent’s assessment of the declarative
training statements presented to them in the survey. When presented with the statement that the
Soldier felt they were prepared to deploy upon completion of pre-deployment training, 52% of
the Soldiers polled agreed with the statement while 21% disagreed. This is a concerning statistic
with regards to pre-deployment training because just over half the Soldiers polled felt confident
in the training they received prior to deployment. The ARNG must ensure that Soldiers have
confidence in their ability to implement the training prior to deployment for them to present an
effective and combat ready force.
Sixty nine percent of the Soldiers polled agreed with the statement that they learned new
skills during their pre-deployment training while only 53% agreed with the time spent training on
the Warrior Tasks and Battle Drills was sufficient for their deployment. The Warrior Tasks and
Battle Drills are a skill set that is vital the ability of Soldiers to safely execute their mission
during combat operations. An analysis of this data proves that the training on these tasks is not
sufficient enough to prepare the Soldiers for their combat deployment. Two-thirds of the
Soldiers (63%) agreed with the statement that the pre-deployment training focused on areas that
were critical to combat operations and that the pre-deployment training they received was a
reinforcement of knowledge and skills that they had previously learned. While this number
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 53

represents over half of the Soldiers polled there is still nearly a third of the Soldiers that felt that
the training was neither critical to combat or served as a reinforcement of their knowledge and
skills previously learned.
The last three statements were related to the instruction of the training. 63% of Soldiers
agreed with the statement that the training was presented in a clear and concise manner that was
applicable to real world combat operations. The highest percentage of Soldiers (74%) agreed
with the statement that the training was relevant to the current tactics in combat. The final
question addressed the training aids provided to the Soldiers. 63% of the Soldiers agreed that the
training aids were effective in reinforcing the methods and procedures associated with the
implementation of the Warrior Tasks and Battle Drills in combat operations.
Satisfaction with training at home station/deployment center. Soldiers were surveyed
on their level of satisfaction with the training that took place at their home station and the
deployment centers prior to their combat deployment. The chart below shows the results of the
survey question. The rating used a scale of one through ten with one being “not at all satisfied”
and ten representing “very satisfied.”

Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 54

Figure 9. Satisfaction with Training
Table 5

Satisfaction with Training (1=Not at all satisfied through 10=Very satisfied)

Training Satisfaction Mean Standard
Deviation

Warrior Task Training (Home Station)

5.42 1.82
Warrior Task Training (Deployment Training Center) 6.05 1.88
Battle Drills (Home Station)

5.53 1.76
0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00%
Warrior Task Training (Home Station)
Warrior Task Training (Deployment Training Center)
Battle Drills Training (Home Station)
Battle Drills Training (Deployment Training Center)
MOS Training (Home Station)
MOS Training (Deployment Training Center)
Training Schedule (Home Station)
Training Schedule (Deployment Training Center
TRAINING SATISFACTION
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 55

Battle Drills (Deployment Training Center)

MOS Training (Home Station)

MOS Training (Deployment Training Center)

Training Schedule (Home Station)
6.11
6.26
6.32
5.58
1.88
2.42
2.27
1.93
Training Schedule (Deployment Training Center) 6.00 2.22

Soldiers were asked to rate a series of questions about training satisfaction based on whether they
were not at all satisfied to very satisfied. The questions were based on the topics of Warrior
Task Training, Battle Drills Training, Individual MOS Training, the Training Schedule, Training
Curriculum, and Unit Specific Training. The figure above references the training that was
analyzed for this study based on the evaluation of the three main aspects of training which are
the Warrior Tasks, Battle Drills, and Individual MOS-specific Job Skills. The chart will provide
a comparison of the satisfaction level the Soldiers had with the training both at their home station
and the deployment training center where they received their pre-deployment training and
certification for deployment.
In every instance of comparison between home station training and deployment center
training, Soldiers were either equally satisfied with the training at the deployment center and the
home station training or more satisfied with the deployment center training than the home station
training. In no instance did the home station training rate higher in satisfaction than the
deployment training center. The fact that Soldiers showed greater satisfaction with the training
presented at the deployment training centers means that the Army National Guard is missing an
opportunity to increase knowledge through the implementation of effective and relevant home
station training prior to Soldier departure for deployment training center training and
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 56

certification. This does, however, present an opportunity for the DoD to develop training and the
ARNG to implement a training program that will assist the Soldiers in developing competency
and proficiency in the skills prior to attending the deployment training center. This would cause
a cascading effect by which the deployment training centers can maximize the training they
provide prior to deployment and potentially modify the training to make it even more relevant
and effective for the Soldiers prior to deployment. The ARNG maximizes the training
experience during home station training which reinforces training through repetitive iterations
reducing the cognitive load and increasing the muscle memory of the Soldiers through
procedural repetition complimented with job aids. Soldiers will arrive at the deployment training
centers far more advanced in their pre-deployment training. The deployment training centers can
focus more on cultural training and other regional training opportunities that can further develop
their knowledge base prior to their deployment.
Survey comments. In addition to responses to the Likert-type items, Soldiers were given
an opportunity to make any comments related to the survey that could potentially help further the
analysis of the effectiveness of training. The table below presents the all the comments
submitted by the respondents who chose to participate in the final question.
Table 6

Survey Responses

Interview Question Participant Comments
“The training we received at the CRC is
absolutely second to none! World Class.
Home Station Unit Training needs a complete
overhaul.”

Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 57

Interview Question Participant Comments
Q: Do you have any other comments about
Pre-deployment training for the Army
National Guard/Army Reserves?

“The NG and RC needs more update
equipment for obtain more realistic training
for pre-deployment and deployment.”

“The training division seemed to be only
pushing training to justify their existence, i.e.,
adding training that had nothing to do with
the theater or mission in an order to ensure
their colleagues could keep their training
center opened. The training division refused
to listen to the commander about the training
they requested, the force-feed training that the
training division wants. The only time this
stopped is when an O6 command it above
came in. 1st Army is a disgrace to the training
division, specifically Fort Bliss TX and 1st
Army West.”

“More training is always required-train to
fight.”

“Home station training is normally impeded
by lack of proper to standard training
equipment, lack of training space, community
rules and laws, etc.”

The comments posted by the Soldiers support the Likert-type data of the survey. Comments
presented were focused on the disparity between training at home station and the training
provided by the combat training centers. These comments reinforce the assessment made by the
Soldiers in answering the survey questions and provides the justification and reasoning for this
study. The comments provide insight into the perspectives of the Soldiers. The results of the
interviews in the qualitative section of this mixed methods research with provide a more in-depth
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 58

understanding of how the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences are playing a
significant role not only in the development and shaping of training, but a role in the
implementation and retention of training prior to deployment.
Qualitative Results and Findings
Nine Soldiers were interviewed for this study. The interviews conducted for qualitative
data analysis were approximately one hour in length. Soldiers that participated in the interviews
varied in rank and experience. The only common denominator between the Soldiers was that
they had participated in at least one rotational deployment that was preceded by pre-deployment
training certification prior to their deployment combat operation. Soldier responses were
reported out with no identifiers. Interviews were conducted both in person and via telephonic
interview. Answers to questions were recorded and transcribed. The results have been secured
in a file drawer under lock and key for security and control of responses.
Developed themes. An analysis of the responses derived from the interviews of the
Soldiers established three themes that were relevant to this study. The use of key phrases and
terms that were provided by individuals that participated in interviews helped to develop the
themes presented in this study. Survey data assisted in the development of themes based on the
responses to the generalized deployment training questions presented in the survey. The themes
provide data that can assist the Department of Defense in developing a more comprehensive and
effective training program for the Army National Guard to implement which will significantly
increase Soldier knowledge and motivation. The increase in Soldier knowledge and motivation
will allow the Department of Defense to accomplish its overall strategic goal of presenting a
trained and ready force that is prepared to execute the missions of the DoD worldwide.
Addressing the three themes presented in this section will also allow the Army National Guard to
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 59

accomplish its goal of certifying 100% of the ARNG Soldiers in their pre-deployment training
prior to deployment to the theaters of Iraq and Afghanistan. These three themes will assist the
ARNG in presenting training that reinforces prior declarative and procedure skills as well as and
understanding of the concepts associated with individual MOS-specific job skills, Warrior Tasks,
and Battle Drills. It is vital that Soldiers display competency in these skills prior to their
deployment to ensure that they can safely execute their mission in a deployed environment. The
three themes that were discovered because of the interviews conducted with the soldiers are 1)
additional resources needed for training ranging from increased funding for training programs to
better equipment (organizational influence), 2) treatment that is at the same level as the active
duty forces (motivation influence), and 3) the need for increased cultural awareness training
(knowledge influence).
Financial and physical resources for training (organizational influence). A
discussion about resources must first focus on the financial resources allocated for the Army
National Guard. The 2017 Defense Budget allocated 148 billion dollars to the United States
Army for funding the Active Duty, Army Reserve, and National Guard forces (Office of the
Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) Chief Financial Officer , 2016). The Army allocated
just over 196 million dollars to the Army National Guard for training of its forces (Army
National Guard, 2016). The Army National Guard’s primary funding course is from each
individual state’s budget. Keeping this in mind, The Army supplements the National Guard by
funding the 54 National Guard entities with approximately 3.6 million dollars per state guard
entity.
Eight of the nine Soldiers interviewed made statements that referenced a lack of
resources as a direct contributor to the quality of pre-deployment training. One respondent stated
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 60

“make sure the National Guard receives as much training as the Active Duty. The Guard should
have the resources necessary to be as effective as their Active Duty Counterparts.” This
comment directly references the need for the resources to be on par with the active duty members
so that the training can make the Soldiers of the Guard as effective as the Active Duty Soldiers.
Another respondent more directly addressed the gap in resources. When asked what they would
say if they had an audience with the Secretary of Defense, the response was “more funds for
training so that they can receive the same level of training as the Active Duty.” This Soldier
specifically referred to a lack of funding as the problem with regards to their perceived gap in
training when compared to their Active Duty counterparts. The three quotes that have been
mentioned so far established a pattern through the key words and phrases that reference
resources and funding. The word “resources” was mentioned in every respondent’s responses to
the same interview question. Key phrases like “lack of resources,” “need equipment,” and “lack
of funding and equipment” provided the foundation for the justification of the organizational
theme of a lack of resources as a result for this study.
As mentioned earlier, the Army does not fund the National Guard at the same level as the
Active Duty. There is a legitimate justification for this based on the operational tempo of the
Active Duty versus the operational tempo of the National Guard. It is a fact that the Active Duty
Soldiers are serving every day while the National Guard Soldiers serve one weekend and month
and two weeks out of the year. That is 365 days a year for the Active Duty Soldiers compared to
38 days for the National Guard Soldiers. A difference of 327 days on average between the two
types of Soldiers. While there is a justification for the funding difference, the justification ceases
to be valid when considering that the standard combat deployment rotation of the two Soldiers is
equal at what is termed “365 days boots on the ground.” When a further analysis is done the
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 61

disparity in training days is clear and alarming. As previously stated in the explanation of the
AFORGEN cycle, there is a trained and ready phase a month 12 through 48 followed by a
deployment phase during month 48 through 60. Soldiers in the National Guard must be certified
prior to their deployment. They must be ready to assume the same duties that the Active Duty
has in combat with significantly less training opportunities. It was previously stated by Zubik,
Hastings, and Glisson (2014) that ARNG units will find it difficult to obtain a higher level of
readiness without adequate resources and that the ARNG must acknowledge that requirements
exceed training time available. The responses of the Soldiers interviewed reflects exactly what
they were stressing in that statement. The organizational influence has not been lost on the
Soldiers that were interviewed. The perceived lack of commitment to provide the recourses
necessary to make the National Guard more effective has adversely affected the motivation of
the Soldiers.
Equal treatment and consideration (motivation and organizational influence).
Soldiers’ perception of their value to the organization is vital to their success when deployed to a
combat environment. They must feel like what they are doing is contributing not only to their
success, but the success of the Army National Guard and the Department of Defense. During the
interviews, several statements were made by Soldiers that reflect their perception of how valued
they feel as members of the Department of Defense. One Soldier when asked a question related
to the Secretary of Defense, gave the following response, “treat the Guard as Active Duty.
Active and Guard fight together, they need to train together.” Another Soldier responded with,
“access to active duty training and equipment.” These responses prove that there is a perception
by National Guard Soldiers that they are not valued as much as their Active Duty counterparts.
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 62

Soldiers were asked if they were confident in the training they received prior to
deployment and during their deployment. In general, Soldiers felt confident in the training they
received. But when asked about the timeline of the training, Soldiers expressed a significant
amount of frustration over the speed with which they were trained for their combat deployment.
Every Soldier interviewed felt the training timeline was far too aggressive for their comfort level.
“I don’t even remember what we trained on because it went by like a blur,” was one comment
from a Soldier and one Soldier, when asked about the training timeline, responded with “what
timeline? They just threw us into the deep end to see if we could swim.” The comments shared
by the Soldiers showed that the timeline was not considered by the Army National Guard when
planning soldier pre-deployment training. While this will be discussed in more depth during the
knowledge influence theme, it warrants mentioning during the motivation section because the
perception of being rushed through training adversely affects the motivation of the Soldiers,
making them feel like their training is not taken seriously enough by the Department of Defense.
One Soldier stated that they were “nowhere near as confident as I should be” when asked about
their level of comfort with the MOS specific training prior to deployment. Another Soldier
stated that they were worried that “I would not know what to do in combat because I don’t know
how my job works in the desert.” One Soldier stated that they had no confidence in their ability
to do their job in combat because, “I haven’t trained on my job since AIT nine years ago, so you
tell me how ready I am for deployment.” These responses to the interview questions shows that
Soldiers are concerned about their proficiency in their specific MOS skills.
Increase in regional/cultural awareness training (knowledge influence). The final
theme that emerged from the interviews was related to Soldier knowledge influences. One
Soldier noted that the cultural awareness training was beneficial, there was just “not enough of it
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 63

during the train up for deployment.” Soldiers, in general, felt that while the training they
received was relevant, there were aspects of the training that were not developed well enough to
be a benefit to the Soldiers during their deployment. Cultural and regional awareness training
transcended the interviews as a major training aspect that needed to be, at a minimum modified,
or outright changed to make it more relevant and applicable in real-world combat operations.
Deficiencies in leader engagement training and gaps in cultural awareness training were
mentioned, including one senior Soldier noting that enhancing the knowledge base of the Soldier
needs to be approached by “aligning the unit to training that is relevant to the region and
campaign they will encounter in combat.” As previously stated in this study, cultural awareness
training is vital because of the vastly different dynamics from one theater of combat to another.
This is a direct result of the accelerated nature of the training mentioned previously, which is a
result of the significant disparity in the number of available training days between the Active
Duty and the National Guard. Soldiers commented that providing actual cultural experts to the
roleplaying exercises was “a tremendous benefit to us in preparation for combat” and “made all
the difference in the world” in the theater of combat. One Soldier described a Key Leader
Engagement exercise as, “an eye-opening experience that made me realize just how little I know
about Iraqi culture.” One final comment from a Soldier when asked about the cultural awareness
training was, “Honestly I wish I had more time doing this than firing my weapon.” This
statement reinforces the concept that the National Guard is limited on time as a resource to
prepare them for their deployment. Incorporating more in-depth cultural and regional training
was a desire that was expressed by individuals that participated in the interviews. Increases in
the amount of region-specific language training and Key Leader engagement training are
examples of the changes to training that Soldiers requested during interviews. Cultural experts
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 64

participating in more dynamically developed scenarios that are specific to the regions the
Soldiers are designated to deploy to will help to further develop their knowledge understanding
and retention. An example of this training would be a scenario in which Soldiers arrive at a
village that was recently liberated from the Taliban, but the villagers do not trust the Afghanistan
forces. In this scenario, the Soldiers would have to problem solve how to establish and develop
trust between the villagers and the Afghanistan forces that are responsible for the regional
security of the villagers.
National Guard partnership with active duty units. Understanding the significance of
the previous three themes is critical to the development and implementation of training that will
allow the Soldiers of the National Guard to be safe and successful during their combat
deployment. It is just as important to understand that there were responses the Soldiers shared
during the interview that provided insight into the relationship dynamic between the National
Guard and Active Duty Soldiers. While not one of the three themes mentioned earlier, the desire
of the Army National Guard Soldiers to partner with their Active Duty counterparts through a
mentorship program warrants analysis to determine how this can contribute to Soldier success
during their combat deployment. The interviews conducted for this survey provided some
interesting data, the most interesting of which was the strong desire of the Soldiers interviewed
to explore opportunities to partner with active duty units in training. The Soldiers expressed a
desire to be mentored by their Active Duty counterparts to become a more effective fighting
force. Soldier comments ranged from “training with the active duty makes me feel like a
member of the team,” to “we can be just as good as them (active duty) if we get the chance to
train and learn from them”. Comments were focused on the development of a mentorship
program where Active Duty units conduct training with National Guard units during battle
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 65

assemblies, providing expertise and mentorship to the National Guard Soldiers. This concurrent
training with their active duty counterparts will continue to reinforce the skills taught to the
National Guard Soldiers while simultaneously maximizing the limited training time they have
during the battle assembly weekend. There was also a suggestion of combined training
throughout the AFORGEN cycle to assist the Guard in “getting up to speed” with the current
tactics seen on the battlefield. One Soldier stated that the active duty Soldiers can provide “so
much more” insight into what is going on in the theater. This can be a tremendous help the
National Guard Soldiers because, as on Soldier put it, “our very lives rely on the very latest
information from the field.” Active duty Soldiers are a critical resource in providing training,
expertise, and experience to National Guard Soldiers because their knowledge both procedural
and conceptual has been developed in part to the frequency of repetitive training and
deployments. Leveraging this experience through the development of a mentoring program was
one of the main points Soldiers made during their interviews.
Final Thoughts on Results and Findings
The interviews provided not only a reinforcement of the responses presented in the
surveys, but insight as to the significance of the gap in training between the Active Duty and
National Guard Soldiers. The aggressive timeline of training, coupled with lack of time for
training is a significant obstacle to overcome when attempting to manage the cognitive load of
the Soldier receiving the training. The National Guard Soldiers perception that the Department
of Defense is far more focused on the readiness of the Active Duty Soldiers than they are of the
Guard Soldiers is an example of a perceived organizational influence that Soldiers have observed
during their time in the National Guard. The next section focuses on recommendations for
practice that will effectively address the gaps in training presented in this section.
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 66

Recommendations for Practice
Introduction and Overview
The Army National Guard must set the conditions for the successful acquisition and
retention of knowledge presented to the Soldiers to ensure that the Soldiers can accomplish the
mission and goals set forth by the Department of Defense for the Army National Guard. This
section presents the recommendations categorized by knowledge, motivation, and organization
that will allow the Army National Guard to accomplish its mission and goals. The
recommendation for the development and retention of Soldier knowledge is for the Army
National Guard to provide current job aids and relevant training to Soldiers during their Battle
Assembly Training weekends in preparation for their combat deployment. The motivation
recommendation is that the Army National Guard provide training that includes clearly defined
goals of increasing difficulty to enable Soldiers to experience success throughout the training
cycle which will lead to an increase in the self-efficacy of the Soldiers. The organizational
recommendations are for the Department of Defense to review policy ensuring that the pre-
deployment training requirements are current and relevant based on the current tactics,
techniques, and procedures of both friendly and enemy forces in combat. The Department of
Defense must also allocate resources towards the development of a course curriculum based on
assessments and feedback from observers of training, instructors, and Soldiers that builds on
training in stages and progresses at a pace that does not overload Soldiers’ intrinsic load and
encourages knowledge retention. The final recommendation is for the Department of Defense
develop a cultural model that establishes a cyclic review of training that is aligned with the Army
National Guard deployment cycle.
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 67

These recommendations will be implemented using a pilot program that will be presented
to units that have returned from their deployments and have been reintegrated into the Army
Forces Generation (ARFORGEN) Training cycle. The pilot program will take place during
Battle Assembly training in the form of two separate one-day sessions, the first day focusing on
MOS specific job-related tasks and skills development and the second day focusing completely
on Warrior Tasks and Battle Drills training.
Program implementation will be evaluated using the Kirkpatrick New World (2016)
model whereby observations and evaluations will be conducted by Course Instructors (CIs),
Subject Matter Experts (SMEs), and Observer, Controller/Trainers (OC/Ts). Kirkpatrick’s new
world model consists of four levels of evaluation which are reaction (level one), learning (level
2), behavior (level 3), and results (level 4). According to Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016)
level one is the degree of interest the stakeholder shows in the training. Level two is the degree
to which the stakeholder acquires the intended knowledge, skills, attitude, confidence, and
commitment based on their participation in the training. Level three is concerned with the
behavior of the stakeholder by evaluating the degree to which they apply what they have learned
during training when they are back on the job. The last level focuses on the targeted outcomes
that occur because of the training and support and accountability package (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences
Knowledge Recommendations
Introduction. Anderson and Krathwohl (2000) define factual (declarative) knowledge as the
basic knowledge that must be known to be acquainted with a discipline or to solve problems.
Procedural knowledge is defined as an understanding of how to do something, methods of
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 68

inquiry, and criteria for using skills, algorithms, techniques, and methods (Anderson &
Krathwohl, 2000). The chart shows that there are two declarative and one procedural knowledge
areas that directly contribute to the knowledge Soldiers gain during pre-deployment training in
preparation for their combat deployment. An analysis of the data gathered through surveys and
interviews shows that it is of critical importance than Soldiers have the basic skills established
during initial entry training (IET) coupled with the reinforcement of the procedural skills in both
their MOS job skills as well as Warrior Tasks and Battle Drills to safely execute their mission in
a combat environment.
According to Clark and Estes (2008), education is any situation where people acquire the
conceptual, theoretical, and strategic knowledge and skills that might help them handle novel and
unexpected future challenges and problems while training is defined as and situation where
people must acquire “how to” knowledge and skills and need practice and corrective feedback to
help them achieve specific work goals. Understanding the difference between education and
training provides the justification for the prioritization of one declarative knowledge area over
the other. IET serves as an education and indoctrination into the understanding of the factual
knowledge required to theoretically execute future challenges. Training on the Warrior Tasks
and Battle Drills serves as the essential declarative knowledge area for Soldiers to practice the
“how to” skills necessary to help them achieve their work goals in combat operations.
Table 7
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Knowledge Influence Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 69

Soldiers must demonstrate that they
can execute the procedural steps of
their specific Military Occupational
Specialty (MOS/Job) as it relates to
combat operations (P)

To develop mastery,
individuals
must acquire
component skills,
practice integrating
them, and
know when to apply
what they
have learned (Schraw &
McCrudden, 2006)
Provide training that utilizes
MOS specific skills to
effectively develop
proficiency in job-related
procedural skills
Soldiers must have a conceptual
understanding of Warrior Tasks and
Battle Drills and how they are
implemented both individually and
collectively in combat operations
(D)

Managing intrinsic load
by
segmenting complex
material into simpler
parts
and pre-training, among
other strategies, enables
learning to be enhanced
(Kirschner, Kirschner,
&
Paas, 2006)
Upon foundation/baseline
training, provide a job aid to
assist the Soldier in recalling
how to successfully execute
individual and collective
maneuvers in a combat
environment.
Soldiers must have a basic
understanding of the Warrior Tasks
and Battle Drills as taught during
their Initial Entry Training
(IET/Basic Training) course (D)
Information learned
meaningfully and
connected
with prior knowledge is
stored
more quickly and
remembered
more accurately
because it is
elaborated with prior
learning
(Schraw & McCrudden,
2006).

Provide training that
establishes a baseline
understanding and checks the
Soldiers’ individual
understanding of basic
combat skills.

Declarative knowledge solutions. Soldiers must have a conceptual understanding of
Warrior Tasks and Battle Drills and how they are implemented both individually and collectively
in combat operations. Kirschner, Kirschner, and Pass (2006) discuss managing intrinsic load by
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 70

segmenting into smaller parts and pre-training which will enable the learning to be enhanced.
The use of foundational/baseline training followed by reinforcement through job aids will assist
Soldiers in recalling how to successfully execute individual and collective maneuvers in a
simulated combat environment is essential for the Soldiers to successfully execute maneuvers in
an actual combat environment. Soldiers must understand the concepts of Warrior Tasks and
Battle Drills as they relate to both individual and collective maneuvers in combat. They must
also be able to understand the concept that successful execution of these Warrior Tasks and
Battle Drills is vital to accomplishing the mission set forth by the Department of Defense in a
combat environment. It is recommended that National Guard units focus on providing current
and relevant job aids during the monthly required Battle Assembly training. This training should
be progressive in nature, building every training session so that the cognitive load of the Soldiers
is effectively managed. This will lead to enhanced learning by allowing the Soldier to recall the
information when required to both in a simulated and actual combat environment.
Managing the cognitive load of Soldiers is essential to the successful retention of
declarative knowledge. Kirschner et al. (2006) state that learning is enhanced when the learner’s
working memory is not overloaded. The Department of Defense has assigned 39 Warrior Tasks
and nine Battle Drills listed among their pre-deployment certification requirements. By
increasing germane cognitive load through engaging the learner in meaningful learning and
schema construction, effective learning is facilitated (Kirschner et al., 2006). Considering that
Soldiers are not all at the same level in education and experience, working memory management
is vital to prevent overload for those Soldiers who lack combat experience. This is also the case
when managing the working memory of those who have a significant amount of combat
experience and may be mentally depleted from multiple training sessions prior to deployments.
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 71

Segmenting the training will ensure that working memory is not overloaded and allow the Army
National Guard to progressively build the training prior to the deployment certification training
at the National Training Centers. By segmenting the training, the Army National Guard can
effectively train the Soldiers which, according to Kirschner (2006), can increase learning through
a reduction in cognitive load because of the more effective instruction the Soldiers are receiving.
The presentation of job aids is designed to assist the Soldiers in recalling and reinforcing training
as a complement to their weekend training requirements. These job aids will also provide quick
access to information to provide Soldiers with the resources necessary to retain the information
through a repetitive process and make it easier for Soldiers to recall the information.
Procedural knowledge solutions. Soldiers must demonstrate that they can execute the
procedural steps of their specific Military Occupational Specialty (MOS/Job) as it relates to
combat operations. Schraw and McCrudden (2006) state that to develop mastery, individuals
must acquire component skills, practice integrating them, and know when to apply what they
have learned. Providing training that utilizes MOS specific skills to effectively critique job
procedural understanding and execution during combat operations is vital to the success of
Soldiers’ ability to accomplish their assigned job specific daily tasks in a combat environment. It
is recommended that National Guard units provide opportunities for Soldiers to receive
additional and repetitive individual job specific training prior to deployment to ensure that
Soldiers have the most current job related procedural tactics, techniques, and procedures.
Providing this training will allow units to effectively observe and critique the individual job
specific knowledge of the Soldiers prior to their deployment during the pre-deployment
certification process at the combat training centers.
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 72

Soldiers must possess a solid foundation of basic or factual knowledge to develop a more
in-depth understanding of the procedural knowledge required to execute their specific job in a
combat environment (Inspector General United States Department of Defense, 2008). The
decision to prioritize the job specific procedural knowledge over the foundational basic and
factual knowledge is based on the understanding that the initial training that Soldiers receive
during their basic indoctrination establishes a baseline knowledge that is certified before the
Soldier can proceed to their individual job specific training. Therefore, because this training is
the same for Soldiers regardless of their future job, it is not as essential as the procedural
knowledge received from their job specific training which is vital to their success in a deployed
environment (Inspector General United States Department of Defense, 2008). The procedural
knowledge the Soldiers receive through their job specific training must be observed, evaluated,
and critiqued to provide Soldiers with feedback as to their level of understanding and any
shortfalls or gaps in knowledge that must be addressed prior to their completion of training.
Providing feedback that is private, specific, and timely enhances performance (Shute, 2008).
According to Denler (2009) this feedback can provide opportunities for learners to check their
progress and adjust their learning strategies as needed. This will lead to enhanced performance
by the Soldiers in their specific job-related positions because gaps in training can be discovered
and modified throughout the training process to benefit the individual Soldier in knowledge
retention.
Motivation Recommendations
Introduction. Motivation is defined as the level of enthusiasm for a goal, and the
willingness to pursue that goal (Thompson & Gignac, 2003). Soldiers represent the first line of
defense in the protection of the United States. It is vital that Soldiers are motivated to learn the
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 73

tasks necessary to operate in a combat environment for their safety and the successful
accomplishment of the missions set forth by the Army National Guard and the Department of
Defense. The research conducted for this study was focused on Soldier motivation as it relates to
self-efficacy, utility, and interest influences and how they affect the Soldier’s ability to retain and
apply knowledge gained through instruction and job aids.
Table 8
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Motivation Influence

Principle and
Citation
Context-Specific Recommendation
Soldiers need to feel
confident about their
ability to safely apply
the training they
receive during pre-
deployment in a
deployed environment
(Self-efficacy)
Set close, concrete
and challenging
goals that allow the
learner to
experience success at
the task (Pajares,
2006).
Create goals of increasing difficulty to enable
Soldiers to experience success which will
lead to increased self-efficacy and confidence
in their ability to operate in a combat
environment
Soldiers must feel that
what they are learning
is important to the
overall success of the
mission that the
Department of Defense
has of protecting the
United States (utility)
Rationales that
include a discussion
of the importance
and utility value of
the work or learning
can help
learners develop
positive values
(Eccles, 2006;
Pintrich, 2003).
Ensure that Soldiers understand the
significance of their contribution to the
overall mission accomplishment of the
Department of Defense through individual
and group interaction with leadership using
forums and small group briefs.
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 74

Soldiers must have an
interest in
the topic they are
learning. Without
an interest in the topic,
the stakeholder
could potentially
experience little or
no learning. (Interest)

Materials and
activities should
be relevant and
useful to the
learners, connected
to their interests, and
based on real world
tasks (Pintrich,
2003).
Make training more engaging and interesting
by providing in depth information on the
cultural aspects of the locations that Soldiers
will be deployed as well as focusing
scenarios to provide a more realistic
environment for Soldiers to develop their
cultural engagement skills.

Self-Efficacy. Soldiers need to feel confident about their ability to safely implement the
training they receive during pre-deployment in a deployed environment. Pajares (2006) states
that having a high self-efficacy can positively influence motivation. The confidence level of
Soldiers is critical to their success in combat operations. Having a high confidence in their
ability to safely execute the mission based on their own self-efficacy developed through the
quality of training they receive can motivate Soldiers to continue to learn and perfect their skills
prior to combat. Setting close, concrete and challenging goals will allow the learner to
experience success at the task (Pajares, 2006). It is recommended that the Army National Guard
provide training that includes clearly defined goals of increasing difficulty to enable Soldiers to
experience success throughout the training cycle which will lead to increased self-efficacy and
confidence in their ability to operate in a combat environment.
Providing Soldiers with quality instruction that takes them through challenging phases
allows them to build confidence in their mastery of the skills necessary to be effective during
combat operations. This can be developed using rewards for successful accomplishment of
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 75

tasks. Using task, reward, and evaluation structures that promote mastery, learning, effort,
progress, and self-improvement standards and less reliance on social comparison or norm-
referenced standards is an effective method to reinforce and encourage learning (Pintrich, 2003).
Rewarding Soldiers using feedback and praise, both publicly and privately for their display of
mastery can reinforce the training that they are taking part in and significantly contribute to their
confidence and self-efficacy which will in turn increase their motivation to learn.
Utility. Soldiers must feel like what they are learning is important to the overall success
of the mission that the Department of Defense has of protecting the United States. Soldiers
understanding the value of their contribution to the success of the mission can significantly
contribute to motivating them to increase their focus on learning the information presented by the
Department of Defense. Rationales that include a discussion of the importance and utility value
of the work or learning can help learners develop positive values (Pintrich, 2003). Using
discussion forums can assist the Department of Defense in reinforcing the importance of the
individual Soldier in mission accomplishment. It is recommended that the Army National Guard
ensure that Soldiers understand the significance of their contribution to the overall mission
accomplishment of the Department of Defense through individual and group interaction with
leadership using forums and small group briefs.
According to Pintrich (2003), to tap into the utility value of the stakeholder, an
organization should include rationales about the importance and utility value of the task to the
stakeholder. The Army National Guard can accomplish this using discussion forums with
leaders of the organization who can emphasize the importance of the Soldier within the
organization. The Army National Guard can motivate Soldiers to learn the information by
providing opportunities for personal interactions between Soldiers and leaders that can reinforce
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 76

the significance of the Soldier within the organization. Eccles (2006) states that learning and
motivation are enhanced if the learner values the task. Expressing the rationale behind the
significance of Soldiers learning their tasks as it relates to the organization's ability to
accomplish the mission can motivate Soldiers.
Interest. Soldiers must have an interest in the topic they are learning. Without
an interest in the topic, the stakeholder could potentially experience little or no learning.
Designing training that Soldiers have an interest in is vital to the successful retention of the
knowledge being taught by the Department of Defense and the motivation of the Soldiers
learning the required tasks. Pintrich (2003) states that materials and activities should
be relevant and useful to the learners, connected to their interests, and based on real world tasks.
Participants in the interviews expressed a desire for an increase in relevant training. It is
recommended that the Army National Guard make training more engaging and interesting by
providing more in-depth information on the cultural aspects of the locations where Soldiers will
be conducting combat operations. The Army National Guard must design training scenarios that
provide a more realistic environment for Soldiers to develop their cultural engagement skills.
The realism of the cultural engagement training can spark the interest of the Soldier which can
lead to the desire to pursue opportunities to gain more knowledge outside of the training
provided by the Army National Guard.
According to Schraw and Lehman (2009), activating and building upon personal interest
can increase learning and motivation. Interviews conducted with Soldiers revealed that the one
thing that they wanted more training in during their pre-deployment training was cultural
awareness and engagement training. Soldiers felt that while the training was informative and
interesting, it could have been more in depth and provided much more information for the
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 77

Soldiers to digest and evaluate the information they received. The Army National Guard can
accomplish the desires of the Soldiers by using the implementation strategy of incorporating
real-life, original source materials that are vivid, varied or novel, and create surprise or
disequilibrium (Schraw & Lehman, 2009). Providing vivid, novel, and real-life materials while
creating surprises can spark the Soldiers interest and enhance their desire to learn as much as
possible for their own personal interest in the subject matter. Essentially making the training
more realistic and providing more resources to the Soldiers will contribute to a more engaging
and interesting learning environment which will enhance the motivation of the Soldiers to
continue to learn and retain the information they are receiving during pre-deployment training.
Realistic training will provide Soldiers with the platform to cultivate their personal interest in
what is being taught because the training will mimic the most current tactics in combat.
Providing Soldiers with experiences that are realistic and positive will motivate them to gain the
knowledge out of a personal interest as well as a common interest in the training shared by the
Army National Guard and the Soldiers receiving the training.
Organization Recommendations
Introduction. Organizational influences are driven by the culture of the organization
and affect every aspect of that organization. Schein (2010) defines culture as the foundation of
the social order that we live in and of the rules we abide by. Organizational culture is
responsible for the establishment and implementation of policies, procedures, and training for the
stakeholder. The culture or an organization can influence the motivation of the stakeholder to
gain the knowledge necessary to allow the organization to accomplish its goals. The Department
of Defense and the Army National Guard must be cognizant of how their organizational culture
can affect the motivation of Soldiers to learn the knowledge being presented.
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 78

The effectiveness of Soldiers in a combat environment can be tied to their perceptions of
the effectiveness of the training and how well the Department of Defense synthesizes that
training, coupled with the effective curriculum development. The Department of Defense
develops the curriculum and training requirements based on the established Warrior Tasks and
Battle Drills that form the foundation of pre-deployment certification for Soldiers deploying to
combat (United States Army, 2008).
Table 9
Summary of Organizational Influences and Recommendations
Organizational Influence

Principle and
Citation

Context-Specific
Recommendation
The Department of Defense is responsible for
determining the pre-deployment training
requirements for the National Guard Soldiers.
Effective change
begins by
addressing
motivation
influencers; it
ensures the group
knows why it
needs to change. It
then
addresses
organizational
barriers and then
knowledge and
skills’ needs (Clark
& Estes,
2008).
The organization will
ensure that the pre-
deployment training
requirements are
current and relevant
based on the current
tactics, techniques, and
procedures of both
friendly and enemy
forces in combat.
The Department of Defense is responsible for
effectively training Soldiers on how to conduct
operations in a combat environment.
Effective change
efforts ensure that
everyone has the
resources
(equipment,
personnel, time,
etc) needed to do
their job,
The organization will
develop course
curriculum based on
assessments and
feedback from
observers of training,
instructors, and
Soldiers
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 79

and that if there are
resource shortages,
then
resources are
aligned with
organizational
priorities (Clark &
Estes, 2008).

The Department of Defense needs to develop
and synthesizing the core training curriculum
to ensure the
effectiveness of pre-deployment
training for the Soldiers prior to the beginning
of training.
Effective change
efforts use
evidence-based
solutions and adapt
them, where
necessary, to the
organization’s
culture (Clark &
Estes, 2008).

The organization will
establish a cyclic
review of training that
is aligned with the
Army National Guard
deployment cycle
designed to review and
if necessary, modify
the curriculum prior to
the presentation of the
training to the Soldiers

Policies. The Department of Defense is responsible for determining the pre-deployment
training requirements for the National Guard Soldiers. According to Clark and Estes (2008)
effective change begins by addressing motivational influencers, followed by organizational
barriers, and finally knowledge and skills needed. It is recommended that the Department of
Defense, through the review and modification of policy, ensure that the pre-deployment training
requirements are current and relevant based on the current tactics, techniques, and procedures of
both friendly and enemy forces in combat.
According the Clark and Estes (2008), as an organization develops and confronts
challenges, its culture may change slowly and invisibly. Modifications to policies of the
Department of Defense as it pertains to the determination of pre-deployment requirements can be
transparent to the Soldiers at the tactical training level. The modifications, however can
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 80

contribute to the overall change in cultural direction by refocusing the Department of Defense
towards more current and relevant training.
Resources. The Department of Defense is responsible for effectively training Soldiers
on how to conduct operations in a combat environment by codifying training into simple
segments to manage intrinsic load and ensuring that the Soldiers’ memory capacity is not
overloaded. Clark and Estes (2008) states that effective change efforts ensure that everyone has
the resources needed to do their job, and that if there are resource shortages, then resources are
aligned with organizational priorities. Participants indicated that a shortage of resources directly
affects the level of training they are receiving in preparation for deployment. It is recommended
that the Department of Defense allocate resources towards the development of a course
curriculum based on assessments and feedback from observers of training, instructors, and
Soldiers that builds on training in stages and progresses at a pace that does not overload Soldiers’
intrinsic load and encourages knowledge retention.
Clark and Estes (2008) state that the major factor influencing transfer of knowledge from
trainer to trainee is the attitude and actions of the managers and supervisors of the people who
are being trained. The Department of Defense must ensure that the training being presented is
aligned with what is taking place in the practical application of the knowledge in the execution of
the mission as well as the real-world application to the job specialty of the Soldiers. The people
responsible for training must believe that this training is applicable to the real world so that they
understand the significance of the knowledge they are about to pass on to the Soldiers. This will
facilitate the transfer of knowledge from the trainers to the Soldiers. According to Clark and
Estes (2008), organizations require tangible supplies and equipment to achieve goals. Providing
training comes at a financial cost for the Department of Defense. What cannot be overstated is
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 81

the more significant cost associated with the time it takes to train and certify the Soldiers for
their combat deployment. The Department of Defense must utilize the tangible supplies in
conjunction with intangible supplies to provide the trainers with the capability to manage the
intrinsic load of the Soldiers which will lead to a reduced memory overload and a greater
retention of knowledge.
Cultural models. The Department of Defense needs to develop and synthesize the core
training curriculum to ensure the effectiveness of pre-deployment training for the Soldiers prior
to the beginning of training. According to Clark and Estes (2008), effective change efforts use
evidence-based solutions and adapt them, where necessary, to the organization’s culture. It is
recommended that the Department of Defense develop a cultural model that establishes a cyclic
review of training that is aligned with the Army National Guard deployment cycle designed to
review and if necessary, modify the curriculum prior to the presentation of the training to the
Soldiers.
According to Clark and Estes (2008), stable organizational culture and work processes
need to be compatible with work culture and must be balanced with the flexibility to
accommodate complex and rapid market shifts. The Department of Defense would benefit
significantly through the establishment of a cyclic evaluation of training program that will
provide the organization with flexibility to rapidly implement the changes necessary to core
curriculum. This will allow the Department of Defense to effectively synthesis the core training
curriculum to continuously meet the training needs of the Soldiers based on current and relevant
trends in the theater of combat.

Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 82

Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
According to Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016), around the world, training and
development is in a state of crisis. Reduction in training budgets have forced organizations to
strive to be more precise with regards to training development and evaluation. It is for this
reason that the New Kirkpatrick Model is critical to the development and evaluation of training.
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) present three major reason to evaluate training: 1. to
improve the program 2. to maximize transfer of learning to behavior and subsequent
organizational results and 3. to demonstrate the value of training to the organization. The
Department of Defense continues to plan, develop, and implement training with a constantly
strained budget. The Department of Defense must ensure the readiness of the Army National
Guard for deployment to conduct combat operations with the same effectiveness and efficiency
as their active duty counterparts. Because the Army National Guard does not train with the
regularity of their active duty counterparts, it is critical to their success that their training be
relevant, current, and effective.
The New Kirkpatrick Model provides the mechanism for the effective development and
implementation of training and a method of evaluation. This allows the Army National Guard to
ensure that the training Soldiers receive is engaging, leading to retention of knowledge,
producing the critical behaviors required to obtain the desired outcomes of the Army National
Guard. The New Kirkpatrick Model will be utilized in the design of the integrated
implementation and evaluation plan for this research project.

Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 83

Organizational Purpose, Need and Expectations
The mission of the Army National Guard is to maintain properly trained and equipped
units, available for prompt mobilization for war, national emergency, or as otherwise needed
(Army National Guard, 2016). The goal of the Department of Defense is to provide
comprehensive and relevant training to the National Guard enabling them to present forces that
can provide for the defense of the nation and its interests and the execution of missions directed
by the governors of the 50 states and territories. The Department of Defense has further refined
that goal into a performance requirement that it will train and certify 100% of National Guard
deployable Soldiers so that they can safely and effectively execute their mission in combat,
humanitarian, and homeland defense and return home from deployment.
The stakeholder group of focus for this dissertation will be the Soldier group. They were
selected as the focus stakeholder group because they are the ones that are directly affected by the
training being developed by the Department of Defense and implemented by the trainers. The
Soldiers are the most likely to provide relevant feedback on the effectiveness of the training that
they received. This group will not only provide an honest assessment of training but will also
recommend changes or modifications to training that the Department of Defense can receive,
assess, develop, change, and implement into a more up-to-date and effective training program.
The goal of the Soldiers prior to deployment is to learn and show proficiency in the warrior tasks
and battle drills taught during pre-deployment so that the Soldiers will successfully execute the
pre-deployment training once deployed to the theater of operations.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
There are external and internal outcomes that, if achieved, will indicate that the Soldiers
are exhibiting the behaviors indicative of a demonstrated proficiency in their required tasks. The
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 84

external outcomes are that the international community views the Army National Guard as a
premier fighting force capable of conducting combat operations and the Department of Defense
displays confidence in the capability of the Army National Guard to conduct combat operations.
The metrics for the external outcomes will be an increase in participation in international military
exercises/operations and an increase in the number of combat rotations for the Army National
Guard.
There are two desired internal outcomes that will indicate that Soldiers are meeting the
organizational goal to safely execute their mission. The Army National Guard will demonstrate
confidence in Soldiers’ understanding of their specific MOS job skills and their ability to apply
those skills in a combat environment. The Army National Guard will also have confidence in the
Soldiers’ understanding of the concepts associated with the Warrior Tasks and Battle Drills
coupled with a display of improved proficiency in these skills prior to their combat deployment.
The measurements of success will be in the form of comprehensive exams, certification through
evaluation, and observation of practical application of the skills necessary to display proficiency.
The table below presents the outcomes, metrics, and methods for both external and internal
desired outcomes.
Table 10

Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes

Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
The Army National Guard
is viewed as a trained and
ready force capable of
deploying and conducting
International community views
the Army National Guard as a
premier military fighting force
that is indiscernible from their
active duty counterparts when
Army National Guard conducts
joint military operations and
deployment readiness exercises
with their international military
counterparts.
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 85

combat operations
worldwide.
participating in combat
operations.
The Department of
Defense is confident in
the Army National
Guard’s ability to present
a trained and ready force
to execute as accomplish
missions with the same
effectiveness as their
active duty counterparts.
The Department of Defense
expands the role of the Army
National Guard providing the
active duty army more recovery,
reset and training opportunities
to improve combat readiness.
Increase in the number of
combat rotations for the Army
National Guard.
Internal Outcomes
The Army National Guard
is confident in Soldiers’
understanding of their
specific MOS job skills
prior to their combat
deployment.
Comprehensive exams on
specific MOS tasks during home
station training prior to pre-
deployment training.

Certification exams prior to
combat deployment
Written Comprehensive exams
administered during home
station training prior to Soldier
attendance at pre-deployment
training centers.

Job-specific written exams and
proficiency demonstration
exams that certify Soldiers prior
to combat deployment
The Army National Guard
is confident in Soldiers’
understanding of Warrior
Tasks and Battle Drills
and their ability to safely
implement these tasks in
combat operations.
Demonstration of proficiency in
Warrior Tasks and Battle Drills
through observed training
proficiency by Instructors and
Subject Matter Experts prior to
Soldier pre-deployment training
and certification.
Trainers, Instructors, and
Subject Matter Experts observe
and evaluate individual Soldiers
and teams execute warrior tasks
and battle drills and provide
comprehensive and real time
feedback to Soldiers, teams, and
units prior to combat
deployment

Level 3: Behavior
Critical behaviors. The table below explains the critical behaviors Soldiers must
demonstrate to achieve the internal and external outcomes desired by the Army National Guard.
As noted in the table, the critical behaviors Soldiers must demonstrate proficiency in include
performing the Warrior Tasks, Battle Drills, and the tasks associated with their MOS specific job
requirements. Soldiers must display this proficiency prior to their attendance at one of the pre-
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 86

deployment training centers and once again during their pre-deployment training and
certification prior to their combat deployment. Instructors and subject matter experts will have
the responsibility for the observation and evaluation of the Soldiers as they are demonstrating
their proficiency in the tasks. The goal is to have the instructors observe Soldiers for these
critical behaviors at home station and the subject matter experts evaluate and certify the
demonstrated proficiency of the Soldiers at the pre-deployment training centers prior to their
combat deployment.
Table 11

Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical Behavior Metric(s)
Method(s)
Timing
1. Soldiers perform
individual Warrior
Tasks with
proficiency and
precision during home
station training.
Determination of level
of proficiency and
precision during home
station training
Observation
Evaluation
On-the-job training
During home station
training prior to
attendance of the
pre-deployment
training at the
training centers
2. Soldiers execute
Battle Drills as a
cohesive team during
pre-deployment
training.
Determination of level
of interaction between
Soldiers working as a
team to accomplish
the tasks presented to
them prior to their
deployment
Observation
Evaluation
On-the-job training
During the
assessment phase of
the pre-deployment
training
3. Soldiers perform
MOS specific tasks
safely and effectively
in a home station and
pre-deployment
training environment.
Evaluation of extent
to which Soldiers
understand the
concepts associated
with their individual
MOS specific job
requirements
Job aids
Work-review checklists
Key performance
indicators
Refreshers
On-the-job training
During home station
training and pre-
deployment training
as a part of final
certification for
combat deployment

Required drivers. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) define required drivers as
processes and systems that reinforce, monitor, encourage, and reward performance of critical
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 87

behaviors on the job. Table #7 lists the required drivers for the Soldiers, the timing of the use of
the drivers, and the critical behaviors that each driver supports. Some of the required drivers
support all four of the critical behaviors. The Army National Guard must utilize these drivers
during the training to produce the critical behaviors discussed in the precious section to help
accomplish the level four behavior the Army National Guard requires for mission success.
Table 12
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical Behaviors Supported
1, 2, 3 Etc.
Reinforcing
Refresher training consisting
of classroom instruction and
hands-on training.
Home station/pre-deployment
training
3
Provide job aids such as
graphic training aids and
current standard operating
procedure manuals.
Home station/pre-deployment
training
3
Provide work-review
checklists in written and
electronic format.
Home station/pre-deployment
training
3
On-the-job training provided
to the Soldiers
Home station/pre-deployment
training
1,2,3
Encouraging
Coaching by instructors and
subject matter experts
Home station/pre-deployment
training
1,2,3
Mentoring by Soldiers that are
experienced in specific MOS
job skills and Soldiers that are
experienced in the execution
of tasks in a combat
environment.
Home station/pre-deployment
training
1,2,3
Rewarding
Recognition through the
implementation of an
individual and team rewards
program
Home station/pre-deployment
training
1,2,3
Monitoring
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 88

Observation of Soldiers
executing the training taught
to them by subject matter
experts
Home station/pre-deployment
training
1,2,3
Evaluation of the Soldiers by
instructors
Home station/pre-deployment
training
1,2,3

Organizational support. The Department of Defense must ensure that the Soldiers are
prepared to safely and effectively perform their MOS specific job skills and executing the
concepts set forth in the Warrior Tasks and Battle Drills in a deployed environment. The Army
National Guard is responsible for training the Soldiers to a level of displayed proficiency in these
skills. It is vital that the Army National Guard provide training that includes clearly defined
goals of increasing difficulty to enable Soldiers to experience success throughout the training
cycle which will lead to increased self-efficacy and confidence in their ability to operate in a
combat environment. It is also critical to ensure that Soldiers understand the significance of their
contribution to the overall mission accomplishment of the Department of Defense through
individual and group interaction with leadership using forums and small group briefs. To
accomplish the goals of the Department of Defense, the Army National Guard must make
training more engaging, interesting, and more in depth particularly as it relates to information on
the cultural aspects of the locations where Soldiers will be conducting combat operations.
Presenting a trained and ready force is the responsibility of the Army National Guard. To
accomplish this goal, the Army National Guard will ensure that the pre-deployment training
requirements are current and relevant based on the current tactics, techniques, and procedures of
both friendly and enemy forces in combat. The National Guard must develop course curriculum
based on assessments and feedback from observers of training, instructors, and Soldiers.
Ensuring that the course curriculum remains relevant is the responsibility of the Department of
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 89

Defense. In concert with the Department of Defense, the Army National Guard will establish a
cyclic review of training that is aligned with the Army National Guard deployment cycle
designed to review and if necessary, modify the curriculum prior to the presentation of the
training to the Soldiers.
Level 2: Learning
Learning goals. During the training, Soldiers will achieve the following learning
objectives as part of their demonstrated understanding of the training:
1. Explain the steps associated with individual MOS Specific job tasks in a classroom
environment (D-F)
2. Demonstrate proficiency in individual MOS Specific job tasks in a practical application
setting (P)
3. Demonstrate proficiency in Individual Warrior Tasks in a simulated environment prior to
combat deployment (P)
4. Demonstrate proficiency in team, squad, and unit Battle Drills in a simulated
environment prior to combat deployment (P)
5. Execute MOS specific skills in a simulated environment and during on-the-job training
with confidence prior to attendance at the pre-deployment training center (self-efficacy)
6. Display confidence in individual ability to apply individual Warrior Tasks and unit Battle
Drills in a simulated environment (self-efficacy)
Program. The Department of Defense must design a pre-deployment training
curriculum the Army National Guard can implement to support the achievement of the learning
goals for Soldiers prior to their combat deployment rotation. The learning goals for the Soldiers
listed in the previous section can be achieved through the development and implementation of a
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 90

training program with the focus on effective cognitive load management through an iterative
training cycle prior to Soldier arrival at the pre-deployment training certification center. This
training program can be implemented as a pilot program by the Army National Guard by
presented the training to Soldiers assigned to units that have recently returned from a combat
deployment. The justification for the presentation of the training to recently deployed units is
twofold: 1) units that have recently returned from deployment are returned to the beginning of
the five-year training cycle which allows for the training to be implemented without affecting the
training cycle of units that are currently participating in their pre-deployment training, and 2) the
pilot training program itself can be evaluated by the Department of Defense and the Army
National Guard for effectiveness and, if necessary, be modified without affecting the training and
preparation of units that are designated to deploy after the completion of their pre-deployment
training.
The pilot program will be conducted during the weekend Battle Assembly training that
Soldiers are required to attend once a month on a weekend designated by the commanders of the
Army National Guard units as part of their service requirement. The Battle Assembly will be
divided into two one-day sessions with the first day dedicated to individual MOS specific
training and the second day dedicated to training in Warrior Tasks and Battle Drills. Prior to,
and upon completion of the Battle Assembly training, Soldiers will have opportunities to
reinforce their learning through self-directed individual MOS skill training, professional
development courses, and job aids.
The first day of training will focus on developing the individual MOS specific skills
Soldiers are required to perform in combat operations as part of the overall mission of the unit as
assigned by the Department of Defense. Soldiers will be provided with refresher training in the
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 91

form of classroom instruction and hands-on training on the procedural aspects of MOS specific
job tasks and how to perform them in a deployed environment. The objective of this training
will be to focus the attention of the Soldier towards their specific MOS through a series of
reminders of the fundamentals and required procedures of the training. This training will build
on the foundation that was established through initial and subsequent MOS specific training
courses completed by the Soldier. The refresher training will provide the Soldier with an
opportunity to immediately become engaged in, and develop a commitment to learning based on
the specificity of the training and the direct relevance of the training to their specific MOS.
The training will be further developed through the presentation of job aids, work-review
checklists, MOS specific on-the-job training, and self-directed MOS training. Job aids in the
form of graphic training aids and current MOS specific Standard Operating Procedures (SOP)
manuals that are designed to provide visual references and written procedural guidelines will
allow Soldiers to review terms and procedures presented to them during refresher training
reinforcing the knowledge acquired through the classroom instruction. Work-review checklists,
designed to reinforce tactics, techniques, and procedures used in a combat environment will
enable the Soldiers to further develop specific skills through the repetition associated with use of
procedural checklists providing a step-by-step series of events required to accomplish the
specific task. MOS specific on-the-job training will reinforce both the refresher training and
hands-on training provided during the classroom instruction and the self-directed training
Soldiers receive prior to attending Battle Assembly. The on-the-job training will increase
Soldier cognitive learning by allowing the Soldier to transition from theories and concepts to the
implementation and practical application of those concepts in a real-world environment. Self-
directed MOS training serve as the final MOS job skill related training provided by the Army
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 92

National Guard through a computer-based program designed to provide Soldiers with continuing
education on job specific skills required for professional development. This training will be
accessible to Soldiers leading up to, during, and after Battle Assembly training to enhance and
further develop the job specific knowledge requirements for Soldiers. This computer-based
training will also reinforce the knowledge gained during the instruction on the first day of Battle
Assembly training.
The second day of training will focus on the competencies associated with Warrior Tasks
and Battle Drills for both the individual Soldier and the Soldiers as a collective team in
preparation for combat operations. The training will rely heavily on practical application and on-
the-job training rather than classroom instruction. The justification for practical application and
on-the-job training is based on the curriculum presented to the Soldiers. Warrior Tasks and
Battle Drills emphasize individual and team maneuver skills and tactics. Classroom instruction
contributes to the development of declarative and some procedural knowledge. However, the
concepts of maneuver, both individual and team stand a greater chance of being retained through
practical application and repetition in an iterative process.
Soldiers will spend the first part of the training (approximately two hours) participating in
refresher training designed to review the basic declarative and procedural knowledge of the
training that will be taking place from the next section on throughout the day. The dangers
inherent with the training in Warrior Tasks and Battle Drills will require a course of safety
training to reduce the risk of injury to Soldiers during the practical application phase of the
training. The remainder of the training taking place on the second day will be in the form of on-
the-job training and practical application of skills training.
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 93

Practical application skills training will focus on the procedural training related to shoot
(weapons qualification, weapons malfunction correction, and target engagement), communicate
(call for fire, call for MEDEVAC, and visual signaling techniques), move (location
determination, navigation, and vehicle preparation for convoy), and fight (move under direct fire,
react to indirect fire, and react to man-to-man contact). The practical application training will
provide Soldiers with the hands-on experience and interaction with the equipment while
contributing to their understanding of the concepts present in individual and team maneuver
skills. Maximizing practical application will increase proficiency through repetition while
reducing the cognitive load associated with in-classroom academics. The increase in proficiency
coupled with reduction on cognitive load will contribute to Soldier motivation and self-efficacy
and increase Soldier confidence in their ability to safely operate within the framework of the
Warrior Tasks and Battle Drills in a deployed environment.
The practical application will be reinforced through on-the-job training. During this
training, Soldiers will be coached by instructors and mentored by subject matter experts which
will strengthen their conceptual knowledge in the tactics, techniques, and procedures associated
with the Warrior Tasks and Battle Drills. Subject matter experts will provide mentorship
through individual and group training sessions that will be supported by question and answer
session where the mentors will present their deployed experiences to the Soldiers to reinforce
their understanding of the concepts.
Soldiers will be observed and evaluated by instructors and OC/Ts for demonstrated
proficiency in the Warrior Tasks and Battle Drills. The observation will provide the Soldiers
with both real-time and post iteration feedback while the evaluation will be utilized as their
certification of demonstrated proficiency in the Warrior Tasks and Battle Drills which will in
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 94

turn allow them to proceed to the pre-deployment training center to participate in pre-
deployment training certification for combat rotational deployment.
The training will also incorporate job aids and work-review checklists to reinforce the
practical application training and on-the-job training. Job aids will be in the form of graphic
training aids and field manuals that provide Soldiers with visual and academic aids to further
develop a conceptual understanding of the Warrior Tasks and Battle Drills. The final aspect of
the pilot program will be the establishment of a rewards program as an incentive to encourage
learning retention and reinforcement of concepts that are vital to Soldier ability to safely and
effectively execute the tasks associated with their individual and team missions. The use of
military awards as recognition for Soldier excellence in the execution of MOS specific skills as
well as Warrior Tasks and Battle Drills will serve to further motivate the Soldier to excel at their
craft. A proposed training timeline for Battle Assembly training can be found in appendix K.
Evaluation of the components of learning. The table below describes the evaluation
process for the components of learning for this pilot program. The methods of learning and
activities are presented using five categories. The first category is concerned with the declarative
knowledge of the Soldiers which is their comprehension of the declarative knowledge of the
concepts presented during the training. There are associated knowledge checks and competency
tests that will be used to confirm the knowledge of the Soldiers. The procedural skills category
focuses on the ability of Soldiers to demonstrate proficiency in implementation of the procedures
required to effectively accomplish the tasks of both their MOS specific job and the Warrior
Tasks and Battle Drills. Confirmation of proficiency in these tasks is evaluated through
instructor and OC/T observation of Soldiers performing hands-on competency training. The
third and fourth categories, attitude and confidence, are also evaluated through observation of
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 95

instructors and OC/Ts where they will look for indicators of motivation, engagement, and
confidence displayed by the Soldiers when performing tasks. The final category of commitment
takes place during the Soldiers deployment when they are executing these tasks in a combat
environment. At this point, the observation will be performed by their supervisors and the chain
of command associated with their respective units. The second part of the table refers to the
times when these evaluations should take place according to the plan of the pilot program.
Table 13
Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program.
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”
Soldiers understand the procedural concepts
associated with their MOS specific training
During course instruction
Soldiers understand the concepts of the
Warrior Tasks and Battle Drills
During course instruction
Soldiers pass knowledge checks At the completion of each section
Soldiers show competency in MOS specific
training through pre and post tests
Before and after instruction
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”
Soldiers can demonstrate competency in their
MOS specific job skills
During hands-on competency training
Soldiers can demonstrate competency in
Warrior Tasks and Battle Drills Training
During hands-on competency training
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Soldiers display a desire to engage in the
training being provided
During course instruction and hands-on
training
Soldiers display an enthusiasm for the training During course instruction and hands-on
training
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”
Soldiers display confidence in the execution of
MOS specific tasks
During hands-on training at home station and
at the combat deployment center
Soldiers have confidence in their ability to
execute the Warrior Tasks and Battle Drills
During hands-on training at home station and
at the combat deployment center
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”
Soldiers are prepared to conduct their MOS
specific job safely in a combat environment
During combat deployment
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 96

Soldiers are prepared to conduct Warrior Tasks
and Battle Drills safely in a combat
environment
During combat deployment

Level 1: Reaction
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) define level one evaluation as the degree to which
participants find the training favorable, engaging, and relevant to their jobs. The table below
presents the observations the instructors must make to assess the level of engagement and
interest the Soldiers show in the training being presented. The Department of Defense relies on
Soldiers to become invested in the training from the initial presentation of the curriculum
because it establishes a solid foundation for the understanding and implementation of concepts
that will allow the Department of Defense to accomplish its organizational goals. Because level
one reaction is the level most familiar to learning professionals and the easiest to evaluate
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016), it can often be glossed over and not effectively evaluated.
The table below shows the method of evaluation the instructors will used to assess the reaction of
the Soldiers to the training and the timing of the evaluations and observations.
Table 13
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program.
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement
Soldier engagement in course instruction Throughout course instruction
Soldiers answering questions presented by the
instructor
Throughout the course instruction
Instructor observation of Soldiers during
course instruction
Throughout course
Dedicated outside observer Twice throughout the course instruction
Relevance
Interaction with Soldiers during class Throughout course instruction
Customer Satisfaction
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 97

Pulse check of Soldier satisfaction Throughout the course around the mid-point of
instruction

Evaluation Tools
Immediately following the program implementation. Evaluation of the program will
take place during and upon completion of the first iteration of the pilot program. During the
execution of this pilot program, observation will be the primary method of evaluation. Observer
Controller/Trainers (OC/Ts) will observe both Soldiers participating in the program and
instructors/subject matter experts teaching the curriculum. There will be two distinct sets of
OC/Ts with one being assigned to observe the skills and behaviors of the Soldiers and the other
with a focus towards observation of the instructors’ teaching methods and engagement in the
program. Upon completion of the first iteration of the program, a blended evaluation approach
consisting of surveys and interviews with Soldiers who have participated in the program will
commence. The surveys will be issued upon completion of the program with the focus being on
learner-centered questions designed to give the learners the opportunity to provide their
viewpoint or perspective. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) states that making the learner the
focal point makes it more comfortable for the respondent and provides more honest and robust
feedback. Interviews will also be conducted with a focus towards the learners.
Delayed for a period after the program implementation. A blended evaluation will
take place with the Soldiers no earlier than completion of pre-deployment training and
certification for deployment by the combat training center and no later than their first month of
their combat deployment. This evaluation will be in the form of surveys. The surveys and will
focus on both learner centered and trainer-centered items including the course material and
instructor evaluations designed to critique the program. There will also be a plan for future
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 98

blended evaluation surveys at the three, six, and nine-month mark of their deployment to further
analyze the effectiveness of the training provided during the pilot program. Re-engaging
Soldiers with follow-on surveys during benchmark milestones of the deployment will allow for
an even more in-depth assessment of the effectiveness of the pilot program. Soldiers will have
the opportunity to evaluate the training they receive prior to combat deployment after having
executed their tasks in a real-world combat environment which will provide the Department of
Defense with the most accurate assessment of the effectiveness of the program based on the
reflection of Soldiers that will be implementing the tasked learned during training.
Data analysis and reporting. Reporting the findings of the immediate and delayed
instruments is vital to the assessment both the pilot program and the effectiveness of the
information presented to the Soldiers during the training. Reporting the data using statistical
presentation such as excel spreadsheets and reports is will not be sufficient to capture the
significance of the data. Presenting the data using visual media will be the most effective means
of displaying the data for the Army National Guard and the Department of Defense. The results
of the data will be displayed using a color-coded chart designed to present the results of the data
in a format that can be followed and referenced rapidly and effectively. The charts will be in bar
graph format for the immediate instruments and a pie chart for the delayed instruments (appendix
I).
Conclusion
The New World Kirkpatrick Model provides a blueprint for the Department of Defense
and the Army National Guard on how to successfully evaluate training effectiveness. This is
accomplished using the four levels of evaluation discussed in this section. The pilot program
introduced in this section relies heavily on the New World Kirkpatrick Model to evaluate Soldier
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 99

engagement and interest at the first level, which ultimately drives the behaviors at the third level,
leading to the desired outcomes both internally and externally at the fourth level. It is at the
fourth level where the Army National Guard realizes its goal of presenting a competent and
effective fighting force.
The achievement of the Soldier goal leads to the achievement of the goals set forth by the
Department of Defense and the Army National Guard. The Army National Guard is obligated to
provide engaging and effective training to Soldiers in preparation for their combat deployment.
This training can be accomplished using the recommendations presented in this section. The
pilot program introduced earlier will not only address the recommendations for the Army
National Guard but provide a method to rapidly and effectively evaluate the training at every
level. Evaluation of training at every level allows the Army National Guard the flexibility to
adjust as needed to manage the cognitive load of the Soldiers and motivate them to develop the
skills necessary to operate effectively in combat. The pilot program will increase the
competency and confidence Soldiers have in their ability to execute the tasks associated with
their MOS specific job requirements, Warrior Tasks, and Battle Drills.

Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 100

References
Ambrose, S. D. (2010). An exploratory study of why soldiers in a National Guard battalion did
not reenlist after deployment to Iraq (Order No. AAI3397354). Available from
PsycINFO. (816391709; 2010-99191-106). Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/816391709?accountid=14749
Anderson, L. W., & David R. Krathwohl, D. R., et al. (2000) A taxonomy for learning,
teaching, and assessing: a revision of bloom's taxonomy of educational
objectives. Allyn & Bacon
Army National Guard. (2016, October 4). Army National Guard citizen soldier at the ready.
Retrieved from Army National Guard: arng.ng.mil/About-Us/Pages/ARNG-Federal-
Mission.aspx
Army National Guard. (2016). FY 17 President's budget request. Retrieved from Army National
Guard:
http://www.nationalguard.mil/Portals/31/Documents/PersonalStaff/LegislativeLiaison/FY
2017/ngb-ll-fy17-pb-summary.pdf
Army National Guard. (2015). National Guard readiness and responsiveness. Washington DC:
Army National Guard.
Army National Guard Directorate. (2011). National Guard bureau implementing the army
force generation model: A formula for operational capacity. Washington D.C.: Army
National Guard.
Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 101

behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71-81). New York: Academic Press. (Reprinted in H. Friedman
[Ed.], Encyclopedia of mental health. San Diego: Academic Press, 1998).
Business Insider. (2015). Ranked: The world's 20 strongest militaries. Retrieved from Business
Insider: https://www.businessinsider.com/these-are-the-worlds-20-strongest-militaries-
ranked-2015-9.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Defense Science Board Task Force. (2007). Deployment of members of the National Guard and
reserve in the global war on terrorism. Washington D.C.: Office of the Under Secretary
of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics.
Denler, H., Wolters, C., & Benzon, M. (2006). Social cognitive theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/social-cognitive-theory/.
Department of Defense Inspector General. (2016). Army National Guard companies have not
developed effective training programs to attain or sustain mission essential task
proficiency. Washington DC: Department of Defense.
Department of Defense. (2018). US Army. Retrieved from Go Army:
https://whttps://www.goarmy.com/careers-and-jobs.htmlww.goarmy.com/careers-and-
jobs.html
Eccles, J. (2006). Expectancy value motivational theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/expectancy-value-motivational-theory/.
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 102

Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review
of Psychology, 109-132.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive
developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, 906-911.
Flavell, J. H. (1978). Metacognitive development. In J. M. Scandura and C. J. Brainerd (Eds.),
Structural/process theories of complex human behavior (pp. 213-245).
Freedberg, S. J.Jr. (2007, Dec 15). Aloha Iraq! National Journal, 39, 28-29. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/200327884?accountid=14749
Freeberg Jr, S. J. (2014). National Guard commanders rise in revolt against active
army; MG Rossi questions guard combat role. Breaking Defense. March 11.
https://breakingdefense.com/2014/03/national-guard-commanders-rise-in-revolt-against-
active-army-mg-ross-questions-guard-combat-role/.
Global Firepower. (2018, 07 30). 2018 military strength ranking. Retrieved from Global
Firepower: https://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp.
Grant, P. M. (2010). Increasing the effectiveness of army pre-deployment training. Monterey:
Naval Postgraduate School.
Hiebert, J., & Lefevre, P. (1986). Conceptual and procedural knowledge in mathematics: An
introductory analysis. In J. Hiebert (Ed.), Conceptual and procedural knowledge: The
case of mathematics (pp. 1-27). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
House Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness Hearing. (2011). Lanham: Federal
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 103

Information and News Dispatch, Inc. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/893748078?accountid=14749
Inspector General United States Department of Defense. (2008). Training requirements for U.S.
ground forces deploying in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Arlington: Department
of Defense.
Janega, J. (2005, Aug 07). Morale woes rattle guard; Illinois troops in survey lash out at
leaders, call training 'boring'. Chicago Tribune Retrieved from
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2005-08-07/news/0508070367_1_memo-morale-
guard-leadership
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation.
Alexandria, VA: ATD Press.
Kirschner, P., Kirschner, F., & Paas, F. (2006). Cognitive load theory. Retrieved
from http://www.education.com/reference/article/cognitive-load-theory/.
Kostro, S. S. (2014). Citizen-Soldiers in a time of transition: The future of the U.S. Army
National Guard. New York: Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice,
41(4), 212–218.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
McEwan, E. K., & McEwan, P. J. (2003). Making sense of research. Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE.
Memo: Survey shows low morale among members of the Illinois National Guard. (2005, August
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 104

7). Associated Press. Retrieved September 17, 2005, from LexisNexis Academic
database.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
National Guard. (2016, October 4). National Guard legacy. Retrieved from National Guard:
https://www.nationalguard.com/legacy
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) Chief Financial Officer. (2016,
February). Defense budget overview United States Department of Defense fiscal year
2017 budget request. Retrieved from Department of Defense:
https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2017/FY2017_Budget
_Request_Overview_Book.pdf
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/self-efficacy-theory/.
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667–686.
Rand Corporation. (2015). Active component responsibility in reserve component pre- and
post-mobilization training. Santa Monica: Rand.
Rath, T., & Conchie, B. (2009). Strengths-based leadership: Great leaders, teams, and why
people follow. New York: Gallup.
Sanders, W. R., & Schaefer, P. S. (2009). Identifying the training challenges and needs of
deploying units. Arlington: U.S. Army Research Institute.
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 105

Schraw, G., & Lehman, S. (2009). Interest. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/interest/.
Schraw, G., & McCrudden, M. (2006). Information processing theory. Retrieved from
https://project542.weebly.com/uploads/1/7/1/0/17108470/information_processing_theory
__education.com.pdf
Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1),
153–189.
Stockholm International Peace Training requirements for U.S. Ground Forces deploying in
support of Operation Iraqi Freedom Research Institute. (2017). Military Expenditure.
Retrieved from Sipri: https://www.sipri.org/research/armament-and-disarmament/arms-
transfers-and-military-spending/military-expenditure.
Taylor, R. V. (2006). State of the Army National Guard: Operational recognition.
National Guard, 60(4), 38-40. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/231934215?accountid=14749
Thompson, M. M., & Gignac, M. A. (2003). Pre-deployment motivating and ambivalence
among Canadian forces augmentees: The influence of demographic factors. Toronto:
Defense R&D Canada.
United States Army. (2008). 2008 Army Posture Statement. Washington DC: Department of
Defense.
University of South Florida. 2018. Florida Center for Instructional Technology. July 23.
Accessed July 23, 2018. https://fcit.usf.edu/assessment/basic/basicc.html
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 106

Weiss, T. J. (2008). National Guard pre-mobilization training certification: 54 ways to skin a
cat. Carlisle: US Army War College.
Zubik, T. M., Hastings, P. C., & Glisson, M. J. (2014). Sustaining the Army National Guard as
an operating force. Military Review, 11.

Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 107

Appendix A: Participating Soldiers with Sampling and Recruitment Criteria for Surveys
and Interviews
Survey Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Criterion 1. Soldiers sampled were required to have completed at least one deployment
in support of combat operations. This was critical to determine because the effectiveness of pre-
deployment training cannot be assessed if the Soldier was not afforded an opportunity to
implement that training during a combat deployment.
Criterion 2. Soldiers sampled were required to have participated and been certified in
the pre-deployment training prior to their combat deployment. The certification of Soldiers for
deployment is a requirement for participation in a combat deployment.
Criterion 3. Soldiers sampled were required to have participated in a combat
deployment within a year of the completion of training and have not gone through two iterations
of pre-deployment training prior to deployment. This criterion allowed for a proper assessment
of the most current training as it relates to the combat deployment. If more than a year has
lapsed from the pre-deployment training to the implementation of that training in a combat
environment, Soldiers may not have retained the skills necessary to safely execute their mission.
In addition, if a Soldier went through two consecutive iterations of the training they could
potentially get confused between old tactics and new tactics based on changes to training
implemented by the Department of Defense.
Survey Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
This study was one that would have been beneficial to both the Department of Defense
and the Soldiers of the Army National Guard in providing them with an analysis of the training
as it relates to its’ effectiveness on the battlefield. This topic was important to these two groups
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 108

because ensuring Soldier safety during deployment was a primary concern of both the Soldier
and the Department of Defense. There were no incentives provided for taking the survey out of
concerns for the legal ramifications and implications of coercion, an appeal for participation was
made to the Soldiers desire to have the most current and relevant training so that they can
execute their mission and return home safe from deployment.
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale
The interviews were conducted in an environment that was be comfortable to each
individual Soldier. The goal for junior Soldiers (Soldiers in the rank of E-1 to E-4 and officers in
the rank of O-1 to O-2) was to conduct the interview in a location that was away from their
workplace, not on a military installation, and separate from a military environment. The
interviewer was in civilian attire and encouraged the junior Soldier to attend the interview in
comfortable clothing. Both the mid-career and senior Soldier categories (Soldiers in the rank of
E-5 to E-9 and Officers in the rank of O-3 to O-10) were interviewed under the same parameters
as the junior Soldier or within the workplace or on a military installation at the discretion of the
Soldier being interviewed. The assumption behind the different approach for the mid-career and
senior Soldier categories was based solely on the experience of the interviewer with prior
interactions with these groups. The experience with these groups was that they are far less
intimidated with the environment surrounding them when having conversations and the
environment would not significantly influence their responses to the interview questions. The
interviews were conducted using semi-structured protocols to allow the interviewer freedom to
craft follow-on questions to gain a more complete understanding of Soldiers’ depth of
knowledge on the subject and the extent to which the Department of Defense is meeting both its
organizational objective and the objectives of the Soldiers receiving the training. Open-ended
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 109

questions were asked to allow for in-depth responses that will provide the qualitative data to
compliment the quantitative data received using surveys. Interviews were conducted using the
criteria listed below.
Criterion 1. Soldiers interviewed participated in at least one deployment training cycle
and rotation to a combat zone where they were afforded the opportunity to implement the
training received prior to deployment. The participation in both the pre-deployment training and
a subsequent deployment was vital to gaining insight as to what training was effective versus
what training needs to be modified or outright eliminated.
Criterion 2. Soldiers participating in this interview completed at least one advanced
professional military education training session prior to their deployment. The advanced
professional military education assists the Soldier in further developing both the procedural and
factual knowledge necessary execute the requirements of their job specialty in a deployed
environment.
Interview Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
The participants for the interview were recruited using an appeal to their role in a
potential change to military pre-deployment training that will serve to not only benefit them in
the future but benefit their fellow Soldiers by providing them with effective and relevant training
for combat deployments.

Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 110

Appendix B: Interview Protocols
Part 1.
INSTRUCTIONS
Good morning (afternoon). My name is Vincent Jackson. Thank you for taking time out of your
schedule to participate in this interview. This interview involves questions consisting of two
parts, background questions and pre-deployment training questions. The background questions
are designed to establish an experience level as it relates to deployments and training. The pre-
deployment training questions focus on the relevance and effectiveness of training as well as
your perceptions of the level of involvement the Department of Defense has in the training being
conducted. There are no right or wrong or desirable or undesirable answers. I would like you to
feel comfortable with saying what you really think and how you really feel. The survey is
completely confidential and there is no identifiable information that can be linked back to you in
any way. The interview is voluntary and at any time if you don’t want to answer questions or
end the interview, feel free to notify me.
RECORDING INSTRUCTIONS
If it is okay with you, I will be recording our conversation. The purpose of this is so that I can get
all the details but at the same time be able to carry on an attentive conversation with you. I assure
you that all your comments will remain confidential. I will be compiling a report which will
contain comments without any reference to individuals.
PREAMBLE/CONSENT FORM INSTRUCTIONS
Before we get started, please take a few minutes to read this preamble (read and sign this
consent form). (Hand R consent form/preamble.) (After R returns preamble/consent
form, turn tape recorder on.)
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 111

Background Questions
o Let’s talk about your military background
▪ How long have you been in the military?
▪ How long have you been in the Army National Guard?
▪ Have you ever served on Active Duty outside of a combat deployment?
▪ What is your Military Occupational Specialty (MOS)?
▪ What Professional Military Education (PME) have you had?
▪ How many combat deployments have you participated in?
▪ How many times have you participated in pre-deployment training prior
to your deployment?
• Main Interview Questions
o Let’s talk about the pre-deployment training you received prior to your combat
deployment
▪ What aspect of the pre-deployment training do you feel was the most
effective and why? (Organizational)
▪ What aspect of the pre-deployment training do you feel was the least
effective and why? (Organizational)
▪ How relevant was the pre-deployment training as it relates to the current
tactics, techniques, and procedures in combat operations? (Knowledge)
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 112

▪ Were you approached by any personnel from the Center for Army
Lessons Learned (CALL) requesting After Action Review (AAR)
information during your deployment? (Organizational)
▪ What changes would you make to the training to make it more relevant to
operations in the current deployed environment? (Knowledge)
▪ To what degree do you feel confident about your ability to safely perform
your job in a deployed environment? Explain why. (Motivation)
▪ In what ways did the pre-deployment training expand on your previous
knowledge and deployment experience? (Knowledge)
▪ How prepared for your deployment did you feel you were after
completion of your pre-deployment training? (Knowledge)
• After your first month in combat operations? (Knowledge)
▪ Were there any aspects of the training that were difficult to understand
and if so what do you feel contributed to the difficulty of the training?
(Knowledge)
▪ What are your feelings about the training timeline? Do you feel it was
too aggressive or not aggressive enough? (Organizational)
▪ How do you feel about the amount of time devoted to pre-deployment
training and certification? (Organizational)
▪ If you had an audience with the Secretary of Defense to talk about what
can be done to make the Guard a more effective fighting force, what
would you say? (Organizational)

Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 113

Appendix C: Survey Questions
1. What is your current Occupational Group?
Operations Division (Infantry, Aviation, Armor, Engineer, Military Police, Chemical,
Field Artillery, Air Defense Artillery, Special Forces)
Force Sustainment Division (Acquisition, Adjutant General, Finance, Transportation,
Ordnance, Quartermaster, Logistics, Chief Warrant Officer)
Health Services Division (Army Medical Corps, Army Dental Corps, Army Veterinary
Corps, Army Nurse Corps, Army Medical Specialist Corps, Army Service Corps)
Operations Support Division (Military Intelligence, Signal, Cyber, Foreign Area
Officer, Functional Areas 26A/26B/29/30/34/40/46/47/49/50/52/57/59)
2. How many times have you deployed in support of combat operations outside of the United
States?
1 2 to 4 4 or more
3. Where have you deployed to?
Iraq Afghanistan Iraq and Afghanistan Neither (deployed to another
location)
4. What is your highest level of completed Professional Military Education (PME)
Enlisted – IET AIT WLC ALC (BNCOC) SLC (ANCOC)
First Sergeants Course Sergeants Major Academy
Warrant Officer – WOCS WOBC WOAC WOILE WOSSE
Officer – OBC OAC ILE JPME II SSC

Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 114

Answer the following questions based on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being no confidence and 5
being full confidence
PRE-DEPLOYMENT
1. Home station Battle Assembly Training 1 2 3 4 5
2. Professional Military Education 1 2 3 4 5
3. Specific MOS Training 1 2 3 4 5
4. Pre-deployment training at home station 1 2 3 4 5
5. Pre-deployment training at the training center 1 2 3 4 5
DURING DEPLOYMENT
1. Home station Battle Assembly Training 1 2 3 4 5
2. Professional Military Education 1 2 3 4 5
3. Specific MOS Training 1 2 3 4 5
4. Pre-deployment training at home station 1 2 3 4 5
5. Pre-deployment training at the training center 1 2 3 4 5
Answer the following questions based on your level of agreement with the statements
1. I felt like I was prepared to deploy after completion of my pre-deployment training
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree or Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
2. I learned new skills during my pre-deployment training
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree or Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
3. The time spent training on the Warrior Tasks and Battle Drills was sufficient for my
deployment
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree or Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 115

4. The pre-deployment training focused on areas that were critical to combat operations
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree or Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
5. The pre-deployment training was a reinforcement of knowledge and skills that I had
previously learned
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree or Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
6. The training was presented in a clear and concise manner that was applicable to real world
combat operations
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree or Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
7. The training that was presented was relevant to current tactics in combat
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree or Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
8. The training aids were effective in reinforcing the procedures and methods of conducting the
warrior tasks and battle drills in combat operations
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree or Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
Rate the following training questions on a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 being not at all satisfied
and 10 being the very satisfied. Home station training represents the training you
conducted during your normal Battle Assembly one weekend a month and your Annual
Training during your two week yearly training. Pre-deployment training represents the
training conducted at the training center prior to your deployment
1. Warrior Task training (home station) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2. Warrior Task training (pre-deployment training) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
3. Battle Drills training (home station) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
4. Battle Drills training (pre-deployment training) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
5. Unit specific training (home station) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 116

6. Unit specific training (pre-deployment training) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
7. Individual MOS training (home station) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
8. Individual MOS training (pre-deployment training) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
9. Training curriculum (home station) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
10. Training curriculum (pre-deployment training) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11. Training schedule (home station) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
12. Training schedule (pre-deployment training) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 117

Appendix D: Credibility and Trustworthiness

According to Maxwell (2013), collecting information using multiple methods is common
in qualitative research. This leads to the presentation of research that is both credible and
trustworthy. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) states that making use of more than one data collection
method (triangulation) is a powerful strategy for increasing the credibility or internal validity of
the research being conducted. Collecting data through surveys and interviews allows for both
gathering of rich data with interviews and triangulation using multiple data collection points.
Maxwell (2013) points to interviews as an enabler for the researcher to collect “rich” data that is
detailed and varied enough to provide the researcher with a full and revealing picture of what is
going on. Triangulation leads to validity because, as Maxwell (2013) stated, the researcher is
collecting information from a diverse range of individuals, using a variety of methods. The
survey data collected as part of this research provided the statistical data that was further
analyzed through the interview process which served to strengthen the credibility and
trustworthiness of the research.

Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 118

Appendix E: Validity and Reliability
The Florida Center for Instructional Technology (2018) defines reliability as the extent to
which assessments are consistent and validity as the accuracy of an assessment whether it
measures what it is supposed to measure. This means that even if a test is reliable it may not
provide a valid measure. McEwan and McEwan (2003) define an internally valid research study
as a study that can identify with a high degree of certainty that a causal relationship exists
between an intervention and an outcome. There are threats to internal validity which include
history, testing, maturation, and selection (McEwan & McEwan, 2003). Creswell (2014) defined
validity in quantitative research as whether one can draw meaningful and useful inferences from
scores on the instruments. There are three forms of validity which are content, predictive, and
construct validity (Creswell, 2014).
Several steps were taken to reduce the threats to validity and reliability within this
research. There are over six thousand members of the Army National Guard unit being studied
for this research project. The goal of having a minimum of 21 surveys completed makes up less
than one percent of the population being surveyed. On the surface that does not represent a
significant number of the population to gather data that can be generalized to the entire
population and could be a threat to the validity of the research. This perceived shortfall in the
data is not a shortfall at all. While there are six thousand Soldiers that could potentially be
surveyed, the qualifying requirements for participation in the survey eliminated a significant
number of personnel because to take the survey, they must have participated in a combat
deployment. There usually is a significant amount of turnover in personnel within the National
Guard for various reasons to include retirement, expiration of term of service contract, and
change in location. This research was basing its data collection on the approximate population of
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 119

personnel having deployed at least once at 300. Given this number, 21 personnel surveyed
would have been nearly ten percent of the population which, when coupled with the interviews,
led to valid and reliable research.
Another step taken to ensure validity and reliability with the surveys was to provide an
introductory paragraph before the survey that explained what the objective of the survey was and
reinforced the anonymity of the participants in the survey. This increased the truthfulness and
accuracy of the responses which will further contributed to the validity and reliability of the data
presented in this research. The convenience of the survey’s online delivery and response format
contributed to the validity of the data because it increased the response rate and truthfulness of
the responses once again because of the anonymity involved with online surveys as opposed to
face to face surveys.

Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 120

Appendix F: Ethics

Understanding the responsibility to preserve the privacy of the participants is the primary
concern of the researcher. My responsibility to the Soldiers serving as participants was to
preserve their privacy and anonymity from the Department of Defense because they were
discussing how effective their pre-deployment training was in preparing them for their combat
deployment. Before conducting interviews, I received informed consent by having the
participants acknowledge receipt of the information sheet. I reassured the participants that the
consent form is strictly for their participation and will not be released to the DoD for the
identification of any participants in the research. I reminded them that the consent they gave
could have been rescinded at any time and that their participation was voluntary. I made sure
that they understood the purpose of the study and the benefits of the study to both them and the
DoD. I provided them with an electronic copy of the information sheet on the research and
informed them that, if requested, I was willing to send them a printed copy of the information
sheet. I reassured them of the confidentiality of both the data and their participation and made
sure that they understood the process of securing and storage of the data.
I am a member of the DoD, serving as an active duty army major that is concerned about
the effectiveness of the current pre-deployment training for the Soldiers of the Army National
Guard. I conducted the research as an outside observer of the DoD. Because the Soldiers I
gathered the research data from are currently or have in the recent past served in the Army
National Guard, there was no confusion as to my role within the DoD, nor was there any
question about how my role relates to their role within the DoD. The Soldiers participating in
this survey fall under the chain of command for their respective state National Guard. Because I
am an active duty officer, I had no control or influence over their status and could not affect their
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 121

promotion or potential professional development opportunities if they decided to participate in
the study. I reassured the Soldiers that my role as the researcher was separate from my role as an
army officer and at no time would the two roles become confused or convoluted before, during,
or after the study.
There were several assumptions and biases that I had to account for while in the field
engaging in data collection, analysis, and reporting activities. One of the major biases that I had
with regards to this study was that I served in the role of an instructor for pre-deployment
training to Army National Guard Soldiers prior to my current assignment. The crafting of
questions could have potentially been affected by this bias because it could have driven me to
eliminate questions that I felt would have been answered with the same perspective that I had on
those questions which could have prevented an opportunity for a potentially different and
relevant answer from the participants. Another bias I had that could potentially have affected the
research was the quality of training for active duty personnel versus the quality of training for the
National Guard. Active duty Soldiers train year-round for deployments while national guard
Soldiers only train one weekend a month and two weeks a year. I understood that the lack of
opportunity to train did not necessarily equate to a lack of effective training.
There were some assumptions that I made with regards to the research. I assumed that
the Soldiers were truthful in their responses and wanted to contribute to the study based on their
desire to provide a sufficient evaluation of the training program that was conducted. I assumed
that the Soldiers were truthful about their deployments and deployment experiences. These two
assumptions provided validity to my research by allowing me to collect truthful responses that
would ensure the accuracy of the data collected.

Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 122

Appendix G: Limitations and Delimitations
There were limitations to this study. The most significant limitation to this study was
researcher bias. Maxwell (2013) states that it is impossible to deal with researcher bias by
eliminating the reseearcher’s theories, beliefs, and perceptual lens. As a researcher, it must be
understood that there are preconcieved notions that pose a threat to the validity and reliability of
the research results. Clarification of a bias through the use of self reflection by the researcher is
a core characteristic of qualitative research (Creswell, 2014). The experience of having trained
and deployed as a Soldier on active duty presented a bias because the level of factual, procedural,
and conceptual knowledge I had as the researcher and how it could possibly have affected how
responses to questions were interpreted during data analysis. This could have prevented a
thorough analysis of the interview data because some statements made by the participant may
have been minimized based on the training and experience of the researcher. Reducing the
significance of this bias required me, as the researcher, to constantly remind myself that the
National Guard Soldiers were not full time Soldiers and deployed at a more methodical rate than
the active duty Soldiers. Because of this, the ability to train, retain, and implement the pre-
deployment training is much more difficult for the National Guard Soldiers and has a greater
chance to influence training based on the time between deployments.
Another limitation to this study was time. Interviews required a significant amount of
time to ask the questions, record the data, transcribe the data, and analyze the data. This could
potentially have been the most time consuming part of the process and it was critical to save time
during transcription through the use of a transcription service to expedite the process. The
gathering of data from surveys was less of a time constraint because of the quantitative nature of
the data being compiled. However, it still required a commitment of time and effort, not only to
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 123

send out surveys, but to get the surveys back, compile the data, analyze the data, and present the
results of the data for the study. The use of online surveys along with programs designed to
compile the data and present it in an understandable and analyzable format assisted in expediting
the process.
Resources also served as a limitation to this study. Data transcription, online survey
programs, and data compilation and presentation software could potentially require purchase in
order to utilize which will be a cost that will be incurred by the researcher. While there is the
possibility that the Army will sponsor any or all of the resources for the study, it is more likely
that the resources will have to be secured independently of the Army in the interest of
streamlining the process of data collection.

Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 124

Appendix H: Topic Sentence Outline
The topic sentence outline codifies the parameters set forth by the Department of Defense
when it comes to training units in preparation for deployment. These topics start from the
implementation of the strategic goals set forth by the Department of Defense using resources and
the development and certification of effective training and work their way through instructor
certification and implementation of the training. The topics are as follows:
Use of National Guard Training Centers for Pre-Deployment Training
There are several National Guard Training Centers located throughout the United States, all of
which are owned and operated by their state National Guard Adjutants under a mandate by the
Governor of the state. The strategic goals set forth by the Department of Defense are
implemented through the training that is provided at these locations using federal funding to
resource the training requirements.
• Army National Guard. (2015). Army National Guard Garrison Training Centers.
Arlington: Army National Guard.
- Mission of the Army National Guard Training Centers
- Organization and Structure of the Garrison Training Center
- DoD Utilization

Description and Training Focus of the Training Centers
The training focus of the centers is dictated by the requirements of the Department of Defense as
well as the mission set and composition of the unit designated for training.
• Army National Guard. (2015). Army National Guard Garrison Training Centers.
Arlington: Army National Guard.
- Garrison Training Center Classification Levels
Pre-Deployment Training Requirements for National Guard Units
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 125

The Inspector General is responsible for determining if the units designated to deploy are
receiving the training necessary to effectively conduct operations in a combat environment.
• Inspector General United States Department of Defense. (2008). Training requirements
for U.S. Ground Forces deploying in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Arlington:
Department of Defense.
- Outlines the 14 mandatory training tasks required of all units to deploy
- Provides lessons learned from deployment training
Resources and Funding for National Guard Pre-Deployment Training
As the operational deployment tempo of the Army increases, pre-deployment training resources
both fiscally and educationally must increase to ensure that the Soldiers continue to remain at the
forefront of tactical and technical relevance in combat operations.
• Grant, P. M. (2010). Increasing the Effectiveness of Army Pre-Deployment Training.
Monterey: Naval Postgraduate School.
- Resources that need to be maximized in order to effectively conduct trraining:
1) Fiscal resources - funding allocated towards training review, development
and implementation
2) Educational resources - research and development of training and proper
allocation of personnel certified to present training.
3) Time constraints on training - aggressive training timelines that could
potentially hinder effective training.
4) Assessment and implementation of training changes - after action reviews
of the effectiveness of training during and after deployments.
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 126

Department of Defense Strategic Goals for the Training/Certification of Soldiers for
Deployment
The Department of Defense has developed strategic goals relating the Army National Guard and
the major requirements they have with regards to the training of Soldiers for the dual mission of
homeland defense and combat operations through the year 2020.
• Army National Guard. (2016, October 4). Army National Guard Citizen Soldier at the
Ready. Retrieved from Army National Guard: arng.ng.mil/About-Us/Pages/ARNG-
Federal-Mission.aspx
- The Mission of the Army National Guard: To maintain properly trained and
equipped units, available for prompt mobilization for war, national
emergency, or as otherwise needed (Army National Guard, 2016).
- The Strategic goals of the National Guard: The National Guard provides ready
forces for the defense of our nation and its interests, and to States for missions
directed by the Governors of that state. In partnership with States, Services,
DoD, and interagency, the National Guard will: provide trained and ready
operational forces, act as effective stewards of our resources, sustain the
National Guard community, and forge and maintain partnerships (Army
National Guard, 2016).
Department of Defense Curriculum Selection and Justification
The DoD has developed their pre-deployment training curriculum through various methods to
include field observations and strategic working groups designed to analyze the effectiveness and
relevance of training as it relates to current combat operations and enemy tactics.
• Inspector General United States Department of Defense. (2008). Training requirements
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 127

for U.S. ground forces deploying in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Arlington:
Department of Defense.
- Outlines procedures for recording after action review statements and
observations to include taking notes of the interview, video recording, audio
recording, and format for the submission of comments by the interviewers as
well as providing links to the Center for Army Lessons Learned (CALL)
website where Soldiers can submit comments in real time for evaluation and
assessment.
- Discusses the training curriculum as it relates to relevance in the field
Description of Required Warrior Tasks for Pre-deployment Certification
The Army Warrior Tasks and Battle Drills form the foundation for the deployment certification
of units and personnel designated to deploy in support of combat operations.
• United States Army. (2008). 2008 Army posture statement. Washington DC: Department
of Defense.
- Describes the Army Warrior Tasks to include qualify with assigned weapon,
call for fire, and evaluate a casualty. (Appendix E)
- Describes the Army Battle Drills to include react to ambush, react to chemical
attack, and evaluate injured personnel from a vehicle. (Appendix E)
- Discusses the relevance of these tasks and drills in the development of an
effective fighting Soldier

Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 128

Appendix I: Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Immediate Evaluation Survey
Q1 The course materials were well organized, and the content was relevant.
o Strongly Disagree (1)
o Disagree (2)
o Neutral (3)
o Agree (4)
o Strongly Agree (5)

Q2 I understand the procedures required to complete tasks associated with my MOS job skills.
o Strongly Disagree (1)
o Disagree (2)
o Neutral (3)
o Agree (4)
o Strongly Agree (5)

Q3 I understand the concepts of the Warrior Tasks and Battle Drills.
o Strongly Disagree (1)
o Disagree (2)
o Neutral (3)
o Agree (4)
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 129

o Strongly Agree (5)

Q4 The knowledge checks helped reinforce the material learned during the instruction.
o Strongly Disagree (1)
o Disagree (2)
o Neutral (3)
o Agree (4)
o Strongly Agree (5)

Q5 The hands-on training was effective in reinforcing the knowledge taught in the classroom.
o Strongly Disagree (1)
o Disagree (2)
o Neutral (3)
o Agree (4)
o Strongly Agree (5)

Q6 The training was interesting and informative
o Strongly Disagree (1)
o Disagree (2)
o Neutral (3)
o Agree (4)
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 130

o Strongly Agree (5)

Q7 The content and instruction were easy to follow
o Strongly Disagree (1)
o Disagree (2)
o Neutral (3)
o Agree (4)
o Strongly Agree (5)

Q8 I am confident in my ability to perform my MOS specific job requirements while deployed.
o Strongly Disagree (1)
o Disagree (2)
o Neutral (3)
o Agree (4)
o Strongly Agree (5)

Q9 I am confident in my ability to execute the Warrior Tasks and Battle Drills while deployed.
o Strongly Disagree (1)
o Disagree (2)
o Neutral (3)
o Agree (4)
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 131

o Strongly Agree (5)
Figure 10. Immediate Evaluation Instrument Results (SURVEY)

Delayed Evaluation Survey
Q1 The instructor was well informed and prepared to provide expertise on the subject matter.
o Strongly Disagree (1)
o Disagree (2)
o Neutral (3)
o Agree (4)
o Strongly Agree (5)

Q2 The classroom instruction was sufficiently supported by the practical application exercises.
o Strongly Disagree (1)
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 132

o Disagree (2)
o Neutral (3)
o Agree (4)
o Strongly Agree (5)

Q3 The Graphic Training Aids and references were current and informative.
o Strongly Disagree (1)
o Disagree (2)
o Neutral (3)
o Agree (4)
o Strongly Agree (5)

Q4 The mentorship/coaching provided during the on-the-job training was a valuable resource.
o Strongly Disagree (1)
o Disagree (2)
o Neutral (3)
o Agree (4)
o Strongly Agree (5)

Q5 The rewards program was an incentive for me to demonstrate my proficiency.
o Strongly Disagree (1)
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 133

o Disagree (2)
o Neutral (3)
o Agree (4)
o Strongly Agree (5)

Q6 The instructors/mentors/coaches seemed to care about the material they were teaching.
o Strongly Disagree (1)
o Disagree (2)
o Neutral (3)
o Agree (4)
o Strongly Agree (5)

Q7 I am confident in my ability to execute the mission in combat operations.
o Strongly Disagree (1)
o Disagree (2)
o Neutral (3)
o Agree (4)
o Strongly Agree (5)

Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 134

Q8 I am confident in my ability to perform my MOS specific job requirements while deployed.
o Strongly Disagree (1)
o Disagree (2)
o Neutral (3)
o Agree (4)
o Strongly Agree (5)

Q9 The information provided in this course was applicable to my job in a deployed environment.
o Strongly Disagree (1)
o Disagree (2)
o Neutral (3)
o Agree (4)
o Strongly Agree (5)

Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 135

Figure 11. Delayed Evaluation Instrument Results (SURVEY)

Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 136

Appendix J: Warrior Tasks and Battle Drills
• A Warrior Task is an individual Soldier skill. These skills are deemed critical to Soldier
survival. Examples include weapons training, tactical communications, urban operations,
and first aid.
• Battle Drills are group skills designed to teach a unit to react and survive in common
combat situations. Examples include react to ambush, react to chemical attack, and
evacuate injured personnel from a vehicle.
The following is a list of the current Warrior Tasks and Battle Drills:
• Shoot
1. Qualify with assigned weapon
2. Correct malfunctions with assigned weapon
3. Engage targets with M-240B machine gun
4. Engage targets with M-249 machine gun
5. Engage targets with M-2 .50-caliber machine gun
6. Engage targets with MK-19 machine gun
7. Correct malfunctions with M-2
8. Correct malfunctions with M-240B
9. Correct malfunctions with M-249
10. Correct malfunctions with MK-19
11. Engage targets with weapon using night-vision sight AN/PVS-4
12. Engage targets with weapon using night-vision sight AN/PAS-13
13. Engage targets with weapon using night-vision sight AN/TVS-5
14. Engage targets using aiming light AN/PEQ-2A
15. Engage targets using aiming light AN/PAQ-4
16. Employ mines (manned) and hand grenades

Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 137

• Communicate
17. Perform voice communications: situation report/spot report
18. Perform voice communications: call for fire
19. Perform voice communications: medevac
20. Use visual-signaling techniques
• Joint urban operations
21. Perform movements techniques during an urban operation
22. Engage targets during an urban operation
23. Enter a building during an urban operation
• Move
24. Determine location on ground (terrain association, map and Global Positioning System)
25. Navigate from one point to another (dismounted)
26. Move over, through or around obstacles (except minefields)
27. Prepare a vehicle in a convoy
• Fight
28. Move under direct fire
29. React to indirect fire (dismounted and mounted)
30. React to direct fire (dismounted and mounted)
31. React to unexploded ordnance hazard
32. React to man-to-man contact (combatives)
33. React to chemical or biological attack/hazard
34. Decontaminate yourself and individual equipment using chemical decontaminating kits
35. Maintain equipment
36. Evaluate a casualty
37. Perform first aid for open wound (abdominal, chest and head)
38. Perform first aid for bleeding of extremity
39. Select temporary fighting position

Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 138

• Battle drills
1. React to contact: visual, improvised explosive device, direct fire (includes rocket-
propelled grenade)
2. React to ambush (blocked)
3. React to ambush (unblocked)
4. React to indirect fire
5. React to chemical attack
6. Break contact
7. Dismount a vehicle
8. Evacuate injured personnel from vehicle
9. Secure at a halt

Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 139

Appendix K: Proposed Home Station Training Timeline
DAY 1: MOS-SPECIFIC JOB SKILL TRAINING
Refresher Training conducted by Instructors
and Subject Matter Experts
0700-0800 – Classroom Instruction
0800-0830 – Break
0830-1000 – Hands-on Instruction/Practical
Application exercises
Update on current job-related procedures
reinforced with presentation of job aids and
work-review checklists

1030-1130
Instructor led hands-on training

On-the-job MOS skills training supervised by
Subject Matter Experts

1300-1700
DAY 2: WARRIOR TASKS AND BATTLE DRILLS TRAINING
Refresher Training on Warrior Tasks and Battle
Drills conducted by Instructors

Safety Brief for practical application training
0700-0900 – Classroom Instruction
0900-1100 – Professional Military Instruction
(Supervised Tasks and Drills
Walk-through training)
1100-1130 – Safety brief for afternoon
training events

Instructor led hands-on training

Practical application training

On-the-job skills training
1300-1600 – Warrior Tasks and Battle Skills
Proficiency Training

Hands-on (all personnel)
Practical application (combat support
personnel) *
On-the job (combat arms personnel) **
*Combat support personnel will be required to display proficiency in the Warrior Tasks and Battle drills
through the practical application training using the CRAWL (Walk-through the procedures and concepts),
WALK (Rehearsal of skills sequentially without pause several times), and RUN (Real-time and full speed
execution of the drills from start to finish of each drill).

** Combat personnel will display proficiency through on-the job training. The justification for this method
is derived from the understanding that combat arms personnel have received significantly more training in
the Warrior Tasks and Battle Drills as a requirement for the curriculum associated with their MOS-specific
requirements. An example to illustrate this is that the 11B (Infantry) MOS requires the mastery of
individual maneuver and weapons proficiency as the cornerstone of the certification to possess the MOS.

Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 140

Appendix L: Military Acronyms
AAR After Action Review
AIT Advanced Individual Training
ALC Advanced Leadership Couse
ARFORGEN Army Forces Generation cycle
ARNG Army National Guard
BOLC(A) Basic Officer Leadership Course
CALL Center for Army Lessons Learned
CCC Captains Career Course
CCDR Combatant Commander
CENTCOM US Central Command
CGSC Command and General Staff College
DoD Department of Defense
DoD IG Department of Defense Inspector General
GCC Geographic Combatant Command
IET Initial Entry Training
ILE Intermediate Level Education
MOS Military Occupational Specialty
NGB National Guard Bureau
OBC Officer Basic Course
OC/T Observer Controller/Trainer
PME Professional Military Education
SLC Senior Leaders Course
SMA Sergeants Major Academy
SMC Sergeants Major Course
SSC Senior Service College
UCP Unified Command Plan

Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 141

Appendix M: Military Definitions
After Action Review - a structured review or de-brief (debriefing) process for analyzing what
happened, why it happened, and how it can be done better by the participants and those
responsible for the project or event.
Advanced Individual Training – training that Soldiers attend upon completion of Initial Entry
Training (IET) designed to teach the skills necessary to perform their job in the Army. At one of
many diverse AIT schools, Soldiers receive hands-on training and field instruction to make them
an expert in that specific career field.
Advanced Leadership Course - course that focuses on leadership and technical skills required
to prepare Soldiers selected for promotion to staff sergeant to effectively lead squad/platoon size
units. The ALC consists of a both a 90-day highly facilitated web-based common core program
and a branch-specific resident phase designed for the Soldiers military occupation specialty.
Army Forces Generation Cycle - the Army Force Generation (ARFORGEN) process is the
Army's method for effectively and efficiently generating trained and ready forces for combatant
commanders on a sustainable, rotational basis. As such, it synchronizes the Army's primary Title
systems: manning, equipping, training, resourcing, sustaining, and modernizing - used to
generate forces.
Army National Guard – a militia force and a federal military reserve force of the United States.
They are simultaneously part of two different organizations, the Army National Guard of the
several states, territories and the District of Columbia (also referred to as the Militia of the
United States), and the Army National Guard of the United States. The Army National Guard is
divided into subordinate units stationed in each of the 50 states, three territories, and the District
of Columbia, and operates under their respective governors.
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 142

Basic Officer Leadership Course - a three phase training program designed to provide initial
military training for junior commissioned and warrant officers in both active and reserve
components. BOLC I, II, and III create officers who are grounded in the core leader
competencies (leading, developing, and achieving) and are capable of serving the modular force
in full spectrum operations. They are designed to be attended sequentially.
Center for Army Lessons Learned - the Army's daily focal point for adaptive learning based
on lessons and best practices from the total force and provides timely and relevant knowledge to
the warfighter and our unified action partners utilizing integrated systems and interactive
technology in order to simplify winning in a complex world. The Center for Army Lessons
Learned drives Army change as it leads the Army Lessons Learned Program and identifies,
collects, analyzes, disseminates, and archives lessons and best practices while maintaining global
situational awareness in order to share knowledge and facilitate the Army's and unified action
partners' adaptation to win wars.
Captains Career Course – course intended for captains with at least 3 years in service, and
provides them with the tactical, technical, and leader knowledge and skills needed to lead
company-size units and serve on battalion and brigade staffs. The course emphasizes the
development of leader competencies while integrating recent operational experiences of the
students with quality institutional training.
Combatant Commander – commander that has responsibility for one of the 9 combatant
commands assigned through the Unified Command Plan (UCP).
Command and General Staff College - a Joint, interagency, intergovernmental and
multinational College, accredited by the Joint Chiefs of Staff to provide Joint Professional
Military Education, and by the Higher Learning Commission to grant a Master of Military Art
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 143

and Science degree to qualified graduates in three of CGSC’s fourteen academic programs. The
Command and General Staff College is a subordinate organization of Army University.
Department of Defense - an executive branch department of the federal government of the
United States charged with coordinating and supervising all agencies and functions of the
government concerned directly with national security and the United States Armed Forces.
Department of Defense Inspector General - an independent, objective agency that provides
oversight related to the programs and operations of the United States Department of Defense.
The office's mission is to promote integrity, accountability, and improvement of Department of
Defense personnel, programs and operations to support the Department's mission and serve the
public interest.
Geographic Combatant Command – areas of operations divided up into six geographic
regions: Central Command (CENTCOM), Northern Command (NORTHCOM), Southern
Command (SOUTHCOM), European Command (EUCOM), Pacific Command (PACOM), and
Africa Command (AFRICOM). See also Combatant Command.
Initial Entry Training/Basic Combat Training - a training course that transforms civilians into
Soldiers. Over the course of ten weeks, recruits will learn basic tactical and survival skills along
with how to shoot, rappel, and march. They will also learn the basics of Army life and military
customs, including the Seven Core Army Values.
Intermediate Level Education - a course designed to prepare senior captains and majors for
leadership positions in Army, joint, multinational and interagency organizations executing full
spectrum operations.
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 144

Previously known as CGSC, ILE consists of a common core curriculum that includes Joint PME
1 requirements and the required Branch and/or Functional Area specialized education or
qualification course.
Military Occupational Specialty - Enlisted soldiers are categorized by their assigned job
called a Military Occupational Specialty or MOS are labeled with a short alphanumerical code
called a military occupational core specialty code (MOSC), which consists of a two-digit number
appended by a Latin letter.
National Guard Bureau - the federal instrument responsible for the administration of the
United States National Guard established by the United States Congress as a joint bureau of the
Department of the Army and the Department of the Air Force.
Officer Basic Course/Basic Officer Leadership Course B - course designed to develop new
combat-effective officers and train them to perform their wartime duties as commissioned
officers. It is during this phase that they learn the specifics of the systems and equipment they
will use in their duty unit.
Professional Military Education - refers to the professional training, development, and
schooling of military personnel. It encompasses many schools, universities, and training
programs designed to foster leadership in military service members.
Senior Leaders Course - a branch–specific course that provides an opportunity for
Soldiers selected for promotion to sergeant first class to acquire the leader, technical, and tactical
skills, knowledge, and experience needed to lead platoon/company size units.
Sergeants Major Academy - established on 1 July 1972 at Fort Bliss, Texas, and began
instruction in January 1973. Its curriculum is designed to broaden the student's current
knowledge base. This approach differs from the Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) related
Running head: PRE-DEPLOYMENT TRAINING 145

training at the basic and advanced levels of the Noncommissioned Officer Education System.
The prime educational technique employed throughout the course is the small group
participatory learning process.
Sergeants Major Course – course that educates senior enlisted leaders from the Army, sister
services, and allied militaries to be agile and adaptive senior noncommissioned officers through
the study of leadership, the conduct of Unified Land Operations, and the application of Joint,
Interagency, and Multi-National organizations in an era of persistent conflict.
Senior Service College/Army War College - a U.S. Army educational institution in Carlisle,
Pennsylvania, that provides graduate-level instruction to senior military officers and civilians to
prepare them for senior leadership assignments and responsibilities.
Unified Command Plan - establishes the missions, command responsibilities, and geographic
areas of responsibility of the unified combatant commands. As of September 2011, there are nine
unified combatant commands as specified in Title 10 and the latest annual UCP.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract An evaluation study of the effectiveness of pre-deployment training for Army National Guard Soldiers that are designated to deploy in support of combat Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. This study evaluated the effectiveness of pre-deployment training based on the following research questions: (1) To what extent is the Department of Defense meeting its organizational goal of training and certifying 100% of National Guard deployable Soldiers that can safely and effectively execute their mission during combat deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan and return home from deployment

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The board fundraising challenge after nonprofit mergers: an evaluation study

PDF

Relationship between employee disengagement and employee performance among facilities employees in higher education: an evaluation study

PDF

Preventing excessive force incidents by improving police training: an evaluation study of a use-of-force training program

PDF

Graduation rates in college of students with disabilities: an innovation study

PDF

The role of professional development and certification in technology worker turnover: An evaluation study

PDF

Customer satisfaction with information technology service quality in higher education: an evaluation study

PDF

Preparing university faculty for distance education: an evaluation study

PDF

Effective practices for managing staff performance in higher education: an exploratory study

PDF

Understanding the varied effects of leadership on employee retention in high stress work environments

PDF

International school director tenure: an evaluation study

PDF

An evaluative study of accountability and transparency in local government: an executive dissertation

PDF

Anti-bias training in community colleges: an exploratory study

PDF

Mandatory reporting of sexual violence by faculty and staff at Hometown University: an evaluation study

PDF

A customer relationship management approach to improving certificate completion

PDF

Toward effective succession planning in higher education: a field study

PDF

Retention rates and burnout among medical assistants: an evaluation study

PDF

Incentivizing for-profit investment in the non-profit initiatives of the Community Cooperative: an evaluation study

PDF

Increasing organizational capacity at a small college to deploy revenue diversification strategies: an evaluation study

PDF

Civic learning program policy compliance by a state department of higher education: an evaluation study

PDF

Learners’ perceptions of the microlearning format for the delivery of technical training: an evaluation study

Asset Metadata

Creator Jackson, Vincent Lee, III (author)

Core Title Pre-deployment training effectiveness for Army National Guard units mobilized to deploy in support of combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan: an evaluation study

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 10/17/2018

Defense Date 09/07/2018

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Afghanistan,Army,Army National Guard,combat operations,Department of Defense,deploy,deployment,Iraq,OAI-PMH Harvest,pre-deployment,Soldiers,training effectiveness

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Seli, Helena (committee chair), Bewley, William (committee member), Ferrario, Kimberly (committee member)

Creator Email armyofficr02@gmail.com,vljackso@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-80410

Unique identifier UC11671548

Identifier etd-JacksonVin-6857.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-80410 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-JacksonVin-6857.pdf

Dmrecord 80410

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Jackson, Vincent Lee, III

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA