July 17

What the Army Taught Me About Teaching

Thirteen years ago I began graduate school, and 24 years ago I was commissioned a second lieutenant in the U.S. Army. Of the two institutions — graduate school and the Army — perhaps surprisingly, my military experience has been most important in shaping my practices in the classroom. That may be because I teach survey courses at a community college rather than upper-level classes to interested majors at a research university. But, it is also because the military has honed the delivery of training over many decades, and, as I’ve discovered, military training methodology can work well outside of a military environment.

Looking for a job?

See all 193 new postings

Browse all job listings:

Faculty: 2,602
Administrative: 2,156
Executive: 157
FEATURED EMPLOYERS

Every year, the Army recruits, at great expense, tens of thousands of young men and women. Given the costs of recruitment (and the dearth of eligible recruits), the Army cannot afford to lose many of these new soldiers. Army training is designed to take recruits who may know nothing about military life, discipline, or maneuvers, and mold them into warriors. Likewise, my task is to mold nascent scholars out of the under-performing, ill-prepared students who frequently show up in my community college classroom. I’ve found three Army practices most useful: making expectations explicit, the “crawl-walk-run” methodology, and formal evaluation of training.

Too often, we as instructors fail to adequately communicate our expectations to our students. Yes, we want a five-page analytic essay, but what does that look like? What are the components of a successful paper? And how do those components fit together? What sort of material should students use as sources? And how will students be assessed on this assignment? The army uses two tools to help its soldiers understand what’s expected of them in a specific task. First, an Army trainer shows soldiers what success looks like by performing the task correctly in front of soldiers so that soldiers “see” success. In my classroom, students see — when the assignment is given — what success looks like. In the case of a formal essay assignment, I hand out a similar assignment which has received an A and we, as a class, discuss what makes this worthy of an A. At this point, I also hand students a rubric that delineates exactly how I will grade the assignment.

After doing this, I deploy the Army’s second tool for communicating expectations — a checklist to make sure that the task or assignment is completed properly. This list tells students exactly what they need to do to insure their work meets the specifications of the assignment. Giving out a checklist may seem like it inhibits students’ creativity, and I would agree in part with this criticism. But my students are more likely to leave key components of a task out than they are to be extraordinarily creative — and for me, making sure students have a “cheat sheet” that spells out how to meet the standard is a fair trade-off. My students need to build their self-confidence, and this checklist gives them that needed boost, visibly letting them know they are meeting the requirements of the class.

“Crawl, walk, run” is both a philosophical and practical approach to assignments that works as well in my college classroom as it did for small-unit and individual training in the Army. In terms of Army training, doing a task at “crawl” speed means moving slowly and methodically through all steps, perhaps using a sand table to show individual or small unit movement through a field problem. In the classroom, it may mean taking a class through the steps of a research assignment — going to the library, using the search tools, writing a thesis statement, assessing primary sources, evaluating the utility of secondary sources, and preparing footnotes and a bibliography.

Once students understand the individual steps, then they are ready for the “walk” phase. In Army terms, the walk iteration means that soldiers perform the task on their own, at a slow speed, with careful evaluation by leaders. In my classroom, the walk phase usually means that students, working in groups, do several of the component tasks — select or analyze sources, write a thesis statement, or outline an argument, for instance — and then present their work to me and the rest of the class. This practice enables students to learn from each other’s work while allowing me to critique each group’s efforts in detail, so students also get the benefit of extensive feedback from me.

Now students are ready for the “run” — performing the assignment to standard on their own. “Crawl, walk, run” methodology allows under-prepared students the chance to build necessary skills incrementally, and it allows students who are already proficient to focus on individual steps that they may not have learned as well. Programmed correctly within the context of the course, such a methodology can also enhance a student’s understanding of course content — the crawl and walk phases can be used in earlier sections of the course so that students are working with different material each time while still honing academic skills.

Finally, the Army stresses constant evaluation of training effectiveness. Likewise in my college classroom, I constantly evaluate my own performance as well as that of my students. I evaluate myself in several ways — evaluating questions I get from students to see what was unclear, actively soliciting feedback from students about what was effective and what could be restructured for clarity or efficiency, and asking trusted colleagues to critique both assignments and my classroom delivery. The Army taught me to have a thick skin, and I appreciate receiving constructive criticism from students and peers. That criticism helps shape my approach to assignments in future semesters.

None of these techniques were either implicitly or explicitly taught to me in graduate school. As a teaching assistant, I watched instructors craft the delivery of their course content, but think very little about how individual assignments fit into the broad goals of their courses. Lectures, textbooks, exams and papers were all components of the course, but how they meshed together was often not clear — to me or to the students. This methodology may not make sense at colleges with exceptionally well prepared undergraduates. But at community colleges like mine, institutions that reach many students who either didn’t have great high school preparation or for whom it was a long time ago, the training methodology I learned in the Army can be invaluable. My first department chair at Suffolk Community College used to tell me and my colleagues that our real focus should be on the middle third of the class. These Army practices help me do just that by showing capable but under-prepared students methods of achieving success using methodical guidelines. And what they learn in my class about studying and preparing assignments they can use in future classes.

Martha Kinney is an assistant professor of history at Suffolk County Community College and a lieutenant colonel in the Army Reserves. For more information about the Army’s approach to training, a guide may be found here.

Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.

Comments

Teaching ill prepared students

I agree with your method completely and applaud your effort. What we are seeing however are many students just like you describe. The only thing that I would add is that we both care.

Keep up the good work

Jeff Tymony, Community College instructor

Jeff Tymony, at 8:10 am EDT on July 17, 2008

Very helpful article. I suspect there is much that academia could learn from the military about teaching, regardless of whether the academic-based teacher agrees with the goals of the military teaching effort.

Steve, at 8:10 am EDT on July 17, 2008

What the data says

Excellent, excellent commentary.

Unfortunate reality: only 56.4% of starting freshmen in four-year colleges will graduate within six years, with as many as 20% taking leave in the first year. Result: large debts —

http://insidehighered.com/views/2008/07/14/carey

To change those figures — you’d have to find an organizational culture that cared about graduation as an outcome.

L.L., at 9:05 am EDT on July 17, 2008

Military Instruction

Absolutely! I became an academic after a long stint as an instructor at the military intelligence school and I can tell you the military does a far better job of educating and training ill prepared students. I am the instructor I am today because of my Army training and experience. And only those with no military experience THINK they know what it is like. LTC, a big HUA from Arizona!

Jim Patterson, Professor at Paradise Valley Community College, at 9:10 am EDT on July 17, 2008

Army Training = Assessment Cycle

This article was timely as I am preparing for a faculty presentation on using assessment results to improve learning and plan to show the participants this article. I believe Martha, in her description of the Army training procedures, aptly conveys what the assessment process is all about ("communicate expectations” = student learning outcomes; “checklist” = rubrics; “constant evaluation” = formative and summative assessments). Assessment is a valuable tool to improve learning and sadly, as Martha points out, these techniques are usually not taught in graduate school. Many college instructors can benefit from the sage advice found in this article (regardless of the backgrounds of their students) and kudos to you Martha for transferring your Army knowledge to the classroom. Your students are certainly the beneficiaries of your military experience.

Janine Vienna, Director of Assessment at Wor-Wic Community College, at 9:25 am EDT on July 17, 2008

All the strategies are practical in the college classroom. I particularly like the crawl, walk, and run approach, which really helps the learner confused with the instructor’s expectations.

Han Liu, at 9:29 am EDT on July 17, 2008

Great approach to teaching

The steps as delineated are tried and true.

The difference may be in the motivation of students, which is harder to address.

Soldiers know that it will be their life and that of their comrades on the line if they do not learn their subject cold.

Having a few rounds fired off over your head tends to get your attention, but we could not do that with our students...

Naval, at 9:50 am EDT on July 17, 2008

Thanks!

Thank you! This is very useful. I’m fairly new to teaching underprepared students and have been struggling with finding the right methods and approach to use. This will help guide my teaching in the upcoming year.

Kathy, Assistant Professor of Psychology at Georgia Gwinnett College, at 10:30 am EDT on July 17, 2008

This article would make a great book.

Servius, at 11:05 am EDT on July 17, 2008

Where’s the time?

When I’ve had the time to develop my own courses, I used techniques such as these with great success. These aren’t useful just for ill-prepared students, but for students at all levels. In laboratory training, even at the graduate level, these techniques are especially vital, both for everyone’s safety as well as accuracy of the results. Yet, at the two community colleges I’ve taught at, the syllabi for laboratory classes were set far in advance and allowed no time for such training. At the university where I currently teach, I’ve been told repeatedly that these things were covered in the students high schools (and therefore I should not spend classroom time with such “hand-holding"). Yet a large proportion of the students are international or other “non traditional” students and seem to benefit from the added guidance.

How do you find the time to implement these methods in your courses? And what does your administration say about this use of classroom time?

Heidi A., at 1:20 pm EDT on July 17, 2008

A Response to Heidi

Heidi,

These are great questions. I suspect in the case of your community colleges which have tight syllabi there would be time management issues and an assumption that the instructor will cover a certain amount of content over the course of the semester. In a history class, instructors are generally allowed more latitude about what we cover and the ways in which we cover the material. So, I’m able to work on some skill development, but as I do so, I’m generally also addressing some content issues as well—as I mentioned when I discussed the crawl, walk, and run methodology.

In the case of the university at which you teach now, it seems like maybe the administration is not being realistic given the types of students you’re seeing in your classes.

If you find yourself pressed for time, course management systems can be a means of discussing skill development and your expectations for specific assignments. I usually put up high-scoring assignments (with the student’s permission, of course, and always without attribution), so that students can see again what success looks like. In this case, technology can definitely be your friend. Rubrics can be posted online and you can open discussion boards to give more explicit guidance. We have also, at Suffolk, have hosted History Skills Workshops where we cover some topics outside the classroom.

I suspect also that these techniques might need to be tweaked to work well across different disciplines—since I’ve never taught a laboratory science, it’s hard for me to envision how I’d shape the methodology in such an arena given the pace of such a course and the specific content being covered.

Thanks for your comments, and best of luck!

Martha Kinney, Assistant Professor of History at Ssuffolk County Community College, at 2:40 pm EDT on July 17, 2008

Part of the problem also rests with who we hire to be instructors at a university. My daughter plans to teach in the public school system. To do that she has to attend college for four to five years and then be certified. To teach at the university level one needs no formal training, no certification...a Master’s or PhD will do the trick. Just because one has a Master’s or PhD does not mean they know how to teach or can teach. I am currently trying to get my college to include some kind of a teaching requirement for those students seeking a Master’s or PhD.

Richard Baker, Associate Professor, at 2:40 pm EDT on July 17, 2008

one caveat...

You know, I always suspected my classroom approach to teaching writing was military-aligned, and you just proved it!

So, now, a problem I had ...which ironically made me flee academia...

I managed to encounter a group that was, for the most part, resistant to these techniques.

For “explicit expectations,” I lacked an exemplary assignment to show my students [it was only my 2nd time teaching the course], nor did I supply a checklist. But I did supply a step-by-step explanation of the expectations, and I did discuss everything with the students in class...several times. I believe I also put a checklist of sorts on the chalkboard [which meant the students had the opportunity to create their own]. Sadly, many students failed to hit key components necessary for grading. I am actually opposed to handing students my rubric beforehand [because then it allows me little fudging room when they mess up], but I was shocked that they neglected some of the lessons done just prior to the assignment that were necessary for a good grade.

With regard to the “crawl-walk-run” approach, I found it worked well for most, but *many* students whined about being “bored” at the crawl stage and told me I “expect too much” at the run stage. In fact, many refused to “run” at all, which in my course amounted to them refusing to do the capstone assignment designed to allow them to demonstrate mastery of all the lessons taught during the semester [basically, quite a few didn’t do the research paper for the end of the semester].

For the “formal evaluation of training” part, I incorporated almost-weekly in-class writing assignments designed to allow the students to demonstrate mastery of the “crawl” lessons taught that week. It was a LOT of grading for me, and the students often expressed dismay at their performance because they wanted them to be real assessments. Many students didn’t take the little assignments seriously, and some took them too seriously.

I want to express that I do believe in the pedagogical value of this approach, but also want to stress that I encountered some pitfalls because of them. They are not a universal panacea; students will *always* find a way to outmaneuver us.

Here are some of my recommendations:

Expectations for “crawl” assignments would benefit from a true checklist. Try to make it as simplistic as possible, especially if you’re using an in-class assignment structure.

For the “crawl” work and assessment, use little assignments but with simpler grading. In my 1st class, I used the check/plus/minus system [with tons of feedback]; after their criticism of that, I switched to numerical values as part of the final grade, which was a disaster and proved to de-motivate them. My advice: Use the check/plus/minus system with feedback and resist their attempts to goad you into giving a “real” grade for crawl work.

For expectations for “walk” and “run” assignments, make them read your instructions and make their own checklist. Have them hand it in, look them over, and make a master one for the following class. If the class seems particularly hampered, supply it for them; if not, then provide it in oral form and make them recreate it themselves. It’ll be tedious but then they can’t blame you because they ignored the instructions.

For “walk” assignments, use typical grading standards you always use [letter grades and/or percentages]. Depending on the class’s capabilities, either make a capstone “run” assignments due at the end of the semester, or leave it for more advanced coursework. This will depend on the specific class, student body, and institution.

Hope this helps someone and adds something to Kinney’s excellent article.

anon, at 5:20 pm EDT on July 17, 2008

The Army as Teacher Ed

Though now ancient, my experience confirms the thrust of the article. From 1957 to 1958 I taught at the Army Guided Missile School at Fort Bliss, Texas—-but not until I took courses in how to teach. Imagine my surprise when I began law school teaching in 1964. Not only are law teachers not required to know anything about teaching, none of the older teachers I talked to had ever heard of a lesson plan.The one nugget of knowledge that I retained from Fort Bliss that has served me well over the years: “If the student does not learn, this is because the teacher did not teach.” I found this a useful antidote to a tendency to blame the failure to learn on students lack of intelligence or effort. Of course, sometimes students deserve a share of the blame but it was rare that reflection did not disclose a better way to present the material.

Kenneth Graham, Professor Emeritus at UCLA Law School, at 5:25 pm EDT on July 17, 2008

Response to Richard Baker:

While, indeed, many grad students and new PhD holders enter the college classroom with no teaching experience or training, one should also remember that, in the past, it was expected that newly entered undergrads were already expected to know how to learn on their own... Ponder that for a moment!

On the flip side, many K-12 teachers are trained in education, but often have little more training than that equivalent to an undergraduate minor in their area of teaching specialization when they enter the K-12 classroom. Ponder that for a moment too!

In the end, it really comes down to the teacher in question: Has he or she prepared himself or herself for the job taken? Much of higher education is supposed to take place outside of the classroom, so many new K-12 teachers have read widely in their specialties to prepare themselves for their jobs. Likewise, many instructors of undergrads have read widely on pedagogical techniques to use to teach their students.

Sometimes an incompetent teacher is just not taking the job seriously...or hasn’t the time and experience to be comparable to a seasoned professional. Likewise, sometimes the fault for a poor outcome lies with the student...

TM, at 5:25 pm EDT on July 17, 2008

RE: Mr. Baker’s Comments

Mr. Baker is correct that the secret is to screen instructor applicants well. There is a famous saying that “We tend to teach the way we were taught.” One of my interview comments to prospective applicants is to forget the method of lecturing from a podium. The majority of students have grown up in an electronic age and need visual and hands on stimulation such as computer research tasks. Also, all of my classes require team assignments for a final project. Students learn to play well with others. One thing I believe Mr. Baker assumed is that a student who becomes a certified teacher is better than someone who has not been thru the certification process. My experience is that this is not true. My most successful screening criteria is that the instructor has been or is a practitioner in the field and they only teach in their are of experience.

T. Powell, Director of Justice Studies & Faculty, at 5:50 pm EDT on July 17, 2008

Remarks on target

I thoroughly enjoyed this treatise. I would also suspect that the maturity and experience that LtCol Kinney brings to her endeavor also make the learning experience more enticing to the students.

Thank you LtCol, for your service to our country and for the great service you are providing to your students!

Randy Plunkett, adjunct, at 11:15 pm EDT on July 17, 2008

Re: Mr. Baker

Mr. Baker’s says, “Just because one has a Master’s or PhD does not mean they know how to teach or can teach.” To this I must add that just because one has a teaching certificate means the same. In fact, if the area is mathematics, one can assume that the MathEd major has taken far less math in college to prepare them for answering any hard questions than a ProfMath major has taken. They almost always are able to opt out of the second course in any of the sequences of abstract algebra, advanced calculus (analysis), and linear algebra, and also do not take as many stand-alone math, physics, or engineering courses as an undergraduate. This lack of preparation then is amplified when lacking sufficient prerequisites for many graduate level math courses which often reveal the answers to questions like “When will I ever use this?” But nevermind —- at least the MathEd major has studied some “important” subjects such as lesson plan management and psychology of instruction.Please don’t make the university a second part for high school by making prospective teachers there jump through that hoop, instead of learning their subject well. Instead, hire teachers by having them teach for you.

DFS, at 9:15 am EDT on July 18, 2008

Via Media

This is a great article, in part because it demonstrates what it advocates: clear instruction. Thank you, Prof./Lieut. Kinney!

In regards to the debate about teacher certification, allow me to propose the middle way. Before going to grad school, I was a certified public school teacher. But my degree was in French — not in education or foreign language education. I was fortunate enough to attend a college that offered condensed teacher certification courses for secondary ed. I still had to have about 18 hours of education courses, 2 psychology courses, and a semester of student teaching, but I was able to get a liberal arts education and pursue a PhD in my content area.

I am appalled by education programs that so overload students with education coursework, that they have a mediocre knowledge of their content area (in the case of secondary education) and/or wind up lacking in cultural literacy. (For example, in my ethnically diverse state, education majors generally are not alloted the time to take more than one class each in foreign languages, the arts, and world cultures.) Equally appalling is the idea that one can launch a career in higher education with little or no training in pedagogy or androgogy.

If the ideal is the teacher-scholar, a paucity of knowledge in subject matter, teaching methods, or general knowledge is to be avoided, but this requires making room and creating time for additional coursework. Neither education majors nor grad students currently have that time. For this reason, I suggest that (a) colleges encourage minors in education that could lead to secondary certification without the necessity of an education major, (b) PhD departments encourage would-be applicants to take four or five education courses or do their masters in education, and © graduate schools at research universities institute student teaching or teaching internships in nearby 2- and 4-year colleges. In short, we should be rewarding future teachers who take the time to hone both their expertise and their craft.

Dr. K, at 12:00 pm EDT on July 18, 2008

Military and Academic Teaching are different animals

1. Military instructors have motivational tools call punishment that force students to pay attention (Academics can’t punish students). Success or failure in these courses can have some serious consequences. Plus much of it is go or no-go, not graded like college. It is harder to motivate college students who have free choice and the reward is less tangible and more distant (a successful career). 2. The military does not teach complex concepts. They often teach tasks to the lowest common denominator, thus high-speed students get bored fast but have no choice but to play along. Most of the military courses I took were only mildly challenging, especially the enlisted courses where things were often spoon feed to you. But my officer courses were not much better. The military can’t afford to let people think too much on their own so what they are taught is highly structured. Academics have to teach students to think in unstructured ways and to create new ideas, which sometimes means challenging authority. That is much harder than toeing the company line. The lack of intellectual challenges is my biggest complaint about military education. Everyone has to succeed in the military thus the courses are often made easy. 3. There are bad instructors in the military too, those who just teach straight out of the instruction manual and take no creativity to their approach. They rarely challenge conventional wisdom and often are teaching about ten years behind what they should be teaching. My military intelligence course was still focused on Russian military structure rather than counterinsurgency warfare and the current fights in Iraq and Afghanistan. 4. Plus the military often fails to teach everything you need to know, but once you are out of the course you are on your own. There are mounds of regulations, manuals, rule books, and hidden standards that they fail to make clear. Often new tasks come with the assumption you already know how to do it even though no formal training has ever been provided. A perfect example is security clearances. At my military intelligence course, my number one task was never even mentioned. 5. Military instructors teach to the task and standards but they do not often teach life long learning skills for those who will continue on their own. Of course for much of what they teach, they don’t have to. Hands on experience for many military tasks is still the best teacher. In Academics we need to teach these students to think on their own so that they can contribute new ideas. Plus research is rarely a component of military education until you reach a high level. I personnaly thing the military has a lot to learn from Academia.

The bottom line is what makes a good teacher is the same as what makes a good students...motivation, desire, and a good work ethic. Good teachers will fail with bad students, just as good students will fail with bad teachers.

This article is a good concept but I feel has limited application without more substantial research behind it.

Christy, officer and academic, at 12:00 pm EDT on July 18, 2008

I am a former Infantry enlisted, and later, officer. I remember long, oftentimes boring, lectures, but I do remember them many years later. So, I tend to think the methods used are sound. However, the best soldiers and officers were kept within the combat unit, not assigned to instruct. I remember one exception — one of my leadership sequences was instructed by an active-duty Medal of Honor winner. This hero opted to lead the way, perhaps realizing that impressionable, green officers needed in-your-face examples instructing.

Anyhow, good article.

John, COL, at 1:10 pm EDT on July 18, 2008

Learning from the Professionals

I concur with the author’s position. The US Army has mastered the art and science of teaching individuals. The mentioned process is used from the lowest organization the Department of the Army level. The performance of US Army personnel in Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrate its utility and effectiveness. Academia could learn much from process.

Bill McLean, Instructor at Oklahoma State University, at 5:50 pm EDT on July 18, 2008

Thank you Professor Kinney for this wonderful commentary. It has been my experience that the military can teach anything to anybody.

Based on my experience earning USAF wings in pilot training, I would add “FLY” at the end of the crawl-walk-run sequence.

What a valuable sequence you have described! For me, it captures the essence of successful teaching, particularly at our community colleges. Our best professors take our CC students where they are when they come to us and move them through the C-W-R sequence. (And doesn’t the “Fly” suffix lend itself to purple prose about “soaring” when they leave us—irrespective of time on task?)

Cheers!

Jack Sbrega, President at Bristol Community College, at 8:05 pm EDT on July 20, 2008

Agreed...

12 of my 14 years in the Reserves up here in the Great White North were spent in some kind of instructional/leadership capacity. Although I’ve been out of the military system for 8 years, I still maintain that it is the most effective framework for performance-based training anywhere. Many of the lessons you alluded to in this article have shown up in various aspects of my civilian teaching and educational consulting, particularly when mentoring new instructors.

These lessons also formed a valuable foundation for my graduate studies. I thank you for sharing them with us.

Mark Sheppard, Sr. Education Officer at Canada, at 4:25 pm EDT on August 12, 2008