I've just spent the better part of two weeks at the Colorado Wing Civil Air Patrol Encampment at the US Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, CO. While I could devote an entire blog to the lessons learned, experiences had, and the good times I'll remember forever, that's not the point of this blog, or even this post. This is the fifth time I've participated in this event, and with each new year comes a new set of challenges to overcome. For the first time, I was supervising a squadron (3 flights of 18 cadets), plus the staff (3 flight sergeants, 3 flight commander, 1 first sergeant and 1 squadron commander). For those of you, like me, who just stopped reading when the math began, the total number of young adults within my purview was 62. What this scope of supervision allowed me was a greater understanding of the failure to communicate.
The Curriculum and Plans Officer taught the cadet staff the difference between Ability and Willingness (A&W). The cadet staff were responsible for learning when their basic cadets were unable and or unwilling. Ability centered upon knowledge on how to accomplish a task (ie. when making their beds, had basics been taught how to correctly make hospital corners?) versus willingness to complete a task. This separation of mindset gave the cadet staff a way to measure the progress and performance of their basic cadets. However, the same metric was not adequately used for the cadet staff. I noticed that while most of the cadet staff came with and sustained their willingness to complete their duties, they often did not have the ability to complete their duties to the level expected by the adult staff members. In many cases, this was due to a gap in their training. Collectively, the adults held the cadet staff accountable for "ability" they didn't have. It wasn't because of malicious intent, rather in the assumption that cadet staff "knew" what they were expected to do. A lot of the training is done in generalities where the point gets lost in the vagueness of the message. For instance, a squadron commander is responsible for the flights within the squadron. Sounds simple enough, but ask a cadet squadron commander to explain their duties and responsibilities and suddenly the gaps in training become apparent.
My squadron staff couldn't come up with an answer. I explained to them that if the flight staff (flight sergeants and flight commanders) were waking up the cadets and not telling them to use the rest room and fill up their hydration gear, that they as squadron staff should then take it upon themselves to do so. This is part of scope of responsibility. This is also something the adult staff have been remiss in teaching the cadet staff. To me, it seemed like common sense. Spread the responsibility. If you know flight staff are working to get their basics out of bed as soon as possible, then post yourselves at the front doors and ask each basic if they've used the restroom and filled up on water. This division of labor would give each staff member something to do, but also align with the scope of control. While the flight staff are immediately responsible for the individual members of their flight, the squadron staff are responsible for the flights as a whole. I kept wondering how much time, energy and frustration could have been saved by teaching these skills at the onset rather than madly attempting to play catch up, and fill the gaps as we went along. I felt bad for the staff who maintained their willingness, but also remained confused, disheartened, and frustrated by the disconnect between their assumed ability and their actual ability.
What does any of this have to do with teaching teachers? Everything. Are we, as instructional designers, as teacher preparation instructors, teaching to the gap? Are we adequately identifying the areas of instruction needed? Are we assuming knowledge to the determent of our students? Maybe. However, I fully believe that by more closely attending to the gap, we will be able to create a more effective, more useful instruction for teachers just learning their craft, and experienced teachers, too.
I found myself thinking as an instructional designer more than a Civil Air Patrol Lieutenant Colonel as the weeks progressed. The idea of the program is to train the experienced young adults to be the leaders and trainers of the newer, less experienced members. What I found missing was training. Overall the adult members had a wealth of knowledge they assumed the cadet staff arrived with at Encampment.
The Curriculum and Plans Officer taught the cadet staff the difference between Ability and Willingness (A&W). The cadet staff were responsible for learning when their basic cadets were unable and or unwilling. Ability centered upon knowledge on how to accomplish a task (ie. when making their beds, had basics been taught how to correctly make hospital corners?) versus willingness to complete a task. This separation of mindset gave the cadet staff a way to measure the progress and performance of their basic cadets. However, the same metric was not adequately used for the cadet staff. I noticed that while most of the cadet staff came with and sustained their willingness to complete their duties, they often did not have the ability to complete their duties to the level expected by the adult staff members. In many cases, this was due to a gap in their training. Collectively, the adults held the cadet staff accountable for "ability" they didn't have. It wasn't because of malicious intent, rather in the assumption that cadet staff "knew" what they were expected to do. A lot of the training is done in generalities where the point gets lost in the vagueness of the message. For instance, a squadron commander is responsible for the flights within the squadron. Sounds simple enough, but ask a cadet squadron commander to explain their duties and responsibilities and suddenly the gaps in training become apparent.
A simple example I gave to my squadron staff this year was this: morning wake up. Cadet staff wake up the basic cadets at 0600. They have approximately five minutes for their student cadets to wake up, put on their PT gear and get to the parade field for morning calisthenics. Additionally, the senior staff expect that cadets are given a chance to use the restroom and fill up their hydration gear. As a squadron commander, what is a reasonable role to adopt in this scenario? before they get to the parade field.
What does any of this have to do with teaching teachers? Everything. Are we, as instructional designers, as teacher preparation instructors, teaching to the gap? Are we adequately identifying the areas of instruction needed? Are we assuming knowledge to the determent of our students? Maybe. However, I fully believe that by more closely attending to the gap, we will be able to create a more effective, more useful instruction for teachers just learning their craft, and experienced teachers, too.
