Outcomes Based Learning Hardcopy Now Available

We are happy to announce that our Outcomes Based Learning Professional Handbook is now available in hardcopy (paperback) from our online store. Emphasizing realistic, scenario-based evolutions, the OBL approach greatly improves combat effectiveness. Below are links to both the hardcopy and e-book versions as well as re-prints of the last two articles taken from the OBL book.

CAT-C Marksmanship: The Origin of Outcomes Based Learning

In our new book on Outcomes Based Learning (OBL) also known as Outcomes Based Training and Education (OBT&E) we devote a lot of attention to understanding what OBL is and how to implement it. Many organizations think they are practicing OBL when they really are not. One of the best ways to better understand OBL is through examples and stories. One of the principle examples we use in the book is comparing the Asymmetric Warfare Group (AWG) Combat Applications Training Course (CAT-C) with traditional Army Basic Rifle Marksmanship (BRM) training. CAT-C is an example of an outcomes-based course while BRM is an example of more rigid, process-based training. The main argument of our book is that outcomes-based training is far superior to process-based training in almost all cases.

Process-Based Training After Vietnam

Following the Vietnam War, the ranks of the U.S. military shrank considerably and the nation as a whole adopted a generally anti-military mindset. Because the idea of military service was so unpopular at the time, it was believed that if the U.S. military transitioned to an all-volunteer force, that only the very least qualified people who could not find work anywhere else would join the military. These factors caused the U.S. military to transition more and more to a process-based learning model, based on the assumption that trainees could not be expected to think for themselves and could not be trusted with any responsibility. The process-based model essentially breaks all military skills and tasks down to clearly definable steps or a checklist that can be executed robotically and easily evaluated with “go” or “no-go” criteria.

One example of this process-based training approach is the Army’s Basic Rifle Marksmanship (BRM) training program which remained relatively unchanged until the late 2010s. In the book, we explain BRM in more detail but in simple terms, the training was extremely unrealistic since it called for students to fire single shots at stationary targets from a stationary, stable position under minimal stress, without needing to reload under pressure. The training was also very scripted, tightly controlled and micromanaged in every way by instructors and safety officers.

Afghanistan, Iraq and the Need for Greater Adaptability

After the World Trade Center attacks on September 11, 2001, the U.S. military found itself fighting a new kind of war. Junior leaders were not just expected to follow orders and mass fire on Soviet forces as they trained to do in the Cold War. The range of potential missions, tasks and problems was so broad and unpredictable that it became clear that there was no way to apply a process-based training model to meet the demands of the modern battlefield. This led to the idea of training junior leaders to be more adaptable and use their brains to solve problems, even if those problems were unfamiliar.

Essentially, instead of using a process-based training model to prepare for fixed contingencies, the U.S. military transitioned to an outcomes-based training model. The desired outcome was to make junior leaders more adaptable, creative and better at solving complex problems in an uncertain and unfamiliar environment. One organization tasked with helping the military to make this transition was the Asymmetric Warfare Group (AWG). AWG developed a new training methodology called Outcomes- Based Training and Education or OBT&E. As a starting point for teaching leaders to understand OBT&E, AWG decided to develop an alternative to Army BRM training. The new, outcomes-based marksmanship course was called the Combat Applications Training Course or CAT-C.

CAT-C and Outcomes-Based Marksmanship Training

The CAT-C course was developed primarily by former Special Operations personnel from Tier-1 Special Missions Units (SMUs) that focused on counterterrorism. These SMUs had been employing outcomes-based training methods for some time, facing challenges and unconventional threats similar to those that were now emerging in Iraq and Afghanistan. The retired SMU veterans took the methods they had used in their own marksmanship training and applied them to the general force.

However, the deeper purpose of the training was not just to improve marksmanship, but rather to use marksmanship training as a vehicle for helping students understand the difference between a traditional, process-based training approach (like BRM training) and a superior, outcomes-based training approach like CAT-C. In short, the purpose of CAT-C and OBT&E in general was to teach people how to think.

To achieve this outcome, CAT-C took a completely opposite approach to marksmanship training than the old BRM method. As an Army Soldier going through the CAT-C program you begin with classes and open discussion to learn about how your rifle works and why the bullet travels the way it does through the air. You learn about ballistics and the functioning of your weapon with the desired outcome of truly understanding key concepts of marksmanship, not just memorizing processes and checklists.

You then proceed to apply this understanding to practical applications on the range. The first difference you notice is that you are not being micromanaged and tightly controlled at every moment. You are taught the rules of weapons safety and the reasons why those rules are important. You are then expected to apply those rules yourself using your own judgement. Shouldering the responsibility of controlling your own weapon and ammunition simultaneously make you feel more confident and empowered but you also become more vigilant. In BRM training, you didn’t need to pay attention to weapon safety because the RSOs were doing that for you. Now that you are responsible for your own weapon you become extra careful not to make a mistake or violate safety rules.

As in BRM, the first task on the range is to zero your weapon. Rather than guiding you through every step of the process, the training facilitators explain to you how the zeroing process works and the relationship between the bullet holes on the target and the aiming adjustments on your weapon. It is then up to you to use your brain and figure out how to zero the weapon yourself. You actually end up going through almost the same zeroing process you would during BRM except in this case you actually understand what you are doing and are learning to use your brain to solve problems. In addition, should you lose your zero, you now know how to re-zero your weapon yourself without needing step-by-step instructions from an instructor.

With your weapon zeroed you go on to conduct shooting drills designed around realistic combat scenarios. The training drills are different from BRM in almost every way and address many of the deficiencies already mentioned regarding the disconnect between BRM and realistic combat shooting. You learn to move, shoot and reload under realistic conditions and use your brain to solve realistic problems similar to those they might encounter on the battlefield.

The CAT-C course applied the same outcomes-based approach to all aspects of marksmanship. As already discussed, BRM approaches the problem of weapons malfunctions by giving you a fixed checklist of steps and an acronym (SPORTS) to help you remember those steps. When you go through the CAT-C program, facilitators help you understand how the weapon functions and the reasons why the weapon can malfunction. Armed with this knowledge, the act of clearing a malfunction becomes a problem-solving exercise that requires you to use your brain, not just apply a series of memorized steps. Using this approach, you discover that SPORTS is not always the best way to clear a weapon malfunction. With practice and experience you begin to get better and better at dealing with various types of malfunctions.

Comparing CAT-C to the older BRM training method offers a great example of the difference between outcomes-based training and process-based training. In a process-based course like BRM, the focus is on ensuring all the students follow a rigid, pre-determined process to the letter while the actual outcomes of training are an afterthought. In an outcomes-based course like CAT-C the process is reversed. You start with the outcomes and build every aspect of the training around those outcomes. This second approach has proven itself to greatly improve real-world combat effectiveness.

CAT-C Marksmanship: Unexpected Outcomes and Hidden Challenges

In implementing outcomes-based training it is difficult to predict every potential outcome that can result from a training event. Everything that students experience in training can potentially have a deep and significant effect on their mindset and development. To illustrate this concept, we will use a short story taken from a CAT-C course that was run by a Special Tactics senior advisor during the early days of the Iraq war.

This particular CAT-C course was a “train the trainer” course, designed to teach senior NCOs and junior officers from a conventional unit how to design and run CAT-C training for their own Soldiers. The facilitator had already run the unit through the CAT-C training methodology and he was observing a training evolution that called for students to execute a drill one at a time that involved moving from cover to cover while shooting.

There were two lines of students waiting to shoot. As the facilitator walked by the first line, he listened to what the students waiting in line were talking about. They were laughing and joking, talking about their plans for the weekend, sports, their trucks and girlfriends. The instructor continued walking and got to the second line. The students in the second line were all talking about the training, discussing what they did well and poorly during the exercise and sharing ideas, tips and recommendations for how to improve. The students in this second line were also all shooting much better than the students in the first line.

The instructor found this very perplexing. Could it be possible that all of the most motivated, skilled and intelligent students decided to go to the second line? What was the cause for this glaring disparity between the conversations taking place in the first line and the conversations taking place in the second line?

Wanting to learn more, the instructor walked over to the coaches who were monitoring each line and offering feedback on student performance. Once a student would finish the exercise, he would walk up to the coach and conduct an AAR (After Action Review). In an effort to learn what was causing the difference in performance between the two lines, the facilitator decided to stop and listen in to a few of these AAR discussions in each line.

The coach of the first line would call the student forward and then proceed to point out in detail everything the student did right or wrong and then send the student to the back of the line. The coach in the second line would call the student forward and ask one simple question: “How do you think you did?” This second coach would then wait for the student to respond and not say anything until the student had taken some time to think about the question and made an effort to self-assess. After the student finished the self-assessment, the coach would then go on to add his own comments and discuss what the student did well and poorly.

This story provides an excellent example of how even small, seemingly insignificant aspects of a training program can have an overwhelmingly powerful effect on training outcomes at the subconscious level. What was the message being transmitted to students in the first line?

You did this right and you did this wrong. You are not required to think or self-assess. Your teachers will tell you what you have to do to improve. You do not need to seek improvement on your own.

Now, what was the message the students received in the second line?

Your opinion is valuable. Your instructors don’t claim to have all the answers. We want you to use your brain and assess your own performance. You are responsible for your own learning and self-improvement.

One simple question caused the second line of students to be much more effective and more engaged in the training than the first line of students. Both lines were implementing outcomes-based training principles and guided by highly experienced instructors. Both lines were achieving the surface-level outcomes of students learning to shoot under realistic conditions but only the second line was achieving the deeper outcome of encouraging critical thinking and self-assessment.

When designing courses, it is therefore critical not only to consider the desired outcomes for training, but also important to attempt to anticipate the unexpected outcomes that might emerge from the training experience. This is not always an easy task and it requires careful thinking and detailed planning, along with effective methods for monitoring and assessing training outcomes. We discuss these concepts in more detail in the full version of the Outcomes Based Learning Professional Handbook.

We hope you found the short article useful and once again we welcome your reactions, comments or suggestions on our Facebook page where we frequently hold constructive discussions on tactics with people from various tactical backgrounds and experience levels. Also, click below if you would like to purchase a hardcopy of the book from our online store or the Kindle E-Book on Amazon.