E-mail comments to the
Download the complete PDF of this issue
Editorís Note: Dr. MacCuish skillfully leads us through
the ideological battlegrounds of learning theory, instructional design, and
learning objects. He is informative and convincing in his honest and detailed
research and assessment of the "condition" of both education and training.
A short lexicon may be helpful: ISD - Instructional System Design; ADL - Advanced
Distributed Learning; SCORM - Sharable Content Object Reference Model; OPMEP
- Officer Professional Military Education Program. Donít miss the insightful
Endnotes (the Web equivalent of Footnotes).
Although the context is military, this article is is equally relevant
to education - preschool through college and adult learning, the concept
of "American Taliban" makes us uncomfortable, not because we
disagree with Dr. MacCuishís premise, but because we can not!
The Taliban in America:
Corrupting the Tools of Education and Training
This paper contains the thoughts and opinions of the author alone, and
in no way represents, or should be construed to represent, those of the US
Air Force, Air University, or the Air Command and Staff College. This paper
has been approved for public release by Air University Public Affairs.
The author considers himself fortunate to have met an elderly gentleman
with a great deal of experience in training and education. This kind gentleman
offered to tell his story to the author with the understanding that the author
would share the gentlemanís story with other practitioners. This story is
really a warning to everyone in the training and education community about
the dangers of intolerance and radicalism. The elderly gentleman also warns
us about the possible abuse of the many tools available to us in the field
of education and training.
Needless to say the setting is fictitious, but the message is both important
and clear. The abuses are quite real.
Behaviorism, ISD, ADL, SCORM, Bloom, etc. are all-important tools for
learning. The problem is that too many people become dogmatic and insist
that these are the only possible, acceptable, doctrinally sound tools
one can use in learning. Unfortunately too many people in positions of
power hold these beliefs and are not open to other equally, and, in some
cases, more valid approaches. The down side is one size fits all. Instead
of being open to debate, the approach some individuals take is suppression,
ridicule, humiliation, and other "Taliban" like attacks on people
holding different philosophical positions. The reality is that no one
approach is sufficient.
As much as I believe in constructivism or cognitive approaches I would be a
fool to argue that behaviorism does not have a place in learning, as does rote
learning. Everything has to be viewed or seen or used in context.
When we were working on the OPMEP some people wanted to be able to use a taxonomy
other than Bloom. This request was denied because "everyone has at least
heard of Bloom." Well, most people abuse Bloom, or use his taxonomy out
of context. Just because you say "Demonstrate" in a learning objective
it does not mean that you are teaching or testing at the Application Level or
how in the world does one measure, according to Bloom, 'understand.' Give me
In the PME environment, for example, we need to use cognitive or constructionist
models more than behavioral. Perhaps another taxonomy is more appropriate for
us to use than Bloom. Maybe designing our DL course materials with SCORM in
mind is more costly than the return on investment, maybe not!
Each of the PME institutions function in a unique culture. The resources and
infrastructure available in the Army is significantly different than available
to those of us in the Air Force. We could never duplicate what the Army does
without massive amounts of money, a major cultural change, and a complete overhaul
of our infrastructure. The value added to us is not worth the expenditure of
resources. Thus, we ought to consider the very real possibility that there are
many ways to skin the cat and all work very well when used in the appropriate/proper
Does this mean we should not have standards? Definitely not!! When inspected
by the IG, OPMEP Accreditation make me layout for you what we do, how we do
it, why we do it the way we do, and what the results of our evaluation are.
If I am not allowed to do this, then we will continue to use the words of behaviorism,
but we won't be doing anything behavioral. We will massacre the ISD model and
lose the richness it can provide. We will turn out uninteresting learning products
and never harness the full resources of available to DL. SCORM will die. Bloom
will continue to be misunderstood.
Now is the time to make some very fundamental decisions. Remember Douhet said
the bomber would always get through so all we need is the Battle Plane and many
airmen of the 8th Air Force proved him dead wrong!
I remember the day quite well. When I went to sleep the night
before, I never could have imagined that the next day would not be like the
day that just ended, or the day before that, or the day before that. But, had
I known Iíd like to believe that Iíd have been more prepared. If I had only
paid attention to the warning signs, I would have been able to foresee that
that day would one day come. Iíd have done something! I donít know what
Iíd have done, but it would have been something! Like everyone else, however,
I simply ignored the signs; you know all the indicators of what was to come.
As they say hindsight is always 20/20. Iím telling you this story in the hopes
that you, unlike me, will be tuned into the warning signs, keep your eyes open,
and most of all stay vigilant!
I donít know how that day really began. At one point I thought
that I was like a modern day Minutemen being awakened from a deep slumber by
someone outside making a ruckus, shouting something to the effect of "The
Taliban! The Taliban! The Taliban are coming!"[[i]]
But it wasnít that dramatic because the Taliban were not coming they were already
here! And, they had been here for quite some time; in fact they were home grown.
I really thought this would be one of those typical uneventful
days, just like all other uneventful days, but this day was to be quite different!
It was almost like as I was waking up someone threw a bucket of cold water in
my face! The shock was, in its own way, rather frightening. On that day, it
was just so obvious I could no longer ignore what was going on around me! Have
you ever suddenly realized you were a victim? That was the realization. I had
been a victim and hadnít even realized it. I was in my own world, oblivious
to everything going on around me, but for a long long time I had been discriminated
against by my peers. I never picked-up on the fact that I had been the brunt
of so many jokes. I had been ridiculed. I had been humiliated, but it never
dawned on me! How in the world can you be humiliated and not even know it? Man,
what a revelation!
What you need to know is that the Taliban are here in America.
You could be a victim, too. Perhaps you have never paid attention to them, perhaps
you have. Regardless, let me clue you in on who they are and how they play their
Who are these Taliban?
Well, in Afghanistan, they are the fundamental religious
students. They are known for their intolerance of others whose opinions differ
from their own. I know youíve talked with people like this. Admit it, you have.
No, the American Taliban are not religious students, but
they might as well be. They are zealots, just like those in Afghanistan. Oh,
they do not kill you with guns and knives and swords. But they have other methods
to do you in, and they are quite sophisticated in the way they do it, so be
The Taliban I am talking about, like their Afghan counterparts,
is a loose coalition [[ii]] of intolerant
groups. The people I am describing include the radical behaviorists. We must
remember, however, that a large majority of the Afghani people are not Taliban,
and a large number of behaviorists are not members of Americaís Taliban - just
the intolerant ones.
Iím not a nut, nor am I one of those conspiracy quacks! I
donít see a Taliban behind every tree. But they are here, in America, none the
less. I donít know about other fields and disciplines. I only know about my
own! So, I can only talk about my own! From my perspective Americaís Taliban
are found in the field of learning. Like their religious counterparts, they
strictly interpret this discipline of ours -- learning. [[iii]]
Let me tell you more about these Taliban.
The biggest and most influential of the Taliban, as I just
said, are the behaviorists. Fortunately or unfortunately, American psychology
is dominated by behaviorists. As a result so is American education and training.
[[iv]] I donít mean to suggest that
everyone who subscribes to the behaviorist position is a Taliban, but an awful
lot of them are. You can easily tell the difference, are you willing to expose
yourself to find out? All you have to do is mention that you subscribe to something
different, cognitivism, for example. Oh thatís really a good one. If youíre
lucky, the Taliban will only pooh-pooh you. If the Taliban glares at you, prepare
yourself because the tumultuous tempest that is about to come upon you. Youíd
be better off dealing with a banshee than a Taliban!
Before I tell you the rest of my story, let me warn you about
trying to make the distinction between training and education. This seems to
be one of the pet peeves of the Taliban. If you donít believe me tell one of
them that you believe there is a real distinction between training and education.
Make no bones about it there is! That distinction might not be great, but the
distinction is very real none the less
You will recognize this distinction yourself. Usually you
will first realize it when you start thinking about how to design your course.
You begin your design process with a philosophy of learning. You begin the process
of program or course design with a set of assumptions about how and why people
learn, course structure, learning outcomes, et cetera. These distinctions might
be subtle, but they do exist.
Oh, Iím off on one of my tangents. Let me get back to
Do you want to unleash the full fury of the Taliban? Simply
bring this subject up!
If youíre lucky the ridicule will be restrained. The kind
ones will merely be dismissive of your absurd position. A little underhand flip
of the hand, a roll of the eyes, and a simple statement like - "Ugh, not
this again? I thought we settled this issue years ago," speaks volumes.
The intention is to let you know, as well as all those around you, that you
are really an ignoramus.
The less sophisticated ones will be much more demonstrative
in their contempt for your rather dim-witted position! Usually these Taliban
are quite vociferous and sarcastic with their lack of tolerance. If people around
you are not looking your way when you make your foolishly asinine thoughts known,
they most definitely will be staring at you after the tirade! The Taliban are
not very willing to discuss this issue as an adult would. All they care about
is that they want to let you know you are a jerk because you are wrong!
What is interesting about these Taliban is they conveniently
ignore what many highly regarded organizations, researchers, and practitioners
have to say about all this. For example, the School of Medicine at the International
University of the Health Sciences is quite emphatic about the difference between
training and education. Training, according to the School of Medicine is learning
to follow a set of procedures without necessarily understanding the why or purpose.
Education, on the other hand, is mastery of content so you can explain, use
and apply that content in, and I think this is critical, a practical context.
Dr. Terrence Redding, the President and CEO of the Online
Training Institute sent me an email some time ago. He said that there is a distinction
between training and education. "Training prepares you to do something
now, and may become outdated in the future. Education exposes you to the history
of the subject; the way it is currently understood, and may explore its development
across time so that the student can evaluate its potential future uses. Simply
put, education prepares you for the future."[[vi]]
I know you are probably wondering why this distinction is
so important. The simple fact of the matter is that if you believe there is
a distinction between training and education then you also believe there is
an underlying difference in how you need to approach the learning process. You
approach your task, as I mentioned before, from a slightly different perspective.
Your philosophical approach to developing a training or education program determines
the learning theory you will use as a basis for developing instruction. In turn
the learning theory you adopt governs the instructional model you will use to
teach the learner.
Okay, let me explain this in a little more detail. Win Hill,
for example, wrote many years ago that there are two categories or classifications
of learning theories -- connectionist and cognitive. The connectionist category,
he said, treats learning as a matter of connections between stimuli and responses,
for instance teaching someone to follow a set of procedures. The cognitive category,
on the other hand, focuses on a personís perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs
about the environment. He called these cognitions. He noted that, when cognitions
are modified by experience, learning takes place. [[vii]]
He noted this is how people learn to solve problems.
The essence of the connectionist - cognitive problem is this.
"Whereas learning theory describes mechanisms inside the learnersí heads,
instructional models describe how to structure the environment (in our case,
the courseware) to facilitate learning of the content."[[viii]]
Now, in my opinion only a fool would say that you either
support the connectionist, meaning behaviorist, position or the cognitive position!
Nuts! Both have their place. Sometimes you need to use both approaches in the
same program or course. When this happens you have to adapt your teaching strategy
from one approach to the other. The factor governing which approach you use
is what you want students to learn and which theory best explains how people
learn what you want them to know. Sometimes the two approaches seem to blur,
and that is okay. The problem is, to the Taliban, there is only one way! And,
that my dear friend can be dangerous!
I think the real issue has to do with the actual instruction.
See, these Taliban are really ISDíers. You know ISD is the instructional model
developed by Gagne, Briggs, and Brandon. Some people would add Merrill and Deterline
to this group, but the "whoís who" of ISD is not really important.
Although this is really a very good model to follow, you need to use it in the
context in which it was developed. Remember it is grounded in behaviorism. [[ix]]
You cannot abuse it, or you lose its richness. Unfortunately the Taliban don't
buy this reality. It is their way or no way. To them context doesnít matter!
Context always matters.
When you try to force this training model into an educational
context, it does not work well. Oh they say it does, but it doesnít. To prove
my point all you have to do is observe students in an educational environment
trying to cope with learning materials developed using the ISD model. Confusion
reigns! I wonder if this is why our government, I mean public, educational system
is so bad?
Ah, but some Taliban think they are pretty slick. Theyíve
come up with a smoke screen. They call it the Systems Approach to Training,
or Education, or Instruction -- whatever. Donít fall for it; really it is more
of the same.
Now, I need to be fair about all this. If you are developing
training, then ISD is absolutely dynamite! It is perfect, assuming, of course,
that you follow the model. One problem is people donít follow the model. Oh,
they say they do but they really donít. This is a peculiar flaw with the Taliban.
ISD is what they stake their claim on, but they simply donít follow it. What
many do is develop the program they wanted before they began the development
process, then they try to reverse engineer things to make everything fit the
model. It simply doesnít work that way. Itís sort of like building a
fighter based on what your perception of what a fighter should be, and then
going back and designing it.
Now, youíve got to remember that ISD is a model for developing
training and, if there isnít a distinction between training and education this
thing should fit in an educational context, but it doesnít! No matter how hard
you try it doesnít work well. Education requires a different learning theory,
and therefore a different instructional model. If you try to point out this
fact to the Taliban, they come unglued. These people really donít like the truth.
I wonder if part of the problem is the Taliban simply donít want to learn anything
Who can disagree with the notion put forth in 1997óyou know
-- the Advanced Disturbed Learning (ADL), no Iím sorry the Advanced Distributed
Learning concept? If you will remember, the ADL concept as envisioned by DoD
was to define "high-level requirements ("-ilities") for learning
content, such as content reusability, accessibility, durability and interoperability
to leverage existing practices, promote the use of technology-based learning
and provide a sound economic basis for investment."[[x]]
Who can disagree with these lofty goals? The original emphasis was on high-level,
not minutia. But will ADL, as originally intended, be realized? Or, will the
Taliban gain control and abuse this as well? They have already begun the fight.
Their attempt at conquest is well underway. If they win this war, ADL will be
misused and abused just like ISD has been, or perhaps it will suffer the same
fate as Ada, EIDES, PMS, and any number of good ideas gone bad.
There is another group within the Taliban called the SCORMERs.
Again, not all Scormers are Taliban, but many of them are. These Taliban are
trying to force everyone to organize their educational and training programs
using the same mold. Well, it seems like a good idea, but itís not really very
practical. Sure it would be great if everyone could share already developed
learning materials, but how many times do you think we can simply take materials
from one program and insert them in another? Most times the developer will have
to revise or adapt the existing learning object so it will fit into the new
program. In addition if the particular learning object was not planned for during
the design stage, it will be like trying to put a square peg into a round hole.
Let me give you a practical every day example. Letís say
that two or three people want to co-author an article. Each person is given
a section to write. Do you think the pieces will fit neatly together? Of course
not, each author has his or her own style and the differences will be quite
obvious even to the casual reader. There are many ways each can contribute,
but one person really has to write the article from start to finish so the article
doesnít look like an amalgamation of several articles thrown together.
Whether the Taliban want to admit it or not, another problem
is that SCORM is based on the assumption that everyone will use the same learning
theory as the basis for designing and developing their instructional materials.
This also means that everyone will use the same instructional model to present
instruction to the learner. Talk about boring! Both training and education will
be like reading one of those infamous military technical manuals. Even Das Kapital
was a better read than those old things.
Oh, what is a learning object? Is it an article, a lesson,
five minutes of contact time, or what? I get really concerned when people tell
me they donít know yet, but it will solve all my problems. Right!
Is this really what we want? I think SCORM is going to create
more problems than it solves. Personally, I vote for good instructional design.
Has anyone ever thought that this is a major part of the problem?
Although I have my concerns about all this, I am a strong
supporter of interoperability of learning management systems, instructional
materials, and the like. I think this is what we are really after, isnít it?
Then there are the Bloomers! No, Iím not talking about the
long loose trousers covered by the ankle length skirt women used to wear when
my mother was a young woman. Iím talking about those who misinterpret Benjamin
Bloom and his associates. Bloom, and not the Taliban, wrote the taxonomy of
educational objectives for the cognitive domain.[[xi]]
In military education we are required to write our objectives using the Ďactioní
words that correspond to the learning objective level we expect students to
attain. You are right! The Taliban have corrupted Bloom and associates, too.
What many do not realize is that because you write an instructional objective,
it is now identified as sample of behavior. Using an action verb from the synthesis
level, for example, doesnít mean your learning outcome is really at that level.
Nor does it mean that, even if your instruction is at that level, your assessment
is evaluating student knowledge at the intended cognitive level.
The Taliban might tell you that the learning outcomes are
at a specified level when they are not. They forget that it not only has to
look like a duck to be one, it also has to walk and quack like one as well.
All too often the supposed proponents of Bloom, Harrow, [[xii]]
or Krathwohl [[xiii]] have not
read the original works. I have found that you never get a good handle on what
people are writing unless you read the original. It is interesting Iíve heard
authors comment on what people have written about things they have authored.
Frequently their response is "Well, I didnít know that is what I intended."
Again, misinformation is a very bad thing.
Although I prefer Bloom when I write educational objectives
for the cognitive domain, I have to admit that there are other and equally viable
taxonomies available. Kyllonen and Shute wrote an interesting paper on cognitive
skills in which they describe a viable alternative to Bloom.[[xiv]]
Royer, Cisero and Carlo did the same in 1993.[[xv]]
What is really interesting about both of these works is the Air Force Human
Resources Laboratory sponsored the former and the Naval Personnel Research and
Development Center the latter. Yet, we in the Air Force have not capitalized
on the research by Kyllonen and Shute and I venture to say that the Navy hasnít
on Royer and his associates either. Perhaps the Taliban are so focused on Bloom
that current research has been shelved.
I can remember when we were revising the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction governing Joint Professional Military Education
of one school in particular wanted authorization to use a taxonomy other than
Bloom. I thought their argument was cogent. I supported their proposal. The
guidance issued by a member of the Joint Staff was everybody has heard of Bloom,
not everyone has heard of the other taxonomies. So the decision was made - only
Bloom was acceptable.
Now, there is one more group within the Taliban I need to
discuss. Have you ever heard of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973? Well, here is
yet another good thing that is being abused. Having a disability myself, I fully
appreciate what the Act does, but the guidance provided in Section 508 requires
that a little bit of common sense be applied. The intent of the Act is to require
that when Federal agencies develop, procure, maintain, or use electronic and
information technology that people with disabilities have access to the materials.
This is a reasonable expectation, isnít it? Who can disagree with this requirement?
Not me, Iíve got a qualifying disability. In fact Iíll go so far as to ask why
do we need a law to do the obvious?
Well, wouldnít you know it? The Taliban got their hands into
the cookie jar again. I have a friend who was working an interactive training
project for the Navy. The Taliban was determined to make sure the course materials
were accessible to the disabled, in this case people who are blind, not just
visually impaired, but couldnít see period. There was only one slight problem
with this requirement. The extra money the government would spend to ensure
compliance was a non-issue. The issue was that the courseware dealt with the
maintenance of a fire control system onboard a naval vessel. When it was pointed
out to the Taliban that the Navy does not accept people who are blind into the
service, especially as maintainers of fire control systems the Taliban said,
"Oops!" Not ones to let common sense rule they came back with the
notion that at some point and time in the future, when and if the training program
had to be revised or rewritten, the contractor might hire a blind person to
develop the interactive courseware. So, Section 508 applies! I know your first
thought on this is "You gotta be kidding!" Well, they were not kidding.
Eventually, however, it got bumped up to a person with a little bit of good
old common sense. He nixed the 508 compliance requirement for maintenance of
the fire control system.
As you can see from my story, the Taliban have a knack for
taking something good, distorting it, and down right abusing it. It is time
that good folk like you stood up and did something about it!
Behaviorism has a place in training and education. There
is a difference between training - preparing someone to do their job or do it
better, and education - providing people with information necessary to successfully
address future circumstances and situations, many of which we cannot even conceptualize
now. ISD is a great behavioral model. When properly used, it guides the practitioner
in the design and development of sound training programs. We have to be open
and accepting of models and theories that will help us develop good educational
programs, especially with regard to Officer Professional Military Education.
ADL, in my opinion, is simply a new way of saying distance learning. We have
to make sure it is not over sold. If we say it is on demand, any place, and
any time instruction, then that is exactly what it has to be! This means that
it cannot be only when in the classroom, or when the reserve or guard
center is open. It means 24 times 7. ADL learning programs do not always
save you money, or time, or anything else; but they might be a much better and
more interesting way to accomplish the task at hand. So, sell it that way.
SCORM is an interesting idea, but there are a lot of questions
that need to be answered. The advocates of SCORM need to step up to the plate
and answer the tough questions that are being asked and will continue to be
asked. Forthrightness goes a long way. Nobody likes a sales person who is blowing
smoke. You know it when itís happening and so do others. From my experience
SCORM compliant or compatible course materials are the products of good instructional
design, nothing more, nothing less. It simply makes sense to modularize course
materials in such a way as to make it easy to replace outdated material without
having to redo the whole program. This does not mean that everyone everywhere
will have a use or need for your learning materials. So, use some common sense
and do not get hung up on the minutia.
Bloomís taxonomy of educational objectives is a time-tested
hierarchy, but it is not the only one available. When developing web-based multimedia
course materials it might not be the most appropriate taxonomy for us to use.
The services have to be more open and lenient in accepting other ways of doing
I know some people do not like to hear it, but there is a
difference between training and education. You might not think so, but there
are a large number of knowledgeable people who do. It might be a good idea to
find ways to work together rather than being dismissive of people who do not
believe the same way you do. Perhaps everyone can learn a lot by being more
ISD is one of my pet peeves. I happen to like using ISD when
I develop training materials, but I have serious misgivings about using this
particular model when developing educational programs. There are other approaches,
methodologies, etc. more suitable to education. There might be a better way
to design and develop web-based course materials then either ISD or the cognitive
model I prefer. So, I have to be as open to new techniques and methodologies
as well. The services need to get off the dime on this one because one model
does not fit all learning situations. Havenít we learned the Douhetís notion
of a Battle Plane [[xvii]] was
absurd? So why apply this concept to learning theory or instructional design
models? There is no doubt that we need more and better research if we are going
to do more than an adequate job in training and educating our people. The research
we need is applied educational and training research not the basic laboratory
As my Section 508 example suggests a little common sense
is also very important. The rules governing Section 508, as well as other regulations,
need to be interpreted in a conscientious manner. I do not intend this to mean
that we find ways to skirt or avoid our responsibilities. Such behavior is wrong
and cannot be tolerated. We need to remember that right is right and wrong is
wrong. Isnít that what we all learned in kindergarten? [[xviii]]
Finally, we have a whole future ahead of us. I am reminded
of the words Robert Frost wrote, "Two roads diverged in a wood, and I -"
How would you finish this sentence? Are you a member of the Taliban? Or, are
you a Liberator?
About the Author
Dr. Don MacCuish is the Associated Dean and Professor of
Distance Learning at the US Air Forceís Air Command and Staff College, Maxwell
AFB, AL, a position that he has held since January 1999. He has extensive experience
in designing, developing and implementing both education and training programs.
He has taught at the secondary, undergraduate and graduate levels, and developed
training for army, navy, other government agencies, businesses, and foreign
clients. While at Martin Marietta he was the project officer for the first networked
videodisc system adopted by the US Army. He is well published, a frequent presenter
at professional conferences, and enjoys conducting applied research particularly
as the research pertains to distance learning.
[i] Henry Wadsworth
Longfellow, in Paul Revereís Ride, has inspired many by this poem celebrating
the great ride throughout Middlesex on 18 April 1775. "The Redcoats are coming!"
is the alarm we attribute to him that fateful night. It is only fitting that
we adapt it to fit the moral to this story.
[iv] See MacCuish
"Letís Talk Theory: Piaget and the Videodisc a paper presented at the Society
for Applied Learning Technology Conference, June 1986. The paper is contained
in the Conference proceedings.
[vi] email correspondence
dated 16 March 2001.
[vii] See Wilfred
Hill (1977), Learning a survey of psychological interpretations, 3rd
ed. pages 21-27 for a more in-depth discussion.
J.J., McCarthy, J.E., Pacheco, S.P. Bowder, D.L. Bennett, Jr., W. (2001).
"Closed-loop adaptive training - applications for satellite operator training,"
I/ITSEC 2001 Conference Proceedings.
[ix] See Hilgard,
E.R. and Bower, G.H (1974) Theories of Learning, 4th ed. Englewood
Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, pp. 615-618. Or, Gagne, R.M. (1985). The Conditions
of Learning and Theory of Instruction 4th ed. New York: CBS Publishing.
[xi] I highly
recommend the reading of B.S. Bloom (ed.), Taxonomy of educational objectives:
The classification of educational goals, Handbook l: Cognitive domain (New
York: David McKay, 1956) to learn what the authors really wrote/intended as
opposed to what others say the authors wrote. It might be enlightening.
Harrow wrote the Taxonomy of the psychomotor domain: A guide for developing
behavioral objectives. David McKay (New York) published it in 1972. This work
is also well worth reading.
reader is referred to Krathwohl, et al (1964) Taxonomy of educational objectives:
The classification of educational objectives, Handbook II: Affective Domain
(David McKay, New York) for a better understanding of developing educational
objectives for the affective domain.
Kyllonen, P. C., & Shute, V. J. (1989). A taxonomy of learning skills.
In P. L. Ackerman, R. J. Sternberg, & R. Glaser (Eds.), Learning and
individual differences: Advances in theory and research (pp. 117-163).
New York: W. H. Freeman.
[xv] See Royer,
J.M, Cisero, C.A., and Carlo, M.S. (1993) Techniques and procedures for
assessing cognitive skills, in Review of Educational Research, Summer
1993, vol. 63, no. 2, pp. 201-243.
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction 1800.01A, dated 1 December 2001,
is the document that contains the policies, procedures, objectives, and responsibilities
for officer professional military education (PME).
Douhet was an Italian airpower theorist who came to prominence after WWI.
He in his theory of airpower he argued that a country needed only a "battleplane."
Specialized aircraft such as fighters, bombers, reconnaissance, etc were not
necessary as the "battleplane" would always get through. He was wrong! The
8th Air Forceís unbelievable losses over Europe make that abundantly
clear. I think it logically follows that no one learning theory or instructional
model will serve all our needs either.
want to direct the reader to Robert Fulghumís 1993 best seller, All I really
need to know I learned in Kindergarten: Uncommon thoughts on common things,
published by Ivy Books.