E-mail comments to the Editor

Download the complete PDF of this issue

The Taliban in America:
Corrupting the Tools of Education and Training

Don MacCuish

Author’s Note

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 gentleman’s 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.

ABSTRACT

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 a break!

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 context.

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!

My Story

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 I’d like to believe that I’d 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. I’d have done something! I don’t know what I’d 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. I’m 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 don’t 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 wasn’t 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 hadn’t 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 game.

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 you’ve 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 on guard!

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 America’s Taliban - just the intolerant ones.

I’m not a nut, nor am I one of those conspiracy quacks! I don’t see a Taliban behind every tree. But they are here, in America, none the less. I don’t know about other fields and disciplines. I only know about my own! So, I can only talk about my own! From my perspective America’s 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 don’t 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 that’s really a good one. If you’re 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. You’d 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 don’t 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, I’m off on one of my tangents. Let me get back to my story…

Do you want to unleash the full fury of the Taliban? Simply bring this subject up!

If you’re 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. [[v]]

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 person’s 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 learners’ 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 ISD’ers. 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 "who’s 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 doesn’t 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 doesn’t. 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. They’ve come up with a smoke screen. They call it the Systems Approach to Training, or Education, or Instruction -- whatever. Don’t 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 don’t follow the model. Oh, they say they do but they really don’t. This is a peculiar flaw with the Taliban. ISD is what they stake their claim on, but they simply don’t 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 doesn’t work that way. It’s 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, you’ve got to remember that ISD is a model for developing training and, if there isn’t a distinction between training and education this thing should fit in an educational context, but it doesn’t! No matter how hard you try it doesn’t 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 don’t like the truth. I wonder if part of the problem is the Taliban simply don’t want to learn anything new?

Who can disagree with the notion put forth in 1997—you know -- the Advanced Disturbed Learning (ADL), no I’m 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 it’s 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. Let’s 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 doesn’t 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 don’t 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, isn’t it?

Then there are the Bloomers! No, I’m not talking about the long loose trousers covered by the ankle length skirt women used to wear when my mother was a young woman. I’m 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 ‘action’ 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, doesn’t 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 I’ve heard authors comment on what people have written about things they have authored. Frequently their response is "Well, I didn’t 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 hasn’t 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 (JPME).[[xvi]] Representatives 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, isn’t it? Who can disagree with this requirement? Not me, I’ve got a qualifying disability. In fact I’ll go so far as to ask why do we need a law to do the obvious?

Well, wouldn’t 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 couldn’t 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!

Final Thoughts

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 it’s 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.

Bloom’s 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 business.

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 open.

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. Haven’t we learned the Douhet’s 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 stuff!

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. Isn’t 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 Force’s 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.

Endnotes

In This Issue | Podium | Featured Articles | Student Exchange | Technology Exchange
State Exchange | Positions Available | Calendar | Call For Papers | Past Issues