Distance-learning: first CAS3 class outcomes

Military Review, Sept-Oct, 2003 by Walter R. Schumm, David E. Turek

THE INSTITUTIONAL Training Divisions' Professional Development Brigades conducted a pilot distance-learning (DL) version of the Combined Arms Services Staff School (CAS3) Course for Reserve Component (RC) classes at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, in January 2000. The DL version of the class was to determine its suitability for Active Component (AC) as well as RC personnel for whom the weekend and 2-week resident versions of the course were not feasible. For example, some personnel travel frequently and cannot attend a course that meets on the same (and only one) weekend of a month. Others might not be able to attend the second active-duty phase of a class because of work conflicts or other business travel. Some might not want to give up the travel time needed to reach the locations where classes were held. From the Government's perspective, distance learning could save considerable funds by reducing travel expense for students and instructors.

Three DL classes were piloted for the 2001 academic year: Region A (New England and New York), Region F (central plains states), and Region G (western and mountain states). Students from any location could participate. Regions A and F began with a face-to-face meeting between students and instructors. Region G began with an electronic meeting only. Each student was given a laptop computer and appropriate software. Students from all three DL classes, along with 19 other CAS3 classes who had completed phase 1 previously through the traditional classroom format, attended phase 2 in residence at Fort Leavenworth in July 2001.

The instructional chain of command gave two separate surveys to the students. One survey was given to all staff groups from all regions. The other survey was given only to staff groups from Region F. The first survey focused on evaluating past staff group training. The second survey focused on determining the extent to which students would want to try distance learning in the future. During the time between surveys, the CAS3 director interviewed students in each DL class to gain individual, qualitative insight on the process.

Of the 194 CAS3 phase 2 students at Fort Leavenworth, 150 responded to the first survey, with 31 not responding because their staff groups (two from Region D and one from Region C) did not participate. Among the remaining 163 who participated, 15 were from Region G, 8 from Region A, 5 from Region C, and 121 from Region F. (One student did not disclose a region.) Altogether, Region G had 24 students, Region D had 21 students, Region C had 20 students, and Region A had 9 students at Fort Leavenworth. Thirteen students among the 163 in the participating staff groups did not respond individually. Of the 150 students who did respond, 25 were DL students from the three DL staff groups. Table 1 presents the demographic breakdown of DL and traditional classroom students who participated in the first survey. In the second survey, 115 of the 138 students responded. Surveys were not returned from two of the Region F staff groups. Table 2 presents demographic data for students who responded to the second survey.

The study had several research goals, four of which were assessed through the first survey. The first goal was to see how well students from both groups (traditional and distance learning) evaluated their learning experiences overall and on specific criteria. The second goal was to determine the relative time each approach required, since one of distance learning's alleged advantages is a saving in travel time. The third goal was to evaluate how RC soldiers were being compensated for each approach. Because distance learning is a new way to perform duty, there was a concern that many reservists might be undercompensated for such duty. A fourth goal was to assess the psychological effect of training time on the students' family and personal lives across the two methods.

The goal of the second survey was to develop a more detailed scale with which to assess instructor effectiveness. Using the result of instructor effectiveness, the goal was to assess the relative effectiveness of Region F's DL instructor compared to the effectiveness of more-traditional instructors. The goal was to assess outcomes in terms of future projections regarding U.S. Army Command and General Staff College (CGSC) training (when and how we expected it to be done) as well as in terms of past results. We also compared outcomes for the 8+2 (8 weekends for phase 1) and 2+2 (two weeks active duty for each phase) approaches within the traditional methods of teaching CAS3 with distance learning. We also wanted to compare outcomes as a function of component (U.S. Army National Guard (ARNG), U.S. Army Reserve [USAR], and Active Army).

First Survey Results

Learning experience. The students' opinions of distance learning versus traditional methods yielded mixed results. Seventy-three percent of the traditional CAS3 students rated their training as somewhat or much superior to previous military training. Only 12 percent of DL CAS3 students rated their training as somewhat or much superior to taking the same training in a typical classroom setting. The largest percentage (64 percent) of CAS3 DL students rated their training as better in some aspects, worse in others, overall, about the same, or as somewhat worse (20 percent). The differences were significant statistically (p<0.0001). Regarding more specific aspects of the training, there was not a significant difference for how well students felt they had bonded with their classmates. Ninety-two percent of the traditional students said they had bonded fairly or very well, compared with only 80 percent of DL students who felt that way. Comparable ratings for presentation delivery were 93 percent versus 76 percent (p<0.04), and ratings for improving staff-officer abilities were 94 percent to 88 percent (p<0.04). There were interregional differences in how CAS3 distance learning was rated for improving staff officer abilities. Region F's class rated it at 100 percent for substantial improvement compared to other regions' rating it at 79 percent.