首頁 - Thesis代寫 > Thesis代寫Army Training Learning   微信&QQ: Essay_Cheery

Thesis代寫Army Training Learning

發布于2020-09-22 作者:留學寫作網 閱讀:
Army Training Learning

The Army as a Training and Learning Organisation


This essay deals with the challenges faced by the Educational and Training Services in dealing both with modern warfare whilst overcoming the lack of basic skills which is becoming a liability, by evaluating the effectiveness of the forces as a learning organisation.

北美代写,论文Essay代写,网课代修,Exam代考 In order to progress and improve as an Army, Army educators not only have to deal with basic skills shortfalls, but assisting other arms in overcoming cultural problems, in our own country and in the countries in which we are operating. Also, an analysis of how the ETS can deliver the educational needs for a difficult situation, in which not only basic skills but also languages, culture and an understanding of modern war and counter-insurgency techniques are needed. The difficulties faced by the ETS in teaching methodologies in order to over come the wide range of topics and abilities faced by an Army educator both in barracks and on operations are also evaluated in detail.

“What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?” Frederick the Great

Lt N Mazzei

Seminar Paper

The Army as a Learning Organisation


1. In order for any organisation to be ‘effective’ it is important for the organisation to identify what its key aims are. Though this may sound obvious, large organisations such as the Army constantly need to identify exactly what its aims are in order to ensure that it is ‘doing the right things’ (Drucker: 1977). In order to do this, it is important to bring together ‘individual motivations, norms and institutional expectations’, as the effectiveness of the organisation is relative to the appropriateness of the situation (Mintzberg: 1979). The Army’s situation right now is one of sustained operations in foreign cultures in support of other nations’ internal security.

It is important to identify this in order to demonstrate how the Army is still focused on a strong strategic level of thought rather than a tactical one. Overall, it is important to evaluate the Army’s capability to ‘learn as an organisation’, a far more difficult demand than many other organisations face.

北美代写,论文Essay代写,网课代修,Exam代考 For all the talk of training and learning amongst the writers of doctrine, makers of policy and practitioners, there is a lack of attention to dealing with the Army as an organisation. Theories of learning rarely appear in professional training programmes for training members of the Armed forces.

北美代写,论文Essay代写,网课代修,Exam代考 Often, the process of learning is overlooked and simply ‘accepted’ as something that just takes place within the training environment, with the correct knowledge being learned just as a matter of course (almost as if it was by some magical osmosis). This failure to deal with the learning process, for individuals but especially as an organisation, will hold back the Army for many years. There is even a lack of resources produced by professional academics who deal on a daily basis with the understanding of ‘learning’ on the development of the human resource within the organisation and the organisation itself and the understanding that this learning may be in a anyway problematic is rarely discussed.

2. Approaches to learning

There are many different approaches to learning, two of which will be used to further our understanding the Army as a learning organisation.

i.Behaviourist Orientation. John B. Watson created the stimulus-response model. In this the environment is seen as providing stimuli to which individuals develop responses. This is very much the current learning process encouraged on the Command, Leadership and Management courses at Education Centres. According to James Hartley (1998) four key principles come to the fore:

  • Activist. Learning is better when the learner is active rather than passive. ('Learning by doing' is to be applauded).
  • Repetition, imitation and practice. Frequent practice - and practice in varied contexts - is necessary for learning to take place. Skills are not acquired without frequent practice.
  • Positive Transactional Approach. Positive re-enforcers like rewards and successes are preferable to negative events like punishments and failures.
  • The setting of clear aims and objectives. ‘By the end of this session participants will be able to'. With this comes a concern with competencies and product approaches to curriculum.

ii. Humanist Orientation. This approach focuses on the potential for humans to develop as individuals, rather than as a scientific approach viewing individuals as objects that can be controlled within variables. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is perhaps the best known example, which also used to the CLM course to assist NCOs in understanding motivation, from physiological needs to self actualization.

北美代写,论文Essay代写,网课代修,Exam代考 The concept requires each level to be fulfilled until progress can be made to the next level. Understanding where learning comes in Maslow’s hierarchy is not clear, though Tennant (Tennant 1997: 13) argues that achieving self actualisation may mean developing humans to what they are capable in which education would play a key role.

  • Theory of Learning Organisations. Two theories which are of particular use in the case of Learning in the Armed Forces will be looked at.

北美代写,论文Essay代写,网课代修,Exam代考 i.The phases of learning (Double and Single Loop Learning). For Argyris and Schön, learning is all about making mistakes, realising those mistakes and then rectifying the problem. They identify two processes to finding solutions to the problem. The first is identified as single loop learning, where a resolution is found without a fundamental change to the structure or underlying theory. This comes from unexpected outcomes that arises from outside the expected ‘norm’ from actions made and are strategies put in place to maintain results within the expected norms Argyris and Schön (Argyris and Schön, 1978: 2).

The norms and expectations themselves remain fundamentally unchanged Argyris and Schön (1978: 2). An alternative response is to question the norms themselves. This is described as double-loop learning. With a change in the values of our set parameters we change the field in which the system seeks to maintain its stability (Ashby, 1960). Strategies and assumptions may change along with theories which affect the individual and the organisation. Chris Argyris’ research has focused greatly on exploring how can increase their capacity for double-loop learning.

Argyris argues that double-loop learning is necessary for institutions and organisations, operating in dynamic, rapidly changing and uncertain contexts, in order to make informed decisions in (Argyris; 1990). This method of learning is highly suitable to a dynamic institution such as the Armed Forces. Single-loop learning, then, presents when goals, values, frameworks and strategies are taken for granted.

北美代写,论文Essay代写,网课代修,Exam代考 The emphasis is on ‘techniques and making techniques more efficient’ (Usher and Bryant: 1989) Reflection is aimed towards making the strategy more effective within the framework and the restraints of the theory. Double-loop learning ‘involves questioning the role of the framing and learning systems which underlie actual goals and strategies’ (Argyris and Schön, 1996).

Argyris added to the single and double loop learning theory (advocated in its rawest form by Ashby) with the inclusion of conventional beliefs about correct behaviour in institutionsand social groups. These governing beliefs can be clustered together in certain world views, and as a result into aspect of organisational learning, within Models, of which Argyris has identified two.

Model 1

  • "Achieve the purposes as the actor perceives them
  • Maximise winning and minimise losing
  • Minimise eliciting negative feelings
  • Be rational and minimise emotionality"

北美代写,论文Essay代写,网课代修,Exam代考 This produces adversarial and defensive action strategies, poor relationships and poor learning (1982, p.86)

Model 2

  • "Valid information
  • Free and informed choice
  • Internal commitment to the choice and constant monitoring of the implementation"

北美代写,论文Essay代写,网课代修,Exam代考 The action strategies are less defensive and more collaborative and are conducive to effective relationships and learning. (1982, p.102). These models, Argyris suggests, demonstrate how organisations enter the learning process and how successful they are at achieving organisational learning. Argyris found that most individuals and organisations will advocate the use of Model 2 values which will benefit the organisation and others.

In other words, it is their ideal aim. However, it is far more likely for individuals to actually occupy Model 1 cultures, due to the competitiveness and culture of independent work ethic that western society exists around. In addition, the Army shows a number of other features which adds to this. (Argyris, 1982)

  • Power is one.  When there are power differences between people, it is often tempting to "solve" problems (or at least dispose of them) by fiat rather than understanding.
  • Specialisation is another.  People pursue the goals of their own position or section or branch, and may thus lose sight of the overall goals.  This makes for competition rather than collaboration between person and person and between section and section. Competition in itself is based only around promotion as there is no room for ‘money making incentives’.
  • Designing organisations around jobs rather than around people is a third.  People are expected to leave at home the more individual aspects of them, including their thoughts and feelings.  A false rationality results. (Argyris, 1982)

北美代写,论文Essay代写,网课代修,Exam代考 Overall, Argyris and Schön’s theories on organisation learning are able to take aspects of both approaches discussed in the opening paragraphs. It is important to recognise that ‘each member of an organization constructs his or her own representation or image of the theory-in-use of the whole’ (Schön, 1978).

This statement shares many hallmarks of both the humanist approach, with Maslow’s perspective included demonstrating how the individual perspective and needs affect the organisation. The behaviourist, with the affect of the organisation guiding the individual is also shown. With encouragement towards the Model 2 culture then organisational effectiveness will push for greater organisational learning.

ii.Communities of practice. This theory explains that all communities and ones of practice, in which all individuals are members of. Wegner and Lave created a model of situated learning which suggested learning involved engagement within a 'community of practice'.  The Army is too a community and within it are methods of practice, varying from culture, humour, training and education. As Wenger explains, “These practices are thus the property of a kind of community created over time by the sustained pursuit of a shared enterprise. It makes sense, therefore to call these kinds of communities, ‘communities of practice’ (Wenger, 1998). According to Wenger (1998), a community of practice defines itself along three dimensions:

  • What it is about – its united aim as understood and continually renegotiated by its members. Though direction for The Army comes from outside, it is certainly united in its goals and methods by it membership.
  • How it functions - mutual engagement that bind members together into a social entity. The Army is a social entity in a far more extreme way than the majority of organisations.
  • What capability it has produced – the shared repertoire of communal resources (routines, sensibilities, artefacts, vocabulary, styles, etc.) that members have developed over time. (Wenger, 1999). The Army would identify itself as a sub-culture within the UK.

Understanding the organisation is key to it developing and learning and so the communities approach has been looked upon with interested in the last 10-20 years which has arisen along with the growth of interest in the learning organisation. This growth pushed the interest of academics towards informal organisational cultures and structures as well as analysing formal structures, both of which exist within communities of practice.

北美代写,论文Essay代写,网课代修,Exam代考 Similarities can be seen with Schön’s and Argyris’ “Models”. The focus of communities of practice however, amplifies the informal rather than the formal aspect pushed by the formal structure within the organisation. The model also focuses on those within the organization and how benefits could accrue to the organization itself, and did not lie primarily with the individual members of a community of practice. This then fits similarly with Argyris’ Model 2.

Within these theories and approaches to learning, we will look at the Army’s success as a learning organisation, focusing on the era of change brought in with the attacks of 9/11, the huge increase in operational activity and the challenges faced by the modern Army. We will identify where these theories fit within the Army’s methods of learning and further more how they can be used to improve the Army’s learning effectiveness as an organisation.

4.The Army as a Learning Organisation

The Terms such as ‘the strategic corporal’ and ‘three block war’ remind us constantly about the need for well educated, well trained and well disciplined soldiers who are able to deal with difficulties that such complex operations present (http://www.publications.parliament.uk: 30/08/07).

北美代写,论文Essay代写,网课代修,Exam代考 Key to dealing with these issues is enhancing the soldier’s decision making capability, so the soldier is better able to over come problems faced, think on their feet and apply their knowledge to deal with situations that they have not been explicitly told how to solve.

Further to this is the need for further and higher education in our soldiers and officers, without which development of our strategic, operational and tactical capability will be severely limited. The American armed forces, after spending thirty years forgetting lessons learnt in Vietnam, has taken the step to educate their soldiers in counter insurgency warfare, with officers reading British counter insurgency manuals.

北美代写,论文Essay代写,网课代修,Exam代考 They have also used books written by academics and former members of the British armed forces, talking of experiences in Aden, Malaya and Northern Ireland. Dealing with asymmetric warfare requires different things from our soldiers from conventional warfare, with culture, language and morality more important than simply applying firepower. Dealing with media and digital communication as well as applying the laws of armed conflict to unfamiliar ground.

Creating change in such an organisation is not simple, The Army, with a stereotype for blindly following commands, a rigid structure and an inability to move outside of its constraints, must change like any other organisation. In order to change, the Army must move forward to face whatever threats it is opposing and further to do this, must learn how it must operate.

北美代写,论文Essay代写,网课代修,Exam代考 This change is not a new process and has been taking place in Britain’s Armed Forces ever since the first military revolution at Agincourt. How we learn as an organisation however, has not changed. Ashby’s concept of single and double loop learning fits neatly into the military structure.

Firstly, most would declare the Army as a double loop system, changing its methods from the bottom up and as such would be regarded by Argyris as a Model 2 organisation. This is certainly not how the majority of military learning operates. The Army would very much be described as a Model 1 organisation, aiming instead to apply resources to resolve problems rather than affect a change in the structure and theory behind their current operations.

For example, much like the Americans experienced in 2003-2006 in Iraq, the British Army increased its force protection and removed itself from the environment it was attempting to control. Further to this, the control the forces were trying to export did not take into account free radicals within the system that were fundamentally uncontrollable, particularly from outside this system. With respect to learning communities, which recognises the importance of informal organisations and structures, the Army was not establishing a suitable environment to allow eventual control of the system.

It’s defensiveness of its methods, stemming from an over-confidence from experiences in Northern Ireland and Bosnia, maintained the Army’s place as a Model 1 organisation, maintained the single loop learning process and so never allowed room for adaptation and innovation.

In order to establish itself as a double loop system, it needs to break away from the Model 1 process and establish itself as a system that welcome innovation. This is not a simple procedure, as the military relies heavily on the system it is used to using. For example, the survival of horse cavalry in military systems around the world demonstrates how difficult innovation is for the military in moving into new systems.

北美代写,论文Essay代写,网课代修,Exam代考 Even though single loop learning would have demonstrated that in the era of industrial warfare the horse was no longer effective, many countries still tried to implement them as useful for mobility in a nuclear conflict (Katzenbach, 1958), another aspect of informal structures and communities of practice affecting innovation and learning. John Nagl, a US Colonel, discussed organisational learning and focused on the differences of the UK and US army’s ability to adapt, learn and innovate. In order to identify any military as a learning institution (In this case, we will call a learning organisation as a Model 2, double loop learner), Nagl lists five questions (Nagl, 2005)

  • 1. Does the army promote suggestions from the field?
  • 2. Are subordinates encouraged to question superiors and policies?
  • 3. Does the organisation regularly question its basic assumptions?
  • 4. Are high-ranking officers routinely in close contact with those on the ground and open to their suggestions?
  • 5. Are standard operating procedures generated locally and informally or imposed from the centre?

All of John Nagl’s theories of organisational learning fit within the double loop learning process and along with Argyris and Schön’s theories of learning organisations. It is certainly clear that the double loop learning process can be applied to the British Army.

5.The Educators Role.

Within the process of forcing the Army to become a Model 2 organisation (the term forced is used as the culture of the Army is not one of comfortable change) the Educational and Training Services must play a key role. As the ETS restructures itself to fit the Army’s future needs it, it must also recognise itself as a learning institution and become a Model 2 organisation itself. Its roles within CLM, languages and training and development will obviously move with this; however it is in the change of CLM which is key as this is where we will have the most contact with the rest of the Army.

CLM V3 is a severe change from the previous system where we will be required to ‘educate forward’ (a horrendous term) and deliver to the learner at their position rather than expect them to come to us. It also requires a large amount of distance learning on behalf of the learner, putting the pressure of learning on the learner rather than utilising the character of the teacher to promote learning (something Schön was famous for).

This process of moving the education onto the unit and the learner rather than at the heart and soul of the educator is an excellent example of single loop learning. Rather than changing the theory behind what we are trying to achieve, the Army intends to change the course to being delivered by others who are not in the learning process. The pressure of communities of practice will greatly affect the learning process, most likely by hugely increasing the amount of plagiarism by soldiers who do not understand the benefit of the learning to their careers and personal development.

6. Conclusion

北美代写,论文Essay代写,网课代修,Exam代考 This failure to recognise the double loop learning process as a fundamental shift in methodology rather than the method itself will also be reflected on the Army’s practises away from the ETS, especially in the infantry and the combat arms on operations.

北美代写,论文Essay代写,网课代修,Exam代考 The Americans, with their Iraq surge, did more than flood 30,000 more soldiers into Baghdad; they reflected on their previous errors, searched for alternative solutions and implemented the process. They focused less on brute force and more on the mind, with information being the key area they process. Because of the British Army as a community of practice stuck in a process of tradition stemming from hundreds of years of success on operations, we have not been through this same reflection process.

The British Army is without doubt a typical Model 1 organisation with aspirations to be a Model 2 organisation. John Nagl identifies this with his questions on an Army’s ability to ‘innovate’, questions we are not able to successfully answer. Because we are a Model 1 organisation we become defensive when others criticise our actions and often laugh at the Americans attempts at bringing control to a system that has too many variables.

北美代写,论文Essay代写,网课代修,Exam代考 But in this process, the Americans discovered they must create environments for local innovation rather than too force the system to be controlled in the process they wish. Outside of operations, the British Army still relies on the old system of “the organisation learners because we train it”, an ironic position to be in as the Army prides itself on being the most experienced Army in the world. Argyris and Schön identify a process of phases (Argyris and Schön, 1978) through which the Model 2 organisation can be achieved, which Nagl’s process was based upon.

Through this system, it would no longer be necessary for individuals to go full circle on a learning process (such as the OODA loop or Kolb’s cycle) and can amend the process through double loop learning. This will only be achieved once a Model 2 organisation is achieved.

Argyris, C. (1990) Overcoming Organizational Defenses. Facilitating organizational learning北美代写,论文Essay代写,网课代修,Exam代考, Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Harris, A (Open University Press, 2000) Organizational Effectiveness and Improvement in Education.

北美代写,论文Essay代写,网课代修,Exam代考 Hartley, J. (1998) Learning and Studying. A research perspective, London: Routledge.

Litow, A. (1991) Negotiating Teaching/Learning Interactions: A study of Reciprocity in Tutorial Discourse.北美代写,论文Essay代写,网课代修,Exam代考 Dissertation Abstracts International. 52-04, #1313A

Mintzberg, H (1979) The Structuring of Organisations, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall

Petty, G. (Nelson Thornes, 2004) Teaching Today 3rd Edition,

Reece, I (Business Education Publishers Limited 2003) Teaching, Training and Learning

Tennant, M. (1988, 1997) Psychology and Adult Learning北美代写,论文Essay代写,网课代修,Exam代考, London: Routledge.

Trowler, P (Collins Educational, 1995) Investigating Education and Training

Usher, R. and Bryant, I. (1989) Adult Education as Theory, Practice and Research, London: Routledge.

Wenger, E. (1998) 'Communities of Practice. Learning as a social system', Systems Thinker, http://www.co-i-l.com/coil/knowledge-garden/cop/lss.shtml. Accessed March 03, 2008.


要想進步和提高作為陸軍,陸軍教育工作者不僅要處理的基本技能不足,但克服文化問題,在我們自己的國家,在我們經營所在國家的協助其他武器。此外, ETS可以如何提供一個困難的形勢下的教育需求分析,其中不僅基本技能,但語言,文化和現代戰爭和平叛技術的了解是必要的。 ETS的教學方法,以克服所面臨的一個陸軍教育家無論是在軍營,對操作范圍廣泛的主題和能力所面臨的困難也進行了詳細評估。
“什么是好經驗,如果你不反映呢? ”腓特烈大帝
1。為了任何組織要“有效”是很重要的組織,以確定其主要目的是什么。雖然這可能聽起來很明顯,大機構,如陸軍需要不斷確定正是它的目的是為了確保它是'做正確的事“ (德魯克:1977 ) 。為了做到這一點,重要的是匯集“個人動機,規范和制度的期望' ,為組織效力是相對適當的情況下(明茨伯格: 1979) 。陸軍的情況下,現在是一個持續經營業務的外國文化,在支持其他國家的內部安全。
,學習的過程中,往往被忽視,只是'接受'的東西,僅僅發生在訓練環境中,用正確的知識只是作為一個理所當然的事(仿佛是被某種魔力反滲透)了解到。這種故障處理學習的過程中,對于個人,但尤其是作為一個組織,將舉行陸軍多年。甚至有一個專業的學者,每天打交道的人了解組織內的人力資源和組織本身的發展和理解上的“學習” ,這種學習可能是反正問題所產生的資源缺乏是很少討論。
i.Behaviourist取向。約翰·B·沃森創造的刺激 - 反應模型。在這種環境是為刺激個人制定應對。這是非常鼓勵當前的學習過程上的指揮,領導和管理教育中心的課程。據詹姆斯·哈特利(1998)四大關鍵原則脫穎而出:
活動家。學習是主動而非被動的學習者更好。 ( “學做”是要鼓掌) 。
重復,模仿和實踐。頻繁的做法 - 在不同環境下的實踐 - 學習是必要的。無需頻繁實踐技能不能獲得。
設定明確的目的和目標。 “本次會議結束,與會者將能夠' 。與此而來的競爭力和產品的方法課程的關注。
每個級別的概念需要得到滿足,直到能夠取得進展到一個新的水平。了解學習在馬斯洛的層次不清晰,雖然坦南特(坦南特, 1997 :13 )認為,實現自我實現可能意味著發展中國家人類,他們有能力在教育方面將發揮關鍵作用。
一世學習階段(雙人和單環學習) 。對于阿吉里斯和舍恩,學習是所有關于決策失誤,實現這些錯誤,然后糾正問題。他們確定了兩個進程,以??找到解決問題的辦法。第一個被確定為單環學習,找到解決沒有從根本上改變結構或相關理論。這是來自意外的結果出現預期外的“規范”作出行動和戰略落實到位,以保持在預期的規范阿吉里斯和舍恩(阿吉里斯和舍恩, 1978: 2 )的結果。
規范和期望本身基本上保持不變,阿吉里斯和舍恩( 1978年: 2 ) 。另一種反應是規范本身的質疑。這被描述為雙回路學習。隨著我們設置的參數值的變化,我們改變的領域中,該系統旨在保持其穩定性(阿什比,1960年) 。策略和假設可能隨之影響的個人和組織理論。大大集中克里斯·阿吉里斯'研究探索如何能提高他們的能力,雙回路學習。
阿吉里斯認為,雙循環學習是必要的機構和組織,經營動態,快速變化和不確定的背景下,為了做出明智的決定(阿吉里斯; 1990 ) 。這種學習方法是非常適合的一個充滿活力的機構,如武裝部隊。單環學習,然后,提出目標,價值觀,框架和戰略時,是理所當然的。
重點是在技術和更高效的制造技術“ ( Usher和科比: 1989 ) ,旨在更有效的戰略框架內和理論的束縛,使反射。雙循環學習“涉及質疑的角色框架和學習系統的實際目標和戰略' (阿吉里斯和舍恩,1996)的基礎。
這將產生對抗性和防御性行動戰略,人際關系欠佳,學習差( 1982年,第86頁)
行動策略是防守和更多的合作,有利于有效的關系和學習。 ( 1982年,第102頁)。這些機型,阿吉里斯建議,演示了如何組織進入學習過程,以及他們是如何成功地實現組織學習。阿吉里斯發現,大多數個人和組織將倡導使用模型2值,這將有利于組織和其他。
換句話說,這是他們的理想目標。但是,它更容易為個人實際占有模型1的文化,由于競爭力和文化獨立的工作倫理,西方社會的周圍存在。此外,陸軍示出了一些其他的特點,增加了這種。 (阿吉里斯1982 )
各地組織設計工作,而不是周圍的人,是第三。人們預計請假在家的各個方面,包括他們的想法和感受。假理性結果。 (阿吉里斯1982 )
總體而言,阿吉里斯和舍恩的組織學習理論的是能夠在開場段落方面討論兩種方法。重要的是要認識到,每個組織成員的構造他或她自己的表示或圖像的整體的使用理論(舍恩,1978) 。
實踐ii.Communities 。這一理論解釋,所有社區和實踐的,其中所有個人會員。韋格納和萊夫情境學習建議學習“實踐社區”內參與參與創建了一個模型。陸軍是太社區內的方法的實踐,不同的文化,幽默,培訓和教育。正如溫格解釋說, “因此,這些做法是一種社會的持續追求,隨著時間的推移,創建一個共享的企業的財產。這是有道理的,因此,調用這些類型的社區, “實踐社區” (溫格,1998年) 。據溫格( 1998年) ,一個實踐社區定義本身沿著三個維度:
它是什么 - 團結的目的,理解和不斷重新協商其成員。軍隊的方向,雖然來自外部的,那肯定是統一由它的成員在其目標和方法。
它的功能如何 - 相互嚙合,綁定成員一起,成為一個社會實體。陸軍比大多數組織是一個社會實體在一個更為極端的方式。
它已經產生什么樣的能力 - 成員隨著時間的推移已經開發的公共資源(套路,情面,文物,詞匯,風格等)的共享劇目。 (溫格,1999年) 。陸軍將識別本身作為一種亞文化在英國范圍內。
舍恩和阿吉里斯的“模式” ,可以看出相似之處。然而實踐社區的重點,放大非正式的,而不是由正式組織內部的結構形式方面推。該模型還側重于內部的組織和利益如何組織本身應,并沒有撒謊主要是一個實踐社區的個別成員。這同樣適合與阿吉里斯的模型2 。
的條款,如“戰略下士”和“三塊戰爭”不斷提醒我們需要更多受過良好教育的,訓練有素,紀律嚴明的士兵,誰能夠應對困難,這種復雜的操作上(http://www 。 publications.parliament.uk : 30/08/07 ) 。
這種變化不是一個新的進程,并已發生在英國武裝部隊自從第一次軍事革命在阿金庫爾。我們學習如何作為一個組織,但是,并沒有改變。 Ashby的概念非常適合單,雙回路學習到軍事結構。
即使單回路學習已經證明,在的工業戰爭時代的馬不再有效,許多國家仍然試圖實現他們有用的流動性在核的沖突(卡森巴克, 1958年),另一個方面非正式的結構和社區影響創新和學習實踐。約翰NAGL ,美國上校,組織學習討論,并集中在英國和美國軍隊的適應能力,學習和創新的差異。為了確定任何軍事作為一個學習機構(在這種情況下,我們將調用一個學習型組織模型2,雙回路學習者) , NAGL列出了五個問題( NAGL , 2005年)
4 。高級官員經常與在地面上的親密接觸,打開他們的建議嗎?
5 。標準作業程序生成的本地和非正式的, ,或強加中心?
進程內迫使陸軍成為一個標準組織(長期被迫作為陸軍的文化是不舒適的改變之一)的教育和培訓服務,必須發揮關鍵的作用。由于ETS重組,以適應軍隊的未來需要,它也必須認識到自己作為一個學習機構,并成為一個標準組織本身。 CLM ,語言培訓和發展中的角色將明顯移動,但是它是在CLM的變化,這是關鍵,因為這是我們將不得不與其他接觸最多的陸軍。
CLM V3是一個嚴重的變化,從以前的系統,在這里我們將'教育' (可怕的任期) ,并提供給學習者自己的立場,而不是指望他們到我們這里來。它還需要大量的遠程學習代表的學習者,把學習者的學習,而不是利用老師的性格,以促進學習(舍恩的東西是著名的)的壓力。
6 。結論
承認這種故障的方法,而不是方法本身的根本性轉變雙環學習過程也將被反映在軍隊的做法遠離ETS ,尤其是在步兵作戰武器操作。
英國陸軍毫無疑問是一個典型的模型1組織與模型2組織的愿望。約翰NAGL標識與軍隊的能力, '創新'的問題,我們是不是能夠成功地回答了他的問題。因為我們是一個型號1個組織,我們成為防守的時候,別人批評我們的行動和經常嘲笑美國人企圖使控制系統有太多的變量。
但在這個過程中,美國人發現,他們必須為本地的創新,而不是強制系統進行控制的過程中,他們希望創造環境。經營之外,英國的軍隊仍然依賴于舊制“的組織學習,因為我們培養”,在陸軍自詡是最有經驗的軍隊在世界上是一個具有諷刺意味的??位置。阿吉里斯和舍恩標識的處理階段(阿吉里斯和舍恩,1978)就可以實現,通過該模型2組織, NAGL的過程根據。
通過這個系統,這將不再是必要的,個人在學習過程中去兜了一圈( OODA循環或科爾布的周期等) ,并可以修改過程中,通過雙循環學習。這將只實現一次模型2的組織來實現。
阿吉里斯, C. (1990)克服組織防御。促進組織學習,波士頓:阿林和培根。
哈特利, J. (1998)學習和研究。一個研究的角度來看,倫敦:勞特利奇。
Litow , A. (1991)談判教學/學習交互教程話語:互惠的研究。國際學位論文文摘。 52-04 # 1313A
明茨伯格,H (1979)結構化的組織,州Englewood Cliffs , NJ :普倫蒂斯霍爾
小資, G. ( 2004)納爾遜托內斯教學今日第3版,
里斯(商業教育出版有限公司2003年) ,我的教學,培訓和學習
坦, M. (1988 ,1997),心理學和成人學習,倫敦:勞特利奇。
Trowler ,P (柯林斯教育,1995年)調查教育和培訓
迎來, R.和科比, I. (1989)的成人教育理論,實踐與研究,倫敦:勞特利奇。
溫格, E. (1998) “實踐社區。作為一個社會系統“ ,系統思想家, http://www.co-il.com/coil/knowledge-garden/cop/lss.shtml學習。 2008年3月3日訪問。



標簽: #Army #Paper #代寫


  • coursework代寫Stock Prices Market

    coursework代寫Stock Prices Market

    北美代写,论文Essay代写,网课代修,Exam代考 Stock Prices MarketFundamental PriceThe determinants of stock prices are often a matter of debate. Economists and financial market participants hold different views as far ......


  • coursework代寫American African Heritage

    coursework代寫American African Heritage

    American African HeritageThe Courage that Lies BeneathMartin Luther King once said, We have flown the air like birds and swum the sea like fishes, but have yet to learn......


  • coursework代寫,Bank Financial City

    coursework代寫,Bank Financial City

    北美代写,论文Essay代写,网课代修,Exam代考 Bank Financial CityHugh Dalton, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was noted (July 1945) to have said #39;#39;We are going to nationalise the Bank [of England]. We don#3......


  • coursework代寫Optical Communication Systems

    coursework代寫Optical Communication Systems

    Optical Communication SystemsPrior Learning Assessment Learning Narrative OPTI 430 Optical Communication SystemsThe fourth upper level college course that I will apply my lea......


  • coursework代寫Customer Service Proposition

    coursework代寫Customer Service Proposition

    Employee customer service training a value proposition?Main Aim: To study the value of soft skills training in terms of attracting repeat customers and increasing company ......


  • coursework代寫英國教育系統


    Critical discuss on A-Level system in BtitanAbstractBeginning from the background introduction of history, society, the development of education in UK to research the causes......