Military Training and ID

After reading this chapter, it is clear that an instructional designer working with the military has many factors to consider in creating optimal learning vehicles for the differing branches of our armed forces.

Having said that, it seems to me that a blended approach would be one that would be apt to meet the differing needs of each division (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard). A blended approach could include many combinations, including but not limited to, low and high tech approaches,

e-learning (ex. eArmy U), collaborative partnerships with corporate sponsors and allied nations, self-paced learning, and hands-on exercises. Delivery vehicles for modules would need to take into account such factors as military expectations and desired outcomes, audience and their location as well as content and any content requirements for training.

By using a blended approach, many factors could be addressed, such as:

*Skill level with technology

The text mentioned that cooks in the Army have a largely Hispanic & Latino make-up and that these subpopulations are traditionally uncomfortable with technology. This is an example of knowing the make-up of the clients and coming up with ways to best meet their needs. The text referred to this as “culturally based instructional considerations”.

*Environment of the audience

The text made mention of the different branches of the military and their basic physical locations. While some branches remain “mostly” stationary, the Marines are very mobile. IDs working with this group will need to strongly consider this factor in the design and delivery of instruction.

*Expectations/goals of the military

An interesting point made in the text is that to “bend the rules” in the military is not negotiable. IDs need to know and recognize this fact as it it relates to funding, location and client expectations.

While very complex, it seems that serving as an ID to the military would prove to be exciting and rewarding.