Gateway to Think Tanks
来源类型 | Report |
规范类型 | 报告 |
来源ID | RR-321-A |
Developing Army Leaders: Lessons for Teaching Critical Thinking in Distributed, Resident, and Mixed-Delivery Venues | |
Susan G. Straus; Michael G. Shanley; James C. Crowley; Douglas Yeung; Sarah H. Bana; Kristin J. Leuschner | |
发表日期 | 2014-03-03 |
出版年 | 2014 |
语种 | 英语 |
结论 | Students in All Venues Were Generally Satisfied with the Common Core — The First Phase of the U.S. Army's System for Developing Critical Thinking Skills in Its Officer Corps
Student Grades Were High Across All Venues; Grading Needs Improvement
Future Evaluation Should Focus on Whether the Best Possible Outcomes Within Venues, Rather Than Equivalent Outcomes Across Venues, Are Achieved
|
摘要 | The U.S. Army uses the Command and General Staff Officer Course (CGSOC) as a key component of its system for developing critical thinking skills and abilities in its officer corps. The Common Core is the first phase of CGSOC. The Common Core is taught in three venues: a resident course taught at Fort Leavenworth and at satellite campuses; Advanced Distributed Learning (ADL), a web-based, self-paced course that uses interactive multimedia instruction; and The Army School System (TASS), primarily for Reserve Component officers, which combines resident and interactive multimedia instruction and is taught by the U.S. Army Reserve Command's 97th Brigade and its three subordinate battalions. CGSOC consists of nine blocks of instruction taught as stand-alone modules in the resident course (14–16 weeks long) and organized into three phases in TASS and ADL (designed to be taken over a period of up to 18 months). In response to the interests of Army leadership, this study sought to answer the following questions about the Common Core, focusing on the 2009–2010 academic year: Based on current methods of evaluation, how effective is the Common Core, and to what extent are there differences among distributed, resident, and mixed-delivery venues? Based on current measures, how can course delivery be improved? How well do current methods of evaluation gauge course success and point to needed improvements? To answer these questions, the authors analyzed available data from Command and General Staff School, including responses to student surveys, grades on assignments, and student characteristics. In addition, the authors conducted a quasi-experimental study to assess consistency in grading among faculty members. |
目录 |
|
主题 | Educational Program Evaluation ; Educational Technology ; Military Education and Training ; Military Officers |
URL | https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR321.html |
来源智库 | RAND Corporation (United States) |
资源类型 | 智库出版物 |
条目标识符 | http://119.78.100.153/handle/2XGU8XDN/522424 |
推荐引用方式 GB/T 7714 | Susan G. Straus,Michael G. Shanley,James C. Crowley,et al. Developing Army Leaders: Lessons for Teaching Critical Thinking in Distributed, Resident, and Mixed-Delivery Venues. 2014. |
条目包含的文件 | ||||||
文件名称/大小 | 资源类型 | 版本类型 | 开放类型 | 使用许可 | ||
RAND_RR321.pdf(1119KB) | 智库出版物 | 限制开放 | CC BY-NC-SA | 浏览 | ||
1398708696648.gif(3KB) | 智库出版物 | 限制开放 | CC BY-NC-SA | ![]() 浏览 |
除非特别说明,本系统中所有内容都受版权保护,并保留所有权利。