Outcomes-Based Training and Education

Outcomes-Based Training and Education

White Paper version 2.0    10 August 2009

Summary.  Outcomes-based training and education (OBTE) is a different system for training and for training management.  By way of analogy, OBTE is to training what mission command is to operations: trainers are given requirements but not directed how they must achieve them.  They are then held accountable for the results. 

Whereas standard Army training methods seek to teach Soldiers and leaders how to apply approved, doctrinal solutions to particular problems, OBTE seeks instead to teach them how to frame problems and solve them, focusing on the results rather than the methods used to obtain them.  It is thus designed to create thinking, adaptive Soldiers and leaders who are capable of applying what they know to solve problems they have previously not encountered. 

Definition.       OBTE is a method for training and training management that standardizes by outcomes rather than by inputs or processes.  It has three overarching components:  

- First, it requires agreement on everything the trainers are to accomplish, both in teaching tangible skills and in instilling values and behavior.  These desired outcomes are holistic in the sense that training may not advance progress toward one outcome if it retards progress or sets the students back in other areas.  (This is important, because it means that a training technique that gets at a skill while hindering thinking, initiative, or responsibility is not allowed.)

- Second, it grants as much flexibility as possible to the trainers on how they achieve the training outcomes.

- Third, it requires thorough assessment of the results, and using that assessment both to adjust the training and to hold the trainers and students accountable. 

Description.  OBTE relies heavily on the trainer’s growing expertise and ability and much less on scripts, standard procedures, or external controls.  It standardizes training by the results or outcomes.  In other words, success is judged when the student or unit demonstrates they can solve a new problem to an acceptable level using their newly trained skills or knowledge.   

It does not standardize training by the process (every student will first do A, then do B, then advance to C, and finally qualify on D) or by inputs (each student will fire three rounds, spend 2.5 hours on this topic, watch these slides, do three iterations of this drill, etc.)  It recognizes that many skills and situations have more than one acceptable way of solving the problem and does not mandate one particular solution.  Nor does it specify one way to teach a particular skill or to learn it.

OBTE explicitly focuses at every step on developing such “intangible” traits as critical thinking, judgment, problem solving, initiative, and accountability—in both the instructors and the students. 

Though there are similarities, Outcomes-Based Training and Education are not just new words for old concepts.  Outcomes are not merely terminal learning objectives.  Measures of effectiveness are not merely task standards.  Many senior leaders, upon hearing of OBTE, claim they’ve always done it.  This is a common misperception.  The vast majority have not.  They either have provided trainers little real flexibility or there is no real accountability for achieving the outcomes—or both.

Finally, OBTE requires no more resources than the standard Army training model.  It will require a new method for allotting resources, since inputs (number of rounds, hours, miles, etc.) no longer drive the training, and resources are no longer linked to a specific block of instruction.  However, a standard package of resources (no greater than before) will still suffice, so long as the trainers have more flexibility about how to use them.

Elements of OBTE.

Developing the outcomes.    This is the first step and arguably the most important.  It requires clear thinking, and to succeed it requires ownership by the leaders who will have to achieve them.  The outcomes should be simply stated in clear language.  Ideally they are broad rather than detailed, and they are holistic.  In other words, they are not meant to stand alone, but together.  That is important because it prevents a leader from conducting training that might further one outcome while hindering or even going backward in others.  In the case of a unit, the outcomes are a statement of what the unit should be able to do and they should describe its values and behavior.  In the case of a school, they specify what each graduate should be and be able to do. 

Each outcome is then expanded one level into “measures of effectiveness” (MOE).  These MOE answer the question “what does success in this outcome look like?”  Taken together, the MOE define success.  Furthermore, each MOE should be measurable or at least observable, so that they form not just the basis for the training program, but also the basis for the assessment.  All involved must agree on the minimum acceptable standard for each MOE.

Developing the training plan.  OBTE is most similar to standard training in this step.  However, there are two main differences.  The training plan is not the point around which everything hinges; the outcomes are.  So if something isn’t working, the plan changes.  Traditionally, units have tended to do this well, but schools were much more rigid.  Using OBTE, the POI in a school will change from one cycle to the next as leaders assess success or failure at achieving outcomes. 

The other way in which OBTE differs from standard Army training plans is that trainers receive more latitude.  Less is directed by higher headquarters, but the plan correspondingly builds in accountability.  For instance, if land navigation is part of a school, the plan might build in several days with little direction, available to junior leaders, and resourced with training areas and transportation.  There would be no expectation that each leader would use the time the same way.  A description of the types of navigation problems each student would be expected to solve on the final day should provide sufficient guidance for trained leaders to teach their Soldiers; those Soldiers’ performance will then show clearly how well each leader did and allow the chain of command to hold the leaders accountable.

Conducting training.  This is the area in which OBTE most differs from standard Army training.  The differences stem mostly from an attempt to make training better fit human nature, rather than working against it as Army training often has.  It is also geared to fit better with the ambiguity and complexity of today’s fights.

• Far more flexibility is granted to both teachers and students, with far fewer external controls.  This requires an investment in training leaders (both on the skills and on how to teach) but an overwhelming majority of both leaders and Soldiers respond enthusiastically and perform at a much higher level.
  
• Training emphasizes principles rather than checklists, procedures, or standards.  While there are certainly minimum standards for what an acceptable performance is, they are rarely discussed with the students, who therefore tend to strive to do their best. 
  
• Training emphasizes the “why”.  Traditional Army training emphasizes the “what” and “how” but too often neglects the why.  For instance, every Soldier knows how to low crawl, but surprisingly few can explain when it might make sense to do so.  They therefore avoid doing it at all or they tend to do it in inappropriate circumstances.  OBTE builds in the “why” from the beginning, and reinforces it at every step by requiring the student to solve problems using principles and newly acquired knowledge and skills. 
  
• As students solve problems, and learn by doing, they are required to figure as much of it out for themselves as they are capable of.  This “guided self-discovery”, in which the leader helps the student only through the bits of a problem that he can’t quite figure out for himself, helps the student to more thoroughly understand the concepts and to connect them to their context.  While it may take a bit longer to learn, the learning is deeper and retained longer.  Students in OBTE are conditioned from the beginning to think and to solve problems.  In much of traditional Army training, by contrast, students are told what to do, whether or not they understand why.  They are therefore being conditioned not to think and not to solve problems, but rather to follow sequences and procedures.  This conditioning causes them difficulty when they are forced to adapt to new and unexpected circumstances.  Not only are they less experienced at solving problems, but they are conditioned not to try.
  
• Problems in OBTE are realistic and don’t divorce the skill from its context.  To take an example, treating a casualty in combat is different from treating one in a classroom or on a range.  This situation changes the medical response.  For instance, the need to move the casualty to a less vulnerable location for further treatment not only changes the sequence of treatment steps in controlling bleeding (a tourniquet is immediate rather than after trying direct pressure and elevation) but also requires the Soldier to balance medical treatment with security, control of the unit, and accounting for personnel.  Together, this results in a fundamentally different learning experience from traditional training that isolates each task and trains them one at a time.

  (Note: Don Vandergriff’s Adaptive Learning Model is essentially a classroom variant of this.  Students are challenged with tactical decision exercises of increasing difficulty, so that as they learn to solve complex tactical problems, they do so in realistically challenging scenarios, requiring difficult decisions, tradeoffs, and follow-through.)

• Stress is reversed.  Normally in an Army school, the student will experience a high level of stress at the beginning.  Whether induced intentionally or inadvertently through the unfamiliarity of the situation, that stress usually interferes in mastering the fundamentals.  The student is more focused on avoiding trouble than in mastering the skills.  OBTE, in contrast, begins training with little or no stress.  Treating the students as adults, trainers explain skills thoroughly, breaking them down into their fundamentals, making sure students understand principles and the “why” behind each skill, but without talking down to them.   On the other hand, as the student begins to master the basics, OBTE presents him with increasingly difficult problems to solve with his new skills, even while he struggles to master them.  This results in increasing stress as the training progresses, which helps the student to cement his skills and understanding, helps him to gain confidence as he succeeds at handling more challenging problems, and helps him learn to manage high levels of stress as he performs—all with little or no yelling or other artificial stressors.  Students in traditional Army schools, by contrast, tend to experience decreased stress as they adjust to the environment and get more comfortable.  (Ranger students later in the course require more yelling or bigger threats to induce a similar response to early days.)  This reduced stress results in incomplete learning, as the student often fails to “lock in” the skills in a realistic combat context.
  
• OBTE aims for a much higher level of mastery of fundamental individual and team skills.  The tyranny of throughput and external controls means that traditional Army training (“task, conditions, standards”) results in everyone meeting minimum standards, but often prevents Soldiers from achieving as much as they are capable of, and often penalizes initiative and new approaches.  This is certainly true in schools, but also often true in units.  The results are unfortunate but predictable.  The level of individual expertise in many units is too low to enable a unit to excel in combat situations.  Worse, the traditional approach can foster a climate where Soldiers and even leaders tend to wait to be told what to do next, rather than exercising judgment and initiative.
  
• Mistakes in OBTE are treated as opportunities for learning to occur.  Students are encouraged to try things for themselves and to learn from their mistakes.  The leader’s role is to make sure that the students analyze why something went wrong and to draw reasonable lessons from the experience.  (Of course the leader is expected to exercise judgment and not allow mistakes that will result in catastrophe.)  Too often, Army training treats mistakes as things to be avoided or nipped in the bud.  Leaders are rewarded for avoiding mistakes or correcting them immediately and are rarely encouraged to allow mistakes to unfold so that their Soldiers can learn from them.
  
• Accountability is built into OBTE.  Leaders are given both responsibility and the authority they need to conduct the training their own way.  They can then be held accountable for the results, which are usually clear.  But if trainers are required to train a task in a certain way, as is often the case in Army training, it is difficult to blame them if their Soldiers don’t learn.  In OBTE, students too learn accountability.  Required to solve problems, and given the authority to try different solutions, they learn to accept responsibility for their actions and decisions.  Results matter.  In almost every case, students come to see accountability as an enabler, allowing them to solve problems their own way.

How training is assessed.  Soldiers are given problems to solve and then watched as they solve them.  Those problems should be unfamiliar to them, but which they could be reasonably expected to solve given their level of skills and experience.  If the problems are properly designed, the trainers who are observing them will not only see clearly whether the students have mastered the skills, but will see whether they truly understand why things are done, and will gain insight into such intangibles as initiative, judgment, and accountability.  An added benefit is that the assessment itself is good training for the students being assessed. 

It is important to emphasize that OBTE is not a free ride.  While trainers encourage students to experiment and make mistakes during learning, OBTE requires accountability for both trainers and students.  It therefore does not eliminate standards.  Instead, it provides a more realistic context in which to observe performance, and it allows the development of standards that help measure things that are important but have not previously been measured in any meaningful way—things like initiative, judgment, problem solving, resilience, and grit.  Eventually it should help us to better assess Army Values and the Warrior Ethos.

Conclusion.  In an Army of motivated volunteers, expected to succeed in difficult and rapidly evolving battlefields, OBTE is a better way to prepare.  It aligns more closely with the way people learn.  While results are preliminary, the evidence is clear that it results in superior mastery of skills, better retention, higher levels of confidence, and improved judgment, initiative, and accountability.

On the other hand, implementing it poses challenges.  It relies much more on leaders’ abilities, and so requires investment in better preparing leaders.  They need to have the skills, they need to be able to explain why things are done the way they are, and they need to be able to teach.  It requires the right command climate.  Strict insistence on uniformity and standardization will stop it dead, since OBTE requires both leaders and students to experiment with different solutions.  It requires commanders to create conditions that allow it, including neutralizing external agency vetoes, and removing rules and processes that prevent initiative.  Finally, it will require a different method of allocating resources to training, and more flexibility in using them, since resources are currently matched to tasks being trained rather than to skills attained.  Nevertheless, it can be done, and when done it works very well.