Aspectos éticos

high frequency of the word (and similar words) of different in many responses and embedded in various responses to other questions. Further scrutiny of the data showed an overarching concern by the majority of instructors that the students needed different methods to learn the same

curriculum. However, the lesson plan offered only one technique. Instructors recognized this was problematic.

As P3304 explained: “And on paper, I have one lesson plan that must be used for all of my learners. And no good instructor will teach the same way, which truly means that the lesson plan is worthless. Right?” However, not every instructor seems to have the same sense of their

81 autonomy or instructional skills once the classroom doors are closed. P4096 commented “They only teach you one method, uh, and I don’t have a background in it…” to reflect that most teachers just follow one method.

However, that is not a universal perspective. A more experienced instructor P7869, with many more years of service, saw it differently. “How do I get the, how do I draw information out of the students? Cause, in that case, I might be able to skip material and go to other material where they don’t understand it as well.” Another instructor P1683, described how he modified the content delivery resulting in happy students this way:

And by the way, we’re not going through the slides one-by-one, these are just to help us as a background aid, you could see the eyes of the students light up, junior or senior. Like wow! OK. And immediately, I think that helped because it improved active listening, which then went to active learning…

The more significant challenge, though, is that higher echelons prescribe much of the curriculum. Which is normal, the curriculum describes the concept and objectives. In other words, some agency develops the curriculum learning materials and mandates that instructors teach it as designed. That is a problem. P8096 described it as “It was given to us, we have to teach it that way, it is very dry, it is very prescribed, it is very beat the dead horse. I try to get away from that…” He later commented that some activities “While maybe boring for lieutenants, is very necessary for the lower enlisted guys.” Some instructors clearly understand the

82 A much more experienced instructor with more than six years as an instructor saw

differentiation as a personal responsibility of the instructor. P4045 said, “The reality is people are people. You have to make sure you are communicating, and you have to make sure that they have got it.” Yet another instructor, P3190, with less experience, still saw there was an

imperative to do what worked for students, “That a lot of times the end goal and the process that the students are learning is the more important thing. If I don’t need slides, then don’t provide slides because that is just going to be a distraction anyway.” The same instructor went on to say, “…and being able to notice and apply that flexibility I think does; it adds a lot of benefit to the students. And that’s, I honestly feel that is what I’m here for, the benefit of the students…”

Many instructors realized that they have an obligation to their students to teach them in ways that are useful, productive, and effective. Somewhat understated, though, is their belief in their agency to undertake such modifications. One instructor with high credentials as an

instructor and prior (civilian) experience as a high school and college teacher lamented the lack of lesson plans or instructor efforts to use them. In P3304’s words:

Our instructors are never doing that. They’re never writing a lesson plan; it’s like the module manager that is making sure that there is a lesson plan in there and then they are just making sure their subordinates are teaching the right KSAs and never make them write that lesson plan that fits into the overall module plan.

The instructor lamented that this is not solely a problem of instructor development but one that, in his opinion was founded on tribal lore. As most instructors understand it, according to the training command, “This course has to be identical for every learner that comes through.

83 And that is what is done, everywhere.” Describing a model of the thought process of fellow instructors, he continued:

Maybe I’m doing it, maybe I’m not, but I’m not cognizant whether that is the right approach for this lesson, for this content, for these learners…And the reality is, there is absolutely no change in lesson plans for a 17C versus an officer. Right? For lower enlisted, specialists, PFCs to captain and majors coming through. Which means everything is taught to the lowest level.

There was yet another case that was slightly different. This instructor, P3716 with extensive operational experience, was selected to teach audiences about how a particular agency works. Furthermore, he was allowed to design the course based upon his experiences. His students ranged from new soldiers to NCOs in transition, to officers with different ranges of experience. He claimed:

Definitely, I’ve learned the hard way that I have to change how I present the material whenever I’m teaching a class full of Marine NCOs who’ve been in the corps for their career, versus somebody brand new off of the street. That’s something, but I had to figure it out on my own kind of thing.