INFORMACIÓN PRELIMINAR SECCIÓN 1 Introducción

The U.S. Army Command and General Staff College is located at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. It is the U.S. Army’s center for educating its mid-grade officers, predominantly majors, but also some captains and lieutenant colonels (Dean of Academics and Command and General Staff School (CGSS), 2008). It has two sessions that run simultaneously for most of the academic year. One begins in August and ends with graduation in June; the other begins in February and graduates in December. Nearly one thousand Army officers attend and graduate from CGSC every year. Approximately 200 officers from the U.S. Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and sometimes the Coast Guard attend each year, as well as two dozen civilians from various government agencies, such as the State Department, Border Patrol, or intelligence community. In addition, approximately a hundred officers from other nations attend under various state department and international military training and exchange programs. The college is accredited by the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools (NCA) and is a master’s degree-producing institution.

CGSC faculty.

The CGSC faculty consists of both active duty military personnel and civilian instructors. The active duty military personnel are mostly from the Army, but each of the other three major services (Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps) has an element on the college staff and approximately a dozen instructors on the faculty (Dean of Academics and CGSS, 2008). The civilian instructors are overwhelmingly retired military officers, usually lieutenant colonels or colonels, who successfully completed careers that ranged from 20 to

18

over 30 years in length. The faculty is organized into five teaching departments for administration and curriculum development: Tactics, Joint and Multinational Operations, Command and Leader Development, Logistical Operations, and History (Dean of Academics and CGSS, 2008).

CGSC student population.

Over half of CGSC students already have a master’s degree or higher when they arrive, as shown in Table 1-2. In Class 12-01, for example, the U.S. student population was 984. Of that number, 585 either already had a graduate degree or were working on one (U.S. Army Command and General Staff School, 2012). CGSC students’ participation in graduate degree programs should be positively influenced by their previous successful completion of undergraduate degree requirements (Nevill & Chen, 2007). Other characteristics of CGSC students that indicate a likelihood of pursuing a graduate degree according to the NCES Study are employment status (all are currently employed), professional continuing education requirements (officers in all the services have such requirements), and household income (all students are in the $50,000 to $75,000 annual income bracket or higher) (Nevill & Chen, 2007).

Master of Military Art and Science program.

As part of ongoing professional development afforded to all military students, the Master of Military Art and Science (MMAS) is the master’s degree associated with the Command and General Staff Course curriculum. It is administered internally by the college, has its own diploma and examination requirements, to include a thesis on a military-related subject, and is accredited by the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools (Dean of

19

Academics and CGSS, 2008). The MMAS degree can be in either a subject related to military operations or a historical subject, but in either case must be a military-related topic.

Graduate programs.

Because officers are stabilized in a school environment, numerous universities, such as Kansas State University, University of Kansas, Central Michigan University, and Webster University, offer graduate degree programs that an officer can complete in the time he or she is attending CGSC. These programs impose additional academic requirements on the students: one or two classes a week, either in the evenings, on weekends, or both, in addition to the ongoing CGSC curriculum. Online degree programs are also available to CGSC students who prefer more flexibility or greater autonomy in their academic pursuits. This convergence of institutional opportunity and time encourage many officers to decide to begin a graduate program, but little is known about the decision making process that determines whether an officer makes a positive decision as opposed to a negative decision and declines to pursue a graduate degree.

Characteristics of Adult Learners

Adult learners are different than younger learners, and CGSC students are different from other adult learners as well (Kasworm, Polson, & Fishback, 2002). As adult learners, CGSC students have accumulated life experiences that are different from those of traditional- aged college and graduate students and from other adult students. Adult learners have “diverse goals and motives” (Kasworm et al., 2002, p. 27) and may have a great need “to develop an understanding of alternative actions and resources” (Kasworm et al., 2002, p. 27) relating to participation in learning activities. They often have well-established opinions and beliefs that have developed over time and reinforced by stressful life experiences, in some

20

cases more so among CGSC students who have experienced multiple combat deployments. Adult learners are usually mature, and prefer to be treated as adults; likewise, they usually prefer not be lectured to, and learn best in a democratic, participatory, collaborative learning environment (Knowles, 1980).

Adult learners need to know why they are learning something, how it fits in with the greater scheme of things, and how it is relevant to their current life situation (Knowles, Holton, & Swanson, 2005). They are more self-directed, more autonomous, and usually able to determine an appropriate course of action. However, they are also somewhat impatient in the pursuit of learning objectives, and likewise intolerant of work that does not have

immediate and direct application to their own particular learning objectives (Knowles et al., 2005).

Adult Development

CGSC students are continuing to develop as adults and can be thought of as being somewhere along a spectrum or range of development. Determining precisely where along that continuum they are may be is less important than recognizing and appreciating the concept of adult development as it applies to CGSC students and being aware that not all students are at the same stage or level of development. For some adults, change is a normal stage of life that presents itself when appropriate, whereas for other adults it is not normal at all, but rather a response to various new conditions (Hoare, 2006), either positive or negative. Carol Hoare writes that “adult learning is a change in behavior, a gain in knowledge or skills, and an alteration or restructuring of prior knowledge (Hoare, 2006, p. 11). Merriam and Clark describe adult development as “change over time . . . generally growth-oriented,” but

21

that some changes “represent perspectives that are more inhibited, restrictive, and less developed” (Hoare, 2006, p. 30).

Jack Mezirow takes a cognitive and rational view of adult development that includes ten phases, some or all of which may apply to the situation in which CGSC students find themselves (Mezirow, 1991). He describes a process of perspective transformation that begins with some event, a “distorting dilemma,” that triggers personal appraisal or self- examination. Such an event could be arrival at Fort Leavenworth and beginning the CGSC school year, an event that may highlight the contrast between the high operational tempo and constant danger of a recent deployment and the relatively slower pace and security of an academic environment. The distorting dilemma is followed in many cases with self- examination and feelings of fear, anger, guilt, or shame, any of which may also relate to previous operational assignments, soldiers and friends left behind, and anxiety over learning to adapt to a new environment. CGSC students may find themselves struggling to cope with the unfamiliar academic environment and begin to explore options for new roles (as a student), new relationships (as a member of a CGSC staff group or class), and new actions (reading, discussing, argumentative writing, and taking examinations).

Merriam and Clark describe the sociocultural context as a determinant of “what people need to know, educational opportunities that are offered, the ways adults learn, and how this learning affects development. How an individual ‘develops’ is a function of historical and cultural norms in conjunction with chronological age” (Hoare, 2006, p. 38). However, chronological age refers to an individual’s age, as opposed to “social time,” or the timetable applied to the sequence of life events. Attending CGSC may be occurring at the expected chronological and social time; graduate school, however, may still be an event an

22

individual still views as far off in the distant, dim future; he or she may not be ready from either a chronological or a social time perspective.

Career Development and Decision Making

How CGSC students decide whether or not to attend graduate school may be better understood by exploring the various theories of career development and decision making. Career development theories help explain how and why people decide on the particular career they pursue. Part of career decision making entails career change decision making, career development, as well as career stages, any of which help explain and inform the graduate school decision making process. Deciding to attend graduate school may be viewed in terms of a stage or phase of a person’s career development. Whether viewed as a

continuous progression, a series of steps or stages, or phases along a continuum, the decision to attend graduate school is a career development decision.

Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT) describes “how people develop vocational choices, make and remake occupational choices, (and) achieve varying levels of career success and stability” (Brown and Lent, 2005). It is based on Albert Bandura’s social cognitive theory which emphasizes the complex ways in which people, their behavior, and environments mutually influence each other (Bandura, 2001).

Linda S. Gottfredson developed a theory of Circumscription and Compromise in which she looked at how career aspirations developed. She describes four stages of circumscription in which an individual narrows the choices available based on sextype, prestige, and accessibility (Gottfredson, 2002). Based on her theory, conclusions about what kinds of work are suitable or unsuitable are made by individuals as children before they fully understand them. In the final stage, occurring at age 14 and above, the individual identifies

23

which of the previously-determined acceptable choices are “most preferred and most accessible” (Gottfredson, 2002, p. 100). Compromise occurs as individuals adjust their aspirations to fit the reality of the world in which they live and work; they abandon some of their hopes as they perceive barriers to implementing “their most-preferred choices”

(Gottfredson, 2002, p. 101). This phenomenon can be extrapolated to pertain to decision making about graduate school if a person has unduly restricted occupational choices due to lack of self-knowledge, knowledge about occupations, or unexamined sex-role or racial- ethnic stereotypes (Gottfredson, 1981). A CGSC student may perceive his or her abilities to be insufficient to meet the academic requirements of a graduate school program, or may be influenced by “unexamined sex-role or racial-ethnic stereotypes.”

Irving L. Janis and L. Mann state that conflict is caused whenever a person is faced with making a decision, thus producing stress and uncertainty (Brown, 2007). CGSC students may view making a decision about graduate school as a conflict that entails some level of risk and that requires either action or inaction, depending on the individual’s preparation to make that kind of decision.

One of the determinants of whether or not a person will attempt a task and persist at it relates to individual self-efficacy (Lemme, 2006), or beliefs and expectations about whether one has the ability to successfully accomplish a particular task. According to Carol Hoare, individuals can exert intentional influence over their experiences and actions, the

circumstances they encounter, the skills they acquire, and thus ultimately the course of their development (Hoare, 2006). People develop beliefs about what the future may bring, a subset of which is the belief in one’s capacity to control significant life events (Hoare, 2006).

24

A CGSC student has a choice about graduate school and the impacts it may have on his or her time at the college.

Statement of the Problem

The problem this qualitative case study addressed was the lack of understanding about how CGSC Army officers decide whether or not to attend graduate school.

Approximately half of each new class already has an advanced degree of some kind, whether a master’s degree, a doctorate, or a professional degree such as what is earned by doctors, dentists, lawyers, and so forth. According to senior Army leaders, the remainder of each class would benefit from an advanced degree in terms of leader development and preparation for future duty assignments (Petraeus, 2007; Dempsey, 2011). In A Leader Development Strategy for a 21st Century Army (ALDS), senior leaders describe the importance of developing “the ability to reason, to think critically and creatively, (and) to anticipate consequences and to solve problems” (U.S. Department of the Army [DA], 2009a, p. 8). The United States Army Operating Concept 2016-2028 describes graduate education as critical to meeting future operational challenges. With respect to the full spectrum

operations over the past decade in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, “Education will provide the intellectual grounding that contributes to effective decision making in ambiguous

operational situations” (DA, 2008, p. 31). The importance of attending and successfully completing a graduate school program is recognized.

Most Army officers pass through CGSC at some point in their careers, and for many it will be their last educational opportunity for professional development. After CGSC, many complete a successful career without attending any further military schools, such as the U.S. Army War College or the war colleges of one of the other services. Likewise, it may be the

25

last opportunity many of them will ever have to obtain an advanced degree. Understanding how CGSC students decide whether or not to attend graduate school may enable the Army and CGSC leadership to determine how to encourage more to do so. Research on field grade officers’ enrollment in graduate school across all the armed services has addressed the pros and cons in terms of increased income, promotion potential, and personal satisfaction. However, no research exists that specifically addresses how officers attending CGSC decide whether or not to attend graduate school.

Purpose

The purpose of this qualitative study is to explore how U.S. Army officers attending CGSC decide whether or not to attend graduate school.

Research Questions

The study is guided by the following research question: How do U.S. Army officers attending the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College decide whether or not to attend graduate school? The question of “how” versus “why” is based on Creswell’s

guidance: “Begin the research questions with the words what or how to convey an open and emerging design. The word why often implies that the researcher is trying to explain why something occurs, and this suggests to me a cause-and-effect type of thinking that I associate with quantitative research instead of a more open and emerging stance of qualitative

research” [italics in original] (Creswell, 2009, p. 130). As an exploratory study, the intent is to “explore a process” (Creswell, 2009, p. 130), specifically the process of CGSC students making their respective decisions about attending graduate school. Why they decide may become interwoven with how they decide, and the “cause and effect” mentioned above may

26

play a role, but the intent is to “focus on a single phenomenon or concept” (Creswell, 2009, p. 130), how they made their respective decisions.

Subordinate questions that served to inform the primary research question were: 1. Do military career requirements influence a CGSC student's decision to attend

graduate school? If so, how do they influence the decision? If not, why not? 2. Do post-military career aspirations and requirements play a role in a CGSC

student's decision to attend graduate school? If so, how? If not, why not? 3. Do family considerations influence a CGSC student's decision to attend graduate

school? If so, how? If not, why not?

4. Does previous academic experience influence a CGSC student's decision to attend graduate school? If so, how? If not, why not?

These subordinate research questions were developed from the literature review and from interviews with both graduate school program managers and CGSC faculty members who counsel and advise CGSC students.

Pilot Study

A pilot study was conducted with four CGSC students. The first two interviews were not recorded, no interview protocol was used, and the data was not included in the analysis; they were conducted to get a sense of how the interview process would actually occur. The second two pilot interviews were conducted to verify the efficacy of the interview protocol. Each student was asked to sign an informed consent form (Appendix C), their interviews were recorded and subsequently transcribed, and their narratives were analyzed and included in the research data. Significant changes were made to the interview protocol as a result of the second two pilot interviews. Specifically, the COR model described by K. Patricia Cross

27

(1981) was adopted as the template for the questions in the interview protocol in order to provide a framework upon which the participants’ response could be organized. The researcher realized after conducting the two pilot interviews that despite the richness of the responses from the CGSC students, without a framework for organizing their narratives it was difficult to determine if or how they were answering the research questions.

Methodology

This research used a qualitative case study methodology. The case study

methodology involved interviews with CGSC students that provided them an opportunity to describe how they made their respective decisions about graduate school. The student interview protocol was informed by interviews with graduate school program directors and CGSC faculty who coach and advise their students throughout the academic year. Purposeful sampling was used to identify appropriate study participants who met the selection criteria and were best able to help answer the research question (Creswell, 2009). In a case study, the sampling strategy of maximum variation enables the researcher “to fully describe multiple perspectives about the cases” (Creswell, 2007, p. 129). Demographic criteria differentiated the participants, who were selected for participation in the interviews based on the extent to which they represented the greater student body demographically. This

purposeful selection was intended to increase the reliability and generalizability of the data while also increasing “the likelihood that the findings will reflect differences of different perspective” (Creswell, 2007, p. 126). Study participants came from a sample of Army CGSC students who indicated in an on-line survey that they are either enrolled in graduate school or not, and were willing to share their experience in how they made their decision

28

(Appendix B). The survey was sent to a portion of U.S. Army students in Class 12-01, approximately 250 students, thereby excluding the sister service and international students.

This research methodology used semi-structured interviews. The case study methodology allowed individual students to tell their story in their own words, and those words informed and helped answer the research question. The interview protocol guided the