The research investigated a new course of fire, called combat field fire (CFF), to determine CFF marksmanship standards, and where CFF should occur in marksmanship training. CFF is a complex scenario requiring changing magazines, reacting to a simulated malfunction and engaging targets within arrays that require multiple hits. Ten training companies (1976 Soldiers) from the Infantry OSUT and Basic Combat Training Brigades at Ft. Benning, GA participated. Six companies executed Army qualification at the end of basic rifle marksmanship (BRM) and CFF at the end of advanced rifle marksmanship (ARM). Four executed CFF in BRM and executed Army qualification in ARM. Performance data and Soldier interviews revealed the unique dynamics of CFF, differentiating it from Army qualification. Results showed that CFF should be in ARM, as Soldiers were not prepared in BRM for the additional skills and demands required by CFF. Recommended standards were developed for the Expert, Sharpshooter, Marksman, and Unqualified marksmanship categories, TPU (trained, needs practice, and not trained) categories., and Go/NoGo categories. 15. SUBJECT TERMS basic rifle marksmanship, advanced rifle marksmanship, combat field fire, measuring Soldier performance, marksmanship training, marksmanship qualification, combat fire, marksmanship standards SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF 19.

The research aimed to identify different ways Army course instructors adapt or tailor their training to meet student needs. Interviews with 81 instructors from 51 courses across four installations were conducted. No single template existed regarding how instructors tailored, and some typical modes of tailoring were not described. Instructors provided details of how their courses were conducted as well as impediments to tailoring training. Characteristics of the courses and the instructors that increased the likelihood of tailoring training were defined. Courses that have well-defined and enforced graduation requirements aimed at producing students with a high level of proficiency were the ones most likely to tailor training to student needs. Results imply that tailoring in Army courses, as a whole, is probably limited. The major factors related to tailored training, to include instructor expertise with relevant pedagogical skills and assessment techniques, are integrated in an overall model. Considerations regarding how to initiate tailoring in courses, and questions regarding tailored training in the Army that emerged from the research are presented. 15. SUBJECT TERMS training, tailored training, Army training, Army courses, institutional training, adaptive training, learner-centric, ALC 2015

This report describes an investigation of the retention of Force XXI Battle Command Brigade and Below (FBCB2) operator knowledge and skills. Infantry captains who attended a two-day training course participated in an end-ofcourse test followed by a retest eight weeks later. Participants answered questions about and performed tasks on FBCB2. Performance on the knowledge test showed no decay while performance on the hands-on test declined slightly (10%), but significantly. The majority of participants (72%) had used FBCB2 in combat. Interestingly, the best single predictor of performance on the hands-on test was a self-reported measure of general computer experience. In general, though, it was difficult to predict performance on the hands-on test. Multiple regression analyses using a variety of experience and knowledge measures accounted for only 25-30% of the variability in recall scores. Implications of these findings for trainers, training developers, and Army units are discussed.

No abstract

No abstract