Expanding Combat Hunter: The Science and Metrics of Border Hunter Sae Schatz UCF Institute for Simulation & Training Orlando, FL sschatz@ist.ucf.edu Emilie A. Reitz General Dynamics Information Technology, Joint Irregular Warfare Center, Suffolk, VA emilie.reitz.ctr@jfcom.mil Denise Nicholson UCF Institute for Simulation & Training Orlando, FL dnichols@ist.ucf.edu David Fautua Joint Forces Command Suffolk, VA david.fautua@jfcom.mil “They have never seen Juba. They hear him, but by then it’s too late: a shot rings out and another US soldier slumps dead or wounded. There is never a follow-up shot, never a chance for US forces to identify the origin, to make the hunter the hunted. He fires once and vanishes” (Carroll, 2005). From 2005–2007, a man (or possibly a group) called the “Juba Sniper” terrorized American warfighters in Baghdad. In a series of Internet-published propaganda videos, Juba can be seen killing American warfighters. In one of his videos, released October 2006, Juba claims to have killed 645 US Soldiers and Marines. Regardless of whether these deaths were truly Juba’s handiwork, the US casualty report verifies a dramatic increase in precision fire casualties during this period. In January 2007, the US Marine Corps (USMC) sought a novel solution. With assistance from the Marine Corps Warfighting Lab (MCWL), a diverse group of subject matter experts (SMEs) were assembled with a common goal: Turn Marines from the hunted into the hunters. From this meeting, Combat Hunter was formed (Gideons, Padilla, & Lethin, 2008). USMC COMBAT HUNTER The Marine Corps realized that certain people were better able to detect snipers and improvised explosives. After examining their backgrounds, the USMC realized that the most successful “battlefield hunters” were those who could read the environment: the physical and/or social landscape. Combat Hunter was designed to train these skills. The program focuses on enhanced observation, combat tracking (i.e., reading the physical terrain), and combat profiling (i.e., reading the human terrain). The USMC initiated the original Combat Hunter training in February 2007. A series of limited objective experiments (LOEs) were held through July of that year, refining the concepts; tasks, conditions, and standards; and course instruction (Gideons, Padilla, & Lethin, 2008). The inaugural course officially opened in July 2007, and the 2nd Battalion, 7th Marines comprised the first class. After the 2/7 Marines returned from Afghanistan, the Marine Corps Center for Lessons Learned (MCCLL) reported on their reactions to the course. Initial responses proved overwhelming positive: Combat Hunter is worthwhile pre-deployment training, is viewed positively, and credited with tactical successes by those knowledgeable with the course content. The skills and techniques imparted in this training are enduring and transcend any particular theater of operations, type of operation, and seem as applicable for future military operations as today’s efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. This training is ripe for expansion…” (MCCLL, 2008: 2). The Army began to take notice, as well. In May 2009, US Army Forces Command (FORSCOM) sent CPT Thomas Angstadt to the course. He found, “Combat Hunter was the best training I have ever received (other than Ranger School) and during the whole course I was recalling instances from engagements and situations during my last deployment in which these skills would have helped me be more successful on the battlefield” (Angstadt, 2008: 4). Limitations Many more after action reports and personal recommendations for Combat Hunter can be found (e.g., Knox, 2009; Department of Homeland Security, 2009; Gideons, 2008). Consequently, in order to meet the growing demand for this training, key challenges must be reconciled. First, even with interest from the Army, Department of Homeland Security, and other agencies, the Combat Hunter curriculum is still available only through the USMC. Further, within the Marine Corps, throughput
Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation, and Education Conference (I/ITSEC) 2010 2010 Paper No. 10147 Page 3 of 9 efficiencies remained an important concern; as of December 2008 only 40 Marines could attend the 10-day course at a time (MCCLL, 2008), and as late as January 2010, this throughput issue remained an on-going challenge (Spiker & Johnston, 2010). Primarily, lack of instructors creates the bottleneck; that is, only a small number of highly-experienced instructors are qualified to teach the material. Although attempts to create train-the-trainer style instruction have been made (see Kobus et al., 2009), overall throughput remains an issue (Spiker & Johnston, 2010). This leads to a third problem: Trainees receive little-to-no support for conducting continued in-unit training (Spiker & Johnston, 2010). They lack access to course training materials, a formalized curriculum, and measures of performance. Nonetheless, trainees who have participated in the Combat Hunter course overwhelmingly report that they attempt to train their peers back in garrison. For instance, in the MCCLL report, 27 of the 30 respondents who participated reported that they “conducted Combat Hunter training for their unit” (MCCLL, 2008: 5), and in the present study, 37 out of 40 respondents claimed they would try to train their teammates. Because these grassroots “trainers” lack access to a program of instruction, they are, at best, under-supported in their efforts; at worst, they may be delivering subpar (or erroneous) instruction back at their home units. This suggests a fourth issue, that is, that potential take-home and reinforcement materials are lacking. Although the USMC has created a draft handbook for the course, according to Kobus et al. (2009) and Spiker and Johnston (2010) an up-to-date manual and supplemental materials have not been written. Kobus and colleagues recommend updating the USMC manual and including more consistent discussion of the scientific foundations of the material. Spiker and Johnston add that trainees could create their own “job aids” as part of the course and discuss how class lectures could also be distributed via DVD to the trainees. Fifth, as briefly mentioned above, measurements of performance have not been formally established (Spiker & Johnston, 2010). Although the expert instructors use their judgment to assess the readiness of their classes, no explicit standards or measurement tools are available for the trainees. In their review of the course, Spiker and Johnston suggest that “scorecards” be handed out, so that personnel can self-regulate their and their teams’ performance, even if the pace of the course prohibits more traditional testing. Spiker and Johnston further suggest that such scorecards could double as handouts. Sixth, as identified by the MCCLL, the skills learned via Combat Hunter are not always understood (or employed appropriately) by senior officers, particularly at the onset of the training program. For instance, in an after action review from two years ago, Marines offered: “The Marine Corps views it as voodoo” and “It would help if all the leadership was better familiar with the Combat Hunter skills” (MCCLL, 2008: 5). While it is impractical to send all senior leaders through the full Combat Hunter course, focused overviews of the curricula distributed to the leadership would prove useful, as the MCCLL report also suggests. In summary, the current USMC Combat Hunter curriculum has significantly enhanced Marine Corps training and given important insights to the Joint Services. However, the following gaps still exist: 1. Limited access to the training 2. Limited course throughput 3. Insufficient support for train-the-trainer 4. Insufficient take-home materials 5. Lacking performance measures 6. Limited understanding of skills by leadership EXPANDING THE TRAINING: BACKGROUND 16–17 September 2009, US Joint Forces Command (USJFCOM) and Team Orlando hosted the Irregular Warfare Training Symposium. It focused on exploring ways to support excellence at the small unit level, with an emphasis on cognitive training in order strengthen team self-awareness, resilience, and confidence. The symposium’s working groups discussed the areas of team decision-making under stress, measurement, assessment, and evidence-based training, mission rehearsal, and joint enabling capabilities (USJFCOM, 2009). A year prior, DoD Directive 3000.07 had been published, requiring (among other things) that the Services place greater emphasis on concepts and capabilities relevant to irregular warfare. This directive plus the insights from the symposium highlighted the Joint need for greater capabilities for training decision-making for the irregular warfare environment. This impetus was echoed by the demand signal from Joint Task Force North (JTF-N) for high-level cognitive training on behavioral and environmental cues.
Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation, and Education Conference (I/ITSEC) 2010 2010 Paper No. 10147 Page 4 of 9 Goals The JTF-N demand signal presented the perfect opportunity to begin addressing some of the gaps the symposium identified. USJFCOM and JTF-N partnered on the creation of a Combat Hunter-like course at Fort Bliss to train decision-making through enhanced observation, tracking, and human behavior observation. Controlled execution of this course also provided the opportunity to conduct extensive research into the underlying training, taking a step towards closing the gaps identified earlier in this paper. “BORDER HUNTER” JTF-N arranged for the special 20-day “Border Hunter” course to be delivered at Fort Bliss from 5-25 April 2010. Border Hunter may be best characterized as a one-off, “graduate level” version of the Marine Corps’ Combat Hunter course. This course was delivered to 43 trainees from the Army and Law Enforcement Agencies. The course was dubbed “Border Hunter” because many of the law enforcement participants were from the Border Patrol and because of the close proximity of Ft. Bliss to Juárez, Mexico. Course Instructors Combat Tracking instruction was led by an internationally recognized tracker with over 40 years of experience in Africa and around the world. He assembled a team of five hand-picked experts to assist in the training. Together, these experts boast more than 180 years of collective experience. Instruction in Combat Profiling and Enhanced Observation was led by a highly-decorated former undercover police officer from Detroit with more than 30-years experience. He assembled a team of eight hand-picked experts to assist in the training, many of whom are still active in their fields. Curriculum Overview The course was divided into two sections. The first 10 days (6-15 April) were dedicated to Combat Tracking, which involves conducting “follow-ups” of a quarry while operating in small, tactical teams. Trainees learned to read their enemies’ spoor (i.e., footprints, human signs, environmental cues, slight ground disturbances). They were taught to build social/biometric profiles of their quarry; anticipate their targets’ actions by gaining the “mind of the quarry;” and apply tactics, techniques and procedures (TTPs) to hunt down their targets. Combat Tracking is a human-centric competency particularly useful in irregular warfare settings to support offensive operations, intelligence collection, clandestine movement into hostile areas, and counterinsurgency operations. The second 10 days (16-25 April) were dedicated to Combat Profiling and Enhanced Observation. Combat Profiling is concerned with perceiving, analyzing, and articulating critical events within the human terrain. Its main goal is to identify pre-event indicators through humans’ behavior “left-of-bang,” i.e., before a destructive event occurs. Combat Profiling does not involve stereotyping, such as by race, religion, or ethnicity. Rather, it trains individuals to look for behaviors that are anomalous, beyond the baseline of a culture or location. Through Combat Profiling warfighters and law enforcement agents learn to be more situationally aware and to accurately interpret the subtle cues that forewarn a critical event. Additionally, the Combat Profiling team taught Enhanced Observation, which involves advanced methods of optics use. The instructors trained novel ways to make the best use of optical devices, including binoculars, ACOGS (Advanced Combat Optical Gunsight), and thermals (i.e., “night optics”). For instance, thermals can be used (day or night) to detect whether someone is wearing a body-bomb under their clothing. Fort Bliss Facilities Figure 1. Trainees Track at Mount Franklin
Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation, and Education Conference (I/ITSEC) 2010 2010 Paper No. 10147 Page 5 of 9 JTF-N provided outstanding facilities for the course. Lectures were carried out at the Ft. Bliss Battle Command Training Center (BCTC), a new classroom facility equipped with projectors and wall-to-wall whiteboards. The practical exercises were held at the Ft. Bliss ranges. Tracking exercises were conducted across several different terrains, from soft sand to rocky mountains. JTF-N also secured permission to conduct the Combat Tracking final exercise (15 April) at the Bureau of Land Management’s Mount Franklin state park, located just outside of El Paso in New Mexico (Figure 1). Figure 2. The Original “Ville” (January 2010) Figure 3. Redesign of Range Golf (April 2010) Figure 4. The New “Marketplace” (April 2010) For the Combat Profiling exercises, JTF-N reserved Ft. Bliss ranges Golf and Foxtrot. Range Golf was transformed for the course—changing from a basic room-clearing facility to a “cognitive range” where trainees could apply their Combat Profiling decision-making skills (see Figures 2-4). To achieve this, Ft. Bliss provided dozens of additional CONEX boxes (i.e., large, metal freight containers), which became one- and two-story homes and businesses. They also used heavy equipment to create new roads and clear vegetation. The lead SME from the Combat Profiling and Enhanced Observation and his team dictated the placement of each of building and prop; they even planted the decorative bushes around the “well” in the center of the new “village” and personally painted graffiti in the “bad” section of town. BORDER HUNTER RESEARCH Acting within its role as a joint integrator of training, USJFCOM was invited to lead a team of 13 researchers, who attended the course in order to conduct scientific observation, experimental testing, and a formative evaluation. The investigators’ goals were to (1) capture the course content and package it for greater deployability, (2) assess the instructional outcomes of the course, and (3) explicitly articulate the linkages between the course content and underlying scientific principles. The researchers additionally attempted to catalog the experts’ skills, identify common traits of the best performing trainees, and observe how tacit knowledge transferred from the instructors to the trainees. Research Design A research design was created with these goals in mind. The researchers additionally attempted to catalog the experts’ skills, identify common traits of the best performing students, and observe how tacit knowledge transferred from the instructors to the trainees. METHODS Participants Forty-three Soldiers/Law Enforcement Agents attended the course. Of these, most were from the US Army (n = 21) and Border Patrol (n = 18). Two were from the FBI (n = 2), and both the Texas Rangers (n = 1) and Parks Services (n = 1) sent one attendee. All trainees were highly experienced, with an average of 9 years in the military/law enforcement sectors. To facilitate the many hands-on exercises, the trainees were divided into five 8-9 person teams. They remained in these teams for the full duration of the course. Teams 1 and 2 comprised Border Patrol agents. Teams 3 and 4 comprised Soldiers, and Team 5 was a mixed team, including Soldiers, FBI agents, a Park Ranger, and a Texas Ranger.
Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation, and Education Conference (I/ITSEC) 2010 2010 Paper No. 10147 Page 6 of 9 In addition to the course attendees, twenty-two Soldiers (n = 22) were recruited from Fort Bliss to play key OPFOR during the Combat Profiling exercises. These Soldiers received training in human behavior patterns, insurgent tactics, and Middle Eastern culture. Most of these Soldiers held junior ranks (mainly private or private first class), and they possessed an average of 3-years military service. (To augment the Army role-players, 30 professional actors were also hired from Tatitlek; however, no data were collected on these individuals.) Apparatus The experimental team (i.e., the 13 researchers, not just this paper’s authors) conducted a within-subjects repeated-measures design for collecting data. The 43 Border Hunter trainees completed or were assessed on the following: • Demographics survey • Cognitive attributes battery • Declarative knowledge pre/posttest • Photo vignettes pre/posttests • Situated judgment pre/posttests • Perceptual aptitude pre/posttests • Heart-rate monitoring (i.e., level of awareness) • Behavioral observation during field exercises • Daily reactions surveys The 22 role-player trainees completed the following: • Demographics survey • Profiling declarative knowledge pre/posttest • Profiling photo vignettes pre/posttests • Profiling situated judgment pre/posttests • Profiling daily reactions surveys In addition to these metrics, the six tracking instructors and nine profiling instructors completed structured interviews with two of the researchers, Dr. William Ross and Laura Militello. The instructors were also given the same cognitive battery that the trainees completed, with the hope of uncovering those innate traits that comprise an expert Combat Hunter instructor. Design Stages of Training The researchers created assessments for each stage of the training process, beginning with acquisition of low-level knowledge (i.e., declarative knowledge), moving into rote skills (i.e., procedures), and finally assessment of the acquisition of higher-order cognitive skills. Figure 5 shows a simple diagram of the training process. It highlights general stages of training from low-level (left) to high-level (right). The diagram also includes a box marked “Metacognitive Awareness,” which represents the highest level of understanding, an expert degree of competency. It must be noted that the Border Hunter course did not attempt to train-the-trainer or comprehensively impart meta-cognitive skills to the trainees. Each icon in Figure 5 was measured by at least one apparatus. The lower-level skills were assessed via traditional paper-based tests, while the higher-level abilities were assessed via essay-like exams, behavioral observation, or physiological metrics. TraineeAnalysisPROCESSESSynthesisSCHEMAEffectiveApplication of KSAs(Taskwork and Teamwork)OPERATIONALCOMPETENCEMETACOGNITIVEAWARENESSKnowledge ofOwn Knowledge(Expertise)KnowledgeFRAMEWORKComprehensionVOCABULARY Figure 5. Diagram of a Generic Training Process (developed by Spiker, Schatz, Fautua, et al.)
Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation, and Education Conference (I/ITSEC) 2010 2010 Paper No. 10147 Page 7 of 9 Kirkpatrick’s Hierarchy In addition to evaluating each stage of the training process, the researchers’ attempted to assess Kirkpatrick’s four-level framework of training effectiveness. This framework includes: 1. Student reactions to the course 2. Student learning during the course 3. Transfer of training to the job 4. Organizational impact of the training Naturally, levels 1 and 2 were measured during the 20-day course. Level 3 was measured via a longitudinal study, during which a subset of Border Patrol (n = 5) and Army (n = 7) personnel were followed through the beginning of July 2010. Finally, level 4 was assessed by testing certain trainees’ peers at their home stations; the level-four assessment was augmented by the use of a control group. HIGH-LEVEL RESULTS Complete results from this extensive study will be published in a USJFCOM technical report, and specific accounts are detailed in fellow 2010 I/ITSEC papers (see Spiker, Johnston, Williams, & Lethin, 2010; and Kobus, Palmer, Kobus, & Ostertag, 2010). The length of this paper facilitates only a general discussion of overall findings. Level 1 Beginning with Kirkpatrick’s first level of evaluation (student reactions), the key findings echo those already identified by MCCLL and others. That is, trainees responded very positively. Trainees’ daily overall reactions ranged between 6.3–6.9 (on a 7-point scale), and role-players’ daily overall reactions ranged from 6.4–6.5 (on a 7-point scale). On the final day of the course, trainees were asked to provide additional details on their perceptions. The trainees overwhelmingly reported that, if they were in a supervisory position, they would send their personnel to a similar course. Many of the trainees also indicated that they felt the Border Hunter course material would save lives, make personnel harder targets, or increase their survivability. Similarly, most of the trainees indicated that they planned to teach the Border Hunter material—either formally or informally—to their teammates at their home stations. As for which aspects of the instruction they found most valuable, many trainees indicated that learning about human behavior through the Combat Profiling instruction was key. Other popular answers included learning to act left-of-bang, Combat Tracking (in general), and being able to articulate their tacit knowledge. Finally, the trainees most often suggested that the following should be changed: trainees wanted days off (the course comprised 20 contiguous days), they requested that more time be dedicated to hands-on exercises, and some requested more law enforcement examples and scenarios. Level 2 Seven measurement tools address the second level of evaluation. Naturally, a range of results were identified, and these are discussed in detail elsewhere. However, the general trends suggest that trainees did acquire substantial skills—at the declarative, procedural, and higher-order levels. Levels 3 and 4 As of the writing of this paper, data collection for the longitudinal and organizational transfer studies is ongoing. Thus far, data from 12 Border Hunter trainees have been collected. Additionally, paper-based tests that assess declarative, procedural, and conceptual knowledge have been administered to 20 personnel who work closely with a Border Hunter attendee. Another 20 similar personnel, serving as a control group, have also completed these tests. A second (i.e., posttest) administration of these metrics is currently underway. Results will be reported in the USJFCOM technical report. DELIVERABLES From the Border Hunter exercise, USJFCOM has developed several deliverables. First, with input from all 13 researchers, USJFCOM is producing an integrated technical report that includes sections on the course execution, experimentation, study results, and recommendations for future work. Second, USJFCOM is developing a high-level Program of Instruction (POI). It includes a detailed syllabus, divided into nine instructional units, as well as supplementary materials included in a resource DVD. Video clips captured during Border Hunter, and associated with various modules in the POI, are also included on the resource DVD. Finally, an easy-carry student pocket guide of key instructional points is being developed to correspond
Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation, and Education Conference (I/ITSEC) 2010 2010 Paper No. 10147 Page 8 of 9 with the instructor POI. All of these materials will be made available to the Joint Services through USJFCOM. Additional Contributions This endeavor also helped advance the science and research of irregular warfare training in several ways. 1. Establishment of a baseline: The results from the investigation establish a baseline of qualitative and quantitative data for Combat Hunter-style training against which similar courses can be compared. 2. Prototype metrics: Original measurement apparatus were created and formatively evaluated during this study. In the future, these apparatus can be used by other researchers and/or trainers to assess similar courses. 3. SME “gold standard” course of instruction: The two primary Combat Hunter experts were able to administer the 20-day program of instruction that they considered ideal, with full logistical support (e.g., range access, billeting), in an attempt to deliver the optimal training experience. 4. Mental models of the SMEs: With no guarantee of indefinite access to all the subject matter experts involved in the development and teaching of the Border Hunter Course, as well as no existing tasks, conditions, or standards for performance, the development of an expert model of performance was a substantial contribution. 5. Assessment of role-players: Anecdotal remarks had suggested that the role-play trainees benefited from the experience. However, these comments had not been previously tested, empirically. This study evaluated role-play trainees on both Kirkpatrick’s levels 1 and 2 (i.e., reactions and performance). 6. Individual differences: To our knowledge, before this study no attempt had been made to identify the traits that differentiate high performing Combat Hunter trainees from others. This experiment takes a first step towards cataloging those attributes of a successful Combat Hunter student. Gaps Addressed Earlier in this paper six gaps of the current Combat Hunter curriculum were identified. The Border Hunter effort has taken positive steps towards addressing each of these. The products USJFCOM is developing, including the POI, resource DVD, and student pocket-guide, can help mitigate issues of training access, course throughput, and limited availability of take-home materials. Development of original measurement apparatus directly contributes to creating more formal performance metrics. Finally, the products, including the videos and technical report, can be used to help articulate Combat Hunter-style training to senior leaders. FUTURE DIRECTIONS The Border Hunter exercise was a meaningful step towards expanding Combat Hunter-style training and research. However, more work is still required to completely close all of the identified gaps. Next steps should include validation of the deliverables created by this project. More specifically, additional administrations of the new apparatus should be carried out in order to corroborate their generalizability, reliability, and validity. Further, data collected from these additional administrations must be pooled in order to create a more extensive performance baseline. From this pool of data, formal standards of performance can then be developed. Next, the POI and student pocket-guide will require a host of complementary follow-on materials. These include expanded primary content, supplementary techniques and tools (e.g., for small-unit leaders or team coordination training), and train-the-trainer resources. Similarly, additional tools are needed to further grow the beginning skill levels of trainees and help them maintain their skills over time, in other words, pre-training and on-going refresher training tools. Some of these supplementary materials should make use of appropriate modern technologies, from interactive online instruction to high-fidelity immersive simulations, in order to improve the access and repeatability of the training content (particularly the instructional scenarios). CONCLUSION Based upon trainee reactions and an initial assessment of the data, Border Hunter appeared to have been a
Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation, and Education Conference (I/ITSEC) 2010 2010 Paper No. 10147 Page 9 of 9 highly successful training experience. Forty-three participants and 22 role-players received distinctive Combat Hunter-style training from an elite cohort of SMEs. The Border Hunter event also facilitated uniquely intense and comprehensive analysis by a 13-person research team. The results from this investigation should meaningfully contribute to improved concepts and capabilities for irregular warfare training, and the deliverables created from this endeavor will directly address several gaps in the contemporary training cycle. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This work was supported in part by the US Joint Forces Command (NG PO #7500074768). The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the USJFCOM or the US Government. The US Government is authorized to reproduce and distribute reprints for Government purposes notwithstanding any copyright notation hereon. REFERENCES Angstadt T. D. (2008). USMC Combat Hunter Training Program. MEMORANDUM FOR: Chief Training Division G-3 FORSCOM (AFOP-TR). Fort McPherson, Georgia: Headquarters, United States Army Forces Command. Carroll, R. (2005). Elusive sniper saps US morale in Baghdad. The Guardian, August 2005.
www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/aug/05/iraq.usa Department of Homeland Security (2009). Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, Operations Order - After Action Report (09-SDCSDC-XXX-0XX). Gideons, C. D. (2008). Sample of After Action Report (AAR) Comments on Combat Hunter Program as Used by 2D Battalion, 7th Marines (2/7) in Afghanistan (1000 AITB). Camp Pendleton, CA: US Marine Corps, Advanced Infantry Training Battalion, School of Infantry (West). Gideons, C. D., Padilla, F. M., & Lethin, C. R. (2008). Combat Hunter: The training continues. Marine Corps Gazette, September 2008, 79-84. Knox, M. J. (2009). Combat Profiling. MEMORANDUM FOR Commander, 2nd Battalion, 11th Infantry Regiment, Fort Benning (ATSH-TPB-B). Fort Benning, GA: Department of the Army. Kobus, D. A., Palmer, E. D., Kobus, J. M., & Ostertag, J. R. (2009). Assessment of the Combat Hunter Trainer Course (CHTC): Lessons Learned (PSE Report 09-08). San Diego, CA: Pacific Science & Engineering Group, Inc. Kobus, D. A., Palmer, E. D., Kobus, J. M., & Ostertag, J. R. (2010). See, assess, and communicate: The language of Combat Hunter. Proceedings of the 2010 Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation, and Education Conference (I/ITSEC). Marine Corps Center for Lessons Learned (MCCLL). (2008). 2nd Battalion, 7th Marines Combat Hunter: Lessons and Observations from Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), April-October 2008. Unpublished technical report. Spiker, V. A. & Johnston, J. H. (2010). Limited Objective Evaluation of Combat Profiling Training for Small Units. Suffolk, VA: US Joint Forces Command. Spiker, V. A., Johnston, J. H., Williams, G., & Lethin, C. (2010). Training tactical behavior profiling skills for irregular warfare. Proceedings of the 2010 Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation, and Education Conference (I/ITSEC). United States Joint Forces Command (2009). Irregular Warfare Training Symposium: The future of small unit excellence in immersive cognitive training.
Citations (5)
References (10)
... Depending on the training context, a small unit leader, an instructor, or an instructional designer would then create or adapt existing exercises to practice those skills. In live training situations, such as Border Hunter [9], instructors create a series of events that are staged by live actors to reflect increasing learner skill and the progressive introduction of new skills. There is often also an overall narrative framing. ...
Motivating Narrative Representation for Training Cross-cultural Interaction
Article
Full-text available
Dec 2015
Robert E. WrayJeremiah T. Folsom-Kovarik
Angela J. Woods
Angela J. Woods
Randolph M. Jones
Randolph M. Jones
View
Show abstract
Evaluating Instructor Configurability for Adaptive Training
Chapter
Jan 2017
Robert E. Wray
Angela J. Woods
Angela J. Woods
Joshua Haley
Joshua HaleyJeremiah T. Folsom-Kovarik
View
Show abstract
Behavior Cue Detection Training: Understanding the Impact of Simulator Sickness on Performance
Chapter
Jan 2017
Crystal Maraj
Crystal MarajKarla Badillo-UrquiolaStephanie J. LackeyIrwin Hudson
View
Show abstract
Effects of Visual Fidelity on Biometric Cue Detection in Virtual Combat Profiling Training
Conference Paper
Jul 2013
Julie Salcedo
Julie Salcedo
Crystal Maraj
Crystal Maraj
Stephanie J. Lackey
Stephanie J. LackeyJoy Martinez
View
Show abstract
Instrumenting a Perceptual Training Environment to Support Dynamic Tailoring
Conference Paper
Jul 2013
Robert E. WrayJeremiah T. Folsom-Kovarik
Angela J. Woods
Angela J. Woods
View
Show abstract
Primis Player Placeholder
Recommendations
Project
Border Hunter/Combat Hunter
Emilie Reitz
Emilie Reitz
Sae Schatz
Sae Schatz
David Fautua
David Fautua
Remnants of a USJFCOM project on Combat Hunter
View project
Project
Bold Quest
Emilie Reitz
Emilie Reitz
Private Profile
Private Profile
Joseph Albert L'Etoile
Joseph Albert L'Etoile[...]Robert Richards
View project
Project
Joint Staff Blended Learning Training Packages
Emilie Reitz
Emilie Reitz
David Fautua
David Fautua
View project
Project
Sea Salt Learning
Emilie Reitz
Emilie Reitz
Julian Stodd
Julian Stodd
The purpose of Sea Salt Research is to work with our global community to commission and deliver original, creative, and in depth research into aspects of the Social Age. Our work will explore aspe ... [more]
View project
Article
Nonlethal Concepts: Implications for Air Force Intelligence
January 1994
Edward P. O'ConnellJohn T. Dillaplain
Recently a new class of nonlethal weapons has garnered a considerable amount of interest in defense and law enforcement circles resulting in the increased likelihood of the actual deployment of these new technologies at the operational level. The increased interest in the development of nonlethal means to achieve limited political, economic, and military objectives may require new considerations ... [Show full abstract]Read more
Article
Alex de Waal. The Real Politics of the Horn of Africa. Money, War and the Business of Power . Londre...
January 2017 · Politique africaine (Paris, France: 1981)
Marielle DebosBoris Samuel
Read more
Article
Computerizing carceral space: Coded geographies of criminalization and capture in New York City
March 2018 · Environment and Planning A
Brian Jefferson
Brian Jefferson
This article examines how computer software mediates the way cities conceptualize relations between corrections, law enforcement, and urban space. Focusing on New York City, it builds on concepts from carceral geography and geographic studies of software to decipher the "coded spaces" of corrections and law enforcement, or spaces whose existence and morphology are partially determined by ... [Show full abstract]Read more
Chapter
The Supreme Court of Canada Presents: The Surveillant Charter and the Judicial Creation of Police Po...
December 2016
Richard JochelsonMark Doerksen
The events of 9/11 have been described as a discursive moment, where states were provided with excuses for governing more coercively, as the need for security seemed to justify precautionary and risk-averse actions. The chapter examines how the Supreme Court of Canada has developed a Charter jurisprudence of surveillance in its articulation of permissible police practices. This chapter posits ... [Show full abstract]Read more
Discover more