rdf-syntax-grammar
mods:
  schema location: http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3 http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/v3/mods-3-2.xsd
  title info:
    title: Developing army leaders
    sub title: lessons for teaching critical thinking in distributed, resident, and mixed-delivery venues
  name:
    name part: Straus, Susan G.
    role:
      role term: creator
  name:
    name part: Arroyo Center
    role:
      role term: issuing body.
  name:
    name part: Rand Corporation
    role:
      role term: publisher.
  type of resource: text
  genre: bibliography
  origin info:
    place:
      place term: cau
    date issued: 2014
    issuance: monographic
  language:
    language term: eng
  physical description:
    form: print
    extent: xxxii, 102 pages : illustrations ; 28 cm.
  abstract: The U.S. Army uses the Command and General Staff Officer Course (CGSOC) as a key component of its system for developing critical thinking skills and abilities in its officer corps. The Common Core is the first phase of CGSOC. The Common Core is taught in three venues: a resident course taught at Fort Leavenworth and at satellite campuses; Advanced Distributed Learning (ADL), a web-based, self-paced course that uses interactive multimedia instruction; and The Army School System (TASS), primarily for Reserve Component officers, which combines resident and interactive multimedia instruction and is taught by the U.S. Army Reserve Command's 97th Brigade and its three subordinate battalions. CGSOC consists of nine blocks of instruction taught as stand-alone modules in the resident course (14-16 weeks long) and organized into three phases in TASS and ADL (designed to be taken over a period of up to 18 months). In response to the interests of Army leadership, this study sought to answer the following questions about the Common Core, focusing on the 2009-2010 academic year: Based on current methods of evaluation, how effective is the Common Core, and to what extent are there differences among distributed, resident, and mixed-delivery venues? Based on current measures, how can course delivery be improved? How well do current methods of evaluation gauge course success and point to needed improvements? To answer these questions, the authors analyzed available data from Command and General Staff School, including responses to student surveys, grades on assignments, and student characteristics. In addition, the authors conducted a quasi-experimental study to assess consistency in grading among faculty members.
  table of contents: Introduction -- Overview of delivery venues for the Command and General Staff officer course common core -- Students' post-training reactions and attitudes -- Grades on student assessments and faculty grading practices -- Summary, conclusions, and the way ahead.
  note: Susan G. Straus, Michael G. Shanley, James C. Crowley, Douglas Yeung, Sarah H. Bana, Kristin J. Leuschner.
  note: "Arroyo Center."
  note: "Prepared for the United States Army."
  note: "RR-321-A"--P. 4 of cover.
  note: Includes bibliographical references (pages 97-102).
  subject:
    name:
      name part: U.S. Army Command and General Staff College
    topic: Curricula
    topic: Evaluation
  subject:
    name:
      name part: United States.
      name part: Army
    topic: Officers
    topic: Education
  subject:
    topic: Blended learning
    geographic: United States
  subject:
    topic: Distance education
    geographic: United States
  subject:
    topic: Military education
    geographic: United States
    topic: Computer-assisted instruction
  classification: U408.3 .S832 2014
  related item:
    title info:
      title: Research report (Rand Corporation)
  identifier: 0833081527 (paperback)
  identifier: 9780833081520 (paperback)
  record info:
    record content source: YDXCP
    record creation date: 140219
    record change date: 20151206094928.0
    record identifier: in00003458320