Peer

Reviewed

Prioritizing Active Learning

in the Classroom
Refections for Professional Military Education
Mark Hamilton
Inter-American Defense College

Abstract
Tis article explores the value of active learning to enhance class-
room engagement of military learners, as outlined in the Army
Learning Concept. It establishes a framework of four criteria that
faculty should weigh as they consider integrating active-learning
exercises into their coursework. Te author discusses three ac-
tivities piloted in a graduate program for defense/security profes-
sionals and analyzes them according to established criteria. Te
article concludes by discussing key lessons and observations on ac-
tive-learning innovations that are relevant to broader military and
adult education environments.

W
hether sitting through lectures, participating in kinetic exercises, or drill-
ing for exams, military learners (like other adult students) carry their ideas,
concerns, and experiences to class with them. Faculty can ignore this dy-
namic but often at the cost of “losing” students and leaving learning outcomes unful-
flled (Butler, Phillmann, & Smart, 2001; Cashin, 1985; Freeman et al., 2014).
Recognizing learner context in an ever-evolving operational environment is one
reason why many professional military education (PME) faculty embrace active
learning (AL) as an alternative or supplement to traditional lectures. Tis refects
insights from the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, or SOTL (Sawyer et al.,
2017; Westler & French, 2019). An AL approach values students’ problem-solving
capabilities and prior experiences, acknowledging that these factors infuence how
learners process and utilize new information (Richardson, 2003).
In well-designed AL activities, students “take ownership of the knowledge-ac-
quisition process … via consistent collaboration with each other” (Glasgow, 2014, p.
526). Tis peer engagement does not diminish faculty importance; rather, the role
of teacher expands to that of trusted mentor.

Journal of Military Learning—October 2019 3

 McTighe and Willis (2019) present a construction metaphor to elucidate teaching/
learning practices linked to neuroscience: professors act as “cognitive contractors” in
a dynamic learning process, facilitating critical opportunities and resources that stu-
dents’ “brains need and want in order to construct knowledge” (p. 1), often in collab-
oration with peers and mentoring faculty. Active learning ultimately seeks payofs in
how well students comprehend and apply the assigned content and engage in their
learning community (Shaw, 2010; Tatcher, 1990).
Te U.S. Army Learning Concept for Training and Education: 2020-2040 embrac-
es AL ideas: “Learner-centric environments engage students in frequent context-based
problem solving exercises, and, depending on the student population, by encourag-
ing peer-to-peer learning” (U.S. Department of the Army, 2017, p. 17). Per Lira and
Beurskens (2017), the Army’s Center for Teaching and Learning emphasizes content
mastery and teaching with diverse methods, focusing increasingly on learner-centered
approaches. Problem-solving, experience-based refection, and peer engagement are
constituent elements for Army Learning Concept learner-centered priorities.
Tis article outlines a framework of four criteria to support faculty decision-making
on integrating AL approaches. A few sample activities are analyzed according to these
criteria, considering impacts based on faculty and student observations and relevant
assessments. In conclusion, the article addresses benefts, challenges, and tips for inte-
grating AL activities in PME and adult education classrooms.

Active-Learning Methods in Teory and Practice: Key Criteria

Based on broad literature review and refections from classroom practice, these
four criteria merit critical faculty attention in implementing AL activities: com-
plexity, learning model, targeted benefts, and potential risks (Hamilton, 2018).
Brief descriptions follow for each criterion, supplemented by an analysis of applied
practice in the next section.
Levels of complexity: Low, medium, and high. In a practical sense, complexity is
the frst criterion faculty will consider in course development. Active-learning activities
are usually added to existing course content, so professors must assess the limitations of
class and preparation time and available resources.

Dr. Mark Hamilton serves on the permanent faculty of the Inter-American Defense College,
and his teaching refections build on experience at a variety of academic institutions. He has
facilitated professional workshops in the Americas, the Middle East, Europe, and South Asia.
He publishes actively and has presented research at national and global conferences. Ham-
ilton received an MA in international development and a PhD in international relations at
American University in Washington, D.C.

4 October 2019—Journal of Military Learning

 ACTIVE LEARNING

• Low-complexity activities require minimal faculty preparation and make mini-

mal use of physical resources/props. Tey are short (often less than 30 minutes)
and are used to stimulate engagement and complement lectures.
• Medium-complexity activities require more from faculty, including preparation
of resources/props. Debrief time is also required to reinforce student learning,
so these activities require an entire class session (50 minutes or more).
• High-complexity activities involve even more preparation and planning. Tey
demand signifcant resources and may include the development of participant
scripts. Activities usually span multiple class sessions, requiring prior student
preparation and signifcant time for classroom debriefs. Tey may require collab-
oration from external actors.
Learning model: Experienced-based refection versus problem-based learning.
Per Richardson (2003, p. 1625), AL activities usually prioritize one of two learning mod-
els: they focus on students’ previous or present (problem-solving) experience.
Te frst model highlights students’ critical refection of previous experience. Faculty
facilitate student opportunities to engage and share what they bring to class—military,
academic, and professional background, prior successes and failures, even sociocultural
biases—then link refections to course content.
Te second model focuses on problem-based learning. Professors construct projects
and case scenarios that “prompt students to immediately use the knowledge they dis-
cover, to apply the information, and to explain it to others” (Burch, 2000, p. 32). In this
latter model, students learn by doing.
Targeted benefts: Content and/or process focus. Almost 50 years ago, Greenblat
(1973) categorized potential benefts of AL activities in fulflling learning outcomes. Te list
is adapted in Figure 1 (on page 6), incorporating ideas from Asal (2005) and Shaw (2010).
Efective AL programming requires careful attention to desired learning outcomes.
Faculty may prioritize content-focused benefts, prizing cognitive learning or longer-term
learning. Alternatively, the focus may be on process-focused benefts, enhancing students’
afective learning, motivation, self-awareness, or faculty-student (classroom) relations.
Most AL activities address both content and process benefts, with one or the other
more dominant. Generally, per Asal (2005), “content-focused simulations emphasize
the amount of information the student needs to absorb about the background scenario
or case while process-focused simulations emphasize and require more student efort
in the process of interaction” (p. 361).
One of several helpful guides for developing outcome-driven and “authentic”
curriculum is the three-stage “Backward Design” process from Wiggins and Mc-
Tighe (2011): identifying the desired learning outcomes (benefts); determining
appropriate assessment tools; and then planning the teaching-learning experience,
which may include AL activities.
Potential risks for implementation. Finally, it is important to consider potential risks
in using AL activities. Risk categories follow, with empirical engagement in the next section.

Journal of Military Learning—October 2019 5

 Content focus Process focus
A˜ective learning
Cognitive learning Changed perspectives, empathy
Knowledge of course material
and applications Student motivations
More participation, higher survey results

Self-awareness
Longer-term learning Personal e˜cacy, critical re°ection
Links to later coursework,
meaningful connections Faculty-student relations
More interaction, observation, interest

Figure 1. Benefts of classroom active learning activities. Figure drawn by author from “Play-
ing Games with International Relations,” by V. Asal, 2005, International Studies Perspectives,
6(3), 359–373; “Teaching with Simulation Games: A Review of Claims and Evidence,” by C.
Greenblat, 1973, Teaching Sociology, 1(1), 62–83; “Designing and Using Simulations and Role-
Play Exercises,” by C. Shaw, 2010, in R. Denemark (Ed.), Te International Studies Encyclopedia,
Blackwell Reference Online.

Potential loss of control. Use of AL, including simulations, games, and other exercis-
es, means giving up some control in the classroom. Faculty abandon the comfort of a
lecture podium in “passing the chalk” to their students (Chambers, 1997). Faculty with
a strong internal locus of control—and years of anticipating canned responses—may
feel unprepared for the unpredictability and moving parts of AL activities (Shaw, 2010).
Potential excess time requirements. Tis risk is linked to complexity criterion. Ac-
tive-learning activities can take longer than a lecture. Faculty considering AL activities
should estimate the preparation and class time required (and it is always more than
expected). Te same unpredictability that can contribute to loss of control can also con-
tribute to time management challenges without a mitigation strategy.
Potential for student confusion/frustration. Lack of clarity in the initial instructions or
during gameplay of AL activities may create confusion and/or a sense of general frustra-
tion for students. Faculty must consider this engagement time and be prepared to respond.
Potential audience sensitivities. Tis risk can emerge due to inadequate attention
to student profles or simply a lack of available information. Results may be serious
and can undermine student motivation and classroom trust. For example, partici-
pants may take ofense or feel alienated by a case-based characterization striking too
close to home, a risk particularly relevant to military actors. Other students may feel
bullied in role-play exercises, reinforcing their inability to engage with peers. Finally,
there may be audience mismatch: exercise lingo may not resonate culturally, and

6 October 2019—Journal of Military Learning

 ACTIVE LEARNING

students may lack motivation for activities that do not connect with their interests or
experiences. For these reasons, it is critical for faculty to carefully consider audience
alongside targeted benefts in activity development.
Potential inability to meet expectations. A fnal AL risk factor considers unsatisfed
expectations. An exercise may fail because its value is oversold or—as often occurs in
PME settings—students have prior experience with similar activities, and a new exer-
cise does not measure up in some way.
To close this discussion of potential risks, it bears mention that many can be mitigat-
ed with efective faculty planning.

Application and Assessment of Active Learning

in a Classroom Environment
Te author’s classroom is a fascinating laboratory to analyze AL activities according
to the aforementioned criteria. Exercises have been piloted in an academic program fo-
cused on defense and security cooperation.Te Inter-American Defense College (IADC),
based in Washington, D.C., ofers an accredited master’s degree and features internation-
al military leadership and a diverse, mainly civilian PhD faculty. IADC seeks to develop
strategic advising capabilities in its student body: military, police, and civilian ofcials
nominated by member governments of the Organization of American States (OAS).
IADC’s student body is extremely diverse, drawing from up to ffteen countries and
four languages in its recent cohorts. Institutional commitments include multilingual
instruction, alumni-facilitated discussion groups, and collaborative problem-solving
activities, in line with AL priorities (Hamilton, 2016).
Several AL exercises have been implemented in a course titled Multidimensional Se-
curity in the Americas (MDS), which analyzes shared human, public, and national securi-
ty threats across the Americas. A trio of selected AL activities—Roving Comments, Trag-
edy of the Commons, and a Cyber Crisis exercise—are organized below by complexity
(progressing from low to medium to high) and then analyzed according to the other three
criteria recently introduced: learning model, targeted benefts, and potential risks.
AL Activity #1: Roving Comments exercise. Roving Comments is employed
the frst day of class to preview students’ background knowledge and document
critical refections on the syllabus, assignments, and course themes. Tis activi-
ty, adapted from Francek (2016) and Brookfeld (2011), allows for active student
participation and knowledge sharing in a limited time frame and has proven an
efcient course launch exercise.
After a brief welcome and introduction, students are assigned to one of four
groups (numbering of verbally). Tey receive basic activity instructions and then
move with numbered cohorts to one of four whiteboards preset in corners of the
classroom. Te boards contain a simple prompt written at the top of each one:

Journal of Military Learning—October 2019 7

1. Interesting Aspects of the Syllabus
2. Questions/Doubts about the Syllabus, Assignments, etc.
3. Previous Knowledge of Course Temes (“Multidimensional Security”)
4. Questions/Doubts about Course Temes (“Multidimensional Security”)
When groups are sent to assigned whiteboards, they are asked to draft collective re-
sponses to their prompt within fve minutes. When the time limit is reached, the professor
calls “Rotate,” and groups shift to the next station/whiteboard: group 1 to station 2, group
2 to station 3, group 3 to station 4, and group 4 to station 1. Groups are expected to take
along an assigned marker, unique in color. At the next whiteboard, groups mark (+), (–), or
(?) symbols alongside drafted responses to document agreement, disagreement, or confu-
sion with other groups’ comments. Each group then adds their responses (in a new color).
When “Rotate” is called, groups shift to the next station and follow the same pro-
cedure. Usually, one minute less is granted per rotation, under a practice-proven
assumption that latter groups focus on review (adding symbols) more than adding
new content, which take more time. At the close of the activity—after the students
have moved through all stations—they return to their seats and faculty can ofer a
more comprehensive overview of the course, referencing and responding directly to
the collective comments and concerns written on the whiteboards.
What follows is focused analysis of AL criteria, applied to the Roving Comments
exercise implemented for course introductions.
Level of complexity: Low
Tis is a simple activity calling for minimal preparation, other than the setup of
the whiteboards and drafting of prompts. It also requires minimal resources (other
than whiteboards/markers) and under 20 minutes of class time for rotations. Te
time required for faculty debrief (to engage student responses) depends on the de-
sired level of detail and time available in plenary. For MDS, the professor usually
dedicates an additional 20–30 minutes.
Learning model: Experience-based refection
Te activity ofers students an opportunity to refect on prior experiences (related
to course content), share knowledge and areas of interest, and expose doubts and
concerns for the new course. Te emphasis here is not solving student problems per
se but rather opening a dialogue to support future learning.
Targeted benefts: Content—longer-term learning; Process—student motivation
and faculty-student relations
Roving Comments permits faculty to observe gaps in students’ content understand-
ing and respond directly to commonly expressed concerns. It sets the stage for lon-
ger-term learning because the ideas raised may be referenced in future class sessions.
Te AL activity also adds process value via increased efciency and student en-
gagement. In a limited time, the entire class can express their ideas and compare
perspectives with peers. Student motivation—particularly for military learners—is
heightened by its physical movement and informal peer interactions. Faculty-student

8 October 2019—Journal of Military Learning

 ACTIVE LEARNING

relations are improved through increased mutual understanding, and professors can
also observe subtle classroom dynamics (participation, engagement, cliques, etc.) to
prepare them for future classroom interactions.
Risk factors: Potential loss of control, excess time
Allowing students to move all around the classroom may feel to some professors like
a loss of faculty control. In reality, it represents an intentional sharing of control as part
of the AL facilitation process. Still, this can be disquieting for faculty mostly accustomed
to traditional lecture. Excess time can also produce “free riding” (lack of engagement by
some participants). It is critical to keep the activity moving and encourage diverse writ-
ers for each rotation. Ultimately, though, activity risks are very limited, especially given
the benefts and the low complexity and preparation required of the professor.
Activity summary. Roving Comments is a good example of a low-complexity, medi-
um-high impact AL activity. It sets a participative tone from the frst day of class, and most
students respond afrmatively in course surveys on the value added by this AL activity.
AL Activity #2: Tragedy of the Commons. A second AL activity, Tragedy of the
Commons, was incorporated into the MDS course after reviewing the relevant liter-
ature and adapting existing exercises focused on sustainability issues (Barnett, n.d.;
Szerlip, 2003). It is implemented early in the course to highlight collective-action prob-
lems related to social and environmental vulnerabilities, which is a new topic for many
military ofcials. Te exercise addresses collective costs of overusing nonrenewable
resources, building on the “tragedy” outlined by Hardin (1968), among others. What
follows is a brief analysis of AL criteria applied to the exercise.
Level of complexity: Medium
Tis activity is more complicated than the previous Roving Comments. For faculty
preparation, Tragedy of the Commons requires purchase of materials, like bowls (one
for every fve students), forks, spoons, and cups (for majority of students), packages of
goldfsh crackers (sufcient to refll the bowls multiple times), and a few reward prizes.
Before class, the professor flls a predetermined number of the bowls (represent-
ing lakes) with goldfsh crackers (representing the fsh). Also apportioned are a spec-
ifed number of utensils—spoons or forks—for the players to use as “fshing poles.” A
student volunteer is selected for each group to act as a sort of referee/administrator
to oversee the “fshing process.”
Te professor leads multiple “fshing” seasons (rounds of play), and communication
among fsherman is usually banned during the frst season. After each season/round,
the number of fsh caught is tabulated per student and collectively per group.
Students are initially incentivized to fsh as much as possible. At the start of the
game, they are told the winner will receive a prize. Tey lack communication (banned
initially) as well as regulatory norms or a “shadow of the future” critical to game theory
“prisoner’s dilemma” (Axelrod, 1984). Based on experience at IADC (with a large class
of 60 or more students), the activity needs approximately 60–75 minutes for implemen-
tation, including fnal debrief.

Journal of Military Learning—October 2019 9

 Learning model: Problem-based learning
Tragedy of the Commons focuses on problem-based learning. In the frst fshing
season, students’ focus is relatively simple: How should I maximize points? Tey are
prompted to win without any consideration for community implications. In subsequent
seasons, the strategy becomes more complex: How should I maximize points in context
of limited resources? Students discover that future spawning depends on the number of
fsh available in the lake. Te professor will only replace goldfsh crackers in proportion
to the number still in the bowl. During debrief, students are asked to refect on impli-
cations/cases from their previous experience; still, the primary focus is problem-based
learning: reinforcing key concepts by doing.
Targeted benefts: Content—cognitive learning and longer-term learning; Pro-
cess—afective learning and faculty-student relations
Te Tragedy of the Commons activity addresses at least four of six benefts discussed
by Greenblat (1973). To support students’ content mastery, it facilitates cognitive learn-
ing on sustainability challenges, reinforcing ideas from class discussions and assigned
readings. Additionally, lessons from the exercise can be linked to and referenced in
many other courses, thus contributing to longer-term learning.
On the process front, the activity usually strengthens afective learning, as students
practice more collaborative strategies in each round. Finally, the general excitement
of the activity and students’ chance to eat goldfsh crackers during class contribute to
improved faculty-student relations; playing the game and refecting on implications is
perceived as fun and worthwhile. Scheduled at a stressful juncture of the academic year
at IADC, this activity helps to reset student engagement and inspire renewed interest
(drawing on faculty observation and student comments).
Risk factors: Potential loss of control, excess time, confusion/frustration
Te multistep decentralized nature of Tragedy of the Commons presents the
potential risks of losing control, exceeding time limitations, and fomenting student
confusion/frustration. It is incumbent on faculty to acknowledge and mitigate these
risks with proper planning, and it bears mention that none have served to undermine
implementation to date at IADC.
Activity summary. Te scope of potential benefts for Tragedy of the Commons ex-
ceeds the prior low-complexity AL activity. Meanwhile, the potential risks are assessed
as medium but very manageable. Tragedy of the Commons is an example of a medi-
um-complexity, high-impact AL activity.
AL Activity #3: Cyber Crisis exercise. A third analyzed activity at IADC—a Cy-
ber Crisis exercise—requires at least a four-hour teaching block. It features key oper-
ational support from the OAS, a partner/parent organization for IADC. Te primary
goal of the AL exercise is to provide an experiential platform for students to critically
analyze the coordination, privacy, and communication challenges likely to emerge
during a widespread cyberattack. It fulflls a diagnosed “practice” gap on cybersecuri-
ty that emerged in prior class assessments.

10 October 2019—Journal of Military Learning

 ACTIVE LEARNING

After months of dialogue between faculty and the OAS information management
team, the activity was adapted from a technical cyber exercise implemented as a mobile
laboratory for OAS member states. For IADC, it has been refocused at a strategic level
and takes place in a large room with space for six hardwired pods, each comprised of
a table with four laptop computers. Students are asked to simulate leadership roles for
critical infrastructure institutions facing simultaneous cyberattacks.
Six groups populate the exercise, representing major public and private institutions
in a fctitious country: the presidency, the defense ministry, the national airport, a private
bank, a university, and a regional utilities company. Simulated cyberattacks prompt each
institution to engage senior leadership, manage expectations via external media (Twitter/
online newspapers), and direct (outsourced) technology staf to manage the cyberattack.
In the background of the simulation, OAS information management leaders as-
sume the roles of senior leadership and (email-based) technology staf for all insti-
tutions. Tey guide the exercise and exert pressure on student groups. IADC staf
and interns play a critical media role, interviewing groups’ public afairs specialists
and often provoking controversy with sensationalist journalism published in online
newspapers (broadcasted both online and on large screens visible to all groups).
IADC faculty move between actors and provide support as needed.
After a fast-paced 90–120 minute simulation, groups draft their critical refections
on assigned whiteboards: (1) analysis of the cyberattack and key challenges, (2) helpful
responses employed by the group, and (3) general lessons learned. After a short break,
students circulate to review refections of other groups. Much like the simple Roving
Comments exercise explored previously, this activity increases debrief efciency be-
cause it limits the time for verbal sharing in plenary. A brief faculty-facilitated conclu-
sion includes summary insights from the students and OAS partners. What follows is
an analysis of AL criteria, applied to the Cyber Crisis exercise.
Level of complexity: High
Te Cyber Crisis exercise is far more complex than the prior two activities. It re-
quires coordination with diverse actors, and activity development starts months before
the class session, including brainstorming sessions, script adaptations, and sequencing
decisions based on prior lessons learned.
To satisfy equipment requirements, locale has traditionally been of campus
at the OAS. Tis brings key coordination challenges: buses must be contacted,
building access secured, and class size divided in half (two cohorts of 30 or more
students). Transportation is arranged to efciently support morning and afternoon
schedules. Student time is planned for four hours (4.5 hours with travel), and facul-
ty and staf/partners manage a very long day (more than nine hours).
A fnal layer ratcheting up activity complexity is its political nature: IADC’s re-
lationship with the OAS raises the profle for institutional leadership. Coordination
is thus challenging in a logistical and political sense. Te decision to incorporate
external actors adds complexity for any AL activity.

Journal of Military Learning—October 2019 11

 Learning model: Problem-based learning
Tis activity targets problem-based learning: students respond in real-time with
assigned roles to several cyberattacks and media challenges. After one year using
a real-country scenario, it was decided to focus on a fctitious country to help level
the playing feld in terms of harnessing students’ prior knowledge.
Targeted benefts: Content—cognitive learning and longer-term learning;
Process—student motivation, self-awareness, faculty-student relations
Te Cyber Crisis exercise addresses fve of the six targeted benefts framed by Green-
blat (1973). To support content-area knowledge, it targets cognitive learning on cyber-
security, highlighting institutional coordination and preventative action, as discussed by
OAS and Inter-American Development Bank (2016) and Vautrinot and Beard (2013).
Another key beneft is longer-term learning: students are exposed to the real-time
stresses of a cyber crisis and learn experientially on cyber-related issues.
Process-focused benefts also are supported by this AL activity. Based on surveys,
essay discussion, and informal interactions, it usually increases student motivation. It
elicits benefts for self-awareness and faculty-student relations, at least when the poten-
tial risks, discussed below, are overcome.
Risk factors: Potential loss of control, excess time, confusion/frustration, inabil-
ity to meet expectations
Tis exercise presents higher potential risks, as compared to the other two activi-
ties discussed in this article. Te frst concern is potential loss of control, as it involves
approval, participation, and support from many actors. As confgured at IADC, the ex-
ercise requires voluntary support from an external partner, multiple bus trips through
a major U.S. city (during rush hour), and coordinating the schedules of 70 or more
students and staf. Finally, due to fnancial and political dynamics, it requires top-level
support from IADC and OAS leadership. In other words, the “loss of control” from a
faculty perspective is a reality that must be managed.
In terms of excess time, delays can always emerge the day of the exercise but
most can be mitigated via efective preparation. More challenging is the faculty time
commitment required for planning and evaluation. Tis activity requires signifcant
coordination with internal and external actors. Particularly in the frst year of imple-
mentation, time dedicated to proposals, scripts, logistics, and approval meetings far
exceeded the planning requirements for all other class activities combined.
Student confusion/frustration is another potential risk for any complex simulation.
Participants need to understand the objectives, requirements, and available tools. For
this activity, students not only experience the realistic frustrations of managing a com-
plex cyberattack; additionally, they must adapt to new computer tools and an unfamiliar
classroom setting. At IADC, language diferences further complicate activity coordina-
tion, so student confusion/frustration is a risk worth consideration.
A fnal potential risk is addressing student expectations. Most military learners
are quite familiarized with war-gaming and tabletop exercises, so AL expectations

12 October 2019—Journal of Military Learning

 ACTIVE LEARNING

for similar activities are heavily conditioned. Simulations (a subset of AL activities)

have prepared soldiers tactically and operationally for feld engagement but often
with less emphasis on how they may engage strategically in the face of incomplete
information. Previous military experiences heighten student expectations for de-
tailed operational instructions, which are purposefully limited for this cyber exer-
cise (to highlight coordination challenges amid uncertainty).
Still, to overcome unnecessary student frustration and potential resistance, a
short prebrief on activity expectations has now been added. Additionally, students
receive clear guidance on norms for intergroup communication and are granted
additional time in the preattack stage to explore their group roles and experiment
with available software tools. Tere are trade-ofs with these adjustments (adding
time requirements, potentially limiting groups’ creativity, etc.); however, as with
other AL activities classifed as somewhat higher risk, it is key to manage student
expectations and mitigate potential problems.
Activity summary. In synthesis, the complexity and potential risks for the Cyber Crisis
exercise are relatively high; however, learning benefts and impacts (measured via surveys,
faculty observation, and student writing samples) make it a high-value addition to IADC’s
curriculum. Te activity is highly interactive and builds students’ critical engagement in
content and process realms, overcoming common shortcomings of PME technology sim-
ulations (Sevcik, 2011). It exemplifes a high-complexity, high-impact AL activity.

Comparative Analysis of Sample Activities: Criteria Application

Figure 2 (on page 14) summarizes criteria application for the three classroom activ-
ities described in this section and may also be used as a tool for faculty developing and
validating other AL activities.

Refections on Active-Learning Practice: Observations

for Other PME Settings
Tese are just a few AL activities that have been implemented to enrich teaching
in a particular course. Activities vary in their complexity, learning model, targeted
benefts, and potential risks. Each contributes to the learning outcomes in the course
syllabus and also at the broader institutional level at IADC. All three activities may
work in other institutions (and support students in their own learning process), but
the emphasis here is the decision-making process for faculty looking to integrate AL
activities more generally in a PME environment.
Variety as a priority in selecting teaching modalities. Efective teaching requires
variety in styles and methods to maintain students’ interest and connect content to pre-

Journal of Military Learning—October 2019 13

 Activity Complexity Learning
Targeted beneft Potential risks
name level model

Content focus
CL: Cognitive learning 1) Loss of control
ER: LL: Longer-term 2) Excess time requirements
Experience-based learning 3) Confusion/frustration
L: Low refection 4) Audience sensitivities
M: Medium Process focus 5) Inability to meet
H: High PB: AL: Afective learning expectations
Problem-based SM: Student motivation
learning SA: Self-awareness (Seriousness)
FS: Faculty-student Match complexity
relations

Roving Content: LL 1,2

L ER
comments Process: SM, FS (L-Potential)

Tragedy
Content: CL, LL 1,2, 3
of the M PB
Process: AL, FS (M-Potential)
commons

Cyber crisis Content: CL, LL 1,2, 3, 5

H PB
exercise Process: SM, SA, FS (H-Potential)

Figure 2. Applying criteria to active learning activities at Inter-American Defense College. Figure
by author.

vious experience (Sawyer et al., 2017; Westler & French, 2019). Too many lectures may
keep students at a distance; however, the overreliance on AL activities may become
tiresome (especially for faculty) and can distract from critical content. It is important
to change the pace in adult education and build in feedback mechanisms to adapt to
students’ diverse learning needs and perceptions (Wiggins & McTighe, 2011).
Low-complexity activities also support student engagement. Some pro-
fessors simply default to lecture because of a perceived barrier to AL activities.
Developing simulations is perceived as complex, time consuming, and risky, so
faculty often give up on AL activities before even trying (to the detriment of stu-
dent engagement). It is important to ofer feasible alternatives. Low-complexity AL

14 October 2019—Journal of Military Learning

 ACTIVE LEARNING

activities (like Roving Comments) can enhance participation in large classroom

environments. Tere are still potential trade-ofs for preparation, class time, con-
tent focus, and professor control, but complexity barriers are relatively low and
learning benefts still high (vis-à-vis lecture).
Beware of activities too close to students’ experience. Given military students’
highly specialized experience, their learning receptiveness is often greater for unfa-
miliar exercises (such as Roving Comments or Tragedy of the Commons). Te closer
an activity approaches students’ previous competencies (like the Cyber Crisis exer-
cise), the more resistance may be expected. Students usually enjoy familiar activities;
however, military actors may shift their focus to diferences in activity implementa-
tion (thinking as military planners) rather than opening themselves as students to
desired learning outcomes.
Relationships matter for professional military education. In addition to con-
tent benefts, AL activities implemented in the IADC classroom show signifcant
value added in the process realm. AL activities often catalyze or deepen afective
learning (healthier class relations), student motivation, self-awareness, and facul-
ty-student relationships.
Military learners arrive to class with rich, often conficted experiences, and they
appreciate opportunities to share their stories, provide feedback, ask questions,
and investigate areas of interest. At IADC and elsewhere, highly motivated stu-
dents are more likely to achieve class objectives and take ownership for their own
learning. Military students, like other learners, thrive when they feel respected by
their professors, accepted by their peers, and incentivized by results. Professors
are wise to value relationships and process in AL activity development to enhance
student learning.

Conclusion
In conclusion, this article has explored the benefits and a few relevant chal-
lenges of incorporating AL activities in PME and adult education settings. It pro-
vides a framework and set of four criteria to help professors to develop, analyze,
and make relevant adjustments to AL activities in their own classrooms. Finally,
critical reflections and analyses of several activities applied at IADC are provided
as lessons learned to strengthen AL implementation in other military and adult
education settings.

Te opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed or implied within

this article are those of the author and do not necessarily refect the ofcial policy or
position of the Inter-American Defense College, the Inter-American Defense Board,
the Organization of American States, or the U.S. Department of Defense.

Journal of Military Learning—October 2019 15

 References
Asal, V. (2005). Playing games with international relations. International Studies Perspectives, 6(3), 359–373.
Axelrod, R. (1984). Te evolution of cooperation. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Barnett, C. (n.d.). Lesson plan: Go fsh! Exploring the tragedy of the commons. Retrieved from http://earth-
watch.org/Portals/0/Downloads/Education/Lesson-Plans/Go_Fish.pdf
Brookfeld, S. (2011). Helping adults learn. Retrieved from http://www.stephenbrookfeld.com/s/HELP-
ING_ADULTS_LEARN_Packet.pdf
Burch, K. (2000). A primer on problem-based learning for international relations courses. International
Studies Perspectives, 1(1), 31–44.
Butler, A., Phillmann, K. B., & Smart, L. (2001). Active learning within a lecture: Assessing the impact of
short, in-class writing exercises. Teaching of Psychology, 28, 257–259.
Cashin, W. E. (1985). Improving lectures (Idea Paper No. 14). Manhattan, KS: Kansas State University, Center
for Faculty Evaluation and Development.
Chambers, R. (1997). Whose reality counts? Putting the frst last. London, UK: Intermediate Technology.
Francek, M. (2006). Promoting discussion in the science classroom using Gallery Walks. Journal of College
Science Teaching, 37(1), 27–31.
Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014).
Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111, 8410–8415.
Glasgow, S. (2014). Stimulating learning by simulating politics: Teaching simulation design in the under-
graduate context. International Studies Perspectives, 15(4), 525–537.
Greenblat, C. (1973). Teaching with simulation games: A review of claims and evidence. Teaching Sociology,
1(1), 62–83.
Hamilton, M. (2016). Juggling defense and security studies in the Americas: Challenges for international
professional education and the case of the Inter American Defense College. HEMISFERIO, 2(1), 114–
148.
Hamilton, M. (2018). “Networks of power”: A simulation to teach about durable inequality. Journal of
Political Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/15512169.2018.1522592
Hardin, G. (1968). Te tragedy of the commons. Science, 162, 1243–1248.
Lira, L., & Beurskens, K. (2017). An engine for Army learning: Army University’s Center for Teaching and
Learning Excellence. Journal for Military Learning, 1(2), 44–55.
McTighe, J., & Willis, J. (2019). Upgrade your teaching: Understanding by design meets neuroscience. Alex-
andria, VA: ASCD.
Organization of American States (OAS) & Inter-American Development Bank (IDB). (2016). Cybersecurity:
Are we ready in Latin America and the Caribbean? Observatory of cybersecurity in Latin America and
Caribbean. Washington, DC: Author.
Richardson, V. (2003). Constructivist pedagogy. Teachers College Record, 105(9), 1623–1640.

16 October 2019—Journal of Military Learning

 ACTIVE LEARNING

Sawyer, J., Obeid, R., Bublitz, D., Schwartz, A. M., Brooks, P. J., & Richmond, A. S. (2017). Which forms of
active learning are most efective: Cooperative learning, writing-to-learn, multimedia instruction, or
some combination? Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 3, 257–271.
Sevcik, M. (2011, June). Army learning concept 2015: Tese are not the droids you are looking for. Small
Wars Journal. Retrieved from https://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/army-learning-concept-2015-
these-are-not-the-droids-you-are-looking-for
Shaw, C. (2010). Designing and using simulations and role-play exercises. In R. Denemark (Ed.), Te
International Studies Encyclopedia. Blackwell Reference Online. Retrieved from http://www.isa-
compendium.com
Szerlip, J. (2003). Te tragedy of the commons. Summer research program for science teachers. Retrieved
from http://www.scienceteacherprogram.org/biology/szerlip03.html
Tatcher, D. (1990). Promoting learning through games and simulations. Simulation & Gaming, 21(3),
262–272.
U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC). (2017). Te U.S. Army learning concept for training
and education: 2020–2040 (TRADOC Pamphlet 525-8-2). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Publish-
ing Ofce. Retrieved from https://adminpubs.tradoc.army.mil/pamphlets/TP525-8-2.pdf
Vautrinot, S., & Beard, C. (2013). Cyber professionals in the military and industry: Partnering in defense of
the nation. J. A. Martinez & M. R. Kayser (Eds.). Air & Space Power Journal, 27(1), 4–19.
Westler, B., & French, E. (2019). Observed trends in lecturing and the relationship to student retention. In
L. Trepanier (Ed.), Te college lecture today: An interdisciplinary defense for the contemporary university
(pp. 9–19). London, UK: Lexington Books.
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2011). Te understanding by design guide to creating high quality units. Alexan-
dria, VA: ASCD.

Journal of Military Learning—October 2019 17