HITTING THE TARGET: THE USE OF COMPUTER SIMULATIONS TO TEACH, EVALUATE,

SUSTAIN AND IMPROVE RIFLE MARKSMANSHIP FOR SOLDIERS

Glenn H. Goldman

This paper was completed and submitted in partial fulfillment of the Master Teacher Program, a two-year faculty professional development program conducted by the Center for Teaching Excellence,

United States Military Academy, West Point, NY ________________________________________________________________________________________________________

“The potential for simulations in training cannot be overemphasized. Moreover, the use of

simulations is grounded in our history.” General Robert W. Cone, Commanding General of US Army Training and Doctrine Command, “Building a new Culture of Training”, Military Review, January-February, 2013. The United States Army is currently undergoing its most massive transition since World War II as it begins to shift focus from almost 12 years of sustained combat and deployment operations to focusing on sustaining combat readiness, down-sizing, drawing on lessons learned and preparing for future conflicts. Significant cuts in funding for training and operating budgets are making this transition exceptionally challenging for Army leaders, especially those charged with educating and training the force. The use of simulations and the virtual environment to educate and train Soldiers in basic military skills, especially marksmanship, are becoming more critical to maintaining a well-trained and combat ready force. American Army leaders are seeking innovative, realistic and cost effective methods to teach soldiers their required skills and to sustain their proficiency. In a more resource constrained environment, discussions on the applicability of military simulations for training and sustainment have become more relevant. The US Army has, for years, extensively used simulations, to great effect, to augment and support Soldier education and training. Given the Army’s current challenges, it is useful to re-visit and carefully examine this issue and assess the present state of discussions, doctrine, policies and education/training methodologies. In the interest of providing an overview of the current state of thought, this literature review seeks to explore the current discussions and thoughts on the use of simulations to teach marksmanship to Soldier and officer candidates. The literature on the use of simulations in teaching, assessing or improving marksmanship is quite extensive, including over 100 works just since 2010. Marksmanship is a fundamental skill that all American Soldiers and leaders of Soldiers, especially those in the combat arms branches, must master. Marksmanship proficiency is tough to teach but can be even tougher to sustain and resource. Our Army’s ability to effectively and efficiently teach marksmanship is a matter of national security. Simulations can, and do, directly contribute to the overall education and training effort. A significant amount of research on the use of simulations to teach marksmanship is associated with evaluating and assessing the wide variety of commercially produced and government contracted training aids and devices. Upon reviewing much of the literature, it became clear that the general consensus is that simulations are of great value and should be

1

extensively used in marksmanship education. Additionally, however, much of the literature cautioned against using solely simulations to teach marksmanship; most sought a blend of simulations education and live-fire training to achieve the desired learning outcomes and marksmanship proficiency. A second caution is also offered. In reviewing the extensive literature available, it quickly became apparent that many of the reports, articles and descriptions of teaching techniques, computer generated simulations or training devices would require additional study and testing because the tone was overly supportive, bias and smacked of sales pitches. Some of the reports considered for this review came from manufacturers or were commissioned by manufactures. Effort was made not to rely on reports of this nature. The ideas, concepts, trends and opinions most commonly written about in the most currently available literature on the topic of using simulations to teach, assess and improve rifle marksmanship can be summarized with the following general statements:

1. Most studies considered for this literature review showed that simulations are useful

and of great benefit in teaching, both, basic and advanced rifle marksmanship.1

2. To enhance the marksmanship learning experience and truly achieve proficiency, and maybe even eventually marksmanship mastery, simulations are good, but there is no substitute for live-fire; and then only when there is lots of it. 2

3. Rifle marksmanship simulations that provide detailed shooter feedback on the strike of the round and on shooter errors with a high fidelity of realism are far superior to those that do not afford this critical feedback. 3

4. A recurring theme in the literature is that shooter and instructors, alike, must understand exactly what is happening in the firing process and must have access to

1 See, for example these three sources: Bates, Khary Atiim. MBA Professional Report on “Cost Analysis and Effectiveness of Using the Indoor Simulated Marksmanship Trainer for United States Marine Corps Marksmanship Training”. Monterey, CA: Naval Postgraduate School, June 2011. Matthews, Michael D. Head Strong…how psychology is revolutionizing war. Oxford University Press 2014. Thompson, Kelly (CPT, US Army) and Metro, Rick (LTC, US Army-retired). Department of Military Instruction, US Military Academy. DMI Assessment Committee Report on “Cadet Basic Training Marksmanship Outcomes and Fire Team Live Fire After Action Review”. West Point, NY: August 2013.

2 See, for example: Department of Military Instruction, United States Military Academy. Marksmanship Operations Cadet Leader’s Guide. West Point, NY: May 2013 and Barrett, Tillman. “Marksmanship Matters” American Rifleman, 18 April 2011. Available at: http://www.americanrifleman.org/article.php?id=14061&cat=3&sub=0&q=1 3 Chung, G. K.; Nagashima W.K; Delacruz D.O.; Lee G.C.; Wainess J. J. & Baker, E. L. National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing Report #783 Review of rifle marksmanship training research. Los Angeles, CA: University of California, January 2011.

2

the tools and data to take corrective action. Only then is the learning and proficiency maximized.4

5. Most sources recognized and addressed the eventual cost benefits in using simulations once the initial investment is made. The literature acknowledged resourcing and maintenance challenges and offered various solutions to blend and balance dry-fire, live-fire and simulated fire. 5

6. In most cases the literature pointed to a formula or training process that uses simulations to teach basic marksmanship, then uses increased amounts of live fire to achieve proficiency, followed by more simulations and less live-fire to maintain proficiency or conduct re-fresher education and training. 6

7. The literature also agrees on the seemingly obvious; in order to have effective marksmanship education you need to first have competent and proficient instructors.7

8. Lastly most of the literature lauds the safely and low-risk aspects of using simulations. This is self-evident, but experienced leaders, educators and trainers know that firing only in a virtual environment could lead to future problems in which shooters do not have an appreciation of the dangers and risks of live-fire, become complacent and endanger themselves or others. 8

4 Dietel, R., Bewley, W.L., Chung, G.K.W.K., Vendlinski, T., & Lee, J.J. Key findings from simulation and technology research (CRESST Policy Brief No. 12). Los Angeles, CA: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST). 2012. 5 See, for example: Cone, Robert W. “Building a new Culture of Training”, Military Review. January-February 2013 and Bates, “Cost Analysis and Effectiveness of Using the Indoor Simulated Marksmanship Trainer for United States Marine Corps Marksmanship Training”. 6 See, for example these three sources: DMI, Marksmanship Operations Cadet Leader’s Guide. German Army Training Guidance for Rifle Marksmanship. “Bestimmungen für die Durchführung der Schießausbildung mit Handwaffen nach neuem Schießausbildungskonzept” (Translation: “Directives for the Execution of Small Arms Marksmanship Education based on New Marksmanship Education Concepts”) Department of Education, Training, Doctrine and Organization, Germany Army Infantry School, Hammelburg, Germany: December 2010 US Army All-Army Activities (ALARACT) Message #027/2013, Subject: Individual Weapons Qualification using Engagement Skills Trainer (EST) 2000, dated 4 February 2013 7 Espinosa Paul D.; Gregory K.; Nagashima Sam O. and Chung G.K.; National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing Report #754 “An Exploratory Investigation of the Effect of individualized computer-based instruction on the Rifle Marksmanship Performance and Skill” Los Angeles, CA: University of California, March 2009 and Department of Military Instruction, US Military Academy. West Point Military Development Programs (Part 3 Weapons Proficiency Program). West Point, NY: 20 January 2014. 8 Bates, “Cost Analysis and Effectiveness of Using the Indoor Simulated Marksmanship Trainer for United States Marine Corps Marksmanship Training”.

3

Key Issue: The fundamental question is: What is the best way to teach marksmanship so that Soldiers truly understand how to safely and effectively employ their weapons systems in military operations? This question, though seemingly basic in nature, has several details. Effective military marksmanship involves not just the act of pulling a trigger to strike a stationary target. Becoming proficient entails far more complexity; Soldiers must be successfully taught to identify targets, clear firing stoppages, perform maintenance on their weapons, adjust their sighting devices, discriminate friendly from enemy targets, rapidly change magazines, shoot moving and stationary targets, and shoot while wearing body armor or even a chemical protective mask. Additionally, Soldiers must be taught to fire when their heart-rates are increased, from different positions, in varying terrain and under limited visibility. Most Army leaders would agree that there is no substitute for live-fire training. US Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) issued clear guidance stating that, “The use of simulators as a training tool is encouraged prior to conducting live fire qualification. It does not, however, replace nor should be used as an alternative form of live fire qualification.”9 Determining how best to teach a Soldier how to shoot must, however, also take into consideration the realities of today’s environment. Today’s conditions force leaders to make tough educational and training decisions. They must carefully consider, cost of training, ammunition availability, range access, environmental concerns and more. In the near future Army units may not have the budget or resources to actually travel to a range to conduct marksmanship education and training. Simulations will, predictably be, relied upon more heavily to support Soldiers’ marksmanship education and proficiency in effectively engaging targets with their assigned weapons. Clearly, simulations can be effectively applied to the marksmanship education process; but to what degree? What is the proper balance between simulated firing and firing live ammunition. The quality and realism of the simulations along with the teaching techniques are additional critical factors when assessing the overall marksmanship learning and mastery. The TRADOC Commander also directed that Army educators, trainers and units must blend the use of simulations and education principles in how training is approached. By expanding on the traditional US Army “task, conditions and standards” training approach to include a more blended learning environment Army leaders will be able to avoid the monotony and predictability of task assessment.10 The capabilities and features of modern shooting simulations and advanced technologies that apply real time editing can add the complexity and randomness of actual combat into education and procedural training. By enhancing the feedback model and providing relevant and accurate assessment tools, commanders can train the trainers to maximize the use of live, virtual and constructive marksmanship simulations. By leveraging technological advances in various shooting simulations Army marksmanship educators have the ability to be available to the lowest level and accessible anytime and anywhere—even while deployed.

9 ALARACT Message #027/2013 10 Cone, “Building a new Culture of Training”,

4

Current Practices: The currently most widely accepted practice for teaching marksmanship is outlined in Army Field Manual 3-22.9. According the official, most recent, US Army marksmanship manual the objective of qualification, “is to access and confirm the individual proficiency of firers and the effectiveness of the training program.”11 In other words, qualification is the test to assess the level of learning and proficiency. The manual uses traditional “task, conditions and standards” methodology to instruct and assess training. Additionally, it only requires soldiers to fire from the prone supported (lying down with sandbags) and prone unsupported (lying down without sandbags) positions, while actual combat operations could require Soldiers to fire from kneeling, standing, seated on other non-standard positions. This, likely, is still a flaw in the newest manual, that should be addressed in the next version of the marksmanship manual. As the demands of sustained conflict became apparent, unit commanders adjusted their marksmanship education and training programs and began to supplement the doctrine outlined in the Army’s standard marksmanship manual by developing innovative teaching techniques and more challenging shooting scenarios to validate learning. The fact that the Army re-wrote it’s marksmanship manual and republished it with updated changes in August 2008 supports the notion that, even though the rifles remain unchanged, teaching marksmanship is evolving, even in the middle of two wars. This trend will likely continue as resources for live-fire training continue to dwindle.

An example of the benefits of the blended simulations approach is how the Department of Military Instruction (DMI) at West Point teaches cadets how to safely shoot the M-16 and M-4 series of assault rifles. All cadets first start in a classroom environment learning the fundamentals, principles and safety rules associated with rifle marksmanship. They then move to the simulations lab and continue their marksmanship education in a virtual environment where they are afforded the opportunity to apply what they learned. Using a simulator allows instructors to quickly identify and address any problems that students learning to shoot may be experiencing. Simulators also allow for mastery of the marksmanship curricula, for lesson design and for scenario development. Only after the cadets have successfully demonstrated success in the desired outcomes are they advanced and moved to the live-fire training environment where they receive additional instruction and eventually progress to proficiency with their assigned weapons. Following the live-fire training, cadets can then return to the virtual environment to sustain or even improve marksmanship skills by working more complex shooting scenarios involving more variables and tactical complexity.

West Point’s DMI has, in recent years, already evolved and advanced in its

marksmanship educational and training methodologies. By applying the principles of “Outcomes Based Training and Education” (OBT&E) DMI has already moved away from a live-fire only education framework that focuses solely on ‘task, condition and standard’. The use of

11 U.S. Department of the Army. Rifle Marksmanship M16 and M4 Series Weapons. Field Manual 3-22.9 with Change 1. Washington, D.C.: US Government Printing Office, 10 February 2011. Chapter 6, Page 10.

5

simulations in marksmanship education has now become the standard at West Point and the practice is being mirrored by other schools, training environments and units. Meanwhile at officer commissioning sources such as the Military Academy and ROTC, units are adapting newer teaching and training methodologies leveraging simulations to teach marksmanship. West Point’s DMI has been a leader in the field by completely reviewing and eventually re-writing its marksmanship curriculum and programs of instructor. In May of 2013 the Army’s elite Marksmanship Unit validated the curriculum and approved the blend of live fire and simulations. A key aspect to this evolution was the directed increase in firing simulations and the adoption of OBT&E methodologies. Using current developments in shooting simulations, DMI is working to continue integrating assessment tools in to the most used simulations. Collaboration with the Army Research Laboratory and the Army Research Institute as well as the curriculum developers of the Military Science courses promise to create formative assessment tools into simulations and enhance the marksmanship learning experience even more. DMI has been successful in the creation of a coaching model within the rifle marksmanship module that will guide the students through virtual shooting scenarios. In the summer of 2013, DMI experimented with and actually used a marksmanship assessment model that was built into the tactics simulations that assisted the instructor in providing both objective and subjective feedback. DMI learned that cadets used less ammunition in the foundational marksmanship skill of grouping and zeroing their weapons. In other words the proper use of simulations in teaching marksmanship caused cadets to, more rapidly—and more accurately, adjust their sights and confirm their weapons’ proper alignment with fewer live rounds expended. Some Assessment: DMI has conducted multiple assessments to evaluate the effectiveness of its blended simulations-live fire marksmanship education program. There are two conclusive assessments that support the notion that simulations were valuable and highly effective; one from cadets and the other one from the DMI staffed Assessments Committee.12 The first was the Military Science 100 post course surveys wherein cadets provided feedback on how their classroom and simulations lab marksmanship education impacted their performance in live-fire field conditions. An overwhelming number of cadets reported that their marksmanship education, especially the simulations portion, directed contributed to their success in live-fire. The second assessment was the formal study of New Cadets in Cadet Basic Training (CBT) that showed a deterioration of skills between the initial marksmanship education and the practical application during the fire and maneuver live-fire events. The Assessment Committee concluded that additional simulations training could reduce the reduction in skills over time. Beneficial Attributes:

12 See Thompson and Metro Marksmanship AAR

6

Cost and safety are the most easily defined positive attributes of simulations. The major concern of leaders during military training is the loss of life, resources and time—but also the mastery of the task. To address these concerns the Army uses the “Crawl-Walk-Run” method focusing on the principle that repetition leads to confidence, and confidence leads to mastery. Repetition is the model used basic rifle marksmanship and any mistakes made in the virtual or constructive environment can also be easily corrected. Also, the rapid reset and regeneration capabilities of the virtual environment offers more time to the instructor to focus on the tasks to be trained. With the development of embedded assessment tools, simulations can directly reduce resources consumed during classroom instruction. The concept of paperless training, tests and evaluations is being used to some degree across all academic institutions. This approach coupled with networked technologies and access to training using multiple device types could in the future reduce costs, and the need for large classrooms. Some Controversial Aspects: Cost: Shooting simulation technology is not cheap to purchase or maintain. It requires space, maintenance and sustainment funding. For example, an EST 2000 marksmanship simulator to train 15 Soldiers runs about $200,000, plus the cost of the scenario/assessment software and the salary for the technician to operate it. But when one considers the cost of transporting 15 Soldiers to the field, cost of ammunition, logistical requirements and the additional training overhead costs, it is apparent that simulations become a necessity. Cost considerations must, however, be carefully balanced against combat readiness and mission requirements. It would be useful to conduct an analysis the long term cost (or savings) of ammunition expended in getting Soldiers and cadets to shoot at a proficient level and compare it to the cost of the EST 2000. This would likely show that the initial investment in simulators would eventually pay for itself over time. Safety: Rifle marksmanship simulations are extremely safe and offer virtually zero risk. This is not the case in live-fire training or during operations. Excessive training in a virtual environment or relying solely on simulations to teach marksmanship leads to the danger of Soldiers being desensitized do the realities of live-fire. Not all Soldiers and leaders are as comfortable with simulations for training and education as expected. Unless these simulation tools are used correctly to properly augment learning they could be dismissed as expensive toys with no “real” educational or training value. Approach to Education: The Army traditionally looks for a uniformly applicable or task specific approach to education and training. Both of these positions may cause challenges for the marksmanship educators and trainers tasked to employ simulators. This literature review identifies through these readings that if the training model and curriculum is not strongly established the simulations tool will not be used properly or effectively. Cost and safety versus realism can be effectively negated if the focus of the marksmanship education is on ease and affordability vice actually hitting and killing a target under realistic conditions. Conclusion:

7

The current discussion and literature on the topic of ‘Teaching Rifle Marksmanship’ is very dynamic and rich in ideas and new educational techniques. This literature review focuses on the discussions and ideas using simulations and the virtual environment to best teach Soldiers to fire accurately and safely. What is unique to the current discussion is the availability of advanced technologies and updated educational/training doctrine combined with the challenge of maintaining a combat ready force in times of severely reduced military spending. Additional research is on-going to determine the optimal blend of simulations and live-fire training. Ultimately Army educators and commanders will have to make tough decisions to best train their Soldiers with the resources available. The use of simulators to teach, assess and sustain rifle marksmanship is an accepted practice, if the education is validated with live-fire training. The US Army will, no doubt, increase and further develop its Rifle Marksmanship education programs with the increased use of simulators and the virtual environment for many years to come. None of this will be successful however without well trained, competent marksmanship instructors who can effectively teach. The most successful educators, trainers and leaders will be the ones that understand this and leverage the available technology and innovative teaching techniques.

8

LITERATURE REVIEW and ANNOTATED READINGS: Bates, Khary Atiim. MBA Professional Report on “Cost Analysis and Effectiveness of

Using the Indoor Simulated Marksmanship Trainer for United States Marine Corps Marksmanship Training”. Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA: June 2011.

This report analyzed and then compared current and historical methods of US Marine Corps (USMC) marksmanship education and training. It is a fascinating study of separate study groups of Marine recruits being taught marksmanship; one using only traditional methods and the other with the use of simulations, specifically the FATS (firearms training) and ISMT (Indoor Simulated Marksmanship Trainer) systems. The study found that statistically there was no difference in performance between the two separate study groups…but that there was a significant cost difference. The analysis effectively compares costs of using live-fire training alone, versus using ISMT training. The conclusion of the analysis is that a well-sequenced mix of ISMT and live-fire training would maximize cost savings -- and is as good for overall marksmanship learning and proficiency as live fire alone. Barrett, Tillman. “Marksmanship Matters”, American Rifleman, 18 April 2011. Available at:

http://www.americanrifleman.org/article.php?id=14061&cat=3&sub=0&q=1 In a minority opinion among the literature examined, Tillman argues that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have turned into “rifle fights” with complex tactical situations for which many of America’s troops have been ill-prepared. He laments the deteriorating state of marksmanship training and education in the US Military, arguing that US Forces have lost proficiency in long range precision shooting. He makes a credible argument that live-fire training is the only way to go because simulations cannot effectively and realistically replicate the challenges of firing over long ranges. Ciavarelli, Anthony; Platte William L. and Powers Johnny J. “Teaching and Assessing

Complex Skills in Simulation with Application to Rifle Marksmanship Training” Monterrey CA: Naval Postgraduate School. June 2010

This is the first of a planned series of papers whose purpose is to explore methods for improving the effectiveness of simulation training. The authors’ intent is to show that by applying instructional science, in conjunction with new simulation technologies that enable accurate and precise digital recordings of Soldier performance, marksmanship proficiency can be significantly improved. The authors state that emerging virtual environment (VE) training technologies provide individual and team training realistic “immersive” environments that directly affect learning. In spite of advanced technologies such as the use of high resolution 3-D displays to depict realistic combat scenes and other technology advances, questions remain about the effectiveness and proper utilization of simulation training. This paper focuses on individual performance skills, like marksmanship, that require complex perceptual motor activity. Later papers by this team are planned that will address applied marksmanship in tactical decision making and team performance skills. The paper also includes a brief overview of selected skill acquisition theory, and recommended instructional strategies for using simulations in teaching

9

marksmanship. The paper concludes that motion capture as an effective means to model correct rifle marksmanship postures and movement patterns. Chung, G. K.; Nagashima W.K; Delacruz D.O.; Lee G.C.; Wainess J. J. and Baker, E. L.

National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing Report #783 Review of rifle marksmanship training research. University of California, Los Angeles, CA: January 2011.

Chung and his associates contribute significantly to the marksmanship education discussion with this report by providing a historical review of marksmanship training and a scientific analysis of the psychological and physiological dimensions of learning how to become a proficient shooter. As part of a National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standard and Student Testing (CRESST) study they sought to understand what the strongest predictors of shooting performance are. They examined the perceptual-motor variables and concluded that the strongest predictors of shooting performance are experience related and the cognitive and affective variables. They further conclude that the use of simulations and training devices are valuable but that they often have a critical shortcoming in that they do not typically provide the capability to export data in an easily readable format. This observation is important because for instructional purposes, being able to access data at the shot level (e.g., coordinates on the target) is essential to learning and being able to provide feedback. Cone, Robert W (General, US Army). “Building a new Culture of Training”, Military

Review. January-February 2013. This strategic level training article sums up the guidance, vision and intent of the commanding general responsible for the US Army’s education, training and doctrine. It in, General Cone gives specific guidance on increasing the use of simulations and challenges Army educators and unit commander to strike a balance between simulations and live-fire training. Department of Military Instruction, United States Military Academy. Marksmanship

Operations Cadet Leader’s Guide. West Point, NY: May 2013. This pocket-sized leader’s reference pamphlet provides instructional guidance and contains all the basic information to effectively teach marksmanship. It starts with a detailed description of the DMI developed “Introduction to Marksmanship Operations Training Plan Progression.” The foundation of this introduction is the use of a marksmanship simulation, specifically the EST2000 (Engagement Skills Trainer-2000) Department of Military Instruction, US Military Academy. CFT 2013 Marksmanship /

Introduction to Urban Operations. West Point, NY: June 2013. This is another DMI-produced pocket reference guide for cadet leaders to use in preparing for advanced marksmanship instruction. The leaders guide integrates doctrine, techniques and skills from other US Army Field Manuals (e.g. Urban Operations, Infantry Tactics and Marksmanship) it effectively links simulations to dry fire, live fire, and practical application of fire and maneuver

10

via room and building clearing drills. This Leader’s Guide seeks to counter the erosion of marksmanship skills and education over time. It serves as a review of basic and advanced techniques and reinforces the principles of OBT&E. It further reminds cadets of the vital importance of preliminary marksmanship instruction—to include use of rifle marksmanship simulators, in order to sustain and hone already learned skills. Department of Military Instruction, US Military Academy. West Point Military

Development Programs (Part 3 Weapons Proficiency Program). West Point, NY: 20 January 2014.

This is DMI’s most recent over-arching and directive education publication. Part III focuses solely on the Marksmanship Education Program and recently received Department of the Army level approval. This program of instruction (POI) specifically outlines the details of curriculum for marksmanship education in simulator, class room and field environments. This guidance is critical to successful marksmanship learning and proficiency because it links the resources (e.g. simulation systems, ammunition, instructor requirements, ranges, classroom hours, etc) to desired learning outcomes. Dietel, R., Bewley, W.L., Chung, G.K.W.K., Vendlinski, T., and Lee, J.J. Key findings from

simulation and technology research (CRESST Policy Brief No. 12). Los Angeles, CA: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST). 2012.

CRESST found that more knowledgeable coaches, i.e., those with deeper content understanding, generally provided guidance that improved shooter performance (more than coaches with less content knowledge). This is similar to many K-12 research studies, which have found that student achievement is strongly correlated to years of teaching experience. CRESST researchers also found that sensors can help improve the interpretation of the shooter’s performance. Traditionally, a shooter and coach review a target after a shooting session. The coach applies his or her expertise on what may have caused a specific pattern of shots. The sensor information, with data on breathing, trigger control, and rifle movement—provides additional data to help confirm or adjust the coach’s interpretation of the target results. The coach and shooter use that information to make specific changes to improve performance. Finally, CRESST researchers were able to develop a marksmanship simulation that can be done in virtually any location and without even firing actual rounds. The potential for greater efficiency and cost savings is substantial.

11

Espinosa Paul D.; Gregory K.; Nagashima Sam O. and Chung G.K.; National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing Report #754, “An Exploratory Investigation of the Effect of individualized computer-based instruction on the Rifle Marksmanship Performance and Skill” University of California, Los Angeles, CA: March 2009

This report showed that: Support was found for the idea that multimedia-based instruction can be highly effective for novices, with a large increase in shooting performance observed after 10 to 15 minutes of multimedia instruction. Subsequent individualized instruction using very short multimedia instruction appeared to be effective in shaping participants’ skills toward an “ideal” state consistent with shooting doctrine. The main research question of this report focused on whether very brief multimedia based instruction could remediate, via individualized computer-based instruction, shooter skill gaps on the fundamentals of rifle marksmanship: breath control, trigger control, and quality of position. One of the most surprising results was the variability of performance. One implication for marksmanship training is that instruction should be individualized to the extent possible and designed to address issues of cognitive load and skill acquisition. Presumably, the complexity of the task (one that involves cognitive, psychomotor, and affective variables) interacts with trainees’ individual differences. Thus, certain individuals may need more, less, or no instruction at all on particular topics, depending on their prior experiences and comprehension of the marksmanship training instruction. Evans Kenneth L., Dyer Jean K., Hagman Joseph D. “Shooting Straight: 20 years of rifle

marksmanship.” U. S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral Sciences Special Report #44 on Simulations Training Strategy. October 2000

This report is useful as it describes and evaluates the US Army’s officially approved marksmanship education systems, devices and software. Additionally, it provides diagnostic questions for Army educators and trainers to use during marksmanship instruction. Chapter 4 is most relevant because to speaks of the critical balance of simulations and live fire. Evans and his colleagues advise against completely replacing live fire with simulations. German Army Training Guidance for Rifle Marksmanship. “Bestimmungen für die

Durchführung der Schießausbildung mit Handwaffen nach neuem Schießausbildungskonzept” (Translation: “Directives for the Execution of Small Arms Marksmanship Education based on New Marksmanship Education Concepts”) Department of Education, Training, Doctrine and Organization, Germany Army Infantry School, Hammelburg, Germany: December 2010

In an effort to compare the US Army’s use of simulations in marksmanship education with other allied nations, all the liaison officers assigned to West Point were queried. The supporting respondents were LTC Tsuyoshi Hyogo (Japan), Lieutenant Colonel Rolf Metz (Germany), Lieutenant Colonel German Villaroel (Chile), Major Rafa Barriga-Sanchez (Spain) and Major Henry Coltart (United Kingdom). All reported heavy reliance on live-fire training for the bulk of their Armies’ marksmanship education and all provided doctrinal references. The German Army, however, was the only Army that included simulation training in an official publication.

12

Thus, the inclusion of this publication is merited to provide broadness to this literature review. The German Army’s manual reference to the “AGSHP-Ausbildungsgerät Schießen mit Handwaffen und Panzerabwehrhandwaffen” (Translation: Educational Appliance for Small Arms and Anti-Armor weapons) which is a containerized marksmanship simulator that allows for the conduct of simulated engagements from individual rifleman up to 10 man sized squad level. The publication’s emphasis, however, is certainly on life firing. German Army doctrine states that marksmanship simulations are primarily for sustainment and refresher training. Harr, Cary. “The Perfect Storm for Web 3D Simulators and Games” Interservice/Industry

Training, Simulation, and Education Conference (I/ITSEC) 2009 Paper No. 9077 This report compares and contrasts seven difference simulation systems/technologies and concludes that the most effective simulations are those that are 3-dimensionally portrayed. 3D provides the most realistic view of a situation and therefore is most effective in teaching tasks. Matthews, Michael D. Head Strong…how psychology is revolutionizing war. Oxford

University Press 2014. This book examines the increased role that psychology plays in modern warfare. While not completely devoted to the topic of marksmanship education, Matthews, in Chapter 4, writes about the use of simulations in training. He advocates that marksmanship related training to increase situational awareness be done through the use of high-fidelity virtually simulations. He describes developing a mental schema for shoot/don’t shoot scenarios and visualizing rounds impacting target and what it takes to do so. Matthews concludes by stating simulations are of great benefit in teaching Soldiers how to shoot. Ohlson, Carl and Hammermeister, Jon. “Effects of concentration disruption on simulated

basic rifle marksmanship scores among Stryker Brigade Soldiers”. Journal of Instructional Psychology: June 2011 Available at: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/article/Journal-Instructional-Psychology/272616388.html

The purpose of this study was to examine the role that cognitive disruption plays in a simulated basic rifle marksmanship event among US Army Stryker Brigade Soldiers. Essentially, the study used the Engagement Skills Trainer (EST2000) to study the how and why Soldiers err or ‘choke’ when firing weapons. The study concluded that anxiety when firing occurs at different levels with Soldiers and that this is perfectly natural. But what is significant is that the study shows that the use of simulations in marksmanship education and sustainment can help Soldiers control and manage their anxiety.

13

Orvis, K., Moore, J., Belanich, J., Murphey, J. & Horn, D. (2010) Are Soldiers Gamers? Videogame Usage Among Soldiers and Implications for the Effective Use of Serious Videogames for Military Training. Military Psychology. 2010. This article tries to remove many of the misconceptions of why instructors should use simulations for training. Faulty polling data has shown that the majority of the “digital” generations are self titled gamers. What this study shows is that while most military members are technically savvy less than 50% are active gamers or simulation uses over the age of 20. The authors are not trying to disprove the benefits of simulations for training but to temper the approach. The conclusion is that the US Army needs to focus on acquiring the proper types of simulators and then develop the educational / training programs and doctrinal tools to facilitate their effective use. Platte, William L. (Major, US Army) “Using Motion Capture to determine marksmanship

shooting profiles: Teaching Soldier to shoot better faster”. Monterrey, CA: Naval Post Graduate School, September 2008

This is an interim report on identifying and defining instructional strategies and assessment methodologies for skilled performance. Platte’s emphasis is on warrior skills needed to fight in today’s asymmetric warfare environments, specifically rifle marksmanship. He seeks to advance the state of the art in using virtual environment (VE) training and education, through use of recorded measures, and other forms of instrumentation to model Soldier marksmanship proficiency. He believe that science based teaching strategies and assessment methods that provide diagnostic performance feedback may be the most appropriate means to improve the training effectiveness of simulation and VE training. Taylor, A., Backland, P. & Niklasson, L. (2012) “The Coaching Cycle: A Coaching-by Gaming Approach in Serious Games”. Simulation & Gaming. May 2012 This article approaches the discussion of using simulations and games for training from the perspective of the instructor and how teaching will be affected. The authors describe how instructors are not limited in their interaction, depending on the game interface, and how the methods of motivation and shaping in the classroom are still relevant. The correlation is made between the military style of situational training and the coaching structure that instructors use to facilitate learning. This article provides good great examples and definitions of the various roles and how they nest within the learning environment. By taking an active role in the use of simulations and games for training the instructor will be able to authenticate the activity promoted increased learning and task proficiency.

14

Thompson, Kelly (CPT, US Army) and Metro, Rick (LTC-retired). Department of Military Instruction, US Military Academy. DMI Assessment Committee Report on “Cadet Basic Training Marksmanship Outcomes and Fire Team Live Fire After Action Review”. West Point, NY: August 2013.

This after-action review (AAR) assesses the level of rifle marksmanship proficiency and learning among the cadets of the West Point Class of 2017. Most telling is that the best marksmen were new cadets after CBT I (Cadet Basic Training 1st Detail). Marksmanship skills started to erode later during CBT II, and based on assessment committee’s data, the Class of 2017 showed higher levels of proficiency than more senior cadets in the Class of 2016. Also observed was that leadership changes affected marksmanship proficiency. The cadet leaders/instructors of the CBT II spent significantly less time doing marksmanship in their Leader’s Training Preparation (LTP) and did none in the EST. The report notes that while not necessarily causal, there’s a correlation to sustained use of the EST and performance thereafter. DMI concluded that there are two implications for the US Military Academy; first, CBT II cadet leaders/instructors should also use simulations to sustain their marksmanship proficiency in order to promote more effective learning and training and second, the academy should provide opportunities for upper-class cadets (e.g. rising Third Class cadets) to use simulations prior to live fire training at Cadet Field Training (CFT). Note: As of this literature review, training plans for Cadet Summer Training have already been adjusted, specifically directing an increase in EST usage for CBT II cadets for the summer of 2014. US Army All-Army Activities (ALARACT) Message #027/2013, Subject: Individual

Weapons Qualification using Engagement Skills Trainer (EST) 2000, dated 4 February 2013.

This one page all-Army directive provides specific training guidance to all components of the United States Army (e.g. the Active, National Guard and Reserve Components). It further provides a list of useful Army doctrinal references and publication to use in integrating simulations and live-fire marksmanship training. U.S. Department of the Army. Rifle Marksmanship M16 and M4 Series Weapons. Field

Manual 3-22.9 with Change 1. Washington, D.C.: US Government Printing Office, 10 February 2011.

This is the Army’s fundamental marksmanship education and training publication. It clearly outlines all aspects of teaching basic rifle marksmanship. Appendix A of the manual is devoted entirely to Training Aids, Devices and Exercises. Herein, the Army doctrine briefly, but effectively outlines the use and application of simulations in marksmanship instruction. The three primary marksmanship simulations systems described are the EST2000 (Engagement Skills Trainer), the LMTS (Laser Marksmanship Training System) and the outdated, but still useful, “Weaponeer”. The remainder of Appendix A focuses on analog or traditional training aids and techniques.

15

Wollert Terry (Dr.); Burnett, Rodney; Erdmier, Kevin; & Hawthorne, Steve. “Basic Instincts: Can firearms simulators teach basic marksmanship?” Law Officer, 21 November 2011. Available at: http://www.lawofficer.com/article/training/basic-instincts

In an effort to balance this literature review and examine non-military ideas on teaching marksmanship, this article was selected from the law enforcement community. Wollert and his colleagues describe the use of marksmanship simulators to teach marksmanship and sustain proficiency through use of ‘Laser Shot’ technology which analyses, in detail each round fired and provides valuable feedback to the instructor and shooters. The authors conclude that this technology and instructional technique causes students to fare much better, than those who use just traditional live-fire police marksmanship training. The article also highlights the fact that the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) fully endorses the use of simulation. Yates, W. W. M.S. thesis in Modeling, Virtual Environments, and Simulation. “A training

transfer study of the Indoor Simulated Marksmanship Trainer” Monterey, CA: Naval Postgraduate School, June 2004

This scientific study assesses the effectiveness of simulation training. It uses marksmanship training as an experimental test bed and concludes that skills learned in indoor simulated marksmanship instruction can effectively be transferred into field environment. release; distribution is unlimited.

16