Attachment 1-EOSI 36-100.pdf

BY ORDER OF THE COMMANDER USAF EXPEDITIONARY OPERATIONS SCHOOL

INSTRUCTION 36-100

25 March 2019

Personnel

ACADEMIC STANDARDS, POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY

ACCESSIBILITY: This publication is available digitally on the USAF Expeditionary Center website at https://eim.amc.af.mil/org/afec for viewing and downloading. If you do not have access, please contact the Administration Office via email: usafec.knowledgeops@us.af.mil or the Office of Primary Responsibility (OPR) to request a copy.

RELEASABILITY: There are no releasability restrictions on this publication.

OPR: USAF EOS/EOAC Certified by: USAF EOS/EOA (Mr. Michael Crawford) (Mr. Charles Nesemeier)

Pages: 63 This instruction establishes United States Air Force (USAF) Expeditionary Operations School (EOS) academic policies and standards, curriculum standards, standards of instruction, student support standards and library operations. This publication applies to all faculty, staff and students of the EOS. The primary goal of this instruction is to establish a sound foundation to train and educate total force Airmen for a broad spectrum of expeditionary operations. The requirements of this instruction support the expectations of the EOS Commander (EOS/CC), course functional managers, students, the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission-on-Colleges (SACSCOC), Air University (AU), and the Community College of the Air Force (CCAF).

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

This instruction has been significantly revised to combine and align previously established instructions and must be reviewed in its entirety. This instruction supersedes:

USAF EOSI 36-100, Academic Standards, Policies and Procedures, 24 July 2018

Attachment 1

2 USAF EOSI 36-100, 25 MARCH 2019

Table of Contents

PART 1 USAF EOS ACADEMIC POLICIES AND STANDARDS 7

Chapter 1 ACADEMIC STANDARDS 7

1.1. Description. 7

1.2. Foundation of EOS Academic Policies and Standards. 7

1.3. EOS Mission and Academic Standards. 7

1.4. Roles and Responsibilities. 7

1.5. Advanced Study of Air Mobility. 7

Chapter 2 ACADEMIC POLICIES 8

2.1. Purpose. 8

2.2. Academic Integrity. 8

2.3. Academic Freedom. 8

2.4. Course Attendance. 9

PART 2 USAF EOS CURRICULUM STANDARDS 10

Chapter 3 GENERAL GUIDELINES 10

3.1. Purpose. 10

3.2. Initial Staff Training. 10

3.3. Maintaining Currency. 10

3.4. Curriculum Defined. 10

3.5. Curriculum Standards. 10

3.6. Roles and Responsibilities. 11

3.7. Release of Curriculum. 15

Chapter 4 ISD PROCESS 16

USAF EOSI 36-100, 25 MARCH 2019 3

4.1. Description. 16

4.2. Types of ISD Events. 16

4.3. Analysis Phase. 16

4.4. Design Phase. 16

4.5. Development Phase. 17

4.6. Implementation Phase. 19

4.7. Evaluation Purpose. 19

4.8. Evaluation Phase. 20

Chapter 5 HW PROCESS 24

5.1. Level I Feedback Collection. 24

5.2. Generate HW Reports and Assign Routing. 24

5.3. Assemble and Route HW. 24

5.4. Level III Data Collection. 25

PART 3 STANDARDS OF INSTRUCTION 26

Chapter 6 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 26

6.1. Purpose. 26

6.2. Standards of Instruction. 26

6.3. Staff Roles and Responsibilities. 26

6.4. Faculty Roles and Responsibilities. 29

Chapter 7 FACULTY QUALIFICATION 32

7.1. Initial Qualification. 32

7.2. Maintaining Faculty Qualifications. 34

7.3. Unqualified Faculty Process. 34

4 USAF EOSI 36-100, 25 MARCH 2019

Chapter 8 FACULTY PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM 36

8.1. Faculty Professional Development (FPD).Initial Staff Training. 36

8.2. Minimum Requirement. 36

8.3. New Instructor FPD. 36

8.4. Professional Development Event Defined. 36

8.5. Accomplishing FPD. 37

8.6. Funding Professional Development. 37

8.7. Documenting Professional Development. 37

Chapter 9 FACULTY EVALUATION PROGRAM 38

9.1. Evaluation Requirement. 38

9.2. Evaluator Defined. 38

9.3. Evaluator Training. 38

9.4. Evaluation Scheduling. 38

9.5. Conducting Evaluations. 39

9.6. Processing Evaluations. 39

9.7. Quality Assurance Evaluations. 40

PART 4 STUDENT SUPPORT STANDARDS 41

Chapter 10 STUDENT SUPPORT STANDARDS 41

10.1. Purpose. 41

10.2. Student Support Standards. 41

10.3. Responsibilities. 41

Chapter 11 REGISTRATION AND PROCESSING 44

11.1. Registration. 44

USAF EOSI 36-100, 25 MARCH 2019 5

11.2. Enrollment. 44

11.3. Waivers. 44

11.4. Reporting Instructions. 44

11.5. In-processing. 44

11.6. Foreign Students 45

Chapter 12 STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT 46

12.1. Orientation. 46

12.2. Promoting Achievement. 46

12.3. Student Rights. 46

12.4. Student Responsibilities. 47

12.5. Student Elimination. 47

12.6. Early Release. 47

Chapter 13 GRADUATION REQUIREMENTS 49

13.1. Graduation. 49

13.2. Graduation Roster. 49

13.3. Student Recognition. 49

13.4. Student Feedback. 49

PART 5 LIBRARY OPERATIONS 50

Chapter 14 LIBRARY OPERATIONS 50

14.1. Circulation. 50

14.2. Reference. 51

14.3. Acquisitions. 52

14.4. Cataloging. 53

6 USAF EOSI 36-100, 25 MARCH 2019

14.5. Administration 54

Attachment 1 GLOSSARY OF REFERENCES AND SUPPORTING 55

INFORMATION

Attachment 2 TRAINING MATRIX 57

Attachment 3 CUSTOMER REGISTRATION FORM 58

Attachment 4 INTERLIBRARY LOAN REQUEST 59

Attachment 5 RESEARCH REQUEST 60

Attachment 6 CIRCULATION CHECK-OUT SHEET 61

Attachment 7 APPOINTMENT OF LIBRARY OFFICE ACCOUNT CUSTODIAN 62

Attachment 8 JUSTIFICATION FOR MISSION ESSENTIAL PURCHASE 63

USAF EOSI 36-100, 25 MARCH 2019 7

PART 1

USAF EOS ACADEMIC POLICIES AND STANDARDS

Chapter 1

ACADEMIC STANDARDS

1.1. Description. Academic standards are the benchmark of quality and excellence in education.

The reputation of a school is measured by the performance of its students, and disciplined adherence to rigorous standards is a critical ingredient in producing trained and educated total force Airmen.

1.2. Foundation of EOS Academic Policies and Standards. EOS academic standards are derived from several sources: with CCAF and

1.3. EOS Mission and Academic Standards. The EOS mission is to train and educate total force Airmen for a broad spectrum of expeditionary operations today and tomorrow. To ensure individual course owner requirements are met, the EOS has established general academic policies affecting faculty, staff and students. These are sub-divided into four key areas addressed in succeeding parts of this instruction: curriculum, instruction, student and library support.

1.4. Roles and Responsibilities. All personnel are expected to pursue academic excellence in order to accomplish the EOS mission and further establish the EOS as the Air Force school of choice for expeditionary training and education. No matter the role, faculty or staff, or level of responsibility, each EOS member is expected to uphold all policies and standards identified in this guidance.

1.5. Advanced Study of Air Mobility. Advanced Study of Air Mobility (ASAM) students will adhere to all polices and standards identified in this guidance in addition to the program, policies and expectations identified within ASAM Handbook 36-101.

8 USAF EOSI 36-100, 25 MARCH 2019

Chapter 2

ACADEMIC POLICIES

2.1. Purpose. Academic policies form the foundation of academic standards.

2.2. Academic Integrity. Academic Integrity is the uncompromising adherence to a code of ethics, morality, conduct, scholarship and other values related to academic activity. Violations of academic integrity include, but are not limited to, plagiarism, cheating and misrepresentation. Failure on the part of any individual to practice academic integrity reflects discredit both on the individual and their military service. Individuals who violate EOS academic policies may be subject to adverse administrative actions including disenrollment from school. Additionally, military members may also be subject to discipline in accordance with the UCMJ.

2.2.1. Plagiarism is the act of appropriating the literary composition of another, or parts or passages of their writings, or the ideas or language of the same and intending to pass them off as material constitutes plagiarism.

2.2.2. Cheating is the act of giving or receiving improper assistance such as, but not limited to, references not authorized for examinations or other assigned work; knowingly permitting examination paper; collaborating with other persons on individual assignments, except as specifically authorized.

2.2.3. Misrepresentation is the act of making an assertion to intentionally deceive or mislead.

Misrepresentation may be an oral or written statement that is misleading or deceiving and meant to be so; for example, false reporting.

2.3. Academic Freedom. The privilege of debate with discretion on any subject related to curricula within the EOS instructional environment requires application of the principle of academic freedom and the guarantee of non-attribution.

2.3.1. Academic Freedom is the policy whereby visiting lecturers, faculty and students are encouraged to state their opinions and support or criticize any objective or policy while pursuing knowledge and improving the military profession. Responsible classroom exploration and discussion of controversial issues are permitted. However, this policy does not include the freedom to use offensive remarks and irresponsible statements. This means academic freedom must be tempered with good judgment to preclude remarks of an offensive or disparaging nature, such as sexual, ethnic, racial nature and unprofessional behavior.

2.3.2. Non-Attribution is the treating of statements made in an educational forum as privileged information not to be attributed to a specific individual. Statements, disagreements and other comments made by guest speakers, instructors or students will be safeguarded through the practice of non-attribution.

USAF EOSI 36-100, 25 MARCH 2019 9

Permission must be received from speakers and the school concerned before remarks may be released or discussed with other individuals outside the academic forum.

2.3.3. Resolution of issues involving academic freedom will be handled through the course

2.4. Course Attendance. EOS courses are considered mandatory formations. Students are expected to attend all scheduled classes. Any request to miss class will be coordinated with the course director.

10 USAF EOSI 36-100, 25 MARCH 2019

PART 2

USAF EOS CURRICULUM STANDARDS

Chapter 3

GENERAL GUIDELINES

3.1. Purpose. World-class expeditionary training and education is vital in ensuring EOS graduates are prepared to carry out their mission. To meet this objective, course curriculum will focus on quality, relevance and responsiveness; training should be designed to mirror the mission environment to the maximum extent possible, whether in the field or a physical classroom. In addition, to preserve the EOS reputation as a school of choice for expeditionary training, and ensure compliance as a CCAF Affiliate, all curriculum must comply with the following standards.

3.2. Initial Staff Training. Attachment 2, Training Matrix, identifies specific training requirements for each staff position in the EOS. The Instructor Qualification Course (IQC) and Instructional System Development (ISD) Implementation Course will be the primary qualification training for staff members. Individuals filling both faculty and staff roles require both courses. Required position training will be completed as soon as possible after assignment.

3.3. Maintaining Currency. Staff members will stay abreast of evolving educational policies, procedures and innovations, and are encouraged to attend any faculty development events related to their position and mission.

3.4. Curriculum Defined. Curriculum refers to master lesson plan parts I-IV (refer to paragraph 4.5.2.).

3.5. Curriculum Standards. All curriculum will be:

3.5.1. Initiated IAW AMCI 36-2207, USAF EOS Course Development and Ownership Process, to ensure course owner requirements and required resources are identified prior to implementation.

3.5.2. Designed using the EOS ISD process to ensure course owner training objectives and required graduate knowledge, skills and abilities are documented (see Chapter 4, ISD Process).

3.5.3. Derived from an ISD Final Report, which will be approved by the EOS/CC as a signed contract between the course functional manager (FM) and EOS/CC prior to courseware development.

3.5.4. Developed using EOS approved templates/guidance to ensure standardized delivery of training.

3.5.5. Managed by an assigned course director trained in EOS course management to ensure compliance with EOS and CCAF standards.

USAF EOSI 36-100, 25 MARCH 2019 11

3.5.6. Maintained on the EIM Course Hotwash (HW) page to ensure standardization, transparency and continuity of course material is maintained.

3.5.7. Reviewed by the office of the Dean of Academic Affairs prior to course implementation to ensure readiness for delivery.

3.5.8. Submitted to CCAF for evaluation IAW CCAF Campus Affiliations Policies, Procedures and Guidelines (PPG) for all courses with an enlisted target audience prior to initial class start date to ensure graduates are awarded appropriate credit.

3.5.9. Evaluated using the EOS HW process to ensure currency, relevance and a culture of continuous improvement.

3.5.10. Updated using the EOS curriculum change process outlined in paragraph 3.6.6.7.2.-3.

3.5.11. Reviewed annually by to ensure

compliance with EOS and CCAF policies.

3.6. Roles and Responsibilities. EOS and subordinate unit staff manage the educational process and resources to ensure students receive world-class training and education. Staff is defined as EOS personnel who manage or directly support the educational process of the school and may or may not additionally serve as faculty. Positions include but are not limited to: Dean of Academic Affairs, Unit Commander (Unit/CC), Unit Director of Operation (Unit/DO), Flight Commander/Chief, Section Commander/Chief and Course Director. This section describes the curriculum management roles of the EOS/CC and each staff position.

3.6.1. Commander, USAF Expeditionary Operations School (EOS/CC). The commander provides leadership and resources to ensure the EOS meets course owner requirements, remains a CCAF-affiliated school and is recognized as a school of choice.

3.6.1.1. Ensures all courses are developed using the USAF ISD process applicable volume of AFH 36-2235, Information for Designers of Instructional Systems.

3.6.1.2. Responds to new course requests.

3.6.1.3. Identifies subordinate unit responsible for course development and implementation.

3.6.1.4. Signs ISD final report.

3.6.2. Dean of Academic Affairs (EOA). The office of the Dean of Academic Affairs is responsible for the overall standardization of course design and ensures compliance with CCAF Campus Affiliations PPG.

3.6.2.1. Implements ISD process in EOS.

12 USAF EOSI 36-100, 25 MARCH 2019

3.6.2.2. Facilitates all ISD reviews, manages the ISD design phase and manages the Routing/Request Tracker located on EOS EIM site to identify status of ISD products.

3.6.2.3. Creates requests for Personnel Data System (PDS) codes.

3.6.2.4. Posts ISD final report to course HW Tab 1 after final coordination.

3.6.2.5. Reviews master course documents (course lesson plan parts I and II on HW Tab 1) prior to implementation date in ISD final report.

3.6.2.6. Revises ISD reports upon course owner and Unit/CC request.

3.6.2.7. Submits ISD final reports to CCAF for evaluation.

3.6.2.8. Tracks and updates HW Tab 1 course hour percentage changes to curriculum.

Notifies course director when the course requires an ISD due to a 40% change since the last ISD review.

3.6.2.9. Maintains USAF EOS lesson plans and slide templates.

3.6.2.10. Performs annual course reviews on all courses and creates action items for any deficiencies.

3.6.2.11. Develops individual course documentation for instructor internship and experience hours.

3.6.2.12. Provides training for USAF EOS staff and course directors on HW ISD and EOS processes.

3.6.2.13. Provides end of quarter/year briefing to EOS/CC and subordinate leadership on significant trends in quality and responsiveness that affects the academic health of the USAF

EOS.

3.6.2.14. Publishes EOSLearn course pages as requested by course directors.

3.6.3. Unit Commander (Unit/CC). Unit/CC provide leadership and resources necessary to satisfy course owner training requirements.

3.6.3.1. Designates a point of contact (POC) for coordinating an initial ISD review date with Standardization and Evaluation and coordinates with EOS/CC on new course requests.

3.6.3.2. Reviews ISD workshop final report prior to submission to Dean of Academic Affairs. ISD final reports have a 60 day routing suspense to USAF EOS/EOA.

3.6.3.3. Receives ISD workshop out-briefs from designated course director or POC.

USAF EOSI 36-100, 25 MARCH 2019 13

3.6.3.4. Appoints qualified course directors to manage courseware development.

3.6.3.5. Reviews HWs and action items to ensure course effectiveness.

3.6.3.6. Ensures Unit Resource Advisor includes course budgets with annual financial plans,that is inclusive of TDY costs, ISD reviews and etc.

3.6.4. Squadron/Detachment Director of Operations (DO): The DO is responsible for executing daily operations. This includes managing academic processes within the unit and serving as the

3.6.4.1. Executes specific authorities granted by Sq./Det Commanders to facilitate the unique needs of the unit and its mission. These authorities may include but are not limited to, final review of HWs, instructor evaluations and instructor assignments. Delegated authorities will be captured in a delegation adjust document routings as appropriate.

3.6.4.2. Manages unit HW action items.

3.6.4.3. Works with Course Directors, section, and flight leadership to de-conflict TDY requirements of assigned personnel to ensure course continuity.

3.6.4.4. Recommends instructor upgrades to Instructor Evaluator and Master Instructor for Sq./Det CC approval.

3.6.4.5. Monitors instructor training and requirements.

3.6.5. Flight Commanders, Flight Chiefs, and Section Chiefs. Flight CCs, Flight Chiefs and Section Chiefs play critical front line leadership roles within the unit.

3.6.5.1. Executes specific authorities granted by Sq/Det Commanders to facilitate the needs of the unit. Delegated authorities will be captured in a delegation letter and provided to the f who will adjust document routings as appropriate.

3.6.5.2. Recommends Course Director and Instructor Assignments for approval.

3.6.5.3. Monitors instructor training, qualifications, and evaluations for assigned personnel.

3.6.5.4. Manages assigned resources and provides Sq/Det Resource Advisor with course budget information for all assigned courses.

3.6.6. Course Director. The course director is the OPR for the management of an assigned course and instructors.

3.6.6.1. Successful completion of the EOS ISD course is a prerequisite for being designated as a course director.

14 USAF EOSI 36-100, 25 MARCH 2019

3.6.6.2. Ensure quality of the courseware and qualifications of instructors assigned.

3.6.6.3. Performs recurring course reviews with course owner to address future curriculum and budget change requirements. Course reviews time requirements will be determined by the Unit/CC.

3.6.6.4. Performs the following ISD roles:

3.6.6.4.1. Coordinates with Standardization and Evaluation prior to scheduling any ISD review.

3.6.6.4.2. Schedules and prepares classroom for ISD workshop (dry-erase board, easel, markers, etc.).

3.6.6.4.3. Provides ISD workshop attendees any applicable course statistical data (course metrics, feedbacks, etc.) and access to EC facilities (see EC Security Manager).

3.6.6.4.4. Develops course and class schedules during the ISD workshop.

3.6.6.4.5. Identifies known equipment/personnel requirements and costs for course development and operation. Assets belonging to another EOS subordinate unit requires cross-unit coordination prior to making a resource estimate/commitment.

3.6.6.4.6. Out-briefs ISD to unit leadership.

3.6.6.4.7. Ensures course owner addresses all requirements of AMCI 36-2207 prior to an ISD for course revision.

3.6.6.4.8. Develops and maintains Education and Training Course Announcement (ETCA) and submits to Registrar Division for publication.

3.6.6.4.9. Develops and maintains EOSLearn course page information and submits to EOA for publication.

3.6.6.5. Develops, posts and maintains course master lesson plans (Parts I and II) in applicable HW Tab 1 for each lesson in the ISD final report.

3.6.6.6. Develops, posts and maintains course syllabus on EOS Student web site. Course syllabus template is located on the Standardization and Evaluation EIM site.

3.6.6.7. Performs the following HW requirements:

3.6.6.7.1. Posts Level I and III reports, Level II results, master course schedule and instructor hours to HW Tab 1 after each class.

USAF EOSI 36-100, 25 MARCH 2019 15

3.6.6.7.2. Posts course owner approved curriculum changes to HW Tab 1.

Standardization and Evaluation will update ISD final report.

3.6.6.7.3. Posts master lesson plan changes approved by course owner to HW Tab 1.

Underlines changes followed by date and initials e.g., MP 1. Types of ISD reviews (1 Jul 15, MJC).

3.6.6.7.4. Reviews HWs and initiates/implements course improvement through HW action items to ensure continuity and accountability.

3.6.6.7.5. Performs Level I, II and III analysis.

3.6.6.7.6. Provides quarterly course statistics (Level I and Level III curriculum comments) to course FM.

3.6.6.8. Corrects deficiencies found during review of master course documents.

3.6.6.9. Ensures use of personalized lesson plans derived from posted master lesson plans.

3.6.6.10. Ensures instructor subject matter qualification (SMQ) is completed prior to course assignment. Documents SMQ for all assigned instructors (See Part 3, Standards of Instruction, for specific requirements).

3.6.6.11. Secures facilities for course delivery.

3.6.6.12. Coordinates with Registrar on course schedules, HWs, level-I feedback, ETCA, etc.

3.7. Release of Curriculum. Curriculum Parts I, and II (Part IV as approved by Unit/CC) will only be released to outside parties by the course director and only after in receipt of approval email by the course FM. Upon release, the curriculum must no longer be represented as EOS courseware (remove all reference to USAF EOS in released curriculum). Part IIIs and any supporting test material will not be released since these are controlled items.

16 USAF EOSI 36-100, 25 MARCH 2019

Chapter 4

ISD PROCESS

4.1. Description. The ISD process supports the development, delivery and maintenance of world-class curriculum with a focus on quality, relevance and responsiveness. The ISD is a contract between USAF EOS and the course FM. USAF ISD model is a five-phase approach to training development: Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation and Evaluation (AFH 36-2235 Volumes 1-10). The USAF EOS ISD process (for new and existing courses) begins with a formal course request outlined in AMCI 36-2207.

4.2. Types of ISD Events.

4.2.1. Initial ISD Workshop. Designed to conduct a comprehensive design of course content utilizing onsite feedback from the course owner, subject matter experts (SMEs) and Standardization and Evaluation facilitator to determine training requirements based on current and future trends. Results of the ISD workshop will be documented in an ISD Final Report (approved by course owner and EOS/CC) and submitted to CCAF IAW CCAF Campus Affiliations PPG.

4.2.2. ISD Revision. Course owners may request an ISD review at any time. Additionally, a review is conducted on all active courses after a 40% change in lesson content has occurred since the last ISD. The course director, course owner and Standardization and Evaluation facilitator will conduct a review using course Level I-III data. The course owner will determine field SME representation. All changes will be documented in an ISD final report (approved by course owner and EOS/CC) and submitted to CCAF IAW the Campus Affiliations PPG.

4.3. Analysis Phase. During this phase, the course owner conducts an analysis of mission, occupation, task, learning, resources and target audience to determine instructional requirements.

EOS personnel may assist with gathering input from the field experts used in course design.

4.3.1. Approach. Guidance for establishing new courses is covered in AMCI 36-2207.

4.3.2. Process. The creation of a new course typically starts with a dialog between a course owner and the EOS. The Dean of Academic Affairs will provide a sample course request letter to course owners to assist in their course request to EOS/CC. This request will be assigned to an EOS subordinate unit to manage the development process.

4.4. Design Phase. Curriculum is designed based on objectives articulated in the course owner course request. An objective is a precise statement of a learned capability--knowledge, skills and abilities (KSA)--graduates must demonstrate.

4.4.1. Approach. An ISD Workshop is used to design EOS courses. Participants (Standardization and Evaluation facilitator, course director, course owner, SMEs and assigned instructors) design course curriculum and identify required resources. Additionally, they develop samples of behaviors, main-points for each topic, target implementation date, resource requirements and

USAF EOSI 36-100, 25 MARCH 2019 17

training references. ISD workshops are typically five days long. Unless waived by the EOS/CC, ISD workshops will be conducted in the CONUS to contain costs. The course owner is the final approval authority on course objectives, samples of behavior and course length, but must provide the resourcing to support those outcomes.

4.4.2. Process. A Standardization and Evaluation facilitator guides the effort of the ISD workshop to meet course design requirements with the final report as the workshop deliverable.

Further course development begins once the final report is signed by the EOS/CC and the course owner. Upon completion of the ISD workshop, Standardization and Evaluation will initiate an ISD final report which is essentially a signed contract between the EOS/CC and course owner.

4.5. Development Phase. The development phase produces master course documents as follows:

4.5.1. Course Syllabus. The course director will develop a course syllabus based on the content of the ISD final report. The course syllabus is a contract between the course director and student.

At a minimum, the course syllabus will contain the requirements identified on the syllabus template located on the Standardization and Evaluation EIM page.

4.5.2. Master Lesson Plans. The course director will develop the master lesson plans from the ISD final report posted in the course HW Tab 1, creating a master lesson plan or activity statement for each lesson identified in the final report. Master lesson plans will not be personalized. Use the EOS standardized lesson plan templates for all courses. Master lesson plans include the following: Part I Cover Sheet, Part II Teaching Plan, Part III Evaluation Instrument and Part IV Instructional Aids.

4.5.2.1. Part I. Addresses content /delivery and contains three parts: Part I, Cover Sheet;

Part IA, Lesson Objectives; and Part IB, Strategy.

4.5.2.1.1. Part I, Cover Sheet, identifies course title, lesson title, OPR, method and length of instruction, references and required instructional aids. References are derived from SMEs, including the lesson developer and will be available to all applicable instructors.

4.5.2.1.2. Part IA, Lesson Objectives, are derived from the course ISD appendix consisting of at least one cognitive and one affective level of learning objective, or one criterion objective and one affective objective, or an activity statement as appropriate to the lesson. The level of learning objective will have as many samples of behavior as deemed necessary to adequately sample mastery. Samples of behavior may be at a lower cognitive level to assist instructors with course evaluations. At least one sample of behavior will be written at the overall lesson objective level of learning.

4.5.2.1.3. Part IB, Strategy, is a detailed plan that explains the overall lesson objective and steps to achieve that objective effectively. The strategy can be compared to a set of instructions written by the lesson developer to deliver the lesson. The strategy statement should walk the instructor through the entire lesson, focusing on every lesson element to include teaching techniques and instructional aids. At a minimum, indicate what is to be taught, why it is being taught and how to teach it, including employment of instructional

18 USAF EOSI 36-100, 25 MARCH 2019

aids/handouts. A well written strategy statement gives an instructor cues to personalize the lesson and develop strong transitions and motivational themes.

4.5.2.2. Part II. The teaching plan contains the lesson outline and support material to achieve lesson objectives. Use the introduction, body, conclusion format.

4.5.2.2.1. The introduction consists of attention step, motivation step and overview.

Attention and motivation steps will be left blank to allow for instructor personalization.

At a minimum, the overview will be populated with the lesson outline found in Part IB.

4.5.2.2.2. The body contains all main points and support. Main points must match the outline contained in Part IB and contain enough support material to satisfy all samples of behavior. A simple outline is not sufficient.

4.5.2.2.3. The conclusion consists of a summary step, re-motivation and closure. Re-motivation and closure steps will be left blank to allow for instructor personalization. At a minimum, the summary will be populated with the lesson outline found in Part IB.

4.5.2.2.4. Include applicable references from Part I. Copying large amounts of information from AFIs or Tech manuals into the body is not an effective method of capturing the required support material. Simply state the reference and section number and add useful information for the instructor to execute/teach the material.

4.5.2.3. Part III. The Part III, evaluation instrument, consists of test questions for cognitive objectives or an evaluation checklist for criterion objectives. Test questions will include the cognitive lesson objective, sample of behavior, test question, correct response, minimum of three alternatives for multiple choice test questions, rationale for the correct answer and all alternatives. Three test questions for each sample of behavior are required (one for pre-test, one for end-of-course test and one for re-test). Criterion objective lesson plans will use an evaluation checklist in place of test questions. Evaluation checklists must contain the standard and method of grading the performance. Courses using a Capstone/FTX evaluation will follow criterion objective evaluation checklist for grading performance.

4.5.2.3.1. Test Control. All lesson plan Part IIIs and SMQ tests will be secured as controlled items to prevent test compromise (see Standardization and Evaluation EIM CRS Test Management page). Document printed test material used for instructor subject matter qualification and student testing on a test control log. Identify test number, log-in date, log-out date and destroy date. Student answer sheets are also a controlled item and will be destroyed when no longer required.

4.5.2.4. Part IV Instructional Aids. Use guide located on Standardization and Evaluation EIM site.

4.5.2.5. Activity Statement. A document composed of: Activity Statement, Purpose of the Activity and Activity Procedures. It serves as the lesson plan for selected hours in a course

USAF EOSI 36-100, 25 MARCH 2019 19

which are designed to support course execution or enhance knowledge but do not contain tested material.

4.5.3. Personalized Lesson Plans. Instructors will use personalized lesson plans when teaching.

Use the current master lesson plan posted in the course HW Tab 1 as a foundation.

4.5.3.1. Part I. The only area in which an instructor may personalize a Part I is by adding additional instructor aids to be used to the original required instructional aids listed on the master lesson plan.

4.5.3.2. Part II. Instructors are required to create an effective attention, motivation, re-motivation and closure statement which directly correlates to the lessons cognitive and affective objectives. Instructors are required to create required transition statements between introduction, identified main points and conclusion. Instructor will not add, delete or modify master lesson plan main points, sub points, etc. Instructors can add questions, references, stories, etc., to reinforce the subject area.

4.6. Implementation Phase. Implements support, maintenance, and evaluation to ensure the effective preparation of graduates to meet mission requirements.

4.6.1. Approach. The course director is responsible for implementing the training. Course will be delivered IAW the course syllabus and course documents identified in para 4.5. Before the first class is taught, the course director will ensure that faculty, curriculum, facilities, equipment and other resources identified in the ISD final report are in place to deliver an effective course.

4.6.2. Student Performance. Student performance is measured against course objectives to validate the quality of the curriculum and instruction. Refer to the course syllabus for graduation requirements.

4.7. Evaluation Purpose. Provides guidelines and procedures for institutional effectiveness (IE) in support of the educational programs, student administrative and support services within EOS. The school engages in ongoing, integrated and institution-wide planning and evaluation processes that result in continuous educational programs; develops and implements a systematic solution to training; provides a comprehensive process for measurement of performance and assessment of student learning. IE is comprised of the strategic planning, operational planning, and multi-faceted analysis to integrate and continuously evaluate in an effort to track courses progress in fulfilling its vision and mission requirements.

4.8. Evaluation Phase.

effectiveness at three levels: (1) Student Reaction: student feedback on the effectiveness of training;

(2) Learning: student knowledge measured at course outset (pre-test/evaluation) and conclusion (post-test/evaluation) to ensure students were trained at the right point in their development and learned intended objectives; and (3) Behavior change in the workplace: graduate and supervisor/observer assessment as defined in the ISD Final Report after graduation to ensure training

20 USAF EOSI 36-100, 25 MARCH 2019

is having the desired effect on workplace deliverables. Assessment feedback is analyzed to drive action items. Metrics for each class are maintained on the HW Dashboard.

4.8.1. Evaluation Requirements. EOS course directors will analyze course Level I, II and III data to assess course effectiveness, take corrective actions to maintain required EOS standards, and create action items to improve course performance. Course directors will provide historical course performance to course FM when conducting any course review. For courses that have low annual student graduation numbers and or low annual course offerings, evaluation requirements (Level I, II, and III as applicable) will be aggregated as determined by the Unit/CC but no less than once a year.

4.8.1.1. Level I Rating. Student feedback administered for in-resident and instructor led online courses at the end of each class measures reaction to course curriculum, instructor and relevant logistical support areas. Metric scores for each area are combined to deliver an overall Level I rating. Non-target audience ratings will be excluded from overall course ratings.

4.8.1.2. Level I Analysis. The analysis of Level I data provides supervisors, EOS leadership and the course owner with student perceptions of course effectiveness and a plan for improvement. Level I performance has a scale of 0.00 5.00. Ratings below 4.00, identified deficiencies and negative trends should be targeted for corrective action.

4.8.1.2.1. Overall course rating of 4.00 or above, indicates the course is being delivered effectively.

4.8.1.2.2. Overall course rating of 3.51 through 3.99, indicates deficiencies requiring attention.

4.8.1.2.3. Overall course rating of 3.50 or below, indicates deficiencies requiring immediate attention.

4.8.1.3. Level I Considerations. Key elements contributing to Level I ratings include target audience attendance, instructor delivery, curriculum/supporting infrastructure quality and student readiness. Factors to consider:

4.8.1.3.1. Target Audience. Course directors should monitor demographic data to ensure students meet the target audience identified in the ISD final report. Notify the course owner if graduates are outside the target audience.

4.8.1.3.2. Instructor/Curriculum Delivery. Ensure a qualified instructor is present whenever a student instructor (IAW para. 7.1.3.1.2.) or guest speaker is presenting course material (IAW Part 3, Standards of Instruction). Level I feedback is a good indicator of the preparation and effectiveness of presenters that are not fully qualified faculty.

USAF EOSI 36-100, 25 MARCH 2019 21

4.8.1.3.3. Currency and Accuracy of Curriculum. Written Level I negative feedback is frequently an early warning that curriculum is not current or accurate. Examine all student concerns and take prompt action when trends occur.

4.8.1.4. Level II Analysis. Level II analysis is critical to validating the achievement of learning objectives and accuracy of the target audience. To support Level II assessment, all in-resident and instructor led online courses will have a pre- and post-evaluation at the level of learning objectives identified in the ISD final report unless exempted in the report.

Develop Level II assessments to match course objective for example, a course with only cognitive objectives (knowledge/comprehension) is typically assessed with a multiple-choice test, while a course with application/analysis/synthesis objectives would be more appropriately assessed by student performance (criterion evaluation). For courses with blended cognitive and psychomotor objectives, use a blended pre/post assessment. Assess criterion objectives using an evaluation checklist. Non-target audience ratings will be excluded from overall course ratings. Course directors may elect to only post-test criterion objectives when in their judgment pretesting will not yield sufficient value for the resources expended.

4.8.1.5. Level II Cognitive Objective Parameters. Student performance on assessments will be scored from 0-100%.

4.8.1.5.1. Pre-tests/assessments. Course pre-tests scores indicate the knowledge/skill level of students prior to instruction. If the correct target audience is present and the pre-test is properly constructed, average pre-test scores should not exceed 40%.

4.8.1.5.1.1. Class average assessment rating equal to or less than 40% indicates the course is being delivered effectively.

4.8.1.5.1.2. Class average assessment rating greater than 40% indicates deficiencies requiring attention.

4.8.1.5.2. Post-tests/assessments. Course post-tests indicate the knowledge/skill level of students after instruction. Again, if the correct target audience is present and the test is properly constructed, average post-test scores should range between 70-95%.

4.8.1.5.2.1. Class average assessment rating greater than 70% indicates the course is being delivered effectively.

4.8.1.5.2.2. Class average assessment rating less than 70% indicates deficiencies requiring attention.

4.8.1.6. High Pre-test Scores. High pre-test scores may indicate students already know the course content, limiting the value of training and affecting attitude toward attendance. The first action to take is a test analysis to ensure the test properly measures the learning objectives of the ISD. If the test is properly constructed, recommend the course owner either

22 USAF EOSI 36-100, 25 MARCH 2019

adjust the selection of students or amend the curriculum to achieve a higher return on training investment.

4.8.1.7. Low/High Post-test Scores. Low average post-test scores may indicate substandard achievement of desired learning objectives and may require improvement in either faculty or curriculum. Excessively high post-test averages (>95) may indicate that either the test is not rigorous enough, poorly designed or that the instructor . In either case, further causal analysis is warranted, beginning with test analysis. Critical training areas involving (e.g., safety, loss of life, hazardous materials handling and etc.) can reach higher test item averages of 95% or higher and should not be considered as an area of concern.

4.8.1.7.1. Ease Index. Ease index is simply the percentage of students taking the test who answered the item correctly--the larger the percentage, the easier the question. To compute the ease index, divide the number of students answering the item correctly by the total number of students taking the test. An item answered correctly by 85% of the students would have an ease index of .85. Questions that receive an ease index of 50% or lower requires a point bi-serial review identified in the paragraph below to determine how well a test question discriminates.

4.8.1.7.2. Point Bi-Serial. A point bi-serial correlation coefficient relates observed item responses to a total test score and rates the observed item from +1.00 through -

1.00. A high coefficient means students selecting the correct response achieved higher total scores, and students selecting the incorrect response achieved lower total scores (positive correlation). A low coefficient means students selecting the correct response achieved lower total scores, and students selecting the incorrect response achieved higher total scores (negative correlation). A point bi-serial rating of .21 or less indicates that the test item should be removed from the test.

4.8.1.8. Level II Criterion Objective Evaluations. Criterion evaluations are intended to measure student task performance in a controlled standardized condition set by the instructor.

- -evaluated IAW the master lesson plan.

4.8.1.9. Level III Analysis for Resident/Mobile Training Team (MTT) or Instructor Led Online Courses. Level III assessment is key to validating a course is having the intended effect in improving workplace performance or reducing the time necessary to reach mission qualification. Course directors will gather Level III data through feedbacks sent to target audience individual graduates and their supervisors/observers using the EOS CD Reporting Tool or through an alternative means such as interviews/theater visits. Feedbacks will be accomplished IAW ISD final report after class graduation to allow time for the training effect position to observe the effect of EOS training on job performance. Ratings are reported for both graduate and supervisor/observer assessments. Feedback requests will include specific guidance along with a web link to the EOS Level III training feedback site. The feedback site is also accessible directly from the EOS public webpage (EOS Student link). Course

USAF EOSI 36-100, 25 MARCH 2019 23

directors are provided direct login access to pull Level III reports at any time. The report should include a minimum of 12 months of feedback.

24 USAF EOSI 36-100, 25 MARCH 2019

Chapter 5

HW PROCESS

5.1. Level I Feedback Collection. On the last day of class, course directors/instructors will brief students on Level I data collection procedures and administer the online feedback process. Paper feedback collection will only be used in the absence of on-line access through any internet connection. Directions for online feedback completion, validation and using paper feedback collection can be found in the HW Training Library.

5.1.1. If paper feedback collection is used due to a lack of student on-line access, course directors will input the feedback on-line and attach a scanned copy of all student feedback in .pdf file format to their HW Level I section. The Level I report will not be posted until the student data is validated.

5.1.2. Prior to graduation, course directors will notify students to expect a Level III feedback and stress the importance of their participation. Upon graduation, course directors will use the CD Reporting Tool to e-mail a graduation notification to supervisors/observers and request their participation in follow-on feedback.

5.2. Generate HW Reports and Assign Routing.

5.2.1. Resident/MTT Courses. NLT five duty days after course completion, the Registrar will assign the HW routing to the course director.

5.2.2. Distance Learning (DL) Courses: NLT five duty days after the end of each quarter, the Distance Learning Program Manager will upload the quarterly report and assign the routing to the course director. Course directors are responsible for reviewing student comments, creating a HW package for review and taking corrective actions to update distance learning courseware.

5.3. Assemble and Route HW.

5.3.1. Course directors will enter class metrics (see exception identified in paragraph 4.8.1.);

complete HW routing tracker requirements; post-unaltered current Level I and III report (Course directors may add additional/counter comments to Level I and III report comments) prior to routing) to their class HW routing tracker; and perform CD HW requirements outline in paragraph 3.6.6.7. prior to routing.

5.3.2. Reference training slides and current templates in the HW Training Library when assembling HW reports.

5.3.3. HW assembly, routing and closeout is 30-calendar days from the date of assignment by Registrar. Extended network outages and holiday periods will extend the 30-calendar day timeline.

USAF EOSI 36-100, 25 MARCH 2019 25

5.3.4. Course directors will track their HW routing. Encourage assigned member to facilitate prompt HW movement. Reviewers may enter remarks in routing notes field with their initials

-3 days, assign review responsibilities to next office member. In addition, reviewers may reassign the HW report back to any individual for clarification or corrections. Reassign the report to the reviewer once amended. Overdue reports may be identified by using the HW Dashboard.

5.3.5. Action items are used to document improvement efforts when immediate corrective action is not feasible. Level I-III assessment feedback is analyzed by the CD, and when warranted, used to initiate an action item. Action items that lead to curriculum request changes will follow paragraphs 3.3.6.6.2-3. Course directors are responsible for the management of action items for their assigned course. Open additional action items to address unit/EOS leadership concerns.

5.3.5.1. Once corrective measures are complete, the closed action item will be identified in the next HW report.

5.3.5.2. To track trends and impact of improvement efforts, action items will remain in the action item tracker for a period of 12 months after closeout. Overdue items can be identified by using the quick link on the side menu of the HW Dashboard.

5.3.6. Upon return of the HW, the course director will take additional corrective action as directed. Assign the HW to the Registrar for closure.

5.4. Level III Data Collection. Course Directors will post graduate and supervisor email addresses in the EOS CD Reporting Tool. Students without a relevant supervisor/observer email at class time can use their email and then forward the request to the appropriate individual once a feedback request is received.

26 USAF EOSI 36-100, 25 MARCH 2019

PART 3

STANDARDS OF INSTRUCTION

Chapter 6

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

6.1. Purpose. Exceptional delivery is as vital as world-class curriculum to ensure EOS graduates are prepared to execute their mission. As a CCAF affiliate and to preserve the EOS reputation as the school of choice for expeditionary education and training, all instruction will comply with the standards and guidance outlined in Part 3 (Standards of Instruction).

6.2. Standards of Instruction. All instruction will be:

6.2.1. Conducted IAW the course syllabus or ISD Final Report using established curriculum to ensure graduates meet all training objectives prescribed by the course owner.

6.2.2. Conducted IAW EOS faculty qualification requirements identified in Part 3, Standards of Instruction, to ensure graduates receive the highest quality instruction and CCAF standards are maintained.

6.2.3. Conducted under the supervision of or by an assigned qualified instructor to ensure all course objectives are met.

6.3. Staff Roles and Responsibilities. Supervisors and academic support staff will ensure assigned faculty are fully prepared, current and qualified to teach and are delivering the most current courseware. Roles and specific responsibilities:

6.3.1. Commander, USAF Expeditionary Operations School (EOS/CC). The commander provides leadership and resources to ensure the EOS meets course owner requirements, remains a CCAF-affiliated school and is recognized as a school of choice.

6.3.1.1. Ensures compliance with CCAF Campus Affiliations PPG.

6.3.1.2. Waiver authority for all EOS requirements.

6.3.2. Dean of Academic Affairs (EOA). Responsible for overseeing the quality and currency of EOS faculty and curriculum and ensures compliance with CCAF Campus Affiliations PPG and EOS academic instructions.

6.3.2.1. Reports course graduates within five duty days after graduation IAW CCAF Campus Affiliation standards (e.g., OTA, STARS-FD, graduate reporting, etc.).

USAF EOSI 36-100, 25 MARCH 2019 27

6.3.2.2. Ensures faculty members are subject-matter qualified and assessed annually in each assigned course.

6.3.2.3. Ensures course documents are submitted to CCAF IAW Campus Affiliations PPG.

6.3.2.4. Oversees a comprehensive assessment program of students, faculty, curricula, facilities and services.

6.3.2.5. Oversees instructor qualification and development program.

6.3.2.6. Ensures assigned Affiliated School Liaison (ASL) updates school contact information, provides updates to organizational changes, sends notifications of course deletion, additions and significant modifications. Requests assistance from Affiliated School Manager (ASM) as necessary regarding faculty issues, assesses faculty credentialing (e.g., IQW), qualification data (e.g., SMQ), course assignment, adds and removes instructors through STARS-FD and local…