OSOP_Instructor Certification and Evaluation w_Appendices.pdf

Department of Defense HUMINT Training – Joint Center of Excellence 821 Irwin Street, Matlack Hall Fort Huachuca, AZ 85613

3 October 2016

ORGANIZATIONAL STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES

Instructor Certification and Evaluation (ICE)

Summary. This Organizational Standard Operating Procedure (OSOP) codifies the Instructor Certification and Evaluation process and procedures. Instructor certification ensures that all instructors have met the minimum criteria prior to assuming teaching duties for a specified block of instruction in a course. Semi-annual instructor evaluations ensures continued competency in the delivery of the subject matter.

Applicability. This OSOP is applicable to all government civilians, contractors, and military personnel assigned to the organization. All personnel are expected to adhere to and will be held accountable for the procedures set forth in this OSOP.

Suggested Improvements. The proponent for this memorandum is the J7, HUMINT Training – Joint Center of Excellence. Users may send comments and suggested improvements on DA Form 2028 (Recommended Changes to Publications and Blank Forms) through channels to the HT-JCOE, Chief of Operations, Fort Huachuca, Arizona.

Proponent: HT-JCOE, J7, Instructional Development

DSN: 879-821, COMM: (520) 533-7899

Instructor Certification and Evaluation (ICE) OSOP

Table of Contents

1. Purpose

2. References

3. Roles and Responsibilities

4. Instructor Certification Process

5. Procedures for Substandard Instructor Performance

6. Documentation Requirements

7. Semi-annual Instructor Evaluation Procedures

Appendices:

Appendix A - References

Appendix B - Instructor Performance Evaluation (IPE)

Appendix C - Quarterly (FY) Instructor Certification Memorandum

Appendix D - Observation and Certification Memorandum

Appendix E - Instructor Baseline Certification Memorandum

1. Purpose. To establish policies, responsibilities, and procedures governing instructor certifications and evaluations. Instructor certification ensures that all instructors have met the minimum criteria prior to assuming teaching duties for a specific block of instruction in a course. Instructors are not blanket-certified to teach an entire course but rather specific blocks of instruction. However, these specific blocks of instruction may eventually comprise the entire course. Instructor Performance Evaluations are required semi-annually and ensure continued competency in the delivery of the subject matter.

2. References. A list of related reference publications are found in Appendix A.

3. Roles and Responsibilities.

a. The Commander is the overall approving authority for certification of all personnel who perform instructional duties. The authority to certify instructors may be delegated to the Deputy Commander, Chief of Operations, or the Course Directors and Committee Leads.

b. Chief of Operations (COO) provides operational oversight of the Instructor Certification and Evaluation program.

(1) J3. Reviews Instructor Certification Memoranda submitted by the courses on a quarterly basis. Provides oversight on certified instructors within the courses.

(2) J7.

(a) Administers and monitors the Instructor Certification and Evaluation Program.

(b) Maintains and publishes the Instructor Performance Evaluation (IPE) Form.

(c) Maintains the repository for instructor certification and semi-annual evaluation forms on the J7 SIPR SharePoint for each course.

(d) Attends the weekly In-Processing Briefings as needed in order to introduce the Instructor Certification and Evaluation Program and obtains copies of Basic Instructor Training certificates.

(e) Collects, reviews, and validates Basic Instructor Training certifications obtained from new instructors who have attended the Common Faculty Development Program – Instructor Course (CFDP-IC), formally Army Basic Instructor Course (ABIC) and service-equivalent Basic Instructor courses.

(f) Submits an application to Staff and Faculty Development Branch (SFDB) for the first available CFDP-IC class after arrival of a new instructor, if required.

Coordinates with the Course Director/Committee Lead and J6 to ensure the submission of the requisite forms and documentation.

(g) Develops and conducts the Instructor Evaluation Norming Workshop (ENW).

Maintains a list of instructors who have successfully completed it. The purpose of the ENW is to train and assess individuals on the proper use of the approved HT-JCOE Instructor Performance Evaluation (IPE) form (Appendix B). Instructors must have completed the workshop in order to be permitted to conduct instructor evaluations of any kind.

c. Chief of Staff (COS).

(1) J1. Notifies the J7 of newly assigned instructors and schedules J7 during the In-Processing Briefings.

(2) J6. Submits appropriate computer account forms (NIPR 2875 and NIPR AUP) to SFDB for those newly arrived instructors who are required to attend CFDP-IC.

d. Course and Committee Leadership (Military Source Operations Training Directorate, Management Committee Director, and Course Directors).

(1) Designates certified instructors, who have completed the Evaluation Norming Workshop (ENW), to conduct instructor certification and semi-annual evaluations.

Certified civilian and military instructors may conduct evaluations of either contract, civilian, or military instructors. (Note: The same is true for certified contract instructors who may conduct evaluations of either civilian, military, or contract instructors.

However, certified contract instructors, who conduct evaluations on other contract instructors, will be chosen by the course contract site-lead.)

(2) Ensures formal instructor evaluations are conducted and submitted on a semi-annual basis on all cadre who are certified to present at least one block of instruction (this should include all instructors). An Instructor of the Year (IOY) evaluation also fulfills the requirement of one formal semi-annual evaluation.

(3) Uploads signed Instructor Performance Evaluation (IPE) forms, used to document both instructor certifications and semi-annual evaluations, to the J7 SIPR SharePoint site within seven working days of the event. Prior to the end of the 2nd quarter of the FY, one evaluation must have been conducted and uploaded for each instructor in a course; and prior to the end of the 4th quarter of the FY, a second evaluation must have been conducted and uploaded for each instructor in a course. All IPE forms must be electronically signed by the evaluator, supervisor, and instructor who was evaluated.

(4) Submits to J3 and J7 (on SIPR) a Quarterly (FY) Instructor Certification Memorandum (Appendix C) listing all course instructors and the block(s) of instruction which they are certified to teach.

(5) Nominates cadre for Staff and Faculty (SFDB) development courses and submits requests to the J7.

4. Instructor Certification Process. Instructors must meet the certification requirements and criteria outlined in this OSOP prior to conducting any block of instruction solo (without the assistance of a certified instructor). Instructors are not certified to teach an entire course’s curriculum but rather parts of it. However, those parts may eventually add up to the entire curriculum.

a. A Block of Instruction (BOI). A Block of Instruction (BOI) is defined as any single platform presentation or particular role-playing event/input (i.e., DSDC's F1 FORMICA role input, serving as a TI in an MSO Exercise, etc.). Delivering instruction while role-playing is just as important, if not more so, than delivering instruction from the Platform.

(1) Detachment Cadre. Serving as a Detachment Cadre is not considered a Block of Instruction per se. Since Detachment Cadre serve as overall mentors to students, they must be skilled in all facets of the course. Therefore, at the discretion of the Course Director, it is highly recommended that instructors not be assigned in this capacity until they have completed, at a minimum, three full iterations, during which time they have been certified to present several Platform classes and Role-Playing events.

b. Instructor Certification. Instructor certification comprises three requirements.

(1) Basic Instructor Training Requirement. Prior to being certified to teach in any course, an instructor must have completed a Basic Instructor Course. Service equivalent Basic Instructor qualification certificates are generally accepted but must first be validated by J7.

(2) Subject Matter Expertise Requirement. To become certified, instructors must demonstrate subject matter expertise of the content for which they are being certified to teach. At a minimum, and IAW command guidance, an instructor must have graduated from the course to which he/she is assigned or from an equivalent course recognized by the Intelligence Community (IC). Instructors currently serving with HT-JCOE and who have graduated from a course no longer recognized as equivalent by the IC will require a waiver. The HT-JCOE Commander is the approving authority granting instructors affected by the above-mentioned circumstances waivers to continue to instruct at HT- JCOE. All instructors are subject to periodic reassessment of their subject matter knowledge by their supervisor or representative designated by the Course Director to ensure competency. This reassessment may occur at any time. At the discretion of the Course Director, an instructor must re-demonstrate subject matter expertise for a specific block of instruction which he/she has not presented within the past two years.

(3) Lesson Plan Delivery Requirement. To become certified, instructors must demonstrate proficiency in the delivery of the approved lesson plan which they are being certified to teach. This lesson plan may be for a Platform presentation, Role-playing (RP) event/input, or a Practical Exercise, etc.

(a) At a minimum, an instructor-candidate will observe a certified instructor (mentor) teach the specified block of instruction, after which he/she will present (not necessarily to students) the same block of instruction under the supervision of the same instructor (mentor). Subsequently, once the mentor is satisfied with the instructor-candidate’s performance, the mentor will arrange for the candidate to be evaluated for certification on that same block of instruction by a different certified instructor (i.e., one who did not serve as the candidate’s mentor).

(b) This instructor documents this certifying evaluation using the Instructor Performance Evaluation (IPE) form. Other documentation required is an Observation and Certification Memorandum (Appendix D) which will document the process from the time when the instructor-candidate first observes the mentoring instructor through the certifying evaluation.

(c) Courses are required to provide documentation outlined in this OSOP but may develop and implement additional internal controls; the J7 will assist as required to ensure compliance. An instructor must recertify for a specific block of instruction which he/she has not presented within the past two years.

c. New Course Content Certifying Requirement. All instructors must be certified to teach any entirely new subject matter (content) added to a course’s curriculum (in accordance with the Course Design and Change OSOP). As an exception to the policy stated in paragraph 4.b.(3)(a), the individual Subject Matter Expert (instructor) who was responsible for developing lesson plan(s) for this new material will serve as both the mentor and certifying instructor until such time that a sufficient number of instructors (no more than five) have been certified. Subsequently, the duties of mentors and certifying instructors will comply with the guidelines articulated in paragraph 4.b. (3), (i.e., the same instructor will not serve as both the mentor and certifying instructor).

5. Procedures for substandard instructor performance.

a. Failing the Subject Matter Expertise Requirement. Instructors failing the Subject Matter Expertise requirement (paragraph 4.b. (2)), as determined either by the Course Director or supervisor, will not be allowed to present that particular block of instruction until such time when the Course Director is satisfied that the level of the instructor's subject matter knowledge is sufficient to do so. If the instructor has been previously certified, a basic Memorandum for Record will be completed documenting this deficiency for this particular instructor and block of instruction and sent to the J3 and J7 within seven days of the determination. This will also be documented in the subsequent Quarterly (FY) Instructor Certification Memorandum (paragraph 6.b.). The Course Director will determine, based on the needs of the course, whether the un-/decertified instructor should be certified/recertified for this block of instruction.

b. Failing the Lesson Plan Delivery Requirement.

(1) Initial Certification Failure. Instructor-candidates failing an initial Lesson Plan Delivery requirement evaluation (paragraph 4.b. (3)), by receiving a "less than successful" rating will not be allowed to present that particular block of instruction until such time that they receive a "successful" evaluation by the same certifying instructor.

The certifying instructor must provide meaningful feedback on the IPE form and a recommendation for retest timeframe. However, there are no minimum wait-times before a subsequent evaluation may be administered. In addition to the IPE form, this substandard performance will also be documented using the Observation and Certification Memorandum (Appendix D) and sent to the J3 and J7 within seven days of the event. If a contract instructor employee fails the retest, any action to be taken will be determined by the government QAR at the individual course. This may include, but is not limited to, documenting the failure in the Monthly Observation Report (MCOR), notifying the course site-lead, and/or continuing remediation and retesting.

(2) Previously Certified-Instructor Failures. Instructors, previously certified to teach a particular block of instruction, who fail the Lesson Plan Delivery requirement evaluation (paragraph 4.b. (3)), by receiving a "less than successful" rating will not be allowed to present that particular block of instruction until such time that they receive a "successful" evaluation by the same certifying instructor. The certifying instructor must provide meaningful feedback on the IPE form and a recommendation for retest timeframe. However, there are no minimum wait-times before a subsequent evaluation may be administered.

(a) This substandard performance will also be documented using the Observation and Certification Memorandum (Appendix D) and sent to the J3 and J7 within seven days of the event. This will also be documented in the subsequent Quarterly (FY) Instructor Certification Memorandum.

(b) If a contract instructor employee fails the retest, any action to be taken will be determined by the government QAR at the individual course. This may include, but is not limited to, documenting the failure in the Monthly Observation Report (MCOR), notifying the course site-lead, and/or continuing remediation and retesting. In the end, the Course Director will determine, based on the course's needs, whether a decertified instructor will be recertified for this block.

6. Documentation Requirements.

a. Initial Documentation Requirement. In order to establish a baseline, each Course Director will submit an Initial Instructor Certification Memorandum (Appendix E) within four (4) weeks of the implementation of this OSOP listing all their instructors and the block(s) of instruction each is presently teaching or has taught at least once within

FY16.

b. Quarterly (FY) Documentation Requirement. In order to maintain updated documentation on certified instructors, each course will submit an Instructor Certification Memorandum (Appendix D) at the end of each FY quarter (December, March, June, September) listing all instructors and the block(s) of instruction which each is certified to present.

7. Semi-annual Instructor Evaluation Procedures. Course Directors are responsible for ensuring that their cadre’s performance is evaluated on a semi-annual basis. If an instructor is certified to present more than one block of instruction, then it is preferable that both semi-annual evaluations are not on the same block of instruction. All blocks of instruction which an instructor is certified to teach are not required to be evaluated annually. Certification evaluations may count toward the semi-annual requirement.

a. Instructor Performance Evaluations will be conducted within the following guidelines:

(1) Instructor Performance Evaluation (IPE) Forms.

(a) The approved Instructor Performance Evaluation (IPE) form (Appendix B) will be used for all Platform instructor certification observations, semi-annual evaluations, and instructor competition evaluations (i.e., Instructor of the Year competition).

(b) Course-developed Role-Playing Instructor Evaluation (RP-IPE) Forms may be used to document one-on-one role-playing scenario sessions with students. J7 will assist in the development of, and approve, all course-developed RP-IPE forms until a standard HT-JCOE form can be developed and implemented.

(2) Evaluation Norming Workshop. Course and staff personnel who conduct instructor evaluations must have taken the J7 Evaluation Norming Workshop.

(3) The completed (and signed) Instructor Performance Evaluation (IPE) form must be uploaded onto the J7 SIPR SharePoint site within seven days of the event. All instructors will be evaluated at least semi-annually. One semi-annual evaluation must be conducted within the first two quarters of the FY, and one evaluation within the last two quarters of the FY. There should be at least two months separating the two required evaluations. There is no limit to the number of evaluations which an instructor may receive within a FY. The evaluator should observe at least one hour of instruction for each formal evaluation. The J7 is available for formal/informal observations at the request of either the instructor, supervisor, or Course Director. Any formal evaluations conducted by the J7 team will focus solely on the lesson plan presentation and not the subject matter, and may be counted as meeting one of the required semi-annual evaluations. J7 is not permitted to conduct course certification evaluations.

(4) Evaluation Feedback. In addition to fulfilling the semi-annual and certification requirements, instructor evaluation is a development tool used to improve instructor skills. If possible, evaluators should provide immediate verbal feedback prior to departing the location or as soon as possible following the completion of the presentation. The evaluator routes the completed IPE form to the instructor and the instructor’s supervisor for signature in a timely manner so that the seven-day upload requirement may be met. The instructor or instructor’s supervisor returns the completed evaluation form to course leadership or designated individual for upload to the J7 SIPR SharePoint site.

10/17/2016

X Travis A. Phillips

Signed by: PHILLIPS.TRAVIS.ALLEN.1156987634

TRAVIS A. PHILLIPS

COL, US Army Commanding

Appendix A References

References.

TRADOC Pamphlet (TP) 350-70-4, “Systems Approach to Training: Evaluation,” January 12, 2004

TRADOC Pamphlet (TP) 350-70-10, “Systems Approach to Training: Course and Courseware Validation,” March 29, 2004

TRADOC Regulation (TR) 350-70, "Army Learning Policy and Systems," December 6, TRADOC Pamphlet (TP) 350-70-3, "Staff and Faculty Development," 4 February 2013

HT-JCOE Strategic Plan, 2014 - 2019

TRADOC Pamphlet (TP) 350-70-14, “Training and Education Development in Support of the Institutional Domain,” March 27, 2015

Council on Occupational Education, “Handbook of Accreditation for Federal Institutions:

2016 Edition” http://www.council.org/manuals/

Council on Occupational Education, “Self-Study Manual for Federal Institutions: 2016 Edition” http://www.council.org/manuals/

1 HT‐JCOE IPE Form (MAR 2016)

HT-JCOE Instructor Performance Evaluation Form

Date: Start Time: End Time: Type of Evaluation:

Instructor’s Name: Certification:

Class Location: Course: Class# Semi-annual:

LP Title: Informal:

IOY:

Section 1 – Administrative: Score items as Go, No Go, or Not Observed (N/O) Go No-Go N/O

1. Stated TLO

2. Stated Safety Requirements

3. Stated Risk Level

4. Stated Environmental Considerations

Section 2 – Instruction: Score items using rubric. Score a 0 if Instructor performance does not reach level 1. Score 2 if performance falls between levels 1 and 3. Score 4 if performance falls between levels 3 and 5. Score N/A if item is not applicable to this evaluation.

Rating 5 4 3 2 1 0

a) Motivator Captured students’ attention by presenting a realistic situation they may encounter in an operational environment and showed how the learning objective will resolve the problem.

Captured students’ attention by informing students of the benefits of the instruction and the risks to job performance if the students could not reach the learning objective.

Gave students a reason to reach the learning objective. Did not tie task to job performance.

b) Evaluation Strategy

Informed students how, when, and where performance of the learning objective would be evaluated and gave verbal examples of evaluation items or provided evaluation checklist/rubric.

Informed students how, when, and where performance of the learning objective would be evaluated.

Informed students the learning objective will be evaluated, with no further explanation.

c) Lead-in Informed students how this lesson ties into existing knowledge. Queried students to recall prior learning or knowledge that supported lesson.

Informed students how this lesson ties into existing knowledge.

Did not tie lesson into existing knowledge – but did provide an agenda.

Comments:

2 HT‐JCOE IPE Form (MAR 2016)

d) Teaching Points

Explained and elaborated on all teaching points in the lesson plan.

Facilitated students’ understanding with use of anecdotes, analogies or examples (by the instructor or students) that were both relevant (related to the topic) and significant (important and timely).

Explained all teaching points in the lesson plan. Facilitated students’ understanding with use of (related to the topic) anecdotes, analogies or examples (by the instructor or students) that were relevant.

Explained most of the teaching points in the lesson plan. Attempted to facilitate students’ understanding with the use of anecdotes, analogies or examples (by the instructor or students), but these were not relevant.

e) Checks on Learning (formal/ informal)

Always conducted formal student checks in the lesson plan using APCE. Consistently verified students were engaged and understood the material through the use of informal checks on learning.

Questions were consistently at the appropriate level of Bloom’s taxonomy for the content being taught.

Conducted the formal student checks in the lesson plan. Generally used APCE for formal student checks.

Occasionally verified students were engaged and understood the material through the use of informal checks on learning. Most questions were at the appropriate level of Bloom’s taxonomy for the content being taught.

Rarely conducted formal student checks in the lesson plan. Only questioned volunteers. APCE technique is rarely used. Rarely verified students were engaged and understood the material through the use of informal checks on learning.

Some questions were at the appropriate level of Bloom’s taxonomy for the content being taught.

f) Follow Up Questions

Consistently questioned to explore clarity, relevance and/or significance of student comments. Always engaged students in dialogue through the use of exploratory questions when wrong answers were given.

Occasionally questioned to explore the clarity, relevance and/or significance of student comments.

Generally engaged students in dialogue through the use of exploratory questions when wrong answers were given.

Rarely questioned to explore clarity, relevance and/or significance of student comments. Rarely engaged students in dialogue when wrong answers were given.

g) Response to Student

Always acknowledged student, and either responded in a clear, concise way, addressed the question and clarified the teaching point or set a time to resume conversation with the student. Response was tactful, timely, and fostered collaboration.

Generally acknowledged student, and responded in a clear, concise way, addressed the question.

Response was tactful and timely.

Rarely acknowledged student, or responded to student in an unclear way. Response was tactful.

h) Demonstration Provided a relevant transition of the teaching point into Demonstration.

Ensured students could hear and view the demonstration. Used TTPs to elaborate on steps in the demonstration (as needed).

Conducted a review of the demonstration through student questioning.

Provided a clear transition to demonstration. Ensured students could hear and view the demonstration. Explained all steps in the demonstration. Conducted a review of the demonstration.

Did not provide a clear transition to demonstration. Failed to ensure students could hear and view the demonstration. Explained some of the steps in the demonstration. Did not conduct a review of the demonstration.

3 HT‐JCOE IPE Form (MAR 2016)

i) Practical Exercise

Accomplished the following, as applicable: Stated objectives of the Practical Exercise. Provided clear instructions. Reviewed resources.

Facilitated learning through developmental feedback. Constantly observed students’ progress, and consistently measured class progress towards the objective. Conducted an After Action Review; elicited students’ discoveries.

Accomplished the following, as applicable: Stated objectives of the Practical Exercise. Provided instructions to the students. Introduced resources. Facilitated learning through directive feedback. Occasionally observed students’ progress, and measured class progress towards the objective. Conducted an After Action Review.

Accomplished two out of the four following, as applicable: Stated objectives of the Practical Exercise.

Provided instructions to the students.

Observed students’ progress.

Conducted an After Action Review.

j) Presentation Skills

Instruction was clearly enhanced due to high level of professionalism. Clear evidence of ample rehearsal. The highest professional bearing and demeanor were evident throughout the presentation. Instruction was not adversely affected in any way. Set the example. Displayed no distracting mannerisms. Established a mutually respectful environment. Took responsibility for courseware.

Instruction was generally effective and not degraded. Used clear voice.

Volume, tone, and rate of speech varied for appropriate effect. Pronunciation was clear. Used appropriate vocabulary and proper grammar.

Faced the audience. Maintained eye contact. Movement or positioning was appropriate for methods of instruction.

Avoided blocking views of training materials. Avoided excessive distracting mannerisms e.g. “uh”, “um”, “ok”; fumbling with tools/aids; and exaggerated hand/arm movement.

Instruction was seriously degraded due to some of the following examples:

Excessive mumbling, monotone, inaudible due to lack of volume; faced away from audience; inappropriate language (offensive, profanity, etc.);

avoided eye contact; consistently was immobile or awkward in movement.

k) Training Materials Usage

Instruction was clearly enhanced through imaginative and/or innovative use of training materials. Clear evidence of familiarity with training materials.

Instruction was generally effective and not degraded by improper use of training materials. Handouts, student issue, etc. were appropriate in number and supported the objective. Slides were in synch with the presentation.

Equipment was functional and/or problems were resolved effectively.

Routine problems were anticipated and spare parts or alternatives were available.

Instruction was seriously degraded because the number or type of materials was insufficient or didn’t support the objective. Slides were not in synch with presentation. Predictable material /equipment shortfalls were not anticipated, resulting in a delay in the training.

l) Summary Provided comprehensive Summary using all three elements and using examples different from those in the initial instruction or specifically referencing student discoveries. If critical issues/questions arose in the Summary, avoided going excessively long with the explanation and established another time to address the issue.

Sufficiently addressed all three elements of the Summary.

Review: Wrapped up and reviewed the main points (ELO/LSA). Avoided re-teaching.

Questions: Solicited students’ questions; addressed students’ questions.

Transition: Linked this training to follow- on training. Advised or reminded students of materials or necessary preparation for follow-on training. (HW, reference, tools, etc.)

“During the next block you will need…” or “we will cover…” tying the two topics together. (if applicable)

Inadequately addressed one or more elements of the Summary. Simply asked, “Are there any questions?”

4 HT‐JCOE IPE Form (MAR 2016)

Recommendations:

Average Score: __________ (SUM of scores ÷ Number of Areas Evaluated)

0 ‐ 1.5: Unsuccessful 2.7 ‐ 3.4: Successful 3.5 ‐ 4.2: Exceeded

1.5 ‐ 2.7: Marginally Successful 4.3 ‐ 5: Far Exceeded

Evaluator’s Name: ______________________

Signature:

Date:

Supervisor’s Name: _____________________

Signature: _____________________

Instructor’s Name: _____________________

Signature: _____________________

*ROUTING PROCESS: Evaluator provides immediate feedback to the instructor and completes this form. Evaluator routes evaluation form to the instructor and the instructor’s supervisor for official communication and acknowledgement (via signature). Instructor or Instructor’s supervisor returns completed evaluation to course leadership.

Section 3 – Lesson Plan / Classroom Environment: Bring deficiencies to the attention of course leadership.

Go No-Go N/O

1. Visitor’s Folder

2. Lesson’s Plan Approved (Within 1 Year)

3. Completed Risk Assessment Worksheet (Available at the Training Location)

4. Individual Student Assessment Plan (ISAP)

5. Clean?

6. Well ventilated?

7. Well lit?

8. Relatively free from outside noise or distractions?

9. Large enough to conduct the planned activities?

Appendix C Quarterly Instructor Certification Memorandum

** SAMPLE MEMORANDUM - DO NOT USE **

** USE PDF TEMPLATE ON THE J7 SIPR SHAREPOINT **

UNCLASSIFIED

** (CLASSIFY MEMO AS APPROPRIATE) **

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

HUMINT TRAINING – JOINT CENTER OF EXCELLENCE

821 IRWIN STREET, MATLACK HALL (BUILDING 80122)

FORT HUACHUCA, AZ 85613-7000

REPLY TO

ATTENTION OF

UNCLASSIFIED

ATZS-HT-XX 29 Sep 2016

MEMORANDUM FOR COMMANDER, HT-JCOE

SUBJECT: JDDCC Instructor Certification Update - 4th QTR (FY16)

1. (U) The following is a list of instructors and the Block(s) of Instruction each is certified to present. IAW the Instructor Certification and Evaluation OSOP (para 4.a.

(1)), no instructor should be listed as only being OTB/Det qualified.

Name Block of Instruction (Do not group platform classes on the same line)

(Include the Title Classification)

Change from last

QTR

Platform/ RP/Other

Instructor OTB/Det Qualified

John J Meyers (U) FORMICA Overview no Platform no John J Meyers (U) FORMICA F1, F2, F3, F4 inputs no RP no John J Meyers (U) OSDA O1, O2 inputs yes RP no John J Meyers (U) IIR Writing - Basic no Platform no John J Meyers (U) Cross Cultural yes Platform no John J Meyers (U) Telephone Contact no Platform no Fred Smith (U) FORMICA F1, F2, F3 inputs no RP yes Fred Smith (U) FORMICA F4 input yes RP yes Fred Smith (U) P - P0, P1, P2 inputs no RP yes Fred Smith (U) E - E0, E1, E2, E3 inputs no RP yes Fred Smith (U) OSDA O1, O2 inputs no RP yes Fred Smith (U) Computer Orientation no PE yes Fred Smith (U) HOTR no PE yes Fred Smith (U) ICF no Platform yes Fred Smith (U) Intro to Det Ops no Platform yes John Jones (U) HOTR no PE no John Jones (U) ICF yes Platform no John Jones (U) Intro to Det Ops no Platform no John Jones (U) Outline and Note-Taking no Platform no Frank Adams (U) Effective Questioning yes Platform no Frank Adams (U) Effective Questioning PE1, PE2, PE3 no PE no Robin Anderson (U) FORMICA F1, F2, F3 inputs yes RP no Robin Anderson (U) OSDA O1, O2 inputs no RP no Robin Anderson (U) P - P0, P1, P2 inputs yes RP no

Robin Anderson (U) E - E0, E1, E2, E3 inputs yes RP no

2. (U) The following instructor(s) received a "less-than-successful" Instructor Performance Evaluation or was deemed to no longer meet the Subject Matter Expertise Requirement during the 4th QTR (FY16) IAW the Instructor Certification and Evaluation (para 4.b.(2)) ICE OSOP.

IPE

Rating

Date of Evaluation

Remarks

John J Meyers TAREX 2.6 15 Sep 16 Mr. Meyers was unable to … and is therefore no longer certified to present the TAREX block of instruction. An official re-evaluation is scheduled for 17 Oct 16 where Mr.

Meyers will present to a group of five instructors. A remediation plan has been developed and will be executed prior to the next evaluation.

3. Point of contact for this memorandum is Mr. John Q. Public, JDDCC, (520) 533- 1234, john.q.public.civ@mail.smil.mil

X John Q Public Course Director

Appendix D Instructor Performance Observation & Certification Memorandum

UNCLASSIFIED

** (CLASSIFY MEMO AS APPROPRIATE) **

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

HUMINT TRAINING – JOINT CENTER OF EXCELLENCE

821 IRWIN STREET, MATLACK HALL (BUILDING 80122)

FORT HUACHUCA, AZ 85613-7000

REPLY TO

ATZS-HT-XX 29 Sep 2016

SUBJECT: JDDCC Instructor Performance Observation & Certification - Mr. Fred Smith

1. (U) The following form documents the minimum information required for the instructor certification process IAW the Instructor Certification and Evaluation OSOP (para 4.b. (3)). This memorandum should not cover more than one instructor and one block of instruction. Do not use for multiple instructors or multiple blocks of instruction.

Instructor-candidate

Name

Mentor Name

Block of Instruction (Include the Title Classification)

Type Date of Observation(s) (Date the instructor observed the mentor)

Date of Presentation(s) (Date the instructor presented the block to the mentor)

Fred Meyers John Jones (U) FORMICA Overview Platform 15 Aug 16 17 Aug 16 18 Aug 16 20 Aug 16 Observation Remarks

(U) Mr. Meyers is well-prepared for the certification evaluation

Evaluator Name

Evaluation Remarks Date of Evaluation

Overall Evaluation Score (0-5)

Andy White (U) Mr. Meyers performed extremely well

15 Sept 16 4.5

2. (U) Point of contact for this memorandum is Mr. John Q. Public, JDDCC, (520) 533- 1234, john.q.public.civ@mail.smil.mil

Fred Meyers Instructor

John Jones Mentor

Andy White Evaluator

John Q. Public Course Director

Appendix E

Initial Instructor Certification Baseline Memorandum

UNCLASSIFIED

** (CLASSIFY MEMO AS APPROPRIATE) **

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

HUMINT TRAINING – JOINT CENTER OF EXCELLENCE

821 IRWIN STREET, MATLACK HALL (BUILDING 80122)

FORT HUACHUCA, AZ 85613-7000

REPLY TO

ATZS-HT-XX 29 Sep 2016

SUBJECT: JDDCC Initial Instructor Certification Baseline (FY16)

1. (U) The following is a list of instructors and the Block(s) of Instruction each is certified to present. IAW the Instructor Certification and Evaluation OSOP (para 4.a.

(1)), no instructor should be listed as only being OTB/Det qualified.

(Do not group platform classes on the same line)

(Include the Title Classification)

Platform/ RP/Other

Instructor OTB/Det Qualified

John J Meyers (U) FORMICA Overview Platform no

John J Meyers (U) FORMICA F1, F2, F3, F4 inputs RP no

John J Meyers (U) OSDA O1, O2 inputs RP no

John J Meyers (U) IIR Writing - Basic Platform no

John J Meyers (U) Cross Cultural Platform no

John J Meyers (U) Telephone Contact Platform no

Fred Smith (U) FORMICA F1, F2, F3 inputs RP yes

Fred Smith (U) FORMICA F4 input RP yes

Fred Smith (U) P - P0, P1, P2 inputs RP yes

Fred Smith (U) E - E0, E1 inputs RP yes

Fred Smith (U) OSDA O1, O2 inputs RP yes

Fred Smith (U) Computer Orientation PE yes

Fred Smith (U) HOTR PE yes

Fred Smith (U) ICF Platform yes

Fred Smith (U) Intro to Det Ops Platform yes

John Jones (U) HOTR PE no

John Jones (U) ICF Platform no

John Jones (U) Intro to Det Ops Platform no

John Jones (U) Outline and Note-Taking Platform no

2. (U) Point of contact for this memorandum is Mr. John Q. Public, JDDCC, (520) 533- 1234, john.q.public.civ@mail.smil.mil.

Jo h n Q Pu b lic

Co u rse D irecto r