The Design and Implementation of a Youth Learning Framework within an Ab Initio Officer Training Academy

Introduction

Although there are many pathways to becoming an officer in the Australian Defence Force (ADF), this essay focuses specifically on the Australian Defence Force Academy (ADFA) located in Canberra. ADFA’s Charter is:

To provide Australian Defence Force Midshipmen and Officer Cadets, and other international partners, a balanced and liberal university education within a military context and environment; positively develop their character, leadership and professionalism; and enable them to build a cohort of joint-Service multi-national peers who will grow and mature together through careers within their parent Service and national Defence Forces.

The Royal Australian Navy, the Australian Army and the Royal Australian Air Force all manage the recruitment, training and appointment of junior officers slightly differently. Accordingly, ADFA works in conjunction with the three Services to provide the complete officer training continuum. Navy midshipmen arrive at ADFA having already completed six months of naval training at HMAS Creswell followed by an additional six months of work experience in the fleet. By comparison, the Army and Air Force officer cadets generally arrive at ADFA immediately after completing their high school education. Upon completing ADFA, Navy graduates are promoted to Sub-Lieutenant and commence Primary Qualification (PQ) training, Air Force graduates are promoted to Pilot Officer and commence specialisation training, and Army graduates become Staff Cadets and complete an additional 12 months of leadership and tactics instruction at Royal Military College, Duntroon, before being promoted to Lieutenant and commencing corps-specific training. Although the pathways to and from ADFA are slightly different depending on the Service, the common factor is that trainee officers are generally 17–23 years of age.

In the 37-year history since ADFA opened in 1986 until the time this paper was written in 2023, the ADFA undergraduate program has successfully graduated 8,154 personnel and the University of New South Wales at ADFA has maintained the highest completion rate of any university in Australia. Unfortunately, these results are not the only aspects of ADFA’s reputation that are widely known or reported. Throughout ADFA’s period of operation, there have been several behavioural incidents that have resulted in significant media coverage and the instigation of formal reviews into the Academy, and in some instances the ADF more broadly. Of particular note, ADFA has been the subject of the following reviews:

• Report of the Review into Policies and Practices to Deal with Sexual Harassment and Sexual Offences by Bronwen Grey, 1998 (the Grey Review)[1]
• Report of the Review of Australian Defence Force Academy Military Organisation and Culture by CDRE Bruce Kafer, RAN, 2010 (the Kafer Review)[2]
• Report on the Review into the Treatment of Women at the Australian Defence Force Academy: Phase 1 of the Review into the Treatment of Women in the Australian Defence Force by Elizabeth Broderick, 2011 (the Broderick Review).[3]

The Grey Review highlighted significant issues with culture, and unacceptable behaviour within ADFA including sexual harassment, sexual offences and bullying. It also identified unhealthy approaches to the consumption of alcohol. Despite recognising the potential inexperience and immaturity of the midshipmen and officer cadets, the Grey Review advocated an adult learning environment. The Kafer Review identified that, while the extreme cultural deficiencies identified in the Grey Review were no longer prevalent at ADFA, ‘low level forms of intolerance, aggression and negative social behaviours’ continued to exist, as did a culture of binge drinking. However, the Kafer Review also advocated the continuance of an adult learning environment. The Broderick Review agreed that the extreme deficiencies of the Grey Review period were no longer present; however, it identified that there was a culture of widespread low-level sexual harassment, insufficient supervision and a cumbersome complaint process.

Despite many reviews from 1998 to 2011, and enormous effort to try to change the culture of ADFA, to some degree the issues of unacceptable behaviour and problems with motivation among trainees remained. In 2011, ADFA began to question whether the true problem was the ‘culture’ of ADFA as suggested by the previous formal reviews, or actually with the trainees’ relatively low level of maturity. Questions were also being asked about the compatibility of applying an adult learning environment to a youth demographic. The aim of this paper is to describe ADFA’s analysis, design, and implementation of a youth learning strategy during the period 2011–2013 and to draw some conclusions for the contemporary professional military education continuum.

Analysis of Brain Growth, Development and Function

In 2011, ADFA commenced detailed research into the brain growth, development and function of a youth demographic to determine whether the emerging science would support the premise that the trainees should be recognised and treated as adults as suggested in the Grey and Kafer reviews.

This research into brain growth and maturation clearly showed that, although grown to full adult size, the brains of youth in a 15–25 year old demographic function differently from the brains of children or adults. Based on an examination of the neuroscientific literature, youths have difficulty with impulse control, empathy and higher decision-making, such as understanding second- and third-order effects.[4] This is because their prefrontal cortex, responsible for these functions, has not finished the myelination process that speeds the communication between neurons. In contrast, the amygdala is fully myelinated in youths. The amygdala is responsible for emotion, threat detection and activating the body’s ‘fight or flight’ response. Because it is fully myelinated, the amygdala can send messages much faster than the prefrontal cortex and ‘hijack’ the decision-making of a youth whenever emotion is involved. It was also identified that youths have an exaggerated response to reward stimuli[5] and that they favour extrinsic motivation rather than intrinsic motivation. Equally, they prefer immediate gratification[6] rather than long-term rewards. It was also suggested that ‘status with their peers’ is one of the most highly valued rewards among youths.[7] Independent research from both behavioural psychology and neuroscience also identified that the risk-taking behaviour of youths increases in the presence of their peers.[8] This phenomenon appears to be much more significant than ‘peer pressure’ and seems to be linked to the activation of a part of the brain’s reward mechanism, the ventral striatum. The ventral striatum activates in youths who are in the company of their peers and rewards them with dopamine for participating in novel activities. Reviewing educational psychology also suggested that supportive social environments are vital for motivation and effective learning.

The Kafer Review of 2010 identified a specific behavioural problem associated with the high incidence of lying among midshipmen and officer cadets at ADFA. ADFA’s analysis of the research into youth brain development provided a potential explanation. Not unsurprisingly, most of the lying occurred in relation to midshipmen and officer cadets attempting to avoid taking responsibility or being punished for things that they may have done wrong. The military values integrity as one of the most important characteristics of its leaders, because they have to be trusted with the lives of subordinates, expensive military equipment, and the secrets of national security. Accordingly, lying to avoid potential punishment is regarded as a significant failing within an officer training establishment; demonstrating not only a lack of integrity, but also a lack of courage.

Understanding the brain function of a youth helps explain the prevalence of lying behaviour in an establishment like ADFA. Sight, sound, touch and taste travel to the thalamus within the brain first and then to the cortex and amygdala at the same time. The amygdala conducts a threat assessment and, if required, engages the body’s fight or flight response. In the youth brain, the amygdala is fully myelinated; however, the prefrontal cortex, responsible for judgement and higher thought, is not. Therefore, the amygdala can send and receive messages much faster than the prefrontal cortex, in essence hijacking rational decision-making in response to a detected threat. Although the fear might be perceived and not ‘real’, from a youth perspective there is much to be fearful about at ADFA. It is generally the trainees’ first time away from home and their parents; they are in an unfamiliar military environment; and they have to contend with the fact that the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 can result in significant punishments and the potential termination of their career before it has even started. Within this environment, the ADFA staff perceived it highly likely that youths did a great deal of their decision-making with their amygdala, and that this might explain why the incidence of lying was so high.

The research conducted by ADFA staff into youth brain growth, development and function and into educational psychology supported a conclusion that the adult learning environment advocated by the previous reviews into ADFA was inconsistent with the realities of the midshipman’s and officer cadet’s cognitive development. In response, ADFA staff started to investigate alternative approaches and learning strategies to those of adult learning environments. 

Adult Learning Environment

Malcolm Knowles’s (1980) model of andragogy is based on six principles of adult learning:

1.      That adults need to know the reason for their learning

2.      That adults could draw upon experience to aid their learning

3.      That adults need to be involved in planning their education and evaluation

4.      That adult readiness for education was linked to changes in their social roles

5.      That adults want to apply new learning in problem solving immediately

6.      That adults provide their own motivation for learning from internal factors.

These six characteristics are based on the premise that ‘adults’ are people who have the authority, the judgement and the pre-existing knowledge and experience to make their own good decisions about what they need to learn (curriculum planning), why they need to learn it (intrinsic motivation), how they should go about learning (instruction) and whether they have mastered it sufficiently (evaluation). A relatively cursory analysis of these six factors identifies some inconsistencies between andragogy and the characteristics of youth brain function and behaviour identified during the previous analysis. Perhaps the most significant issue is that youths have limited intrinsic motivation, and accordingly are potentially less likely to provide their own readiness or motivation for learning. 

The trainees at ADFA have limited experience that they can use to aid their learning. Their prior participation in primary and high school education techniques generally means that they lack the knowledge or experience to participate in the planning and development of their own tertiary-level education and evaluation. Further, much of their new learning cannot be applied until after they graduate, are promoted as officers, and complete their initial single-service specialisation training. Depending on their service and specialisation, this process may take anything from three to six years after they first commence training. Due to the incompatibility of the youth mind with characteristics of adult learning, ADFA staff proposed that a different approach, based on youth learning factors, may be more effective.

Youth Learning Environment

Youth Learning Factors. Based on the research that was conducted by ADFA staff into youth brain growth, development and function, and elements of educational psychology, ADFA staff developed the following youth learning factors as the foundation of a revised learning framework:

1.      ‘Motivation’ is the key to learning and it is only achieved when students value what is being taught, have a high expectation of success, and are provided with a supportive environment.[9]

2.      Youths favour short-term extrinsic rewards, and in comparison to children and adults they have an exaggerated pleasure response to things they find rewarding.[10]

3.      Youths place significant value on status with their peers. Losing peer status is a significant threat that can paralyse learning; gaining peer status is significantly rewarding.[11]

4.      Prior learning based on stereotypes and incorrect facts is a barrier to new and correct learning. Incorrect prior learning can be persistent, even in response to positive corrective action.[12]

5.      Youths have difficulty considering second- and third-order effects; they lack impulse control and an understanding of risk; and they are drawn towards novel activities, particularly in the presence of their peers.[13] Accordingly, the application of consequences or punishment for bad behaviour is likely to be less effective than the preventive mechanisms associated with supervision, guidance and mentorship.

6.      Supportive and controlled emotional environments promote youth learning, and any emotion can hijack rational thought.[14]

7.      Youths have a reduced capacity for empathy[15] and accordingly have difficulty viewing a situation from any perspective other than their own. Learning should be shaped from their own perspective, not how it ‘feels’ to be someone else.

8.      Physical fitness improves cognitive ability and mental health.[16]

9.      Youth behaviour is not necessarily predictive of future adult performance. Much like physical maturity, myelination of the brain is a biological process that cannot be accelerated through education. However, establishing the right foundations and neural pathways during youth may shape future adult behaviour.

Youth Learning Strategies. Based on these Youth Learning Factors, during the period 2011–2013 the following Youth Learning Strategies were implemented:

1.      Introducing grading and assessment for military subjects to generate extrinsic motivation. This measure acknowledged that adolescent midshipmen and officer cadets were unlikely to be motivated by the attainment of ‘competence’ or by intrinsic value alone.

2.      Continuance of Commandant and Deputy Commandant Commendations for military and academic performance. Presented as a badge to be worn on the trainees’ name tags, these commendations represent an extrinsic, short-term reward that elevates peer status and encourages the achievement of excellence, not just a pass. In 2011, 80.8 per cent of trainees had received an academic or military commendation.

3.      Linking local leave entitlements to performance, to provide extrinsic motivation.

4.      Encouraging staff to provide positive observation reports and public praise for demonstrations of appropriate behaviour. This recognises that rewarding the behaviour you want to see is more effective with youths than punishing the behaviour you do not want to see.

5.      Developing training programs designed to remediate incorrect prior learning associated with military stereotypes, and realignment with the correct values of the ADF.

6.      Increasing trainees’ expectations of success (to increase motivation). If a student is failing to meet the required standard or has a low expectation of success, the underlying problem is likely to be a lack of ability, a lack of effort, a lack of focus, incorrect prioritisation, personal problems, or health problems. In this regard, the root cause of problems can largely be placed into two categories: those within the student’s ability to control, and those outside the student’s ability to control. Those issues that are outside a student’s ability to control, such as lack of ability, personal problems and health problems, require an administrative approach to provide a support mechanism such as additional tuition, a change of course, or medical or philanthropic support. Those problems that are within the student’s ability to control may require a different strategy that recognises the strengths and limitations of the youth brain. Youths who are suffering from a lack of self-discipline around work or study requirements may require additional guidance and mentorship to reinforce their personal discipline and help them overcome the limitations of their brain’s immature reward mechanism. Leave limitations, enforced study periods and extracurricular restrictions may be effective mechanisms to provide a scaffolding around better performance and an increased expectation of success.

7.      Encouraging staff to provide a supportive environment. In comparison to other universities, ADFA has arguably one of the best networks of support personnel of any residential college in Australia: chain of command, after-hours Duty Officers, medical officers, physiotherapists, psychologists, legal officers, religious staff, and equity advisers. However, the Grey, Kafer and Broderick reviews all refer to an issue of ‘us and them’ where trainees are resistant to raising issues of concern with the staff. In spite of all the support mechanisms available, the trainees did not seem to want to use them, and accordingly may have felt unsupported. The Grey Review in particular noted that the trainees viewed the staff as being ‘evaluators, disciplinarians and judges’ and likened their feelings to a ‘prisoner’s view of the prison staff’.[17] The youth view of the military staff as gaolers may be influenced by their brain function. Due to the lack of myelination in the prefrontal cortex, youths have a diminished capacity for empathy, or the ability to view a situation from someone else’s perspective[18]—in this instance the views and intentions of the military staff at ADFA. An approach that focuses on coaching and mentorship rather than consequence and punishment would help to reduce the threat the students associate with the staff and may increase their desire to access support.

8.      Implementing a ‘road map to recovery’. In many situations, the punitive actions associated with military administrative and disciplinary action can detract from the trainees’ ongoing expectation of success and accordingly influence their motivation to learn. An alternative or complementary approach is to ensure that every youth being disciplined is provided with a ‘road map to recovery’. This road map to recovery would ensure that youths can still be disciplined and held to account through the removal of privileges, status or responsibility, but would ensure that they are supported with a process that will return them to their original status (or close to it) through a series of attainable positive actions or waypoints along the way. This approach promotes a sense of value attributed with each of the waypoint events, and correlates with the youth brain’s exaggerated response to reward stimuli, and the value attributed to both extrinsic rewards and peer status. From one negative behavioural event there could be multiple positive performance waypoints required on the road map to recovery. These positive performance waypoints would provide a correlation between positive behaviour and reward, produce a scaffolding for neural pathways that would influence future behaviour, and reinforce the existence of a supportive environment.

9.      Modification of the military questioning technique. The questioning technique taught to military instructors may be one example of a threat to peer status. In the ADF, instructors are taught a questioning technique based on ‘question, pause, nominate’. This proposes the question, provides a pause for all trainees to consider the answer, and then nominates the person expected to provide the answer. Rather than asking for someone to volunteer an answer, this technique aims to ensure that everyone is paying attention and is suitably prepared for the lesson. Although this may be a suitable technique for testing rote-learnt information, it may be less effective for responding to questions requiring more cognitive effort or processing such as exploring the relationships between different concepts and constructing original thoughts. Being ‘nominated’ to provide an answer to a complex question in group environment might be more threatening to a youth because they could perceive that they are being judged by their peers on their ability to think and their thoughts, rather than just their memory as may be the case in relation to rote-learnt information. A less threatening environment is to allow youths to discuss concepts in small groups and provide a group response. Being able to say ‘we think …’ instead of ‘I think …’ removes the threat associated with being personally judged and promotes a more supportive learning environment and greater classroom engagement.

10.    Introduction of live-in Residential Advisors to provide a supportive environment and moderate behaviour.

11.    Improved staff selection process (mentors, not disciplinarians).

12.    Improved staff training in relation to adolescent learning.

Results

ADFA used an existing internal training review process to measure and validate the impact of applying its Youth Learning Strategies on trainees’ levels of satisfaction and motivation. Using the online survey tool SurveyMonkey®, the internal training review was conducted biannually by trainee year level at the conclusion of each academic semester. The internal training review was structured with questions specific to each military subject. Trainees could enter a response on a Likert scale for each ‘closed-ended’ question. They were also invited to expand on their responses with additional comments in a more ‘open-ended’ fashion. The internal training reviews yielded large sets of both quantitative and qualitative data that enabled the conduct of time-series longitudinal analysis over the 2011–2013 implementation period. The following findings were supported by the analysis:

• Significant improvements in trainees’ satisfaction and motivation
• Significant improvements in the test results for military subjects of an academic nature (there was little difference in the results for physical training, drill or weapons)
• Significant decrease in rate of infringements and Defence Force Discipline Act action.

Implications for Army

Although this paper has focused on the results of applying a youth learning framework within an ab initio officer training establishment, the findings have significant implications for Army and broader Defence environments. Analysis of Army’s SERCAT 7 workforce data in 2021 revealed that 27 per cent of the trained force, and 79 per cent of the training force, was 25 years of age or younger. Accordingly, the application of youth learning and leadership strategies within Army and broader Defence may have significant benefits. ADF-P-0 ADF Leadership discusses the importance of ‘understanding others’ and describes the generic ‘drivers of human behaviour’. However, ADF Leadership does not describe the different motivators of a youth demographic, or how certain environmental conditions can affect a youth workforce.

Good Soldiering states:

Our soldiers have strength of character. This is reflected in our ability to make ethical and moral decisions and be accountable. We do the right thing. We sustain our trust in each other and cohesion in our teams. 

While this is an excellent expression of cultural intent, research tells us that some of our soldiers and officers (27 per cent of the trained force and 79 per cent of the training force) have exaggerated response to reward stimuli; have difficulty considering second- and third-order effects; have reduced impulse control, empathy and understanding of risk; and are drawn towards novel activities, particularly in the presence of their peers. Optimising the potential of our younger workforce requires us to understand both the strengths and the limitations of their brain wiring. Leaders should help control the environmental conditions so as to minimise the likelihood of young soldiers making bad decisions, and help them learn from their mistakes through supervision, guidance and mentorship in preference to punishment. Although sometimes necessary, punishment should be considered a last resort after repetition of the same mistake. Good soldiering requires good leadership.

Conclusion

As a tertiary institution, ADFA has demonstrated an enviable academic record as the university with the highest completion rate in Australia. Unfortunately, several behavioural incidents in the early 2000s brought ADFA under the close scrutiny of formal reviews regarding institutional culture. Although the response to the 1998 Grey Review seemed to address and arrest the extreme cultural deficiencies of the time, elements of low-level unacceptable behaviour and inappropriate consumption of alcohol remained and were highlighted by the Kafer Review of 2010 and the Broderick Review of 2011. 

From a new baseline of continued ‘low-level unacceptable behaviour and inappropriate consumption of alcohol’ in 2010, ADFA researched, designed and implemented a youth learning environment. Although it is impossible to prove that the application of youth learning strategies alone was responsible for improvements, there was sufficient evidence throughout the implementation period to suggest that the application of a youth learning strategy was able to improve the 2010 baseline, with a statistically significant improvement in satisfaction, motivation and military results, and a statistically significant decrease in unacceptable behaviour. ADFA continues to remain a more effective officer-training establishment due to the implementation of learning models that have been specifically designed to recognise both the strengths and the limitations of a youth demographic.

When we treated them like adults, they used the freedoms associated with an adult learning environment to behave like children. When we reduced their freedoms as a result, the trainees said ‘you are treating us like kids’. When we started treating them like youths, their behaviour improved and they gained additional freedoms. ‘Finally’ they said ‘you are treating us like adults’.

Chief Instructor ADFA, 2013

About the Author

Colonel Kilpatrick is an Armoured Corps officer with regimental experience at 2nd Cavalry Regiment and B Squadron 3/4 Cavalry Regiment. He has considerable experience as a military instructor with postings to Royal Military College-Duntroon as a Military Instructor, Senior Instructor of War Fighting and Deputy Chief Instructor. He has also had postings to the Australian Defence Force Academy as the Commanding Officer/Chief Instructor and Deputy Commandant. He has had operational deployments to East Timor, Bosnia, Iraq and Afghanistan. Colonel Kilpatrick completed Australian Command and Staff College (Joint) in 2006. He has a Bachelor of Arts in Strategic Studies from Deakin University and a Masters in Philosophy from the University of NSW. The topic of his Master’s thesis was The Design and Implementation of Adolescent Learning Strategies Based on Cognitive Neuroscience and Educational Psychology. Colonel Kilpatrick remains passionate about promoting positive leadership environments to optimise the performance and potential of young people within Defence, and the broader community.

Endnotes