Formal education programs across various military educational institutions must adapt to adequately prepare the Joint Force for strategic competition. Is the current content, type, and timing of Professional Military Education (PME) appropriate to meet the evolving requirements of the military, and how can the defense enterprise best develop and nurture creative thinkers within a hierarchical, rules-based organization? Furthermore, how do we best educate military professionals about evolving national strategies, policies, and mandates?
Emerging technologies like artificial intelligence (AI) and quantum information science promise significant improvements to these educational challenges. How can PME institutions best develop and apply AI algorithms to personalize learning experiences in real-time? Research should investigate the effectiveness of AI tutors, personalized feedback systems, and adaptive learning platforms in improving overall student performance and reducing learning gaps. Looking further into the future, what are the long-term implications of quantum computing to revolutionize educational assessment, personalize learning pathways, and unlock new frontiers in human cognitive enhancement?
Within this broader transformation of military education, how will these changes specifically impact the Special Operations Enterprise (SOE)? What does ‘SOF-peculiar education’ encompass in this high-tech environment, and what are the critical skills required for a joint SOF officer or noncommissioned officer? Finally, as the primary educational institution for SOF, where should the Joint Special Operations University (JSOU) focus its efforts? Should JSOU become a traditional service-like school, or should it focus strictly on educating SOF practitioners, nurturing critical thinking, and developing SOF advocates to navigate the impacts of these technological changes?
- Petrushev, Capt. Daniel, "Improving B-1 Flight Instructor Training," SOS AUAR, 2025.
- Petrushev answers this by proposing the integration of "Deliberate Practice" concepts—defined as the repeated performance of tasks with feedback to improve performance—directly into the B-1 flight training curriculum. Rather than training candidates based on the highly subjective opinions of instructors or the unpredictable availability of basic course students to practice on, he recommends utilizing simulator training, which already accounts for 50% of the B-1 FIC training flights. In this sanitized simulator environment, instructor candidates can be systematically trained to recognize, assess, and correct realistic student deviations and flight malfunctions at increasingly difficult benchmarks.
- Powell, Capt. Brendan and Capt. Michelle Strickland, "Transforming Ready Aircrew: Prioritizing Competency and Adaptability over Flight Hours," SOS AUAR, 2025.
- Addressed by the paper's detailed blueprint for leveraging VR and simulation-based learning to personalize training. Powell and Strickland apply cognitive research from Daniel Coyle's The Talent Code to demonstrate that deep, focused practice in virtual environments builds myelin—the neural insulation critical for automatic, high-speed decision-making and precision. Instead of relying on a rigid, baseline flying hour model, they argue that training must be highly tailored and data-driven. By tracking individual performance metrics through flight records and simulators, squadrons can identify specific cognitive and physical skill gaps and build custom, role-specific VR training regimens (such as targeted modules for formation flying). This personalized, adaptive tech-integration enables the defense enterprise to foster deep cognitive expertise and adaptability, moving beyond the rote "box-checking" that stifles creative problem-solving in traditional military hierarchies.
- Robertson, Maj. Jordan K., "Timing the Test: An Alternative Timeline for the Air Force Officer Qualifying Test for Accessions through the Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps," AFGC thesis, 2025.
- The AUTL questions whether the content, type, and timing of military education and training are appropriate to meet current requirements. While the AUTL frames this around Special Operations Forces, Robertson answers the core question of educational and assessment timing for the conventional Air Force. She highlights that the knowledge, skills, and aptitudes measured by the AFOQT do not align with the actual learning objectives required of upperclassman cadets. Because the current testing timeline forces AFROTC to make personnel decisions based on misaligned data, she argues that shifting the AFOQT to a pre-commissioning requirement would ensure the assessment is utilized at the most relevant and actionable point in an officer's educational lifecycle.
- Setka, Capt. Nathan, "Making Expert Aircrew: Scenario, Qualitative-Based Training," SOS AUAR 2025.
- Setka answers the core challenge of nurturing creative, adaptable thinkers within the military's rigid, hierarchical structure. He explains that the Air Force's legacy quantitative training frameworks—which focus heavily on currency checklists and repetitive "box-checking" tasks—actively fail to foster or measure adaptability, critical thinking, and decision-making. To solve this, he proposes transitioning to a qualitative training model that uses quantifiable complexity tiers (Levels 100 to 400) and scenario-based exercises, forcing operators to adapt to unpredictable, contested combat environments and cultivating true cognitive flexibility.
- Sharp & McDonald, "BBP on Instructor Development and the TRB Problem," SOS AUAR 2025.
- Sharp and McDonald address this by arguing that current military training constructs are unstandardized and "left to the whim of the unit", failing to prepare instructors who "must be taught how to educate". They recommend establishing a standardized, in-residence professional military education course on how to teach, which would provide a high return on investment. To nurture creative and adaptable thinkers within a hierarchical, rules-based organization, they advocate for optimized continuation training (CT) that focuses on "how to think versus what to think" and pushes operators to "the threshold of failure" within "the zone of proximal flow". By designing training that operates at this cognitive edge, instructors can guide students to "commune with the spirit of the mission" rather than "merely hacking... beans", thereby fostering genuine cognitive flexibility and preparing forces.