Role-play Evaluation Word Picture
NOTE: The following numbering system corresponds with the items listed in block 1 of the instructor evaluation record to facilitate referencing during evaluations.
The following criteria should be considered for each item prior to assigning a rating:
1. INSTRUCTOR ROLE:
a. Scenario Development—the instructor established who they represent, organization, and nationality. The instructor accurately used the scenario provided. The instructor used the exercise/laboratory scenario to apply additional pressure during the exploitation process. The instructor utilized scenario information provided by the student to further their exploitation goal. As required, the instructor reestablished and used the previous bridge. The instructor reestablished a bridge for follow-on training.
b. Approach/Method Development— the instructor established and maintained a direct or indirect approach as required by the Laboratory Guide or Concept of Operations (CONOP). The instructor established and maintained the appropriate interrogation method or means of exploitation required by the Laboratory Guide or CONOP. The instructor developed and maintained intensity and escalated pressures appropriately based on approach or method. Based on the student’s behavior, the instructor modified his approach to maximize student learning. The instructor established an uncompromising role.
c. Physical Pressure—physical pressures were used in accordance with current Operating Instructions. The instructor applied and escalated physical pressures. Physical pressures were used appropriately to support the approach/method. Physical pressures were not used excessively. The instructor appropriately used physical pressures to modify student behavior.
2. EXPLOITATION DEVELOPMENT: The exploitation goals were used and developed as directed by the Laboratory Guide/CONOP. The student was able to identify the means of exploitation. The exploitation process was developed in a logical sequence. The student was placed into a realistic situation that forced them to resist exploitation. The student was provided an adequate amount of pressure to test their resistance to exploitation.
a. Laboratory Guide/CONOP: The instructor possessed a thorough knowledge and understanding of the Laboratory Guide/CONOP. The instructor adhered to the requirements listed in the Laboratory Guide or CONOP. The instructor was able to develop exploitation objectives IAW guidance
b. Questioning Techniques: Appropriate questions were used to develop the goals identified in the CONOP or Laboratory Guide. The instructor asked enough questions. Appropriate questions were used to develop and exploit the details identified in the scenario. The instructor followed an organized and logical line of questioning to develop the exploitation and training goals. The instructor identified and used student responses to develop effective follow up questions. Individual lines of questioning were fully explored, and developed. Ineffective questions were minimized. I.e. dead end, yes/no, multiple, unclear, pointless. Questions were asked at a speed that maintained an appropriate amount of pressure on the student.
c. Use of Training Aids: Training aids were introduced and used in a logical manner. Available training aids were used effectively to develop training objectives. The instructor identified and used pocket litter, equipment, and other student possessions to develop the training objectives. Training aids were used as directed by the Laboratory Guide/CONOP. The training aids were not over used and did not detract from the primary objective.
3. STUDENT ASSESSMENT: The assessment of student performance was accurate and timely. The instructor used the assessment to modify their approach to ensure maximum student learning. The instructor was able to identify when a student was experiencing difficulty adjusting appropriately to the current training environment. If a problem was identified, the instructor took appropriate corrective actions.
a. Student practice: The student was provided the opportunity to utilize the Code of Conduct and prior training to apply appropriate TTP and policy. The student was able to effectively identify the exploitation approach. The instructor provided the student the opportunity to adjust resistance strategies.
b. Control: Control was established and maintained by the instructor. The instructor did not over control the session.
c. Safety: Training and student handling was conducted safely and in accordance with organizational directives.
4. SECURITY: The instructor adhered to all security directives.
5. DEVELOPMENT OF OBJECTIVES: Training was conducted in accordance with training objectives (Lab Guide/CONOP).
