.7 __ “A __._ “4..-“... EVALUATION. on a FOR THE U. s, NAV ~ ENGINEER, CO! 11412313: FOR DEGREE ' MICHIGAN ism HARRY, CE 19 . J. ‘ cat-52$. This is to certify that the thesis entitled Evaluation of Basic Curriculum For The U. S. Naval School, Civil. Engineer Corps Officers presented by Harry Cecil Wills has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Professionaldegree in Civil ILngineering MW 0. Mi”, Major professor Date I-Iovember 23, 1951 0-169 22 EVALUATION OF THE-BASIC CURRICULUM FOR THE U. S. NAVAL SCHOOL, CIVIL ENGINEER CORPS OFFICERS By HARRY CEDIL Lieutenant Commander, Civil Engineer Corps United States Navy A THESIS Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan State College of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requiranents for the degree of CIVIL ENGINEHI Department of Civil Engineering 1951 THESLS APPROVED FOR THE DEPAR'B‘TENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING MO.M APPROVED FOR THE SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES ._2£m£&zfiieh§?zdL- ’68~?8u. 13 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer is greatly indebted to the staff of the U. S. Naval School, Civil Engineer Corps Officers, for assistance concerning the curriculum.for the Basic CEC Course. The writer wishes finally to acknowledge the valuable counsel, advice and encouragement received from his adviser, Dr. Charles 0. Harris. H. C. W. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I. INTRODUCTION . . . Civil Engineer Corps U. 8. Navy. U. S. Naval School CBC Officers. Basic CEC Course . . . . . . . . ThePrOblem............ Need and Timeliness of this Study. Smary.............. C O 0 II. ANALYSIS OF THE PROBLEM AND TECHNIQUES SOLUTIONCOOOOOOOOOOOOO Factors of the Prdblem . . . Methods of Evaluation. . . . Design of the Questionnaire. Summary. . . . . . . . . . . III. REVIEW OF RELATED RESEARCH Curriculum Building. . Engineering Education. . Questionnaire Surveys. . Summary......... IV. INTERPRETATION OF DATA . . Basic CEC Course in General. Orientation Section. . . . . Administration Section . . . Shore Establishment Section. Specialized Engineering Section. Specific subjects. . . . . . Improvements . . . . . . CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . BIBLIOGRAPHY. . . . . . . . . . . APPEIIDIX O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 iv FOR 0 O O O 0 O O O C O O 5535 L1 mama. a. O O O O O O O O O O 0 I53? Chmfi‘buwl-J H LIST OF TABLES Table Page I. Tabulation of Answers to Item 8 . . . . . . . . . . 18 II. Tabulation of Answers to Item 10. . . . . . . . . . 19 CHAPTFRI INTRODUCTION Civil Enégeer Corps, U. S. Nam The Civil Engineer Corps of the United States Navy is composed of officers of the Navy who are directly responsible for the design, construction, alteration, inspection, and maintenance of the public works and public utilities of the shore establishinent of the Navy. The officers of the Civil Engineer Corps administer the work of the Bureau of Yards and Docks, one of the seven administrative divisions of the Navy Department. Admiral Ben Moreel, CEC, USN, the wartime Chief of the Bureau of Yards and Docks, described the members of the Civil Engineer Corps as engineers, planners, estimators, constructors, and analysts of shore facilities. Civil Engineering duties in the Navy include construction and maintenance of shore facilities at such bases as Navy Shipyards, Air Stations, Amrmmition Depots, Marine Barracks, Tank Farms, Hospitals, Submarine Bases, Radio Stations, Research, Centers and others. Most of these duties require the professional application of a sound civil engineering education. In addition to the activities covered, offi- cers of the Civil Engineer Corps while in charge of Naval Construction Battalions, commonly called 'Seabees," construct and maintain base facilities in the canbat zones. At the peak of World War II most of the 10,000 Civil Engineer Corps officers and 2h0,000 enlisted men were engaged in Seabee duties. _I_J_.__S_._ Naval School, 9311; Englg' eer gm Officers During Whrld war II it was necessary to train large numbers of newly commissioned naval officers in naval administrative pro- cedures, and the specialized civil engineering required for con- struction and maintenance of Naval Bases. The first program to accomplish this training was established at Camp Allen, Virginia. This course was primarily for officers who were going into the early naval construction battalions. In 19h3 this training course, including officer indoctrination, was moved to Camp Perry, Williams- burg, Virginia. In May 19143 a public works course was established to provide training fer officers assigned to public works duty in the naval shore establishment. In May 19hh the entire officers training program.was moved from Camp Perry to Camp Endicott, Davisville, Rhode Island, and the curriculum was re-organized and a closer liaison was estab- lished with the Bureau of Naval Personnel and the Bureau of Yards and Docks. 'With this move all Civil Engineer Corps officer training was located at Camp Endicott except for the public works course which remained at Norfolk, Virginia. In‘May'19h5 the public works course was moved from.Norfolk to Camp Endicott and all Civil Engi- neer Corps officer training was consolidated into one school. This school was moved from Davisville, Rhode Island to Port Hueneme in September 19h6 and was placed under the management control of the Bureau.of Naval Personnel. The present U. S. Naval School, Civil Engineer Corps Officers, is a subordinate command of the Naval Con- struction Battalion Center and is an activity of the Eleventh Naval District. The school is under the direction of a Civil Engineer Corps officer designated as the officer-in-charge. The post-war plans for an expanded regular Navy dictated the decision to make the Civil Engineer Corps Officers School a permanent postdwar organization. This was necessary to train future junior Civil Engineer Corps officers procured from the Naval Academy, civilian life or transfers from the Line for their Specialized duties in the Navy. The school is presently operating two classes of the Basic CEC Course each year and graduating approximately fifty officers per year fer Civil Engi- neer Corps billets. The course is presently sixteen weeks in length . weasel-22 The catalog of infermation for the CEC Officers School de- fines the purpose of the course as: (21) (1) Providing the officers instruction in naval ori- entation subjects to acquaint them with the Department of Defense and with the organization, procedure and customs of the naval service. (2) Presenting the specialized procedures of the Bureau of Yards and Docks in accomplishing its responsibilities in the Naval Establishment, both in continental United States and at Ads vanced Bases. h (3) Providing instruction and other assistance to the officers to increase their administrative and engi- neering knowledge. The course is divided into four areas. (22) (1) Naval Orientation. The orientation required by a naval officer to in- doctrinate him into the military fmnctions of his rank. (2) Administration. The administrative procedures utilized by CEC offi- cers in the execution of their duties. (3) Shore Establishments, Structures, Facilities and Utilities. Covering Civil Engineering as applied to the naval activities. (h) Specialized Engineering. Covering Naval Construction Battalion duties, Advanced Base design and construction plus cold weather and tropical engineering. Students selected to attend the course are either graduate engi- neers or have extensive engineering experience. The Problem The Mission of the Civil.Engineer Corps Officers School is stated as follows: 5 "To provide courses of instruction for officers of the Civil Engineer Corps, Regular and Reserve, through which they may become acquainted with the specialized administra- tive and technical engineering information, over and above their knowledge of engineering as applied to general practice in civilian use, necessary to equip them for duty in billets assignable to them in the Navy." (214) To accomplish this mission the "Basic 0130 Course" of sixteen weeks was organized at the Civil Engineer Corps Officers School. This course has been in operation with continuing modification since May 19145. Some modification has been of minor nature, some of more major scape. It was the purpose of this study to determine if the present course curriculum adequately fulfilled the mission of the school by providing junior Civil Engineer Corps officers with satisfactory training. N392 and Timeliness _o_f_‘ this S3132 There is a continuing need in each military activity to deter- mine if that activity is adequately fulfilling its mission. It is felt that the investigation undertaken by this study is timely since significant numbers of graduates of the school are now in the active performance of their naval duties. These yaduates are now available for an evaluation of their training. Prior to this time, the pepula- tion available for study was too small to lead to conclusive results . The results obtained from this study may be utilized in making ad- justments and changes to the curriculum of the Basic CEO Course. Em The Civil Engineer Corps of the Navy is responsible for the design, construction, alteration, inSpection and.maintenance of the public works and public utilities of the shore establishment of the Navy. The U. S. Naval School, Civil Engineer Corps Officers, is as- signed the mission of providing junior officers of the Civil Engi- neer Corps with training necessary to equip them for duty in the Navy. The problem as investigated by the study was to determine if the curriculum of the Basic CEC Course adequately fulfilled this mission. CHAPTER II ANALYSIS OF THE PROBLEM AND TECHNIQUE FOR SOLUTION Factors p_i_' the Problem In analyzing the problem of how well the school was accom- plishing its mission it was considered that the success of the school was directly related to the adequacy of the curriculum. This conclusion was supported by Morris (15) and'weil (26) in their writings. In evaluating a curriculum the quality and quan- tity of instructions must be considered. The initial considera- tion, however, should be to determine if the curriculum.is satis- factory. In discussing the planning of a course, Morris (15) emphasized the importance of a good curriculum as compared to overall instructional efficiency» For the purposes of this study it was decided to limit the problem to a study of the curriculum of the Basic CEC Course. The question of quality of instruction was considered only as it related directly to curriculum content. Methods 2f Evaluation Various methods of evaluating curriculums were studied. Klausmeier and Swanson (1) outlined various methods of evaluation. Stuit (20) considered the problem in his studies. Based on type of course under study and considering the areas to be covered it was decided that the questionnaire survey method of evaluation would be most satisfactory. This method was found to be satisfactory by several authors. Baker (1), Grim.(6), Koos (11) and Romine (16) all reported the questionnaire as a satis- factory method of evaluation of a curriculum. 8 In the use of a questionnaire study, the group to be ques- tioned is most important. Since the establishment of the CEC Officers School at Port Hueneme over 200 students have been grad- uated to duty in Naval activities. This group has now had from one to five years to determine the effectiveness of the training received. Therefore, it was to this group that the questionnaire was addressed. 2333.2 2}: the Questionnaire The problem at hand was to produce a questionnaire which covered all the areas of the Basic CEC curriculum and yet could be answered within a reasonable time. In designing the question- naire three main sections were considered. (1) General information about course. (2) Specific information concerning subjects within the course. (3) Specific information concerning changes or improve- ments desired. Questions were constructed for each section of the question- naire and tried on a pilot group. The pilot group were 12 previous graduates of the Basic CEC Course stationed at Naval Construction Battalion Center, Port Hueneme, California. A group of desirable. questions finally evolved from these preliminary experiments. It was desired to produce a questionnaire that would require less than 30 minutes to complete. Koos (ll) writes of the importance of'making the questionnaire of a length that the recipient will have a willing- 9 uses to complete it. The time of completion for the final ques- tionnaire was from 20 to 30 minutes. ' In sections where multiple choice answers were available, these choices were limited to five. It was felt fewer choices would not have given the range desired. Larger number of choices would have made selection difficult and increased the time re- quired for completion. Koos (11) and Howell (9) mentioned the significance of a for- warding letter with the questionnaire. They cited cases to indi- cate that the quality and.quantity of responses would increase if a forwarding letter were used. A forwarding letter was included with the questionnaires sent out in this study. 207 questionnaires were mailed to previous graduates and 161 satisfactorily completed responses were received. This 78% return compared favorably with other similar studies in which the average response was only about 50%. A questionnaire form together with the forwarding letter (27) was included in the appendix of this 5 tudy o Summagy It was determined to limit the scope of this problem to a study of the curriculum of the Basic CEC Course. It was consid- ered that a questionnaire would be a satisfactory means of evalu- ating the curriculum. The questionnaire was designed in three main sections: (1) General information. lO (2) Specific information concerning subjects. (3) Specific information concerning changes or improve- ments. CHAPTER III REVIEW OF RELATED RESEARCH In the review of related research carried out for this study, materials in the areas of curriculum building, engineering educa- tion and questionnaire surveys were investigated. The general sub- ject of educational philOSOphy was explored only so far as it was related to post-graduate engineering education. Curriculum Building Several studies indicated the difficulties of building a satis- factory engineering curriculum. ‘Weil (26) considered this problem and investigated the question of specialization, major fields and increasing the length of standard courses. Grim (6) outlined cer- tain requirements to be met in the design of an engineering curric- ulum. The United States Navy's Chief of Naval Personnel (25) in discussing curriculum development raised the question of the amounts of different itens to teach. He considered the question of "how much theory" and "how much practice." Merrie (15) in studying the planning of a course describes means of arranging a schedule of classes to meet various training plans. Engineering Education Finch (S) wrote of trends in engineering education and expressed his idea concerning the relative importance of fundamentals versus practice. Sackett (17) in his study, indicated the relative weight of different factors in influencing students to study engineering. 12 He mentioned the generally accepted Opinion that engineering edu— cation was good education. The Department of the Navy (Bureau of Naval Personnel) (23) stated that the Navy's training program.was designed to insure the efficient employment of’modern naval mater- ials and principles. This manual further stated that the Navy felt that officers required special training after completion of their regular college courses. Mills (1h) reported the importance of joining interest and ability to produce success in engineering. The Engineers Joint Council (h) stated that the engineer was very important to the military and that 95% of engineers in the military were correctly assigned to work in their profession. Horton (8) made a followdup study on the career of engineering students after graduation to determine the value of their education. Stewart (10) in his writings offered advice to students in engineering. He reported the ability to do mathematics a prime requisite. He also commented on the importance of public relations. Morris (15) in his manual for engineering instructors, emphasized the importance of good administration to the success of an engineering school. He discussed the various phases of planning a course and a schedule. Hammond (7) considered the factors contributing to good teaching. Baker (1) felt that engineering education should emphasize manage- ment instead of technical fields. The importance of post-graduate education was studied by Lenville and.McEachron (12). Stuit in his studies for the Navy Department (20) pointed out the importance of the learner's Opinion as to the quality of the course of instruction. ‘Questionnaire Surveys Questionnaire Surveys have been extensively used in educa- tional research. Koos (11) reported the two divisions in educa- tion most commonly studied by questionnaire surveys were admini- stration and curriculum. He further mentioned the usefulness of questionnaires to explore curriculum content. Corrigan (2) des- cribed the use of questionnaires in a study on Chemical Engineering curriculum. Romine (16) set forth criteria for a better question- naire. McGrath (13) outlined the use of a questionnaire survey to evaluate student teacher training. Klausmaier and Swanson (10) reported a questionnaire method of evaluating a course in educa- tional psychology. Schoonover and.Horrocks (18) described how a questionnaire study aided a teacher in evaluating his instructions. Howell (9) gave certain requirements for a satisfactory question- naire response. He said questionnaires: (a) Should be on good paper. (b) Should have a return envelope. (c) Should have plenty of room for answers. (d) Should have a forwarding letter. Summagy The review of related research revealed considerable material available for study in the fields of curriculum building, engineer- ing education and questionnaire surveys. Some difference of opinion was expressed concerning the length of engineering courses. Differ- ences were noted concerning the question of specialization. Authors 11; agreed there must be both theory and practice in a satisfactory course. Some authors pointed out the importance of training for management and personnel administration in engineering education. One author'mentioned the importance of the learner's opinion of the quality of his education. Questionnaire surveys were reported by several authors to be a successful method to evaluate engineering curricula. CHAPTER IV INTERPRETATION OF DATA The purpose of the questionnaire survey was to evaluate the curriculum content of the Basic Civil Engineer Corps Course. The questionnaire was designed to determine the previous gradu- ate's opinion as to how effectively the subjects presented pre- pared them for their Navy billets. The tabulations were made for each item of the questionnaire and are presented in the following sections. sees. as: 2.112.. in. Lara Under this section were questionnaire items 1 through 8 and item 10 which dealt with the course more or less in general. Each item except 8 and 10 gave five choices. The tabulation is given showing the number of graduates who selected each choice. Items 8 and 10 were handled separately since they involved a different technique. "1. In the light 9_f_ what yo_u pg; know about the duties 3f Choice Selected (a) Strongly agree 105 (b) Agree 52 (c) Doubtful 2 (d) Disagree (e) Disagree strongly l-‘OO (f) No opinion l6 "2. flat £12 £93 Lh_i_n_k app-gt .t_h_g general _v_a}l1_e_ 33d usefulness (a) Half or less of it was important and useful. 29 (b) More than half of it was important and useful. 98 (c) All or most of it was important and useful. 32 (d) No opinion. 1 "3. Which part pf your career in 223 Cogps should your train- igg'ig the Basic CEC Officers Course 23 emphasizing?" (a) First 20 years 12 (b) First 10 years 131 (c) First 5 years 16 (d) First year only 0 (e) 30 years or more 0 (f) No opinion 1 "14. Considering _t_h_e material :2 be covered, hp! 3). Lou feel about the present course duration of 16 weeks?" (a) About right 103 (b) ‘Much too long 0 (c) Too long 2h (d) Much too short 3 (e) Too short 27 (f) No opinion 3 17 "S. Haw many p_i_‘ your instructors were able 3,2 put across successfully what they were trying £3 teach?" (a) All or most of them 56 (b) About half of them 71. (0) Very few of them 26 (d) No Opinion h "6. ‘Was the material studied in the classroom out of date (a) Always 1 (b) Frequently 26 (c) Occasionally 83 (d) Seldom h5 (e) Never 2 (f) NO Opinion 3 "7. 93 m feel there was sufficient practical engineering field work in your course?" (a) TOO much 11; (b) About the right amount 50 (c) Far too much 3 (d) TOO little 73 (e) Far too little 12 (f) No Opinion 8 Item 8 while dealing with the course in general was designed to measure the students' Opinion of the emphasis of the various sections Of the course. Item 8 was quoted as: "Indicate by ([1 18 those areas _ip_ which m1 would increase emphasis and by 1;). those areas which m would decrease emphasi . Leave 14% LURE? m consider to have been correctly emphasized." The tabulation of item 8 was shown in Table I. TABLE I TABULATION OF ANSWERS TO ITEM 8 Increase Decrease No Emphasis Emphasis Change Naval Orientation 19 61 80 Public Works Administration 112 1h 3).; Naval Shore Establishment 53 39 68 Advanced Bases, Naval Construc- tion Forces and Specialized Engineering 95 26 119 Table I indicated a significant Opinion that the emphasis on "Administration" and "Specialized Engineering" should be increased. There was a less significant Opinion that the emphasis on "Orienta- tipg" should be decreased. Item 10 dealt with the course in general by requesting opinions as to certain broad phases of instruction. Item 10 was quoted as: "M _l__i_s_t m Opinion by checking 3 Elli (fl _f_‘_q_r_ ageement and 3 Mg (:1 £93 disagreemen . L933 blag; if 93 Opinio ." (Questions were shown in the tabulation.) The tabulation Of the results of item 10 were shown in Table II . 19 TABLE II TRBULATION OF ANSWERS TO ITEM 10 No Agree Disagree Opinion (a) Increase the number of field trips. 82 h2 36 (b) Spend more time on subjects taught at the CB enlisted schools. 75 5h 31 (c) Rifle and pistol range training should be included in the course. 91 53 16 (d) Attend special amphibious training course at the Naval Amphibious Training Center. 96 27 37 (e) Having visiting senior CEC Offi- cers address the class at least once a month. 118 1h 28 Table II indicated general agreement with all topics under consideration in item 10. Orientation Section The first portion of item 9 of the questionnaire was concerned with the Orientation section of the Basic CEC curriculum. This item was quoted as: "22 what extent £12 19..“ consider _t_h_e following subjects impom tin the Basic CEC Officers Course? Rate according to this scale: 5g) Veg; important, 12). Considerabglx important, (2) Limitg importance, L11 3131: immrtan ." A tabulation of the importance attached to each subject was as follows: Orientation (a) Naval Orientation 2.76 (b) Uniform.Regulations 2.h0 20 (c) Naval Procedures 3.15 (d) Naval Law 3.0h (e) Naval Leadership 3.2h (f) Naval Current Events 2.80 (g) Drill and Physical Training 2.11 The subjects of "Drill 329 thsical Training" and "Uniform Regulations" appeared to be rated as of only limited importance. Administration Section The second portion of Item 9 of the questionnaire was con- cerned with the Administration Section of the curriculum. This item was quoted.as: "22 what extent dgflzgg consider Egg following as for the Orientation Section above. A tabulation of the importance attached to each subject was as follows: Administration (a) Bureau of Yards and Docks 3.22 (b) Naval Station Public Works 3.6h (c) Naval Correspondence 3.h7 (d) Inspections and Reports 3.06 (e) Civilian Personnel Administration 3.33 (f) Supplies and.Material Management 3.0h (g) Financial management 3.20 (h) Initiation of New Projects 3.18 (1) Contract Administration 3.19 21 (j) Construction by Station Forces 3.25 (k) Real Estate 2.37 (1) Housing and Public Quarters 3.08 (m) Work Measurement Program 2.16 (n) Safety Program 2.72 (0) Disaster Planning 2.9h (p) Public Relations 2.66 The subjects of "Real Estate" and "WOrk Measurement Program" appeared to be rated as of only limited importance. Shore Establishment Section The third portion of Item 9 was concerned with the Shore Es- tablishment Section of the curriculum. This item was quoted as: TISHEEEEHSEEEEEHQSHZ2BuEEEEEQSEHEEEHEEElEEEES.22212222 important $2.322 Basic Egg Course?" Ratings were the same as for the Orienta- tion Section. Tabulation of the importance attached to each subject was as follows: Shore Establishment (a) Introduction to Shore Establishment 2.99 (b) Personnel Facilities 2.73 (c) Industrial Facilities 2.7h (d) 'Waterfront Facilities 2.80 (e) Aviation Facilities 2.71 (f) Ordnance Facilities 2.60 (g) Supply Facilities 2.65 (h) Electrical Systems 2.95 (i) Power Plants 3.05 (j) Distribution Systems 3.13 (k) Heating-Ventilating 2.80 (1) ‘Water Supply 3.10 (m) Materials and Processes 2.8h (n) Automotive Transportation 3.3h (o) Rail TranSportation 2.32 (p) 'Weight Handling Equipment 3.07 (q) Construction Equipment 2.90 (r) Fire Protection 2.89 22 The subject of "Rail Transportation" appeared to be rated as of only limited importance. Specialized Engineering Section The feurth portion of Item 9 was concerned with the Special- ized Engineering Section of the curriculum. The item was quoted as: "29 what extent d_o_ m consider the following subjects impo - tant in the Basic 9132 Course?" Ratings were the same as for the Orientation Section. Tabulation of the importance attached to each subject was as follows: Specialized Engineering (a) Mission of Advanced Bases 3.0L (b) Logistics 2.99 (c) Naval Construction Forces 3.30 (d) Advanced Base Planning 2.91 (e) Advanced Base Construction 3.06 (f) Harbor Defense 2.h1 (g) Cold Weather Engineering 2.65 (h) Desert Engineering 3.00 (i) Radiological Decontamination 2.57 (j) Chemical Decontamination 3.2h (k) Biological Decontamination 2.9h (1) Surveying 2.86 (m) Diving 2.29 (n) 'Welding 2.h2 (o) Paints 2.22 23 The subjects of "Harbor Defense," "Diving," "Welding," and "Paints" appeared to be rated as of only limited importance. Specific subjects Item 11 of the questionnaire was concerned with the subjects that were inadequately covered. This item was quoted as: "Name 231 subjects taught 13 your course which were inadequately covered con- sidering their importance." The following subjects were mentioned more than ten times in the 161 completed questionnaires returned: (The number of times mentioned follows each subject in parenthesis.) 2h Civilian Personnel Administration (36) Financial Management (33) Public Works Administration and Operation (33) Correspondence (22) Contract Administration (21) Enlisted Personnel Administration (20) Automotive Transportation (1)4) Naval Law (11) Item 12 was concerned with the subjects that were over-empha- sized. The item was quoted as: "Nam: subjects 29.1.1313 _i_1_1_ 122g course which were over-emphasized beyond their importance." The following subjects were mentioned more than ten times: Naval Orientation (22) Electrical Engineering (18) Shore Establishment Facilities (13) Civil Engineering (Under-graduate type subjects) (13) Advance Base Planning (11) Item 13 was designed to determine if additional subjects should be added to the course. This item was quoted as: "£3313 3.111 additional subjects 3 materials which E: feel should have been included i_n_ your course." The only subject mentioned more than ten times was: Naval Personnel Administration (11) 25 Improvements Item 1h asked for general comments for the improvement of the Basic CEC Course. In response to this question the following sug- gestions were mentioned more than ten times: Provide better instructional methods (33) Teach more: Financial Management (12) Public Works Administration (23) Naval Orientation (11) Teach less: Under-graduate engineering (20) CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The solution to the problem investigated.by this study was based on a questionnaire survey. The survey provided good response from the previous graduates contacted. 78% returned questionnaires satisfactorily completed. The information taken from these com- pleted questionnaires was nearly 100% useful and valuable. A con- clusion of this study was that the questionnaire survey was a sat- isfactory method for curriculum evaluation. The evaluation as interpreted in Chapter IV clearly indicated a recognized need for a.§§§i§.§§§.§2§£§3' The evaluation showed the present curriculum to be reasonably adequate as to overall con- tent, distribution and subject emphasis. There were indicated, however, certain changes and improvements that would increase the value of the course in the opinion of previous graduates. This study was primarily concerned with curriculum evaluation. Instruction was considered only as it affected curriculum.content. Items 5 and 1b in the study indicated that while instructional methods were satisfactory there was still room for improvement. Future changes in the Basic CEC Course should consider the change in emphasis indicated by Table II, Chapter IV. This would mean increasing the emphasis on Administration and Specialized Engineering and decreasing the emphasis on Orientation. The indi- vidual subjects to increase or decrease emphasis could be those discussed under items 11 and 12 in the interpretation of Chapter IV. Items in Table II should be considered for addition to the 27 course. The subjects rated as of only limited importance should be considered for removal from the course or reduction in time allotted. Those rated as of limited importance were: Drill and Physical Training Uniform Regulations Real Estate Work Measurement Program Rail Transportation Harbor Defense Diving 1 'Welding Paints Item 13 indicated that the subject of N333; Personnel Administra- tion should be considered for addition to the course. It is recommended that a follow-up study in the form of a later questionnaire survey be made to determine if the findings of this study are conclusive and if the changes proposed produce desired results. BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. 2. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 29 BIBLIOGRAPHY Baker, Donald 14., "Some Thoughts on Engineering Education," ASCE Publication, "Transaction, Vol. 112 (19147). Corrigan, T. E. , "Results of Questionnaire Regarding Graduate Degrees in Chemical Engineering," Journal pf Engineering Education, Vol. 141, #3 (November 1950). Engineers Council for Professional Development, Engineering 3:3 3 Career. New York, ECPD (19142). Engineers Joint Council, The Engineering Profession i_n Tran- sition, New York, 191:7. Finch, J. K. , Trends _i_p Engineering Education, Columbia Uni- versity Press, New York 19748. Grim, P. R. , "Designs for Curriculum Development," Journal pfh Educational Research, Vol. ’42, #1 (pp. 18-29), September 19 8. Hammond, H. P., "What is Good TeachingT," Journal pi: En ’- neering Education, Vol. hO, #8 (pp. 1717- 95, April 1 0. Horton, S. P. , "A Follow-up of the Careers of Tested Engi- neering Students," Human Engineering Laboratory, 123. Technical Report £27, Vol. I, November 19141. Howell, A. C., "Handbook of English in Engineering Usage," (PP: 3&0'35h), John Wiley'& Sons, Inc., New York, 19kg." Klausmeier, Hebert & Swanson Donovan, "Evaluating a Course in Educational Psychology," Journal of Educational Research (pp. 678-687), Vol. 113. #9, “May 19'5'0‘." Koos, Leonard V. , "The Questionnaire in Education," The MacMillan Company, New York 1928. Lenville, T. M. and McEachron, K. B. Jr. , "Cooperative Engineering Education at the Graduate Level," Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. no, #9 (pp. u75-h7‘T"—9 , May "" 19 O. McGrath, G. D. , "Some Experiences with a Student Teacher Questionnaire," Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 143, 15. l6. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 2h. 25. 26. 27. 30 Mills, John, "The Engineer in Society, " D. Van Nostrand Co., New York, 19146. Morris, Fred 0., "Effect Teaching," A Manual for Engineering Instructors, McGraw-Hill Book Co. , New York 195'. Romine, Stephen, "Criteria for a Better Questionnaire," Journal 2;: Educational Research, Vol. 142, #1, pp. 69-71 (September 19h81. Sackett, R. L., The Engineer, His Work and His Education. Ginn and Co., Boston, Mass. (1928). Schoonover, T. I. and Horrocks, J. E., "Description of a Self-Appraisal Questionnaire for Teachers-in-Service," idli- cational Administration 3'34. Sppervision, V01. 36, #3, pp. 150-166 (March 195D). Stewart, S. 0., "Advice to Young Men Who Seek Careers in Civil Engineering," Journal pf. Engineering Education, Vol. 36, pp. 36-142, (September 191:5). Stuit, D. 8., Personnel Research and Test Development 3.3} 21?. Bureau of NavaI Personnel. Princeton, N. J.: Princeton Uni- versity-Press, 191:7 . U. S. Naval School, Civil Engineer Corps Officers, Catalog 93 Information, (May 1950). U. S. Naval School, Civil Engineer Corps Officers, Curriculum, Basic ppp Course, (23 February 1951). United States Navy Department, Bureau of Naval Personnel, Education and Training, Navpers 1082?, U. S. Navy Department, WIW). United States Navy Department, Letter Chief of Naval Personnel C-1223, 6 July 1950 to the Officer in Charge CECOS. United States Navy Department, Letter Chief of Naval Personnel, "Curriculum Development--Procedures for," 23 February 1950. Neil, Joseph, "Building an Ehgineering Curriculum," Journal pf Engineering Education, Vol. 1.41, #10, p. 578 (June 1951). Wills, Harry C. , LCDR, CEC, USN, Questionnaire and Forwarding Letter. APPENDIX 32 C O P Y DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY Bureau of Naval Personnel Washington 25, Do Co In reply refer to Pers-Cl223-bs 6 July 1950 From: Chief of Naval Personnel To: Officer-in-Charge, U. S. Naval School Civil Engineer Corps Officers Naval Construction Battalion Center Port Hueneme, California Subj: Approved "Mission, Tasks and Standards of Performance," U. S. Naval School, Civil Engineer Corps Officers, Port Hueneme, California Ref: (a) BuPers 1tr, Pers-h221-lra of 18 June l9h8 and en- closure thereto (b) CECOS 1tr, NTh-59/A3-2 over hl/mlk, Ser. 52b of 18 May 1950 and enclosure thereto Encl: (1) Four c0pies of Approved Mission, Tasks and Standards of Performance, CECOS, Port Hueneme, Calif. 1. Reference (a) is hereby cancelled. 2. Enclosure (1) is approved as the statement of the "Mission, Tasks and Standards of Perfbrmance," U. S. Naval School, Civil Engineer Corps Officers, Port Hueneme, California. G. C. TOWNER By direction COpy to: ComELEVEN (with 2 copies of Encl.(1)) CO, USN CB Center, Pt. Hueneme (with 2 copies of Enc1.(1)) BuDocks (with 2 copies of Enc1.(1)) 33 C O P Y U. S. NAVAL SCHOOL, CEC OFFICERS, PORT HUENEME, CALIF. STATEMENT OF MISSIONS, TASKS AND STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE MISSION: TASKS: To provide courses of instruction for officers of the CEC, Regular and Reserve, through which they may become acquainted with the Specialized administrative and technical engineer- ing information, over and above their knowledge of engineer- ing as applied to general practice in civilian use, neces- sary to equip them for duty in billets assignable to them in the Navy. To perform such other functions relating to training and personnel administration of naval personnel as may be as- signed. 1. To ccnduct a suitable course covering Naval Orientation, Public works Training, and Construction Battalion Training for regular CEC officers who are ordered to this activity. 2. To conduct a suitable course covering disaster relief planning for officers of the Armed Forces and selected civilians. 3. Tb conduct suitable courses for CEC reserve officers to bring them up to date on naval organization and procedures, to present pertinent subjects pertaining to disaster relief planning and operation, to present such material as may be necessary to assist them to more effectively perform their duties with reserve units, and to acquaint them with other duties of CEC officers. h. To perform such additional duties in connection with the training and personnel administration of naval per- sonnel as may be assigned. Examples: Preparation of- manuals, correspondence courses, examinations for promo- tion of CEC officers, etc. THEHMISSION OF THE U. S. NAVAL SCHOOL, CEC OFFICERS, WILL BE CON- SIDERED WELL DONE WHEN: I. CEC officers (including officers newly procured from civil life, other staff corps and the line) graduating from the school, have been adequately indoctrinated into the Corps and have knowledge of the broad field of the Corps' work and the specialized information concerning Bureau of Yards and Docks policies, plans and procedures such as will permit them to be useful and efficient as- sistants to a more senior officer performing duties per- taining to matters under the cognizance of the Bureau of Yards and Docks. 3h 2. CEC reserve officers have been given training courses that have renewed and increased their interest in BuDocks activities and responsibilities, have made the individual officer more valuable to his local Reserve Unit ccmposed of both officer and enlisted personnel, and have given the individual officer a desire to continue to improve his usefulness to the Navy, especially in time of emer- gency o 3. Officers of the Armed Forces and selected civilians have been given a course of instruction which would enable them to prepare or be consultants on a disaster relief plan for their activities, and thus prepare them to op- erate efficiently and rapidly to alleviate the damage and suffering following a catastrophe. h. Such duties as may be assigned by preper authorities have been completed in an efficient and satisfactory man- nero ENCLOSURE (1) 35 mama-gm 9 “'3: ' mm ‘ -_-‘1.: ""' ~ I I 1 1 NAVAL SCHOOL . GEOOFFICERS CATALOG OF INFORMATION MC.B.C., PORT HUENEME ,CALIFORNIA IIND P.89 (Rev. 10-501 1. 3. C O P Y U. S. NAVAL SCHOOL CIVIL ENGINEER CORPS OFFICERS Naval Construction Battalion Center Port Hueneme, California CURRICULUM - FOR BASIC CEC COURSE PART I ORIENTATION 36 Revised 23 Feb 1951 Hours Instructor Alt. Naval Orientation 8 Benton History, Rating Structure, Amphibious'Warfare, Customs and Terms Organization for National 3 Ryan Security Department of Defense, Depart- ment of the Navy, Inter-Rela- tionship within the Shore Es- tablishment UnifOrm Regulations 2 Jordan USN Uniform Regulations NavPers 15665 Naval Procedure h Hardy Pay, Allowances, Travel, Leave, Liberty, Shipment of Household Effects, etc. Leadership 10 Wills Individual Differences, Concepts of Leadership, Application of Group Discussion.Methods, Selec- tions, Motivation and Discipline, Training, Application of Training Methods, Organization and.Manage- ment, Leadership versus Command, Leadership Techniques . Current Events h Wills New Naval DevelOpments New Legislation proposed or enacted, Developments in other Services, DeveIOpments in Civilian Agencies Weeks Benton Wills Wills Benton Weeks 9. 10. 11. 1. Hours Military Law h Review.A.G.N.; Discuss P.L. 506 (Uniform Code) Naval Regulations 2 A.G.N., Navy Regulations and General Orders Naval Correspondence h Principles of Letter writing; Construction of Letters, Memo- randa, Endorsements, etc. Physical Training 15 A program to improve the stu- dents' physical fitness, con— sisting mostly of organized recreational Sports activities. Military Drill 15 Obeying and Giving Drill Com- mands ' TOTAL HOURS 71 PART II ADMINISTRATION Bureau of Yards and Docks 12 History, Organization, Responsi- bilities, Definition of Terms, Relationships with other Govern- ment Agencies, Status and Duties of CEC Officers. Field.Activities of BuY&D 6 Directors of Overseas Areas, District CE, District PWO, OinCC, ROinCC, NCBC, ABD, NAVSCON, CECOS, NavCERELab. Naval Station Public WOrks 10 Organization and Duties at: Shipyards, Air Stations, Marine Corps Facilities, others. Supplies and.Materials Management h Procurement, InSpection , Survey , Salvage, ShOps Stores. Instructor Graessle Hardy Graessle Weeks Benton Conahey Conahey Conahey Conahey 37 Alt. Benton Benton Weeks Benton Hardy Ryan Ryan Ryan Ryan 9. 10. 11. 12. Hours Financial Management 1h Budget, Appropriations, Job Orders, Allotments, Work Orders, Cost Keeping, Obli- gations and Expenditures. Initiation of New Projects 3 Station Development Board, Local Station Development Board, Shore Station Develop- ment Board, Facilities Review Board. Contracts 9 Policy, CPFF, Lump Sum, Unit Price, Short Form, Informal, Negotiations, Bids, Admini- stration and Reports. Specifications and Contract 5 Preparation Principles, Standard Specifi- cations, NavDocks Form 129e, Informal and Short Form Speci- fications, Preparing Short Form Specifications. Technical Reports h Fundamentals, Current Practice, Preparation and Discussion of EngineeringlReport. Inspections and Reports 6 Navy Report Program, Annual Inspection Report, Other Major Inspections, Methods and Re- lated Reports, Preparation of Field Inspection Report. Civilian Personnel Administration 6 Navy Civilian Employees, Civil Service Organization and Methods, OIR Programs . Real Estate 3 NavDocks P-20 Instructor Conahey Conahey Conahey Ryan Foster Ryan Conahey Conahey 38 Alt. Ryan Ryan Ryan Conahey Benton Conahey Ryan Ryan 13. 15. 16. 1. 2. Hours Housing and Public Quarters h MOQS,IEMQS, Transient Personnel Quarters, Other Government Quarters, Building Title VIII, Maintenance, Cost Records, Rent Collection, etc. Safety 2 Procedures, Duties and Authority of Safety Organization. Disaster Planning A History and Present Status of Civil Defense and Disaster Re- lief Planning, Current Naval Station Disaster Plans. Public Relations 2 Responsibility, Organizations, Methods, Student Problem. TOTAL HOURS 90 Instructor (Conahey Foster Ryan Ryan 39 Alt. Ryan Ryan Conahey Jordan Benton Conahey PART III SHORE ESTABLISHMENTS, STRUCTURES, FACILITIES AND UTILITIES Introduction to Shore Estab- 2 lishment Naval Bases, Shipyards, Stations, Operating Bases, Facilities, etc. Personnel Facilities 6 Planning and Design, Barracks, Hospitals, Offices, Recreational .and Service, Finish, Furniture and Maintenance . Industrial Facilities h Shops, Shop Groups, Types of Buildings, Location, and Special Features. waterfront Facilities 10 Channels, Anchorages, Bulkhead Lines, Pierhead Lines, Break- waters, Jetties, Quaywalls, Sea Walls, Groins, Moles, Dikes, Re- vetments, Levees, Training Walls, Dunes, Dry Docks, Marine Railways, Shipbuilding Ways, Silting, Beach Erosion, Dredging, Filling, Pile Driving, Maintenance. Franklin Foster Dunham Burkart Franklin Conahey S. 7. 8. 9. 10. 12. Hours Aviation Facilities h Types, Organization, Planning and Design Criteria, Public WOrks Maintenance Prdblems. Ordnance Facilities h Types, Organization, Planning and Design Criteria, Public 'Works Maintenance Problems. Supply Facilities h Types, Organization, Planning and Design Criteria, Public WOrks Maintenance PrOblems. Miscellaneous Facilities h Roads, Walks and Areas, Bridges, Water Systems. Electrical Systems 6 Basic Electricity, Power, Com- munication, Machinery, Power Control and Purchase. Power Plants 8 Types, Equipment, Maintenance, Safety Practices, Characteristics, Fuels and Combustion. Distribution Systems 3 Fresh and Salt water, Steam, Air, Gas, Oxygen-Acetylene, and various types of Liquid Fuels. Heating, Air Conditioning and 6 Regrigeration Design, Capacity and Operation of the Various types and methods used in the Navy. Water Supply, Sewerage Systems 8 and'Waste Disposal Standards, Treatment, Distribu- tion and Storage. Specifications for‘Materials 2 Definitions and descriptions of terms, written material specifi- cations. Instructor Burkart Burkart Burkart Franklin Franklin Foster Foster Foster Burkart Franklin hO Alt. Franklin Franklin Franklin Conahey Foster Franklin Franklin Franklin Franklin Benton 150 l6. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. Hours Structural Steel h Production of Structural Shapes, Standards of Design. Structural Timber h Grading Rules, Standards of Design, Modern Developments. Concrete h Composition, Mixing, Admixtures, Pouring, Forms, Tests . Miscellaneous Materials 2 Explosives and Paints, Other Construction Materials. Structural Design h Standards of Design and Leading, ‘Wind Leads, Seismic Leads, Live and Dead Utility Leads. Soil Stabilization & Pavements h Classification, Samplings'Mechan- ical, Bituminous and Portland Cement Stabilization; Bituminous and Concrete Pavements; Main- tenance. Automotive Transportation 8 Authority, Policy and Procedures used in Administration and Opera- tion, Organization, Operation and.Maintenance Procedures. Rail Transportation 2 Function and Extent of Railway Transportation in the Navy; Types, Assignment, Regulations and Operation. Material & Weight Handling Equip- 20 ment ' Bridge, Portal, Gantry, Semi- Gantry Cranes; Derricks, Hoists; Leads, Maintenance and Safety Rules. Instructor Franklin Franklin Conahey Franklin Franklin Burkart Foster Foster Dunham hl Alt. Conahey Burkart Franklin Burkart Burkart Franklin Ryan Conahey Weeks 2h. 25. 1. Hours Instructor Construction Equipment 30 Dunham Clearing and Grubbing Equip- ment, Prime Earth Movers, Earth Surfacing and Compac- tion Equipment, Quarry Equipment, Air Compressors and Tools, Pumps, Woodwork- ing and Shop Equipment. Fire Protection and Prevention 6 Ryan Responsibility, Organization and.Methods for Fire P’& P;- Magnitude, Causes, Levels and Degrees of Protection; Bills, Inspections and Facilities. TOTAL HOURS 156 PART IV SPECIALIZED ENGINEERING Mission of Advanced Bases h Wills History of Advanced Bases, Strategic Considerations, Theater Staff Planning, Base Development Plans. Naval Construction Forces h Burkart History, Types in WW II, Or- ganization for Combat and Construction. Advanced Base Functional Com- h Dunham ponents History, Description, Groups, Units, Personnel, and Assemblies and Components. Logistics h Dunham Elements, Demand, Efficiency, History, Procurement, Lead Time, Distribution, Planning and Execution. Advanced Base Planning 30 Dunham Elements, Purpose, Rules, Plan- ning Flow, Current Planning, Impetus, Concept, Study. h2 Alt. Weeks Foster Dunham Dunham Franklin Wills Franklin 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 15. Advanced Base Construction Standard Functional Component Buildings, Pile Boats, Saw Mill Operations. Advanced Base water Supply Sources, Development, Purifica- tion, Distillation and Well Driving Equipment. Advanced Base waterfront Facilities Pontoons, Barges, Warping Tugs, Drydocks. Advanced Base Airfield Con- struction Planning, Site Selection, Pave- ment Types, Cold Weather Zone PI‘OblemS 0 Advanced Base Harbor Defense Defense Areas, Detection Equip- ment and Functional Components. Cold Weather Engineering Introduction, Personnel, Logis- tics and Supply, Equipment, and Construction. Tropical Engineering Hours 23 Tropical Regions, Conditions en- countered, Adaptation of Conven- tional Engineering Methods. Atomic‘Warfare Nuclear Physics, Effects of Atomic Weapons, Detection, De- contamination and Protection. Chemical'Warfare History, Classification, Des- cription, Identification, Symptoms, Detection, Decon- tamination, Protective Clothing and Shelters. Biological Warfare Agents, Dispersal, Gennicides, Decontamination, Protection and Shelters. Instructor Franklin Burkart Franklin Burkart Graessle Graessle weeks Burkart Jordan Marsh Alt. Burkart Franklin Burkart Franklin Marsh Weeks Graessle Graessle Graessle Jordan m. Hours Instructor Alt. 16. Site Surveying 3 Dunham Graessle Field Trip involving Surveying and Mapping of a large hilly area. ______ TOTAL HOURS 108 MISCELLANEOUS Officer in Charge - Administrative 78 Time Tour of Inyokern 1h Tour of So. Calif. Naval Facilities 35 TOTAL HOURS 127 GRAND TOTAL 552 us SAMPLE 8 February 1951 LT A. B. SEE, CEC, USN U. S. Naval Station Chicago, Illinois Dear LT See: As you are a graduate of the Basic CEC Course I am writing for your assistance in evaluating that course. I feel that since you have now had an opportunity to serve in the field you will have some valuable information and opinions that should be considered in future modifications to the curriculum. 'With this in mind I have enclosed an evaluation questionnaire for your study and completion. The questionnaire has been tried on a few hearty souls already and will require about 30 minutes to complete. Your prompt comple- tion and return of questionnaire will be greatly appreciated. Your opinion and comments will be carefully considered in future revisions of the curriculum. With best personal regards, Sincerely, HARRY C. WILLS LCDR, CEC, USN Executive Officer, CECOS Encl: Questionnaire for the Basic CEC Course 1:6 QUESTIONNAIRE EVALUATION OF THE BASIC CEC OFFICERS COURSE The purpose of this questionnaire is to evaluate the curric- ulum content of the Basic CEC Course. The questionnaire is de- signed to determine how effectively the subjects presented pre- pared the graduates for their assigned billets. 1. 2. 3. h. 6. h? In the light of what you now know about the duties of CEO Offi- cers, do you agree that a CEC Officers course is necessary? Check your choice (a) Strongly agree ( ) (‘0) Agree ( 1 (c) Doubtful ( ) Ed) Disagree ( ) e) Disagree strongly ( ) What do you think about the general value and usefulness of the CEC Officers course you attended? (a) All or most of it was important and useful ( ) (b) More than half of it was important and useful ( ) (c) Half or less of it was important and useful ( ) Which part of your career in the Corps should your training in the Basic CEC Officers Course be emphasizing? (a) First 20 years (b) First 10 years (c) First 5 years (d) First year only (e) 30 years or more AAA/Kn Considering the material to be covered, how do you feel about the present course duration of 16 weeks? (a) About right (b) Much too long (c) Too long (d) Much too short (e) Too short “AAA/N How many of your instructors were able to put across success- fully what they were trying to teach? (a) All or most of them ( ) (b) About half of them ( ) (c) Very few of them ( 1 was the material studied in the classroom out of date or dif- ferent from that used in the field? (a) Always (b) Frequently (c) Occasionally (d) Seldom (e) Never AAAAA A8 7. Do you feel there was sufficient practical engineering field work in your course? (a) Too much (b) About the right amount (c) Far too much (d) Too little (e) Far too little 8. Indicate by ({) those areas in which you would increase emphasis and by (-) those areas which you would decrease emphasis. Leave blank those you consider to have been correctly emphasized. Naval Orientation ( ) Public Works Administration E g Naval Shore Establishment (Structures, Facilities and Utilities) Advanced Bases and C.B. Training ( ) 9. To what extent do you consider the following subjects important in the Basic CEC Officers Course? (Rate according to this scale: (h) Very important - (3) Considerably important - (2) Limited importance - (1) Not important) ORIENTATION (a) Naval Orientation ( ) (b) Uniform Regulations ( (c) Naval Procedures ( ) (d) Naval Leadership ( ) (e) Naval Current Events ( ) (f) Drill and Physical Training ( ) ADMINISTRATION (a) Bureau of Yards and Docks ( ) (b) Naval Station Public WOrks ( ) (c) Naval Correspondence ( ) (d) Inspections and Reports ( ) (e) Civilian Personnel Administration ( ) (f) Supplies and Materials Management ( ) (g) Financial Management ( ) (h) Initiation of New Projects ( ) (1) Contract Administration ( ) (j) Construction by Station Forces ( ) (k; Real Estate ( ) (1 Housing and Public Quarters ( ) (m) WOrk:Measurement Program ( ) (n) Safety Program ( ) (0) Disaster Planning ( ) (p) Public Relations ( ) 10. AA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HwQ'U 0 C3 5 FWD-HUGO Ham Q-O 0'93 VVVVVVWVVVVVVVVVV AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA O C5 a FWD-14°50!) 1"be F100 0“” VVVVVVVVVVVVVVV SHORE ESTABLISHIvIENT Introduction to Shore Establishment Personnel Facilities Industrial Facilities 'Waterfront Facilities Aviation Facilities Ordnance Facilities Supply Facilities Electrical Systems Power Plants Distribution Systems Heating-Ventilating water Supply Materials and Processes Automotive Transportation Rail Transportation 'Weight Handling Equipment Construction Equipment Fire Protection SPECIALIZED ENGINEERING Mission of Advanced Bases Logistics Naval Construction Forces Advanced Base Planning Advanced Base Construction Harbor Defense Cold Weather Engineering Desert Engineering Radiological Decontamination Chemical Decontamination Biological.Decontamination Surveying Diving 'Welding Paints AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA A9 Please list your opinion by checking a plus (/) for agreement and a minus (-) for disagreement. (a) (b) (C) (d) Increase the number of field trips Spend more time on subjects taught at the CB enlisted schools Rifle and pistol range training should be included in the course Attend special amphibious training course at the Naval Amphibious Training Center ( ( ( ( 1 1 Leave blank if no opinion. ll. 12. 13. 1h. 15. 50 Name any subjects taught in your course which were inadequately covered considering their importance. (3) (b) (C) (d) Name any subjects taught in your course which were over-empha- sized beyond their importance. Name any additional subjects or materials which you feel should have been included in your course. Do you feel that CEC Officers should be given an advanced CEC course after several years experience in the Corps? (a) Strongly agree ( ) (b) Agree ( ) (c) Doubtful ( ) (d) Disagree ( ) (e) Disagree strongly ( ) General comments for the improvement of the Basic CEC Course: 'lllllllfllllfllflljllfllll[[lLlllllljllljlllfllfllmrfllllil!I