Barracks Observation | A Veteran Combat Instructor's "Re-Forging"

**News Sample: A Lesson Plan Revised 177 Times**

■ Zhu Hang, Wen Xian

This summer, inside the medical training room of a certain brigade under the People's Armed Police Guangdong General Corps, Staff Sergeant First Class Tian Dongliang was bent over his desk revising a battlefield casualty care lesson plan. Layers of paper and ink, old and new, recorded the traces of revision.

"The SCENE assessment method for combat casualty care environments has received a strong response in recent training — I recommend increasing its instructional weight." During a recent mobility force medical support exercise, Tian Dongliang received feedback from soldiers and adjusted his instructional design, supplementing the relevant content.

Over the past two years, this lesson plan has been revised 177 times — a number that reflects Tian Dongliang's profound transformation from "experience first" to "utility as the foundation."

A lesson plan review two years ago sounded the alarm for Tian Dongliang, who was then the lead instructor for the battlefield casualty care subject at the brigade. A lesson plan that had previously earned him high praise failed the review because its content was outdated and disconnected from new-quality mission requirements (新质任务需求).

"That lesson plan was resting on its laurels (功劳簿), barely touched for years." Tian Dongliang admitted candidly that the real-world challenges far exceeded his expectations: carefully designed instructional methods failed to produce good results in training, and years of accumulated experience repeatedly "stalled" when confronted with new subjects. He suddenly realized that resting on those same laurels was his own long-calcified way of thinking. A two-year process of "grinding the lesson" (磨课) began from that moment.

Over those two years, Tian Dongliang carried a notebook into the front lines of exercises and training: consulting examiners on changes to scoring criteria, discussing efficient training organization methods with backbone cadre, and crouching on the training ground to capture every sticking point and every "didn't expect that" in soldiers' execution. From the logical architecture of instructional materials to the direction of innovation in teaching methods, to the precise positioning of key content — every link was repeatedly refined.

"I'm not afraid of revising — I'm afraid of revising and having it be useless." During that period, every time he added a new casualty care action, he would practice it himself more than ten times before finding soldiers to verify its effectiveness, ensuring that everything "brought in from the field" in the lesson plan consisted of genuine, practical techniques (真招实招) needed on the battlefield.

177 revisions produced a refined, high-quality lesson plan, and also forged Tian Dongliang's capacity to organize training in close alignment with actual combat and with the courage to innovate. Today, heuristic instructional methods such as "method competition" (方法对抗) from the lesson plan have been promoted across the brigade; core content such as training organization procedures has been selected by the General Corps for inclusion in medical support training materials; and the continuously expanding "problem bank" in the lesson plan is driving training toward greater depth and substance.

---

**News Investigation: A Veteran Combat Instructor's "Re-Forging"**

■ Wen Xian, Wang Bin

*A medic of a certain brigade under the People's Armed Police Guangdong General Corps conducts equipment operation instruction. Photo by Hu Fujian.*

*A certain brigade under the People's Armed Police Guangdong General Corps organizes a battlefield casualty care exercise. Photo by Hu Fujian.*

**From "Capable Individuals Running Training" to "Standards Running Training" —**

**Lesson Plan Review Stops a Veteran "Combat Instructor" in His Tracks**

Not long ago, the People's Armed Police Guangdong General Corps concluded its itinerant instruction and examination (巡教巡考) activity on front-line treatment capabilities. The lesson plan of Staff Sergeant First Class Tian Dongliang of a certain brigade was rated a "model lesson plan."

After rigorous trial instruction and teaching performance review, Tian Dongliang was reinstated as lead instructor for the battlefield casualty care subject at the brigade. At that moment, exactly two years had passed since he was removed from that position.

The starting point of this road back lay in an exploration undertaken by the unit.

Two years ago, brigade leadership discovered that the quality of training organization for certain subjects depended heavily on the personal capabilities of individual instructors; instructional experience was passed down orally among backbone cadre, and once an instructor was rotated out or departed the unit, soldiers' training results would fluctuate.

At the same time, some instructors had gone long periods without studying their lesson plans — in some cases, lesson plan content had gone unchanged for years, with only individual words, phrases, or dates modified.

"This dependence on experience has affected the scientific rigor and quality-effectiveness of training organization," the brigade leadership pointed out. "We must break this experience-dependent training organization model of 'capable individuals running training' (能人组训)."

To that end, the brigade Party committee adjusted the mechanism for cultivating professional-position instructors. Departing from the previous review approach — in which passing an evaluation of instructional methods was sufficient to "take the post" — the brigade explored and established a rigid review system: "Only when the lesson plan stands up may one take the podium to teach; only when the lesson is taught solidly may one be assigned a teaching position; only when teaching performance is strong may one qualify as lead instructor." This progressively layered "qualification chain" (准入链) became a threshold every instructor in the brigade must cross; those who fail must "re-forge" (回炉).

After the system was piloted, at the very first stage — the lesson plan review — multiple veteran "combat instructors," including Tian Dongliang, were compelled to "stand down."

The review panel pointed out that Tian Dongliang's lesson plan was insufficiently integrated with the unit's new missions and lacked support from case data and new operational and training methods.

After the review, Tian Dongliang consulted a large volume of battlefield casualty care cases and repeatedly refined every step, attempting to close the gap.

However, after submitting several successive drafts, the response he received each time was: "There's progress, but it's still not quite there."

Staff Officer Li of the Operations and Training Section commented: "If you want to get through the lesson plan review, the last few drafts can basically score 70 points. But if you genuinely want to grind out a good lesson, you can step outside the 'small circle' in your own head and open up your thinking."

These words awakened Tian Dongliang. After trial instruction and teaching restored his qualification to teach, Tian Dongliang used opportunities such as the General Corps' itinerant instruction and examination activities on front-line treatment capabilities and instructional review observation events to visit every brigade-level unit in the General Corps, researching instructional theory and exchanging instructional methods with other instructors.

During one cross-specialty cross-training observation, faced with the demanding conditions of limited time and trainees with zero baseline, many instructors flatly declared it "impossible." Unexpectedly, by the end of instruction, multiple groups of officers and soldiers had, under their instructors' guidance, competently mastered basic actions and key tactical response procedures. Tian Dongliang keenly observed that the groups with outstanding instructional results had also received high scores at the lesson plan review stage.

Through the "re-forging" process, Tian Dongliang and others gradually came to a deep understanding of the value of this exploration: first, it distills instructors' experience into standardized written text, achieving systematic inheritance of knowledge and skills; second, it guides instructors to clarify pathways for capability advancement, shortening the growth cycle for trainees; third, it breaks the dependence on experience, achieving the transformation from "capable individuals running training" to "standards running training."

---

**From "Standardized Instruction" to "Heuristic Methods" —**

**Military Democracy (军事民主) Injects New Vitality into Instruction**

During an instructional observation, two instructors from a certain brigade demonstrated the same subject but with entirely different steps, content, and methods — instruction was immediately halted. After class, when Tian Dongliang and others reviewed the lesson plans, they found that some content deviated from the syllabus, and instructional elements were missing.

"A standardized lesson plan plays an indispensable foundational role in instruction," Tian Dongliang observed.

But a good lesson plan is far more than standardization. Tian Dongliang organized the foundational framework of the lesson plan, clarified "what to practice and to what standard" for trainees in each action module, and made priorities and standards clear to trainees. At the same time, he streamlined theoretical skills unrelated to the main thread, added a "core instructional objectives" section, and focused on three core areas: cultivating tactical coordination awareness, mastering technical means, and improving the capacity for on-the-spot response (临机处置能力).

A clear lesson plan framework not only straightened out his instructional thinking but also allowed Tian Dongliang to gradually sense the pain points in training organization.

"To solve problems more efficiently, I visited every company." Tian Dongliang recounted an experience of being hit with "three consecutive questions" at one company —

The first time, he lectured soldiers on "battlefield triage," speaking fluently and in detail. During a break, a Private First Class asked him: "Sergeant, inside an armored vehicle there's not enough space — the casualty is lying sideways and I can't roll him over. What do I do?" Tian Dongliang had no answer.

The second time, he lectured on "timing of tourniquet application," and a soldier asked: "What if the casualty is psychologically traumatized and out of control?" Again, Tian Dongliang had no answer.

The third time, he simply stopped lecturing and asked the soldiers: "What are your questions?" The soldiers spoke all at once: "How do you drag a heavy casualty into a shell crater by yourself?" "How do you find a vein at night without a light?" Tian Dongliang filled three full pages of notes. When he returned, he added those three pages to the lesson plan and wrote down one reflection: "What we used to teach was what was in the textbook. What officers and soldiers want is what works on the battlefield. There is a considerable gap between the two."

Identifying the problem was only the starting point; solving it was the key. To that end, Tian Dongliang explored a heuristic and inductive instructional approach of "opening a small aperture, drilling a deep well" (开小口、挖深井), vigorously promoting military democracy (军事民主) and guiding trainees to jointly work through difficult problems in the classroom.

During one field lesson, Corporal Xiao Xun fixed a drag strap buckle to a "casualty's" tactical vest and dragged and carried the "casualty." Tian Dongliang immediately halted the action: "The casualty has neck and arm injuries — dragging will inevitably cause secondary injury." Xiao Xun then tried several other methods; each time Xiao Xun adjusted his approach, Tian Dongliang organized everyone to analyze the advantages and disadvantages of that method. After several rounds of discussion, the group decided to adopt the lateral crawl carry method. Tian Dongliang calls this training organization method "method competition" (方法对抗).

Today, the "method competition-style" research instruction, "problem research and deduction-style" (问题研推式) scenario instruction, and "actual-position grouping-style" (实岗编组式) exercise instruction designed by Tian Dongliang have been widely promoted across the brigade. As the question bank continues to expand, lesson plan content for each subject is increasingly close to actual combat and grows ever thicker — officers and soldiers of one company were inspired during organized practice sessions and divided first-aid supplies by mission type to achieve modular carry; a medic from one battalion innovated and improved operational techniques to shorten tourniquet preparation time…

---

**From "Done and Finished" to "Dynamic Freshness" —**

**Turning the Lesson Plan into Something Living and Continuously Growing**

The revision and refinement of a lesson plan is a process of becoming thinner, then thicker again.

Adding "casualty care methods when the casualty is psychologically traumatized"; deleting training content related to nighttime conditions "using a flashlight for illumination," and supplementing training in battlefield casualty care skills under no-light conditions such as "tactile positioning method" (触感定位法)…

"The syllabus and teaching materials are macro-level and principle-based, while the exercise and training ground is specific and dynamic. How do you translate macro-level requirements into actionable instructional behaviors? How do you refine principle-based provisions into concrete training steps? All of this requires the lesson plan as a 'bridge' connecting the syllabus and teaching materials to the exercise and training ground." Moving from instructor to lead instructor requires thinking more deeply. Tian Dongliang established a lesson plan "freshness period" (保鲜期): drawing on research findings and exercise feedback, certain modules in the lesson plan are annotated with usage cycles, reminding him to update them dynamically.

"Revising a lesson plan cannot be 'done and finished.'" During the interview, Company Commander Wang of the medical company commented: "Tian Dongliang has turned the lesson plan into something living and continuously growing."

Private First Class Luo Yawen of one company once brought Tian Dongliang an insight. During an exercise last year, Luo Yawen pointed out that the hands-on skills in Tian Dongliang's "crush injury first aid" module were outdated: "In the decompression step, what we've worked out is to ligate the limb and record the time before releasing pressure, and to first apply local cooling with cold water to the injured limb. These critical details were never mentioned in class — the methods we worked out ourselves are more practical."

Tian Dongliang carefully recorded Luo Yawen's treatment method, verified it repeatedly, and added it to "crush injury first aid techniques."

Reading through the lesson plan carefully, one can find that Tian Dongliang's lesson plan draws on multiple "sources of freshness" (保鲜源头) — asking headquarters examiners for new standards, asking "peers" for new instructional methods, asking grassroots soldiers for new "pain points," asking historical missions for new "experience," asking exercise after-action reviews for new "lessons learned"…

Last autumn, the incidence of lower back injuries at a certain unit rose noticeably. Through conversations with grassroots soldiers, Tian Dongliang found this was related to the unit's frequent carrying and lifting of "casualties" during self-rescue and buddy-rescue training, combined with insufficient lower back strength in some soldiers. He promptly added "3 categories of specialized lower back strength training targeting self-rescue and buddy-rescue subjects" to the lesson plan.

"Even the best lesson plan cannot remain unchanged." Before competing for the lead instructor position this time, Tian Dongliang felt an increasingly urgent sense of pressure and self-studied multiple military-career online courses to expand the boundaries of his knowledge. Cutting-edge content such as unmanned vehicle escort support, intelligent life monitoring and positioning, and AI triage has been incorporated into the lesson plan one after another. Multiple application scenarios have also been added to supplement traditional training content such as bandaging and immobilization, and projections have been made regarding the service life of corresponding equipment and the timing of future revision milestones.

"Keeping the lesson plan 'fresh' is a continuous process. Only by continuously shortening the instructional feedback cycle can the lesson plan's 'soft power' (软实力) be converted into trainees' tangible hard competencies." Tian Dongliang said.

---

**Sharp Perspective**

**A Lesson Plan Is Not a Fixed "Specimen"**

■ Chen Junjie

A lesson plan is the basic guide by which instructors organize instruction and an important foundation upon which trainees master skills. A lesson plan is not a fixed "specimen." Its "front sight" must always be aligned with the battlefield "target," always resonating at the same frequency as trainees' needs, and approaching the battlefield and securing future victory through continuous iteration.

Writing a lesson plan requires first answering the question of what the battlefield needs — thoroughly absorbing the dynamic changes in mission tasks, adversaries, battlefield environments, and weapons and equipment. Proactively go deep into the front lines of exercises and training, embed within combat formations, conduct after-action analysis of major exercises, skills competitions, and live-force opposition drills, distill experience and lessons, understand "pain points" and "bottlenecks," and sense the pulse of the battlefield. Promptly convert problems exposed during major missions, operational methods formed after new equipment is fielded, and experience summaries from opposition exercises into new content, new standards, and new thinking in lesson plans, continuously working backward from battlefield requirements to derive instructional content.

For different trainees, instructional design cannot apply "one ruler to measure everything" — it must produce a precise "profile" (画像) of their baseline capabilities, position requirements, and learning characteristics to achieve differentiated, tiered instruction tailored to the individual. Through daily observation, discussion sessions, and baseline assessments, grasp trainees' knowledge reserves and physical and technical skill status to establish the starting point of instruction; combine trainees' position and mission requirements to set instructional objectives; understand trainees' cognitive patterns, reception habits, and interest preferences to select the most appropriate instructional approach, and precisely formulate "advancement roadmaps" for trainees at different levels. Establish a routine feedback mechanism, collect real-time classroom feedback, identify weak links in lesson plans, and conduct follow-up tracking of instructional outcomes, allowing lesson plans to be continuously optimized through the cycle of "feedback — revision — re-instruction."

Instructors must, with a sense of responsibility toward officers and soldiers and toward combat effectiveness, attach importance to lesson plan updates, always maintain a "reset mindset" (归零心), target the "difficult points," "bottlenecks," and "pain points" of instruction, invest effort and energy, dynamically revise and optimize with the spirit of "hammering in a nail" (钉钉子精神), dare to start over from scratch, and pursue higher standards through repeated deliberation and refinement. Only by maintaining an open attitude at all times and the perseverance and tenacity of sustained effort can one continuously "refresh" instructional quality and keep the lesson plan's "freshness" perpetually "online."

---

**Editor's Connection**

**This Edition's Editor in Dialogue with the Commander of a Certain Brigade Under the People's Armed Police Guangdong General Corps —**

**From "Experience First" to "Utility as the Foundation"**

As the starting point of instruction, lesson plans directly affect the quality and effectiveness of military training. As the transformation of military training advances in depth, what new challenges does lesson plan writing face? How can one break through the barriers of formalism and point directly at battlefield requirements? Around this topic, this edition's editor connected with the commander of a certain brigade under the People's Armed Police Guangdong General Corps for an exchange.

**Editor:** In your view, what new changes have there been in lesson plan writing in recent years?

**Brigade Commander:** If the source is impure, the water flowing from it will be murky. As the core vehicle of instruction, lesson plan writing must be "precise" (精) and "substantive" (实), rejecting formalism and pursuing practical effectiveness. Today, writing lesson plans increasingly requires using the standard of fighting wars as the yardstick, and setting the methods and content of instruction and practice in accordance with the syllabus and the characteristics of trainees, adapting to local conditions. In recent years, as comprehensive integrated exercises have increased, the form of instruction has also shifted — from being primarily "I lecture, you listen; I demonstrate, you watch; I direct, you practice" toward primarily forging the combat qualities of both the instructor and the trainee. The purpose of instruction is no longer simply to teach, but to inspire everyone to think and practice through the process of teaching and learning, transforming the one-way-indoctrination training ground into a mutual-instruction, mutual-learning (互教互学) practice field, ultimately forming an atmosphere of "teaching and learning advancing together" (教学相长).

**Editor:** You just mentioned rejecting formalism. How can grassroots lesson plans avoid becoming "superficial" and hold the lifeline of "precision" and "substance"?

**Brigade Commander:** First, it must be made clear that the core of a military lesson plan is use, not appearance. The standard for judging whether a lesson plan is good has never been how many words and charts it contains or how beautiful its formatting is, but whether officers and soldiers enjoy listening in class, whether they can learn the skills, and whether it works on the battlefield. "Precision" means accurate content, concise language, clear logic — cutting the complex to get straight to the instructional core. "Substance" means close to actual combat, close to officers and soldiers, close to the mission — no hollow designs, no empty slogans, no wasted effort. We resolutely oppose lesson plans that have "combat-realistic orientation" (实战化) on their lips and written simply on paper, yet contain no substantive content whatsoever. True combat-realistic orientation is embedded in instructional design, instructional thinking, and instructional methods — embedded in every instructional detail — so that officers and soldiers can apply what they learn immediately after learning it, and applying it improves training quality and effectiveness. That is the fundamental point.

**Editor:** What challenges do instructors currently need to overcome in lesson plan writing?

**Brigade Commander:** They are mainly reflected in two areas:

First, the inertial thinking inherent in the instructor corps itself. Some instructors still harbor empiricism in their minds, adhering to the idea that "one trick is enough to get by everywhere" (一招鲜吃遍天), lacking the holistic thinking and reverse thinking needed to step outside their own professional domain and view problems from a broader perspective, and lacking the courage to boldly explore and innovate in lesson plan writing, trial instruction, and training organization.

Second, the "capability panic" (本领恐慌) brought about by training in new domains and new-quality areas (新域新质). As new equipment is fielded, the updating of teaching materials often lags behind equipment development, and many instructors can only "feel their way across the river." Instructors need to transform from being purely "training executors" into "pathfinders" (先行者) who understand the technology and can conduct in-depth research.