e-Learning in Aviation

Suzanne Kearns

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781317145325
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Tecnologia e ingegneria
• Subtopic: Aviazione

Whereas traditional classroom instruction requires pilots to be pulled 'off the line', a training facility to be maintained and instructors to be compensated, e-learning is extremely cost-effective and therefore an attractive alternative. However, e-learning only saves money if the training is effective. Eager to reap financial benefits, e-learning courses have a history of varying dramatically in quality. The poorest courses are those that directly convert classroom-based presentations to an online format, not recognizing that computer-based instruction is an entirely different medium. Addressing this issue directly, e-Learning in Aviation explores the characteristics of computer-based course design and multimedia that are associated with improved learning. It then provides guidance regarding how to use research-based instructional design principles to plan, design, develop, and implement an e-Learning course within an aviation organization and continually evaluate whether or not the course is accomplishing instructional goals. A blended learning strategy, which incorporates both face-to-face and computer-based instruction, is suggested as the most appropriate choice for the majority of aviation companies. The goal of this approach is to utilize e-Learning as a tool to reduce time at the training centre and thereby increase pilot productivity and potentially improve the quality of training. Although the examples within this book focus on pilot training, the suggestions and guidelines are applicable to all employee groups within the industry.

PART I

The Effectiveness, Theory, and Application of e-Learning in Aviation

Chapter 1

The Life of Aviation Training

Life is a culmination of the past, an awareness of the present, an indication of a future beyond knowledge, the quality that gives a touch of divinity to matter.

—Charles Lindbergh

Overview

The purpose of this chapter is to familiarize the reader with:

• the four generations of aviation training: apprenticeship, simulation, safety, and customized training;

• how our current method of training effectively sorts the good from the bad, but does not maximize the skills, abilities, and attitudes of the good;

• why e-learning is a tool that challenges the paradigm of aviation training;

• the advantages and disadvantages of e-learning;

• the importance of thorough instructional design in the e-learning development process.

Introduction

The purpose of this book is to examine the use of e-learning in aviation, as e-learning is part of the industry’s future. However, before we look forward we must first consider the past. The life of aviation training can be broadly segregated into four generations: apprenticeship, simulation, safety, and customized training. It is important to note that each subsequent generation of training enriches, rather than replaces, the previous ones.

First Generation: Apprenticeship (1903–1929)

Traditionally, since the Wright brothers accomplished the first powered and controlled flight on December 17, 1903, and began to teach others the art of powered heavier-than-air flight, they established the foundation of aviation training, which still remains in modern-day pilot training. The basic structure of this training includes classroom training, more commonly referred to as ground school, and in-aircraft training conducted according to an apprenticeship model. Through apprenticeship, experienced pilots guide novice pilots by means of skill demonstrations and knowledge transmission, until student skills attain a level of competency. The goal of instruction is for pilots to perform maneuvers within specifications (such as ± 100 feet or ± 10 degrees).

Second Generation: Simulation (1929–1979)

The Link trainer was invented in 1929; it soon became widely available, and the next generation of aviation training was born. With the introduction of flight simulation, flight schools were no longer dependent on weather conditions to conduct flight training. Originally developed for instrument and systems training, simulators have evolved to the point where they incorporate high-fidelity visual displays and can now be used for all aspects of flight training. Having been trained in modern flight simulators, the first time a pilot conducts a flight in a large commercial aircraft, he or she will probably be carrying a load of passengers. In the second generation, training was still conducted under an apprenticeship model with classroom and in-aircraft training (supplemented by simulator training), and the objective of training was still the mastery of flight performance standards. After the introduction of simulation, much of the focus of the aviation industry was on improving aircraft systems and components, including early airworthiness certification and pilot licensing, air-cooled engines, and slotted wings in the 1940s and early 1950s; the introduction of jet engines, radar, and precision approaches in the late 1950s and early 1960s; and ground and traffic collision avoidance devices in the early 1970s. However, the next generation of aviation training did not begin until 1979.

Third Generation: Safety (1979-Present)

The third generation of aviation training began with a NASA conference in 1979, at which representatives from several major airlines met to discuss the alarming number of human-error-caused accidents in the aviation industry. The result of this conference was Crew Resource Management (CRM) training, which entails ‘the effective use of all resources (hardware, software and liveware) to achieve safe and efficient flight operations’ (Jensen 1995: 116). CRM training was revolutionary at the time, as it was dramatically different from traditional ground instruction that focused exclusively on air knowledge (including weather, air law, meteorology, and aircraft systems). In fact, CRM training was so different that there was some backlash from pilots who viewed it as ‘psycho-babble’ (Helmreich, Merritt and Wilhelm 1999). However, attitudes have changed, and annual CRM training is now mandatory for most airline and military pilots. Training is still conducted under an apprentice model, with ground school, and simulator or in-aircraft training. However, elements of CRM safety training have been implemented into each of these aspects of training. This generation of aviation training reflects the current state of the industry.

Fourth Generation: Customized Training

Our current training paradigm was not designed for learning; it was designed for sorting learners (Reigeluth 1994). Consider for a moment how students are typically evaluated, then sorted into letter grades (A, B, C) or pass-fail. When instruction is standardized, it provides companies with a valid and simple method of comparing students with one another. According to Reigeluth (1999: 18), standardized instruction was an important need in the industrial age: separating the laborers from the managers. After all, you couldn’t afford to—and didn’t want to—educate the common laborers too much, or they wouldn’t be content to do boring, repetitive tasks, nor to do what they were told to do without questions.

Perhaps this perspective reflected the early generations of aviation training. Instruction was more focused on following procedures than on decision-making or problem-solving skills. However, the training needs of the industry have advanced. The increasing congestion of airspace, advanced technology in the cockpit, and an influx of low-time pilots into the airline sector present unique training challenges. To produce better pilots more rapidly, the industry cannot provide less training but must fundamentally rethink the way training is delivered and must ultimately train more efficiently.

It has become evident that a mastery of standard operating procedures (SOPs) is insufficient preparation for every possible situation, as anomalies arise and pilots must possess the critical thinking skills necessary to solve complex and novel problems. Therefore, training pilots as you would assembly-line workers (first you do A, then do B, C, and D) is inadequate. Pilot training must shift from a sorting method (adequate vs. inadequate) toward a learning method (maximizing the performance of each individual).

The way to make this happen is by giving each and every learner the time and training needed to reach their maximum level of performance. This approach represents a fundamental shift in aviation training; it focuses on customization, not standardization (Reigeluth 1999).

An additional drawback of older methods is that training is based on conformity and compliance. Learners are expected to sit down, be quiet, and do what the instructor says. Ironically, within this contextual environment, we try to teach pilots how to take the initiative and think critically. Therefore, changing the content of the training material is not sufficient, because ‘the very structure of our systems of training and education discourages initiative and diversity’ (Reigeluth 1999).

The training paradigm itself needs to be changed!

Having training performance standards is extremely important—but should these standards be regarded as the maximum level of performance, or the minimum? It can be argued that performance standards are a method of sorting, of separating acceptable performance from the unacceptable. What this pass-fail style of training does not do is maximize the performance of individuals at the top end of the spectrum. Is this truly the best way to train? Or should learners continue with training until they each attain their unique maximum performance level? This way, the performance standard would be considered the minimum acceptable level of performance. Although each pilot would achieve a different level of performance, all pilots would be above the minimum.

This need for change is evident in the industry, as aviation is at the threshold of a revolutionary new approach to pilot training: performance-based training. Performance-based training is built upon the foundation of the previous three generations of training, with one radical difference. Rather than providing student pilots with a predetermined number of practice hours on certain maneuvers or phases of flight training, as mandated by current regulations, performance-based training allows training to be tailored to the skill of each student. Students receive practice on skills they are weakest in and do not waste time on areas they have already mastered. Regulators worldwide are opening regulatory doors for this approach, allowing high-quality flight training institutions an alternate means of complying with pilot licensing requirements.

Performance-based training provides a tremendous opportunity for aviation trainers to rethink the methods by which training is delivered. Consider the question: Should we train pilots with the most effective methodologies or with traditional methodologies (because that is the way it has always been done)? There is a tremendous opportunity for e-learning within performance-based licensing structures. e-Learning that incorporates adaptive instruction and practice can continually challenge and improve the skills of each individual pilot until further practice fails to produce additional performance improvements. This philosophy of training focuses on making each individual pilot the best he or she can be, not simply on sorting those with the ‘right stuff’ from those who just don’t make the cut. This option would require a continual training cycle, rather than an annual one. With current training methods, a continual training cycle would be prohibitively expensive. However, with electronic learning (e-learning) it is a feasible option.

The Advantages and Disadvantages of e-Learning

e-Learning has several advantages over classroom instruction, including:

• cost-efficiency;

• geographic flexibility, as the course can be taken in any location;

• temporal flexibility, as training is available 24/7;

• content standardization between instructors across an entire organization;

• interactive exercises;

• compatibility; software has now become standardized, so practically any computer can run training in an identical fashion;

• immediate learner feedback, tailored specifically to exhibited performance;

• automatic tracking of learner performance within a company-wide database.

However, an important point to consider is that none of these advantages will come to fruition if the e-learning is not built upon sound instructional design principles, and specifically tailored to the needs of the student and the organization. There is a very wide range in quality of e-learning programs. In fact, when researchers review the effectiveness of e-learning compared to classroom instruction, they find that some computer-based courses significantly outperform their classroom-based counterparts. However, an equally large percentage of e-learning courses significantly underperform classroom-based training (Bernard et al. 2004). These findings illustrate the point that not all e-learning is effective. There are also several disadvantages associated with e-learning, including the following:

• course design, creation, and implementation can cost more than the projected savings;

• training success is dependent on the learner’s ability to use computers;

• learners require a higher level of motivation and self-direction;

• it is difficult for instructors to ensure that learners are paying attention;

• the learners and the organization must be prepared to accept e-learning;

• learners lose direct contact with their instructor in asynchronous learning environments, or nonverbal cues such as body language and voice inflection in synchronous learning environments (see Chapter 2);

• it is not as simple as delivering a traditional classroom-based course over the Internet; the entire premise must be rethought (Piskurich 2006).

Ironically, an e-learning course that has been created to save money on training costs can end up being very expensive once you factor in course development and the possibility of training inefficiency. Unfortunately, poorly designed e-learning solutions are quite common. Companies that are eager to save training costs jump on the e-learning bandwagon without fully understanding how to make this type of training effective. The most common approach is to simply take a classroom-based course and create an identical computer-based version, expecting good learning outcomes. The products used to convert classroom-based courses into e-learning often promise clients a course that is ready to implement in just a few weeks. This type of software merely converts PowerPoint slides into a web-based training (WBT) program. The best outcome in this situation is that students will finish the course with the same level of knowledge and skill as was previously produced in a classroom-based course. However, it is far more likely that students will learn less, because the learning materials were not designed with computer-based delivery in mind. In addition, it only takes exposure to one poorly designed training program for a group of learners to boycott e-learning altogether.

Just as flight simulation did not replace in-aircraft training, e-learning should not necessarily replace traditional classroom instruction. e-Learning does not eliminate the need for well-qualified human instructors; instead, it should capitalize on the expertise of instructors and provide them with the technology to rethink how they train. Technology will never be able to teach; good teaching will always depend on effective instructors.

e-Learning revolutionizes how instructors interact with students. In a classroom setting, it is common for a small handful of students to answer all of the instructor’s questions. Unfortunately, the instructor has no way of determining if the others in the class are keeping up with the material or are hopelessly lost, until they encounter a quiz or a final exam. The interactivity of e-learning allows instructors to assess and track performance more frequently, and to intervene when a student is falling behind.

e-Learning should not be viewed as a complete replacement of classroom instruction, but simply another tool that an organization and an instructor possess to maximize the efficiency of learning. When implemented appropriately, e-learning does not reinvent the wheel, but redesigns it. Although e-learning has its place in the third generation of aviation training, it is anticipated that with the shift to customized training methods, its use will become a part of every pilot’s training program.

Conclusion

The purpose of this book is to assess the strengths and weaknesses of various methods of e-learning, describe appropriate instructional design strategies, and detail practical guidelines for the development of effective e-learning. This work will serve as a resource for aviation training professionals and will help to bring e-learning instructional design theory to practice. Hopefully, using the knowledge contained in this book, aviation trainers will no longer be bystanders in e-learning instructional design, but will be able to actively participate in the analysis, design, development, and evaluation of e-learning programs. Not only should this involvement result in more efficient courses, but it will save aviation organizations money because they will not have to hire e-learning developers to complete their instructional design.

Practical Summary

• The life of aviation training can be broken down into four broad categories, each building upon, rather than replacing, the previous generations:

– apprenticeship, which focuses on modeling an instructor until knowledge, skills, and attitudes are passed down;

– simulation, which integrates synthetic flight environments for practice;

– safety, which adds human factors training to the pilot curriculum;

– customized training, which represents the future of aviation training; it focuses on maximizing the skills and abilities of each individual pilot in the most efficient manner (without wasting time practicing skills that have already been mastered).

• e-Learning is a tool that will likely be used increasingly under the paradigm of customized training.

• There are several advantages and disadvantages associated with e-learning:

– however, the best way to maximize the strengths of e-learning is through careful instructional design and an understanding of which attributes have been shown to improve learning, and which are probably ineffective.

Chapter 2

What is e-Learning?

I think it’s fair to say that personal computers have become the most empowering tool we’ve ever ...