Dissertation Oral Defense Aviation & Space Applied Educational Studies Todd P. Hubbard
Introduction • Problem statement. There appears to be a relational dichotomy between the classroom environment and the aircraft environment in aviation training.
Introduction • Purpose statement This study was conducted to determine if, and to what extent a relationship or difference existed between the cognitive context of the classroom and the cognitive context of the aircraft for private pilot students.
Introduction • Hypotheses. • The context of cognition differs in relationship and degree between the private pilot classroom and private pilot flight lessons. • There is a strong relationship between subjects in the same context of learning. • There is a weak relationship between subjects in different learning contexts.
Chapter One, Introduction • Assumptions. • Not all subjects are equally distracted by stimuli. • Some subjects, by temperament, have better innate ability to inhibit. • Some subjects, by previous training, will inhibit faster than others. • Some subjects may have learning disabilities or other disorders not known to the subject or reported before the test.
Chapter One, Introduction • Limitations • Only Part 141 or Part 61 certified ground schools • Only students enrolled in the 1999 fall semester
Chapter One, Introduction • Scope Focus on the development and use of the Inhibition Testing Model within the certified ground school environment in Oklahoma
Chapter Two, Review of the Literature • Review of cognitive inhibition produced • Awareness of instructional strategies • Definitive cognitive construct of the airplane pilot • Awareness of the facets of inhibition • Cognitive characteristics of the private pilot classroom • Appreciation for computer-mediated systems
Chapter Two, Review of the Literature • Key contributors • ADHD (Barkley, Phelan, Denckla, Castellanos, Hallowell & Ratey, Levin) • Training Issues (Kershner, Jeppesen-Sanderson, Glaeser/Gum/Walters, Telfer & Biggs) • Inhibition Theory (Kausler, Rafal & Henik, Lepley-Hull, Anderson & Bjork, Dagenbach & Carr, Jacoby & Brooks)
Chapter Two, Review of the Literature • Key contributors, continued… • Training design (Jeppesen-Sanderson, Gagné/Briggs/Wager, West/Farmer/Wolff, Bloom & Krathwohl, Kershner, Federal Aviation Administration) • Meaning and Comprehension (Keenan/Baillet/Brown, Kintsch & van Dijk, Murdock, Glanzer/Fischer/Dorfman, Dong & Kintsch)
Chapter Two, Review of the Literature • Key contributors, continued… • Computer-mediated training (Hodes, Oshima, Thissen/Wainer/Wang, Mayer & Moreno)
Chapter Three, Methodology • Foreshadowing questions • What were the training needs of student pilots in private pilot ground school? • Could some training be successfully accomplished through computer-aided instruction and testing? • What words or concepts are consistent among private pilot instructional texts?
Chapter Three, Methodology • Foreshadowing questions, continued… • How would on devise an instrument to emulate the flight training environment, short of actually being in a simulator or aircraft? • Was there a cognitive link between the classroom and the flight deck?
Chapter Three, Methodology • Six working hypotheses • Student pilots . . . need to learn how to inhibit • Personal computers can be used effectively in the classroom • Aviation training . . . Purposeful association of cognitive cues and psychomotor development • A contextual difference exists between the classroom and flight training
Chapter Three, Methodology • Six working hypotheses, continued… • Ground training could be reduced to sets of referent pairs • A cognitive link exists between the classroom and flight deck
Chapter Three, Methodology • Type of design • Classroom delivery of the pretest • Jeppesen-Sanderson Training Systems • Computer-delivered posttest • Flight Deck Cognitive Emulator
Chapter Three, Methodology • Test reliability Federal Aviation Administration’s Airmen Knowledge Test • Validated source • Reliable
Chapter Three, Methodology • Sample Selection Purposive sampling of intact groups of private pilot ground school students
Chapter Three, Methodology • Selection of an instrument Flight Deck Cognitive Emulator • Based on the Inhibition Testing Model • Developed in Macromedia Authorware 4.0
Chapter Three, Methodology • Evaluation and validation of the instrument • Three-judge paradigm • Cognitive psychologist, Instructional Designer, Programmer • Construct and Content evaluation • Certified Flight/Ground School Instructors • Instrument validity tests • Small group trials
Chapter Three, Methodology • Data gathering • Three intact groups • Site visitations • Standardized test format and instructions • IRB supported • Control and Experimental Groups
Chapter Three, Methodology • Statistical analysis approach • Descriptive statistics • Pearson r • T-test • Measures of central tendency
Chapter Four, Findings • Sample Size • N = 34 • OU, N = 9 • Rose State, N = 13 • OSU, N = 12
Chapter Four, Findings • Sample size compared to population • OU, 14% • Rose State, 92% • OSU, 29%
Chapter Four, Findings • University of Oklahoma (Part 141) • N = 9 • Mean age = 21 • Age range = 18-34 • Females = 37.5% of population • Males = 10.9% of population
Chapter Four, Findings • University of Oklahoma, continued… • Pretest scores • Mean (84) Median (84.5) Mode (70) • Posttest scores • Mean (68)
Chapter Four, Findings • Rose State College (Part 61) • N = 13 • Mean age = 31 • Age range = 19-54 • Females = 100% of population • Males = 92% of population
Chapter Four, Findings • Rose State College, continued… • Pretest scores • Mean (88) Median (90) Mode (76) • Posttest scores • Mean (73)
Chapter Four, Findings • Oklahoma State University (Part 141) • N = 12 • Mean age = 18 • Age range = 18-20 • Females = 25% of population • Males = 29.7% of population
Chapter Four, Findings • Oklahoma State University, continued… • Pretest scores • Mean (79) Median (83) Mode (86) • Posttest scores • Mean (67)
Chapter Four, Findings • Correlation Data • Hypothesis One • r = 0.98 • Hypothesis Two • r = .85 (exp. group) .94 (control group) • t = 3.49 (exp. group) 2.25 (control group) • Hypothesis Three • OU, r = .87 (exp/pretest) .70 (cont/pretest) • Rose, r = .94 (exp/pretest) .89 (cont/pretest) • OSU, r = .88 (exp/pretest) .83 (cont/pretest)
Chapter Five, Summation • Restatement of purpose This study was conducted to determine if, and to what extent a relationship or difference existed between the cognitive context of the classroom and the cognitive context of the aircraft for private pilot students.
Chapter Five, Summation • Classroom environment • Low arousal • Low sensory input • Traditional assessment tools • Flight deck environment • Moderate to high arousal • Moderate to high sensory input • No cognitive instrument to assess learning
Visual/Spatial Textual Primers Time Chapter Five, Summation • Inhibition testing model • Based on cognitive theory, aviation psychology, and flight experience
Chapter Five, Conclusions • General • Instrument • Easy to use • Portable • Delayed audio/video presentation • Qualitative studies • Analyzed aviation training • Produced the inhibition testing model • Quantitative study • Sampled behavior among private pilot ground school students
Chapter Five, Conclusions • Specific • Homogeneity among groups • Generally similar compared to entire population (pretest) • Difference in content • OU demonstrated trouble with questions 1, 3, 9, 11, 13, 18, & 29 • Rose State demonstrated trouble with question 29 • OSU demonstrated trouble with questions 5, 13, 23, 24, & 29 • Age mean differential • Rose State students appeared to perform better than OU and OSU (Rose State – 31) (OU – 21) (OSU – 18)
Chapter Five, Conclusions • Specific, continued • Hypothesis One • Pretest/Posttest strong correlation, strong cognitive relationship • Short-term memory not a factor (strong correlation between experimental and control groups)
Chapter Five, Conclusions • Specific, continued… • Hypothesis Two • Strong correlation between experimental and control groups on posttest scores
Chapter Five, Conclusions • Specific, continued… • Hypothesis Three • Correlations between similar tests were high (pretest/control group practice) • Correlations between slightly dissimilar tests were slightly lower
Chapter Five, Recommendations • Generalization • Part 141 and Part 61 schools should provide the same instruction • Standardization • Content should be controlled through common lesson plans
Chapter Five, Recommendations • Other studies • Replication of study (different groups) • Flight Deck Cognitive Emulator & simulator • Flight Deck Cognitive Emulator & aircraft • Three-way comparison, emulator/classroom/aircraft • Classroom instruction using referent pairs • Computer-mediated instruction