University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Implementing and assessing problem -based learning in non -traditional post -secondary aviation safety curricula: A case study

(USC Thesis Other)

Implementing and assessing problem -based learning in non -traditional post -secondary aviation safety curricula: A case study

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content IMPLEMENTING AND ASSESSING PROBLEM-BASED LEARNING
IN NON-TRADITIONAL POST-SECONDARY
AVIATION SAFETY CURRICULA:
A CASE STUDY
by
Katherine Ann Moran
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
December 2004
Copyright 2004 Katherine Ann Moran
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI Number: 3155453
Copyright 2004 by
Moran, Katherine Ann
All rights reserved.
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
®
UMI
UMI Microform 3155453
Copyright 2005 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company
300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
D e d ic a t io n
This dissertation is dedicated to
my family, friends, and colleagues,
whose faith and support kept me on course;
to my Father for passing on his Irish tenacity;
to Diana Hudson for laughing with me, not at me;
and to Dave, Mike, Winston, and Elliott
for their unwavering love and support.
The road would have been unbearable without you.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
A c k n o w l e d g e m e n t s
♦ > I would like to thank the members of my dissertation committee, Dr. Robert
Rueda, Dr. Guilbert Hentschke, and Dr. Dennis Hocevar, for their support and
advice.
❖ My gratitude also goes to the late Dr. William B. Michael for his
encouragement and wisdom.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
T a b l e o f C o n t e n t s
Dedication.............................................. ii
Acknowledgements.........................................................................................................iii
List o f Tables............................ vii
Abstract....................... viii
CHAPTER 1: THE PROBLEM........................................................................1
Introduction............................ 1
Traditional Teaching Methodologies................... 2
Problem-Based Learning (PB L )......................................................................3
The Origin of PBL................................................... 3
Definition of PBL.................................................................. 3
Comparison of PBL with Other Learning M ethodologies..................... 4
Purpose o f This Research ...................................................... ...6
Constructing the “Problems” .............. 7
Review o f Specific Key Research Studies o f Problem-
Based Learning. ............ 8
Rationale for Implementing PB L ................. 8
Disadvantages o f PBL....................................... 14
Review o f Non-Traditional Learners ............ 15
Definition and Demographics ......................... 15
Characteristics and Requirements................ 16
iv
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Traditional Versus Non-Traditional Learners................................. 18
Opposing view s.............................................................................. 18
Differences between traditional and non-
traditional learners....................................... 19
Obstacles to adult learning ....... ....23
Review o f Studies and Theory o f Transfer. ..... 25
Attributes o f Learning M ethodologies ........ ....25
What motivates adult learners?..................................................27
Meeting industry needs: Classroom to practical
application.......................... 28
A Workforce in Transition ................ 31
Adult learner motivation............................................................ .31
Aviation safety issues... ....... 33
Safety curriculum.......................................................................... 34
Interdisciplinary motivation for adult learners........................39
Evaluating Knowledge Transfer and Application..........................42
Barriers to Problem-Based Learning.................................................45
Research Questions.......................................................................................... 46
CHAPTER 2: METHOD AND PROCEDURES ...... 47
Research Method.................................................................. 47
D esign ........ 47
Subjects ...... 48
Measures........................... 49
Procedures...................................................................................... 52
Constructing the Courses..... ..... 52
Standardized Instruction ...... ..53
Lecture M odel.................................................... ....56
Problem-Based Learning Model........................................................ 57
Data Analysis ...... 63
v
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
CHAPTER 3: RESULTS 65
CHAPTER 4: DISCUSSION, LIMITATIONS,
CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................ ....74
D is c u s s io n .................................................. 74
Faculty Observations............................................... 74
PBL Versus Non-PBL....................................................................74
Instructor Assessment....................................................................75
Industry Collaboration.................................................. 75
Interdisciplinary Connections........................................ 76
Pre- and Post-Test Outcomes.................................................... 76
Interpretation of Survey Results........................................................... 77
Industry Response................................................................................. 78
L im it a t io n s, C o n c l u s io n s, a n d R e c o m m e n d a t io n s............................79
Limitations ............................................................ 79
Conclusions............................................................................................80
Recommendations................................................................................. 81
REFERENCES.... ...... 82
APPENDIXES ..... ...90
A p p e n d ix A: Safety Curriculum—PBL Student Course Survey .....91
A p p e n d ix B: System Safety Pre-Test ...... 94
A p p e n d ix C: System Safety Post-Test .............. 97
vi
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
L ist o f T a b l e s
Table 1. PBL-Lecture Methodology Characteristics.......................... 6
Table 2. Non-Traditional Learner Model................................................................... 19
Table 2 (continued). Non-Traditional Learner Model ........................................ 20
Table 3. PBL Developmental Stages..........................................................................57
Table 4. Content Analysis Categories........................................................................64
Table 5. Group Characteristics for Experimental PBL and Lecture
Groups...................................... 65
Table 6. Pre- and Post-Test Outcomes ...... 66
Table 7. Analysis of Covariance for Post-Test Results........................................ ....66
Table 8. PBL Survey Results: Survey A ....... ...67
Table 9. PBL Survey Results: Survey B ..... 70
vii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
A b s t r a c t
Background. Colleges and universities are increasingly striving to meet the
academic needs of a growing population of non-traditional adult learners. Research
indicates these learners come to the classroom with different expectations,
motivations, perceptions, and experiences than do traditional students. To this end,
there has been a strong transition toward Problem-Based Learning (PBL) in higher
education. PBL introduces problems encountered in the real world as a stimulus
for learning and for integrating and organizing learned information in ways that
will ensure its recall and application to future problems.
Subject. This research is a quasi-experimental study that assesses the
effectiveness of the Problem-Based Learning (PBL) methodology in non-traditional
higher education.
Objectives. Specifically, the objectives were to evaluate knowledge transfer
and student perceptions of effective transfer and practical application of problem
solving skills in non-traditional learners in the Aeronautical Safety Science
discipline.
Methodology. The Kirkpatrick evaluation model was applied to assess
student reactions, learning, transfer, and perceived impact to industry. The
qualitative data included PBL survey results. Performance measurements included
viii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
pre- and post-test results. To evaluate student reactions and results, a ten-question
survey was disseminated at the end of the PBL group course and six months after
the completion of the PBL course. The standard fifteen-question, end-of-course
survey was also used to assess student reaction and to document the instructor’s
facilitation of the PBL methodology. An analysis of covariance was used to test
the main and interacting effects between two courses: one taught via traditional
lecture methodology, and one taught via PBL methodology at Embry-Riddle
Aeronautical University, Extended Campus.
Findings and Conclusions. Survey results indicated overall positive
reactions towards the PBL format, including an increase in motivation,
understanding and practical application of high order skills. Post-test scores exhibit
a statistically significant increase in performance of the learners in the PBL
courses. The scope of research was somewhat limited in that only one PBL class
was assessed and the impact to industry could not effectively be assessed. The
implications for further study are discussed.
Dissertation Committee
Robert Rueda, Ph.D., Committee Chair
Professor in Educational Psychology and Technology
Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California
Dennis Hocevar, Ph.D.
Clinical Professor, Learning and Instruction
Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California
Guilbert C. Hentschke, Ph.D.
Professor & Richard T. Cooper and Mary Catherine Cooper Chair in Public School Administration
Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California
ix
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Chapter 1
T h e P r o b le m
Introduction
All too often in post-secondary education, a simple transfer of knowledge is
viewed as the end point for teaching adults, with little emphasis placed on students
developing skills to solve real-life problems they could expect to encounter in the
workplace, or in the dissemination of practical application of newly acquired
knowledge and skills. Traditional instruction methodologies, such as teacher-led
lectures, focus on presenting theoretical concepts, with the student passive in his or
her learning environment. As such, there is very little opportunity for adult learners
to participate in a dynamic interactive learning process and to demonstrate practical
application of concepts and skills in the adult learner’s worksite. Cognitive science
research indicates students learn by constructing knowledge—building on
knowledge they have previously gained, as opposed to previous beliefs that
knowledge is taken in as it is disseminated. Students learn by working together, by
teaching each other, and by experience. Research also indicates students leam best
in the context of a compelling problem (Cross, 1999). Ewell (1997) suggests our
more recent understanding of cognition as a complex activity necessitates the
1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
emergence and development of instructional methodologies that are consistent with
what we know about how adults leam.
Traditional Teaching Methodologies
Teaching methodologies better suited for active applied learning are needed
to meet the needs of a changing workforce. The workplace of the 21st century
requires professionals who not only have an extensive store of knowledge, but who
also know how to maintain and upkeep that store of knowledge, apply it to solve
problems, and function independently and collaboratively. Because of these more
demanding employment requisites, educators must rethink and reinvent their
classrooms to better prepare students for employment. Colleges and universities
must extend beyond the traditional preparatory goal of establishing a knowledge
base to include actively engaging students in the application of knowledge and the
act of problem solving. One of the ways educators have realized such a learning
environment is through constructivist teaching designs that center learning
interactions on problem-solving environments in social settings. Problem-based
learning is an example of constmctivist design (Hmelo & Evenson, 2000).
2
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Problem-Based Learning (PBL)
The Origin ofPBL
Universities are increasingly tasked with implementing more student-
centered and competencies-driven curriculums to meet the “employability”
demands of students. Problem-Based Learning (PBL) is one of the most well-
known approaches inspiring these changes. PBL is a student-centric mode of
education, which has grown in parallel with the evidence-based medicine
movement. Most research reflects PBL’s origins in medical education, but
evidence indicates a growing interest in the beneficial application across many
curricula. PBL is described as an instructional strategy in which students develop
flexible cognitive strategies to confront contextualized, ill-structured problems and
endeavor to find germane solutions (Camp, 1996; Vernon & Blake, 1993).
Definition o f PBL
Problem-Based Learning (PBL) is an educational approach to adult
education that focuses on the transfer of knowledge through real-life problem
solving and practical application. Students are taught through a series of
challenges, presented through poorly structured scenarios, developed in partnership
with a teacher and industry representatives, which closely mirror real life working
challenges. Scenarios are usually vaguely defined, with little in them to suggest
which direction adult learners might want to take, in order to develop and test
3
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
solutions. For example, students may be asked to investigate a slow down in the
production of air craft parts, and in the course of the PBL scenario, will develop
strategies to solve the problem, learning and sharing findings from the disciplines
of economics, marketing, aviation science, and statistical analysis.
PBL is a relatively new approach to non-medical adult learners; the
methodology grew out of the need by industry for job-ready graduates of technical
universities. The ability of PBL-trained students to quickly adapt to technically
advanced workplaces and to work effectively in teams also has resulted in
increased learning in adult students. The PBL approach assumes that adult learners
bring many skills with them to the classroom, and that transfer of knowledge within
this group occurs best when such knowledge is purposive. Adult students go to
technical universities in order to enhance their careers; PBL provides them the
skills to achieve this goal.
Comparison o f PBL with Other Learning Methodologies
PBL approaches share many characteristics with other experiential learning
methodologies.
• Such methodologies assist the student in making associations with
previously acquired skills and knowledge.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
• Most experiential learning methodologies result in learning that can be
immediately applied within the students’ workplaces.
• Experiential learning usually involves learning scenarios that require
research into multiple disciplines, including economics, business
management, statistics, and marketing.
Where it differs:
• PBL specifically focuses on learning scenarios that are frequently
encountered in work places.
• PBL teaches students problem solving skills that are transferable to any
workplace
• PBL is student-centered; teachers act as facilitators, leading discussions
and providing advice on general approaches to problem solving.
• PBL teaches critical thinking and problem solving; scenarios enhance
students’ ability to reason through real-life problems in workplaces.
• PBL requires both collaboration and independent thinking—skills
required for workplace scenarios.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Problem-based learning shares some attributes of other teaching
methodologies, such as experiential and situated learning, but differs considerably
from traditional lecture and discussion methodologies.
Purpose o f This Research
The purpose of this research is not to compare PBL to all methodologies but
rather to compare the perceived effectiveness of PBL to that of traditional lecture
methodologies. Table 1 illustrates the predominant characteristic differences
between the two methods.
Table 1. PBL-Lecture Methodology Characteristics
Problem-Based. Learning Methodology Traditional Learning Methodology
Student centered (self-regulated)
Active
Collaboration
Workplace setting
Problem solving strategies and
disciplinary knowledge
Application of skills
Industry guidance
Addresses multiple learning styles
6
Teacher led
Passive
Minimal teamwork
Classroom setting
Disciplinary knowledge
Information dissemination
Possibly guest lectures
Addresses minimal learning styles
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Constructing the “Problems”
A problem is a statement of a “real-life” scenario designed to challenge
learners, promote transfer of knowledge, encourage development of effective
problem-solving and critical thinking skills, and require collaboration with peers.
Problems must be relevant to capture and motivate students’ interest and their
desire to solve the problem. Typically, scenarios focus on current events within the
student’s field of study or line of work and draw upon many disciplines and
applications of concepts to everyday life. The most effective problems ensure that
students become and stay engaged in the process of analysis, generation of
hypotheses, inquiry, evaluation of data, and decision making. These problems are
generally complex, open-ended cases or narratives that present a minimal amount
of information and have multiple possible solutions. Solutions are not necessarily
judged as right or wrong, rather as more or less effective in solving the problem.
The solution is therefore partly dependent on the acquisition and comprehension of
the facts, but also on the student’s ability to analyze, synthesize and evaluate
information and apply information appropriate to a given context. By synthesizing,
students take what information is known, reassemble it with information not known
and derive a new knowledge set and hopefully a transfer of pertinent and applicable
knowledge (Wilkerson & Gijselaers, 1996).
Non-traditional students use prior work experience and industry affiliations
to contribute to the construction of pertinent and timely problems based on real
7
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
world industry concerns. By assisting in the problem development, students
become captivated and motivated to succeed in solving the problem, especially
when they can relate the problem to actual industry circumstances. The “real-life”
scenarios the students employ for their projects are familiar systems within their
own workplaces. Here the benefit of adult instruction is apparent—learners benefit
from past experience, the immediate application of new knowledge and skill-sets to
familiar scenarios, and collaboration with other industry experienced students.
Students will leam and retain information longer and with better and more accurate
recall if they can make many associations to newly acquired knowledge. Learning
in a vacuum with little real world association is more difficult and less permanent.
Retrieval of information in long-term memory is easier when it has been related to
something already known. The more ways a meaning structure is connected to our
existing knowledge the more likely we will be able to retrieve it (Cruikshank,
Bainer, & Metcalf, 1995).
Review o f Specific Key Research Studies o f Problem-Based Learning
Rationale for Implementing PBL
The rationale for implementing PBL is multifaceted. Research indicates
PBL methodology allows for active, participative learning by focusing on the
student-centric paradigm, rather than faculty-centered. PBL methodologies
motivate students; promote collaboration, self-regulation, and problem solving
8
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
skills; facilitate multidisciplinary learning; and ultimately afford the opportunity to
prepare a more sophisticated and competitive workforce (Vernon & Blake, 1993).
Specifically, learner outcomes include the capacity to engage the problems they
face in life and career; to problem-solve effectively using an integrated, flexible
and usable knowledge base; to employ effective self-directed learning skills to
continue learning as a lifetime habit; to continuously monitor and assess the
adequacy of their knowledge, problem-solving and self-directed learning skills and
to collaborate effectively as a member of a group (Barrows, 2000).
Gabric and Ludovice (2003) compared mean test scores for seniors who
participated in PBL in their introductory biology classes versus those taught by
more traditional methods. The purpose of their research was to determine if PBL
helped students retain the same or more content as compared to the traditional
lecture format. Their findings indicated long-term effects on cognitive retention,
measured three years after the presentation of materials, indicate a significant
improvement in content retention for those students who learned through PBL
relative to those who learned more traditionally.
Galand, Bentein, Bourgeois, and Frenay (2003) evaluated the impact of
PBL methodology on the motivation and cognitive engagement of undergraduate
engineering students. They compared a cohort of students who attended traditional
curriculum to a cohort who attended a newly implemented PBL curriculum. They
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
found positive results in student perceptions of goal orientations, self-efficacy, and
self-regulation practices and better links between theory and application.
Some research found little or no student achievement in regards to
knowledge transfer, but most research was favorable in regards to student
satisfaction, self-regulation, and application of skills (Culliver, 2000). A meta
analysis on the impact of PBL methodology in medical education conducted by
Albanese and Mitchell (1993) concluded PBL graduates perform as well or better
on clinical examinations and found the learning environment more enjoyable than
did those graduates of more conventional learning models. A second meta-analysis
by Vernon and Blake (1993) concluded PBL students exhibited superior
performance on clinical evaluations and responded more favorably to PBL
methodology on satisfaction surveys.
Learners work in small groups to analyze the problem and determine what
information they already have and what information they need to leam to solve the
problem. Students brainstorm possible solutions or ideas that could lead to
solutions after more information has been gathered. In other words, they propose
hypotheses. Learners list known facts based on their prior knowledge and generate
research questions or “learning issues” about what kind of knowledge or
information they need to acquire to explain the fundamental causes of the problem.
Each student or group of students is assigned or selects one or more learning issues
to research and develops a plan of action regarding what to investigate and how to
10
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
go about investigating it. The learning issues define the focus of the self-directed
learning process. New information is acquired through self-directed learning and
collaboration sessions and through mini-lectures provided by the faculty, industry
leader, or teaching assistant. Students research the learning issues using a variety
of resources, including journal articles, databases, and government studies.
Collaborative work includes reporting on what new information has been
gathered and assessing the solution progress in light of the new knowledge.
Hypotheses are revised based on these findings, and new learning issues may
become evident. The cycle is repeated until the problem has been resolved. Once
learners are finished with a problem, students engage in self- and peer-assessment
of their performance. The instructor, acting as a tutor, facilitates the process by
asking probing questions, monitoring the problem-solving process, and making
resources available.
The PBL methodology allows teams to assist in structuring their own
problems based on real-world circumstances, to identify the subject matter
competencies required to confront the problems, to structure teams with
membership based on these competencies, and to spend a significant portion of a
semester in out-of-class activities researching their problems and developing
recommendations to confront the problems. Teams present their recommendations
before an audience composed of class members and industry personnel for whom
they have developed their analyses and recommendations. Grades are assigned in a
11
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
way that recognizes both the effectiveness of a team in meeting its assignment and
the contribution of each individual to team activities. Student evaluations of these
courses indicate that students recognize the integrative nature of the problem-based
team activities and appreciate the practical value of this teaching approach
(Kingsland, 1996).
The instructor acts as a facilitator and models different kinds of problem
solving strategies, sometimes interjecting meta-cognitive questions, such as “What
makes you think that?” and “What assumptions might you be making?” The
instructor’s role becomes one of subject matter expert, resource guide, and group
consultant. This role promotes group collaboration and self-regulation rather than
an imparting of information by the faculty. The process orientation demonstrated
by PBL learning is more important than product-orientations, as problem solving
skills, more so than content knowledge, are more “portable” across many
disciplines and industries. Because the amount of instruction provided by faculty is
reduced, students assume greater responsibility for their own learning (Bridges &
Hallinger, 1991).
Traditionally, problem solving taught in schools involves scenario-specific,
well-defined problem parameters with one possible outcome solved in a sterile
environment. This myopic approach retards the student’s ability to solve problems
in new undefined domains, as real-world problems seldom parallel well-structured
problems. Problem solving in such lock step format is seldom transferable beyond
12
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the classroom and therefore limits knowledge transfer and practical application to
real world situations, such as the workplace. By replacing traditional lecture
methodology with student involvement, faculty mentoring, and collaborative
research, students become actively engaged in meaningful learning. In
understanding how adults leam, PBL embodies those principles inherent to
effective knowledge transfer and practical application to real world settings, such as
the workplace. According to Barrows’ research (2000), the following are
recommended mdiments for PBL:
• Students must be self-regulated.
• The problem simulations used in problem-based learning must be ill-
structured and allow for free inquiry
• Learning should be integrated from the wide range of disciplines that
are related to understanding the problem and potential solutions.
• Collaboration is essential.
• What students leam during their self-directed learning must be applied
back to the problem with reanalysis and resolution.
• A summary analysis of what has been learned from work with the
problem and a discussion of what concepts and principles have been
learned is essential.
13
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
® Self- and peer assessment should be carried out at the completion of
each problem and at the end of every course.
• The sequence of activities carried out in problem-based learning, and
problems employed in problem-based learning, should accurately reflect
processes used in industry application.
• Formal evaluations must assess the students’ problem-solving skills,
self-directed learning skills, and ability to recall and apply an integrated
knowledge base in work with a problem.
• Problem-based learning must be the pedagogical base in the curriculum
and not part of a didactic curriculum.
Disadvantages of PBL
Research indicates the most common criticism against PBL is the cost of
implementing and upkeeping curricular changes and faculty training, and the
workload demands for both student and faculty (e.g., Des Marchais, 1993; and
Royeen & Salvatori, 1997). Much of the research pinpoints transitional stress as a
concern, both for students and faculty. This stress is rooted in the traditionally
entrenched non-constructivist models of learning that have for years been the
predominant teaching models (Vernon & Blake, 1993).
14
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Review o f Non-Traditional Learners
Definition and Demographics
Based on our understanding of how adult learners leam, PBL is particularly
well suited for non-traditional classrooms. Non-traditional students may be defined
by age, re-entry status, or employment status. Perhaps the most comprehensive
definition is provided by Cross (1980), who described non-traditional students as
adults who enter or return to school Ml- or part-time while maintaining
responsibilities such as employment, family, and other responsibilities of adult life.
These learners are the fastest growing segment of the student population.
According to U.S. Census Bureau Reports (October, 1996), 6.2 million college
students in the United States (40.9%) were 25 years of age or older. More recent
statistics suggest adult students, defined in this instance as those 25 years of age
and over, currently represent nearly one-half of credit students enrolled in higher
education (Kasworm, Sandmann, & Sissel, 2000). During the past 30 years, adult
student enrollment in postsecondary education increased dramatically from 2.4
million in 1970 to 6.5 million in 2000 (Aslanian, 2001). It is also significant to
note in this period, the number of adult learners aged 35 and over increased more
than 2 1 4 times (Kasworm, Sandmann, & Sissel, 2000).
By common understanding, a traditional student is one who enters college
or university directly after high school and is usually supported by parent or
guardian. By name alone, distinctions are made between adult learners and
15
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
traditional students that suggest a difference in learning styles and necessarily
student “needs”—andragogy versus pedagogy. According to Benshoff (1991),
developmental needs, issues, and stressors for adult life differ considerably from
those faced by traditional students, indicating all aspects of the college environment
must be reconsidered and often reconfigured to respond to this growing population.
Characteristics and Requirements
Kasworm et al. (2000) suggests the traditional classroom is not necessarily
structured to accommodate the needs of the adult learner and asks: What
expectations do adults have about learning? What do they consider valuable
knowledge? How do they define success in the classroom? How do they view the
experiences of instructors? What are the experiences of adults in the classroom,
and can we employ these experiences to the learner’s advantage? This postulation
begs the question—do non-traditional students learn differently, that is to say do
they process information differently than traditional students? Or do the
differences exist primarily in the learning environment? According to Camp
(1996), student autonomy, building on previous knowledge and experiences, and
the opportunity for immediate application are all well-known to facilitate learning
in adults, and thus should foster the success of a PBL approach with adult learners.
Content standards for adult workers, such as those established by the Secretary’s
16
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS, 1992) are beyond the scope
of this literature review and will not be included.
Philosophies or perspectives on adult learning, such as Knowles’
“andragogy,” make a number of assertions about the general characteristics of
adults as learners: many adults are self-directed, autonomous, and independent;
they need learning to be meaningful; prior experiences are a fertile learning
resource; many are intrinsically motivated; their readiness to learn is associated
with a need to perform a task or with a transition point in their lives; their
orientation is centered on problems rather than content; and their participation in
learning is generally voluntary (Draper, 1998; Sipe, 2001; Tice, 1997; Titmus,
1999). Cantor (1992) and Cranton (1992) add several assumptions regarding adult
learners: adults are goal oriented, relevancy oriented (problem centered)—they
need to know why they are learning something; adults are practical and problem-
solvers; and adults have accumulated life experiences. In contrast, pedagogy
assumes characteristics unique to the traditional learner of dependent persona,
limited life/work experience, subject matter or context orientation, and external
motivation (Sipe, 2001).
17
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Traditional Versus Non-Traditional Learners
Opposing views
Opposing views, such as Draper’s (1998) belief that the dichotomy between
traditional and non-traditional is false, question the extent to which these
assumptions are characteristic of adults only, illustrating that some adult learners
are highly dependent, while some traditional students are quite independent; some
adult learners are externally motivated, while some traditional learners are
intrinsically motivated. Research conducted by Taylor, Marienau, and Fiddler
(2000, p. 7) postulates, the primary difference between how traditional and non-
traditional students leam is in the wealth of their experiences and their ability to
apply what they leam to these life experiences. For others, the adults’ capacity for
critical thinking or transformative learning is the principle distinguishing
characteristic. Merriam (2001) states adult life experiences can become more of a
barrier than a benefit while a traditional student’s life events may provide a wealth
of experiential resources. The assumption of autonomy can be argued by power
differences based on race, gender, socio-economic background, sexual orientation,
and disability-which can limit adults’ ability to be self-directed. Adults’ lifelong
learning can be “coercive and mandatory,” contradicting the assumption that adult
participation is voluntary (Merriam, 2001; Sipe, 2001; Vaske, 2001). While the
dichotomy between adult and traditional learners may be less distinguished in some
18
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
cases, the majority of the research supports a well-defined dichotomy between the
two.
Differences between traditional and non-traditional learners
Other philosophies suggest traditional and non-traditional learning differ in
two respects. First, they are based on different interpretations of the purpose of
education. Second, each model of learning is predicated upon a unique set of
characteristics involving four aspects of the learner: 1) autonomy, 2) accumulated
experience, 3) motivation to leam, and 4) time perspective. Based on these
characteristics, each model draws different conclusions about why, how, and when
learning should occur (Knowles, 1980). Table 2 is a generalized representative
model associating the needs of learners to the implications for adult higher
education.
Table 2. Non-Traditional Learner Model
Characteristics Traditional Non-Traditional Implications for Adult
Education
Autonomy Dependent on
others for
direction
Accustom ed to
making their own
decisions about events
which affect them
Learners’ participation
should be elicited in
identifying needs and
objectives, in performing
learning activities, and in
determining whether the
learning goals have been
m et focuses on activities
Table continues next page
19
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 2 (continued). Non-Traditional Learner Model
Accumulated Little or no Accumulated a wide Encourage communication
Experience experience to range o f experience between faculty and
contribute to w hich can contribute learner and among
the learning significantly to the learners; assignments
situation learning situation should include application
to life/work experience
Motivation/ Ready to leam Ready to leam what Course goals and content
Readiness to what the they believe is are compatible with the
Learn instmctor necessary to perform participants’ learning
believes he or tasks or solve needs as w ell as with their
she should problems w hich affect skill and experience levels;
leam them involve participants in
developing mutually
agreed-upon learning
goals
Time Early stage o f Present-oriented vice Learning is tailored to
Perspective development, future-oriented, specific requirements—
he or she motivated to leam focuses on helping
accepts primarily to solve learners solve real
learning for existing problems or problems rather than
later use rather address current needs. merely transmitting
than for
immediate
application
Adults seek immediate
application o f new
learning
information.
Billington (1996) conducted a four-year study of effective learning
environments for adult learners. From this research she developed the following
tenets of highly effective adult learning programs:
20
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
• An environment where students feel safe and supported, where
individual needs and uniqueness are honored, where abilities and life
achievements are acknowledged and respected.
• An environment that fosters intellectual freedom and encourages
experimentation and creativity.
• An environment where faculty treats adult students as peers—accepted
and respected as intelligent experienced adults whose opinions are
listened to, honored, appreciated. Such faculty members often comment
that they leam as much from their students as the students leam from
them.
• Self-directed learning, where students take responsibility for their own
learning. They work with faculty to design individual learning
programs that address what each person needs and wants to leam in
order to function optimally in their profession.
• Pacing or intellectual challenge. Optimal pacing is challenging people
just beyond their present level of ability. If challenged too far beyond,
people give up. If challenged too little, they become bored and leam
little. Pacing can be compared to playing tennis with a slightly better
player; your game tends to improve. But if the other player is far better
and it is impossible to return a ball, you give up, overwhelmed. If the
21
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
other player is less experienced and can return none of your balls, you
leam little.
• Active involvement in learning, as opposed to passively listening to
lectures. Where students and instmctors interact and dialogue, where
students try out new ideas in the workplace, where exercises and
experiences are used to bolster facts and theory, adults grow more.
• Regular feedback mechanisms for students to tell faculty what works
best for them and what they want and need to leam—and faculty who
hear and make changes based on student input.
Based on these tenets, application of Problem-Based Learning methodologies
would be instrumental in meeting the needs and motivations of non-traditional
students.
Problem-based learning is particularly appealing in adult non-traditional
classes as it can be modeled to recognize the learner’s workplace as a resource, and
allow these students the opportunity to put knowledge into action, by testing
concepts in real life situations. Assignments, then, are not based on students being
able to memorize and repeat data that may not ever be used by them, but are instead
focused on building worker skills and promoting a more educated and responsive
workforce. This model of partnership between academia, industry, and students is
22
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
an underutilized construct that focuses on the distinct advantages of experiential
learning in the workplace.
Obstacles to adult learning
Overwhelmingly, the literature agrees that non-traditional students have
more “obstacles” to overcome, which at a minimum supports the need to create a
different learning environment. These obstacles include the following:
• Non-traditional students are juggling many responsibilities that
traditional students typically have not yet encountered. These
responsibilities possibly include full-time employment, family, money,
child care, health care, job security, tuition costs, loss of study skills as a
result of time away from the learning environment, frequently single
parents, lack of peer cohorts, and other life stressors not often
experienced by traditional students.
• Non-traditional students are typically currently employed adults looking
for industry specific, flexible, interdisciplinary, and highly relevant
educational opportunities and/or certificate programs.
• Non-traditional students effect a risk/benefit analysis-the payoff must
exceed the cost.
• Retention-Non-traditional students are at higher risk of dropping/
stopping out.
23
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
• Non-traditional students must be afforded greater flexibility and more
options (location, weekend and evening courses, distance learning,
hybrid courses, seminars, certificate programs).
• Non-traditional students have greater expectations of faculty and
coursework (recency and specialization of experience, fieldwork,
subject matter experts—not just theorists).
By adapting PBL methodology into the adult classroom, some of these
barriers to learning can be managed to the adult learner’s advantage. Specifically,
non-traditional students have the advantage of life and work skills, and a current
work environment that faculty can exploit to the student’s benefit by facilitating
application of newly acquired skills and knowledge, thereby enhancing critical
thinking, skill mastery, and cognitive retention. Research indicates these
characteristics are founded in the philosophies of situational learning, experiential
learning, and active learning (Lave & Wenger, 1991). By developing problem
solving and collaborative skills pertinent to industry, students are given the tools to
more accurately exact a risk/benefit analysis of pursuing higher education.
24
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Review o f Studies and Theory o f Transfer
Attributes of Learning Methodologies
Lave and Wenger (1991) assert learning is essentially a matter of creating
meaning from the real activities of daily living. Adult learners, more so than
traditional learners, have the opportunity to leam by means of situated learning,
experiential learning, or active leaming-or all three. By embedding subject matter
in the ongoing experiences of the learners, and by creating opportunities for
learners to apply subject matter in the context of real-world problems, knowledge is
acquired and learning transfers from the classroom to the “realm of practice,”
specifically to their roles in the workplace. To situate learning means to place
thought and action in a specific context; to involve other learners, the environment,
and the activities to create meaning; to locate in a particular setting the thinking and
doing processes used by experts to accomplish knowledge and skill tasks. In the
adult classroom, to situate learning means to replicate the conditions in which
participants will experience the complexity and uncertainty of learning in the real
world. Problem-based learning takes this concept a step further by less structured,
less cleanly simulated problems to better facilitate their problem solving skills.
Students leam content and application through hands-on activities and associations
rather than solely acquiring theory in “discrete packages” organized by faculty.
Each of these learning methodologies share common attributes in that they
all engage learners in active experiential learning. In the adult classroom, the
25
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
knowledge gap between the learner and expert is less distinguished, as each adult
learner brings a wealth of life and work experiences to the classroom. Experiential
learning, such as PBL, is collaborative in nature, which better simulates team
approaches in the workplace. “Decisions are often taken and implemented by
groups and are affected by explicitly or implicitly shared social norms, social
history, social values, and social beliefs” (Watkins & Marsick, 1992, p. 294).
Because the workplace context is social and requires interpersonal interaction, the
learner’s interpretation of a situation and his/her subsequent actions are subject to a
great number of differences. PBL provides the opportunity for workers to clarify
their understanding of a situation within the social context and reduce the incidence
of misinterpretation or faulty learning.
Kasworm and Blowers (1994) identify two types of learning in
undergraduate education: 1) academic learning that includes theory and
memorization, and 2) situated or experiential learning that can be applied to daily
actions. Some literature would have us believe these learning types define
traditional and non-traditional learning types respectively. Non-traditional
students, by virtue of the life/work experiences and their motivations are more apt
to participate in the deeper learning process that allows them to apply new
knowledge and skills to familiar and important scenarios, which establishes
meaning (value, worth) between what they leam in the classroom and what they
need to know as self-supporting adults.
26
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Adults integrate new learning by making connections to
existing knowledge schema. They reflect on personal
experiences and draw on previous knowledge to make
meaning of new material and to understand it in a way that
transforms their own previous understanding. (Donaldson,
Graham, Kasworm, & Dirkx, 1999, p. 89)
That’s not to say traditional students cannot benefit from PBL, they simply have a
much more limited accumulation of life/work experiences to draw from.
What motivates adult learners?
How adults leam can be predicated on why we chose to leam. Quigley
(1997) postulates four philosophies of adult education. Each philosophy envisions
a distinct purpose of education and subsequently influences the way teachers teach
and the way students leam. Quigley categorizes these approaches as vocational,
liberal, humanist, and liberatory literacy education.
The vocational philosophy emphasizes work-force readiness, specific skills
for certain jobs or advanced skills for career mobility or advancement. The
underlying assumption is that adults must become productive, self-supporting
members of society. The liberal literacy philosophy of education purports
intellectual endeavors involving literature, philosophy, critical thinking, and self-
knowledge, with the underlying assumption that education enhances quality of life.
The humanist approach emphasizes personal growth and self-actualization through
studies in religion and psychology. This philosophy focuses on values, attitudes,
and beliefs. Liberatory literacy advocates critical thinking and political awareness,
27
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
with an emphasis on social and political change. The assumption here is that an
informed and educated public possesses the ability to engage in and solve social
problems. The liberatory philosophy is epitomized by Paulo Freire’s belief that
education provides a foundation in which political and social change would open
doors for the oppressed. The prioritization and emphasis of these philosophies
differs for traditional and non-traditional students. Understanding a student’s
motivation to leam is essential to understanding learner needs and thereby
facilitating effectual teaching strategies (Quigley, 1997).
Meeting industry needs: Classroom to practical application
An important goal of colleges and universities is not only to teach students
to think critically but to transfer that ability to life situations, which empowers the
adult to participate effectively in society, and to become a productive member of
the workforce. Research indicates adult learners leading motivation to leam is
vocational. Understandably, in today’s high technology, high performance
organizations, with warp-speed changes in both knowledge and technology, adults
must be prepared for continuous on-the-job growth and development. Workers like
companies must continue to leam and adapt to new global technologies, or recede
into obsolescence. According to Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan,
U.S. workers must be better educated so they can find jobs
in an economy that is increasingly creating conceptual
goods rather than tangible products. Providing rigorous
education and ongoing training to all members of our
28
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
society is critical for the economy overall and for
individuals buffeted by its changing nature. (Henderson,
2004, p. E01)
According to the Department of Labor (2002), the fastest rate of
employment growth is in those job categories and industries that demand higher
levels of education and skills. Generally speaking, better trained and educated
workers lead to greater productivity and thus, greater economic growth and
prosperity. As Peter Drucker (1999) said in Knowledge- Worker Productivity: The
Biggest Challenge, “The most valuable asset of a 20th century company was its
production equipment. The most valuable asset of a 21s t century institution
(whether business or non-business) will be its knowledge workers and their
productivity.” Furthermore, the U.S. Department of Labor has projected that
overall employment will grow 14 percent from 1996-2006. If the demand for
skills continues to grow as in the past, the nation can almost certainly expect a
much more severe skill shortage than in the past, and presumably will see
continuing rises in the need for continuing education.
The education and learning process will increasingly be part of everyone’s
life, not just for career potential, but for career sustainability. According to
Marshall & Briggs (1989), demands on educators and education systems will
increase in numbers and complexity. No longer is it sufficient to work on the
premise that an educated and highly skilled workforce is sufficient. More
important is a correctly educated workforce with citizens who have autonomy, who
29
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
are highly motivated and, most importantly, who are creative and driven to succeed
in this era. This attribute is key in industry, where each year millions of dollars are
lost to workplace accidents and incidents resulting in lost work days, reduced
production, diminished morale, increased insurance, etc., as a result of inadequate
learning.
Given the increased age, variety of experiences, and diverse lifestyles and
cultures of the working population, it is understandable that adult education
practices must move beyond the traditional model of teachers as vendors of
knowledge and learners as passive customers (Freire’s “banking theory,” 1971).
Methods and techniques that incorporate workers’ previous experiences, allow
hands-on learning application, link concepts and practices to current workplaces,
and encourage critical thinking and the transfer of knowledge from classroom to
boardroom are vital to the learning process.
The concept of experiential or problem-based learning is of particular
interest in high-technology industries where technology and automation advance at
a faster pace than training currently allows. The American Electronic Association
(AEA) has stated the current high-tech workforce shortage tops the AEA’s
Business Climate Report Card as one of the most important issues concerning
industry today (Doerr, 1998). The report card grades California’s performance as
poor on issues of importance to the electronics and information technology
industry, such as the availability and quality of an educated workforce.
30
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
A Workforce in Transition
Adult learner motivation
Robert T. Jones, President of the National Alliance of Business (1998)
observed, “American businesses are facing new and unprecedented challenges.
Competition, deregulation, shortened technological and product lifecycles, and new
competitive standards are restructuring industries and reshaping how companies
operate and how they train their workforces.” He concluded, “These changes have
fundamentally changed the U.S. economy” (p. 3). Secretary of Education, Richard
W. Riley (1997) was quoted as saying, “Today, more than ever before, education is
now the great ‘fault line’ that determines who is a part of the American dream.” In
his national best seller, Head to Head, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Economist Dr. Lester Thurrow (1992) concluded, “The skills of the labor force will
be the key competitive advantage in the 21st century” (p.22). Robert Reich (1991),
former Secretary of Labor added that a workforce must be well educated, well
trained, and highly skilled to compete in today’s economy. These trends are the
driving motivators for adult learners.
The aviation industry, where an atmosphere of constant and acute change
creates a growing need for greater levels of competence and newer and more varied
skills, is especially vulnerable to cognition and skills retention in its workforce.
Large aviation corporations like Boeing, Lockheed, and United Airlines complain
31
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
about the woefully ill-prepared and under-skilled workforce they now have to
contend with. Technology is advancing faster than our classrooms, causing large
corporations millions of dollars each year to retrain employees. The cost comes
from lost man-hours and costs to training centers or colleges to retrain employees
who should have already attained minimum skills necessary for the job.
In response to growing concerns about maintaining quality of and an
emerging need to restructure a volatile aviation industry, the Air Transport
Association of Canada published a study of human resources of commercial pilots
in 2001 and a follow-up study in 2003. Both studies cited weaknesses in the
quality of pilot training as the two primary concerns within the aviation
infrastructure. Addressing these weaknesses, Conrad and Harris (2003) identified
two recommendations to right the course of aviation education. First, the need for
a more learner-centered culture that adheres to andragogical principles of learner
worth, experiential value and collaboration in aviation education. Second, the
study outlines the evolving need for new skills in an industry that continuously sets
new standards for technological breakthroughs and volatility. Although there will
always be a need for “stick-and-rudder” skills, these skills alone are no longer
acceptable. New and retained entrants to the industry must become managers of
information, experts in new “soft skills,” from Crew Resource Management to
problem-solving and Aeronautical Decision Making.
32
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Aviation safety issues
In 1989, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) responded to
studies the identified human error as the largest single cause of aircraft crashes in
the world. Research also indicates the remaining 20% almost always have human
error as a main contributing factor (Reason, 1997). Contributing factors to human
error, replicated in simulator research, included
❖ Inadequate decision making and problem solving as a result of
• Preoccupation
• Inadequate leadership
• Failure to delegate tasks and assign responsibilities
• Failure to set priorities
• Inadequate monitoring
• Failure to communicate intent and plans
The challenges are diverse and complex and the stakes are high—the
public’s long-term confidence in safe, affordable, reliable air transportation.
Several reports pointed out the need for changes to the existing aviation system:
The White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security, Final Report
(1997); Booz, Allen, and Hamilton, Challenge 2000 (1996); and the Federal
Aviation Agency (FAA), 90-Day Safety Review (1996). New technologies bring
the promise of vastly increased capabilities, but technology alone will not be
33
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
sufficient to provide the required improvements. Providing desired safety margins
for advanced aircraft with highly coupled, software-intensive systems operating in
the high-volume aviation environment of the future is a difficult challenge. It will
require applying an integrated system-engineering process leading to implementing
system-level process changes coupled with carefully selected technological
enhancements.
According to the Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), a
total of 5,559 fatal work-related injuries were recorded in the United States in 2003,
an increase from the revised total of 5,534 fatal work injuries reported for 2002.
Individual occupations with particularly high rates in 2003 included logging and
heli-logging workers (131.6 fatalities per 100,000 workers), fishers and related
fishing occupations (115 per 100,000), and aircraft pilots and flight engineers (97.4
per 100,000). In light of these figures, the American Society of Safety Engineers
(ASSE) has urged businesses to invest in workplace safety to reduce the number of
tragic losses (U.S. Department of Labor [USDL], 2004).
Safety curriculum
According to the American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE), safety
professionals are defined as specialists in the fight to control hazards. To be called
professionals, they must acquire the essential knowledge of safety science through
education and experience and be able to apply this knowledge to multiple industries
so that others can rely on their judgments and recommendations. Top safety
34
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
professionals demonstrate their competence through professional certification
examinations. Regardless of the industry, safety professionals help to achieve
safety in the workplace by identifying and analyzing hazards, which potentially
create injury and illness problems, developing and applying hazard controls,
communicating safety and health information, measuring the effectiveness of
controls, and performing follow-up evaluations to measure continuing
improvement in programs. ASSE identifies the following as requisite
responsibilities for safety professionals:
• Hazard Recognition: Identifying conditions or actions that may cause
injury, illness or property damage
• Inspections/Audits: Assessing safety and health risks associated with
equipment, materials, processes, facilities or abilities
• Fire Protection: Reducing fire hazards by inspection, layout of facilities
and processes, and design of fire detection and suppression systems
• Regulatory Compliance: Ensuring that mandatory safety and health
standards are satisfied
• Health Hazard Control: Controlling hazards such as noise, chemical
exposures, radiation, or biological hazards that can create harm
35
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
• Ergonomics: Improving the workplace based on an understanding of
human physiological and psychological characteristics, abilities and
limitations
• Hazardous Materials Management: Ensuring that dangerous chemicals
and other products are procured, stored, and disposed of in ways that
prevent fires, exposure to or harm from these substances
• Environmental Protection: Controlling hazards that can lead to
undesirable releases of harmful materials into the air, water or soil
• Training: Providing employees and managers with the knowledge and
skills necessary to recognize hazards and perform their jobs safely and
effectively
• Accident and Incident Investigations: Determining the facts related to an
accident or incident based on witness interviews, site inspections and
collection of other evidence
• Advising Management: Helping managers establish safety objectives,
plan programs to achieve those objectives and integrate safety into the
culture of an organization
• Record Keeping: Maintaining safety and health information to meet
government requirements, as well as to provide data for problem solving
and decision-making
36
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
• Evaluating: Judging the effectiveness of existing safety and health
related programs and activities
• Emergency Response: Organizing, training, and coordinating skilled
employees with regard to emergencies such as fires, accidents or other
disasters
• Managing Safety Programs: Planning, organizing, budgeting, and
tracking executions of activities to achieve safety objectives in an
organization or to implement administrative or technical controls that
will eliminate or reduce hazards (ASSE, 2004). These responsibilities
call for greater depth of knowledge and skills than lecture
methodologies provide.
Since the devastating events of 9/11, many colleges and universities have
realized a new wave of adult learners seeking job-specific education and training as
a result of the economic downturn in industries like aviation. According to the
Airline Transport Association (2003) more than half of the post-9/11 job loss was
realized in aviation related industries. Repercussions rippled throughout industries
that rely heavily on aviation with a domino effect leaving in its wake thousands
with reduced wages, lost or reduced benefits or lost employment all together.
Many companies are still reeling from the impact and have been forced to layoff
employees, and cut benefits, retirement programs and pay. As of March 2003, the
37
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
average length of unemployment had risen to 18.6 weeks, the highest in more than
eight years. The percentage of people unemployed for 27 weeks or more rose to
22.1 percent, the highest in more than 10 years. This economic downturn has
forced many adults to re-think and re-gear their career plans, necessitating many to
return to college for career “transition” or “upgrade” training. This industry-wide
economic downturn and resulting trend for higher education serves to motivate
learners to gain work-place specific knowledge and skills they can use to hit the
ground running.
Huber (1991) refers to the new trend of “knowledge acquisition” in
knowledge intensive and high-tech corporations as a means to gain access to more
technical resources necessary to gain and maintain strong footholds in new
markets. The term “grafting” has becoming commonplace in high technology
industries and refers to organizations increasing their stores of knowledge by
acquiring and grafting on new members who possess knowledge not previously
available within the organization. These economic indicators and workforce trends
are indicative of the growing need for changes in adult education methodologies to
better meet industry needs and speak volumes as to what necessarily motivates
adult learners. Hard hit and fast paced industries can no longer afford to coddle
new or newly promoted employees through extensive on-the-job training programs,
further emphasizing the need for experience in collaborative multidiscipline
problem-based learning skills.
38
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Interdisciplinary motivation for adult learners
Adult learners seek relevant programs that are applicable, and as they live in
a world that is interdisciplinary, so too must degrees designed for them reflect
knowledge and practice from a broad range of disciplines such as communications,
sociology, management, education, and technology (Ezell & Turner, 2001).
Educators of adults recognize that narrowly defined courses aligned to discipline
niches do not provide their adult students with the multiplicity of perspective
necessary for adults to understand the world. The language of the disciplines does
not fit their learning needs, nor does the narrowly defined by the microcosmic
discipline instructor whose perspective is confined to a single topic supply adult
learners with the rich understanding of the world that knowledgeable practitioners
with cross-disciplinary perspectives do.
Problem-based learning allows students to see the interface amongst
multiple academic disciplines, thereby answering the “when would I ever need to
know this” question often asked by learners. Problems faced in business and
industry today are seldom one dimensional and usually require an integration of
content, skills, and experience across many domains, such as economics,
management, communications, statistics, logistics and safety (Clark & Blake,
1997). Baron (2004) suggests interdisciplinary teaching and learning have the
following advantages:
39
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
• It is reflective of life, which is not segmented into discrete disciplines It
allows for the use of multiple approaches and applications of skills for
problem solving
• It can provide a broader context for new information
• It allows for a broad use of diverse experiences and knowledge bases
• It encourages creativity and creative thinking
• It allows for greater flexibility
• It allows for teaching improvement through joint planning and mutual
observations
• It provides for a heightened level of collegial communication
• It opens up possibilities for an expansion of course offerings with
minimal or no additional resources
• It can provide expanded opportunities for the application of theory
• It provides a good introduction / foundation for various disciplines
• It allows for the use of diverse perspectives
• It helps develop tolerance of ambiguity
• It can enhance the ability to synthesize and integrate information
• It can integrate the new information environment that tends to be less
linear and more cross-disciplinary
40
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Embry-Riddle’s Extended Campus approach to degree programs includes a
variety of disciplines and knowledge bases, which are shared with other recognized
professional programs including Law, Medicine, Nursing, and Dentistry. The
University deems that given the nature of our society it is not optional, but
necessary to include these subjects outside technology to understand and work in
our multicultural and global environment. Embry-Riddle recognizes this
responsibility, as articulated in the mission statement of the University, to be not
only a technological and professional school providing the skills needed in
industry, but also to develop a well-rounded individual by enhancing his or her
physical, psychological, spiritual and social growth insuring personal and
professional success.
The Boyer Commission (1998) proposed that if educators are to improve
undergraduate education, we must remove the barriers that traditional disciplinary
distinctions place on curriculum. Institutions such as the University College at the
University of Maryland offer “World Courses,” which are taught by teams of
faculty who integrate humanities with the social sciences. The curriculums
presented by the traditional university departments inhibit such activity and are
counter-productive to meeting the learning needs of adults. Boyer argued “as
research is increasingly interdisciplinary, undergraduate education should also be
cast in interdisciplinary formats” (p. 23). It was recommended that academic
majors be designed around the needs of students rather than focused on
41
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
departmental interests. Such a schema for connected learning across multiple
disciplines using problem-based learning gives rise to the need for more advanced
research.
Evaluating Knowledge Transfer and Application
How do we know this approach works? Many studies have been conducted
to demonstrate initial changes in cognitive retention levels based on traditional, 1
lecture-based teaching methods, but little is written regarding assessment of PEL
methodologies (Nowak & Plucker, 1999). According to Reynolds (1997),
Assessment needs to fit the philosophy of active learning
rather than passive reproductive learning. . . . It may be
preferable, and more rigorous, for assessments to follow the
PEL philosophy and to require the individual to analyze a
problem, search for and then apply relevant information.
(p. 272)
The Kirkpatrick evaluation model can be one of the most powerful tools to
assess the efficacy of PEL methodology. Unfortunately, many adult education
evaluation models are designed to assess traditional education methodologies and
focus on content-oriented outcomes, characterized by rote memorization of general
concepts, rather than process-oriented outcomes, characterized by more critical and
analytical thought. These models are less effective in measuring knowledge gained
through experiential learning, as they focus solely on short-term outcomes (Vernon
& Blake 1993). Learner evaluation models should include items that measure not
42
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
only short-term transfer of knowledge, but also retention of knowledge over a
period of time, and the ability of the student to enhance her or his workplace
performance through practical applications of knowledge over the course of time
and the impact of the learning on the learner’s environment.
The Kirkpatrick evaluation model measures the effectiveness of educational
and training programs based on four levels: student reaction, learning outcomes,
behavior, and results. Level 1 assesses the student’s satisfaction with the course
and is usually measured by survey or critique at the end of the course. Level 2 is
the most common level and frequently the only level used in higher education.
This level assesses the learner’s transfer of knowledge, skills, and attitude and is
often measured with formal and informal exams, including pre- and post-tests to
measure the amount of learning that has occurred, and team assessments. Many
evaluation models end here, assessing primarily rote memorization and short-term
transfer, but do little to assess practical application and long term retention of
practical skills. The Kirkpatrick model adds two layers of evaluation: Level 3
evaluates the student’s ability to apply new knowledge in a given environment.
Level 4 assesses the impact of training on the environment, often measured in
increased production, reduced costs, or reduced injury rates within a company
(Kirkpatrick, 1994).
Applying the Kirkpatrick evaluation process for PBL courses should help
educators and industry partners answer the following questions:
43
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
• Does the knowledge taught in the classroom correlate with an increase
in workplace performance?
• Do the course objectives and goals meet student and industry needs?
• Is the instructor applying the PEL model properly, in such a way that
these stated objectives are met, while also ensuring that academic
standards are kept?
• What improvements/changes should be made, in order to continually
enhance the quality of the education that is being provided to
nontraditional adult learners?
Why develop and evaluate curriculums using problem-based learning?
Today, more than ever, businesses are realizing the need for an educated and well-
trained workforce. As firms face the challenge of increasing productivity while
reducing costs, it becomes more apparent that an educated workforce is the only
key to success. Simply recruiting and retaining students into a classroom is not
enough to produce the workforce necessary to meet the technological needs of
tomorrow. In some industries, especially aviation, employers and academia have
begun partnering to design and implement educational programs that are specific to
industry needs, and that target current or prospective employees of that industry.
This trend may prove beneficial to PEL classrooms, as industry personnel can
44
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
become instrumental in developing problems, allocating resources, and providing
assessment of potential solutions. The benefit of industry-university collaboration
in PBL methodology classrooms provides fertile grounds for future research
endeavors.
Barriers to Problem-Based Learning
A common criticism of student-centered learning is that students, as
novices, cannot be expected to know what is important to learn. This is especially
true for those adult learners who now come to the classroom to gain skills to
“cross-train” within an industry or change careers altogether. Here it is more
difficult for students to draw associations to a workplace they are not yet familiar
with. The following recommendations should be considered when applying PBL
methods to adult learners who are retraining for a new career field:
• Internship and volunteer programs with industry (possibly for credit)
• Industry scholarships
• Mentorship programs with non-traditional students employed in
industry
• Mentorship programs with adjunct faculty employed in industry
• Industry summer programs
• Direct hire and contract training with industry
45
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
These and other industry programs may be beneficial in facilitating experiential
learning in the prospective industry for subject-specific novices.
Other barriers to PBL include the extra resources necessary to facilitate this
type of learning. Research indicates these resources include additional time and
room for group collaboration; additional teaching aids; faculty assistance in
mentoring, facilitating and assessment; and additional pay or incentives for faculty
and/or teaching assistants. The extent and intervention of these barriers is institute
dependent and must be addressed on a college-by-college basis.
Research Questions
In light of the growing trend of adult non-traditional learners in college and
university classrooms, educators must modify learning methodologies to adapt to
the tenets of how adults learn and what motivates non-traditional learners. The
following questions were investigated:
1. What are PBL student perceptions of satisfaction, learning, and
application of aeronautical safety science content and skills?
2. Do PBL students perform better on performance evaluations than none
PBL students?
46
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Chapter 2
M e t h o d a n d P r o c e d u r e s
Research Method
Design
This study examined learner perceptions and the effectiveness of Problem-
Based Learning methodology on cognitive retention and practical application of
meaningful knowledge and skills in non-traditional post-secondary learners. The
researcher applied a comparative quasi-experimental approach to compare the
outcomes of two Aeronautical Safety Science courses conducted at Embry-Riddle
Aeronautical University (ERAU), Extended Campus.
The course, SFTY 440 System Safety, was taught to two groups using
different teaching methodologies. The dependent variables were student
satisfaction and performance outcomes. The independent variable was teaching
methodology, of which the first group was instructed applying a traditional lecture
methodology (n = 28). One year later the same course was taught by the same
faculty to another set of students (n = 31), similar in demographics (age, Grade
Point Average [GPA] and previous work experience). The second group was
47
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
instructed by applying problem-based learning methodology (PBL). It was not
possible to randomly assign students to either classroom. The first class became
the lecture experimental group primarily because the faculty was best versed in
lecture discussion methodologies at the time, and spent much of the following year
learning the application of PBL. The second year, having gained knowledge of and
experience in PBL methodologies, the faculty applied problem-based learning
method as the intervention to the second group.
Each class was administered a pretest to establish a baseline of student
understanding in the Aviation System Safety Curricula. A post-test exam was
administered at the end of each course. The pre- and post-test exams were
comparable in content and process but differed slightly to avoid familiarity from
the pre-test questions.
The PBL group also completed an end-of-course survey to assess their
perceptions of the PBL methodology. This same group of students was again
administered the survey six months after the course ended to assess any changes in
student perceptions of PBL over time and after they had been given the opportunity
to apply the System Safety process in their workplaces.
Subjects
The groups selected for this study consisted of two classes of students in a
college-level aviation safety course offered at ERAU. The first class, taught via
48
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
traditional lecture methodology was compared to the same course taught via PBL
methodology. ERAU is a private not-for-profit university, encompassing three
campuses: Daytona Beach, Prescott, and the Extended Campus (EC). The EC is
comprised of more than 150 teaching sites around the United States and Europe
offering aviation related degrees to predominantly non-traditional working adult
learners. The first group was comprised of 28 students ranging in age from 20-46.
The second group was comprised of 31 students ranging in age from 22-52. All of
the students had work experience in aviation or aviation related industries. The two
groups were equivalent with no differences among key dimensions, such as age,
Grade Point Average, and work experience. More specific details are outlined in
Chapter 3. All students were pursuing a BS degree either in Professional
Aeronautics or in Management of Technical Operations.
Measures
Based on the Kirkpatrick Four-Level model of evaluation two measures
were developed to assess both knowledge transfer and student perceptions of PBL,
regarding transfer of knowledge and their ability to apply the content and process to
their workplace. Kirkpatrick’s second level of evaluation was applied by
comparing pre- and post-test examination scores to assess the actual transfer of
knowledge. Kirkpatrick’s first and third levels of evaluation were applied by
administering a PBL survey to the PBL class to determine perceptions and
49
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
satisfaction of the PBL methodology, transfer of knowledge and application of
system safety skills and knowledge. Kirkpatrick’s fourth level of evaluation was
applied by administering the PBL survey a second time, to assess student
perceptions of the PBL methodology over time (Kirkpatrick, 1994).
A pre-test was administered to both groups during the first night of class to
establish baseline knowledge of the aviation system safety content. A post-test,
similar in content and process to the pre-test, was administered to both classes
during the last night of class to establish the level of knowledge transfer. To assure
validity, reliability, and generalizability, both the pre-test and post-test exams were
developed by two qualified faculty. A pilot test of 25 students and 10 faculty
members and safety professionals was also conducted to assure validity and
reliability of the instrument. It was expected the 10 students, who had never taken
a System Safety course would not score above 40% to ensure the test questions
could not be randomly answered correctly. It was also expected that 10 faculty and
safety professionals should be able to score a minimum of 90% on the exam to
assure the content adequately tested System Safety content and process. The exams
were blind-graded by two faculty. All 10 professional examinees scored a
minimum of 90%. All 25 students scored below 40%.
The survey consisted of six seven-point Likert-scaled questions rated from
1 (Strongly Agree) to 7 (Strongly Disagree) and four open-ended questions
designed to elicit the learner’s level of satisfaction of the PBL course compared to
50
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
other non-PBL courses. To assure validity and generalizability, the survey was
adapted from a similar survey administered to Engineering students in a PBL
initiative at the University of California, Irvine (Longuevan, 2000). A modified
survey was developed and approved by the instructor of record and a Certified
Safety Professional, who is a member of the American Safety Society of Engineers
and the System Safety Society. A pilot test of 25 students and 10 faculty members
and safety professionals was also conducted to assure validity and reliability of the
survey instrument.
The instructor for both courses has a Master of Aeronautical Science
degree, 22 years of aviation safety experience, has taught Air Force Technical
Training for five years, and has taught undergraduate and graduate courses for
seven years. She has studied teaching and learning philosophies as a requirement
for faculty development and as coursework towards an Educational Doctorate.
After researching PBL literature and attending educational conferences focused on
PBL, the instructor changed the instructional methodology in her aviation safety
classes to facilitate long-term cognitive retention and practical application of skills,
to motivate students, and to better prepare an educated workforce in the aviation
safety industry. A second faculty member assisted in developing and pilot testing
both pre- and post-test exams. This faculty member is a Certified Safety
Professional, System Safety Engineer, and a member of the American Society of
Safety Engineers.
51
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Procedures
Constructing the Courses
The undergraduate course employed for this study was a senior level
System Safety course taught at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Extended
Campus. This course satisfies technical credit requirements and applies towards
the Aviation Safety and Occupational Safety and Health minors for students
matriculated into the Professional Aeronautics baccalaureate program. The
performance objectives penned by the course monitor and explained to the students
were as follows:
• Explain the history of systems safety.
• Interpret system safety definitions and explain system safety principles.
Relate the definition to aviation systems.
• Demonstrate an understanding of risk management principles to include
the identification of hazards, assessment of risk, identification of risk
mitigation measures, and verification procedures.
• Demonstrate working knowledge of the Developmental System Safety
Tasks and Hazard Analyses to include those outlined in MIL-STD-882.
52
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
• Select and apply the appropriate system analysis tools, techniques, and
methodologies for a specific aviation/aerospace system.
• Express an understanding of aircraft development through life cycle
phases and the impact of system safety.
• Relate the effects of the system safety process on aircraft certification.
• Analyze the impact of new technology on aerospace system safety.
The curriculum was designed for those adults entering or advancing in the
Aeronautical Safety Science discipline. In keeping with this methodology,
professionals from state and federal Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, American
Society for Safety Engineers, Federal Aviation Administration and the Air Carrier’s
Association were consulted. Curriculum materials developed for the PBL course
included an interdisciplinary scope and sequence, workplace scenarios, integrated
competencies, and collaborative learning activities.
Standardized Instruction
Both courses were conducted one night per week for 10 weeks. Each class
session was approximately four hours, including 20 minutes for breaks. Both
lecture and PBL groups received instruction on primary topics. Lectures were
delivered via varying media and included the following topics:
53
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
• Lesson 1: System Safety and Risk Management: An Introduction—This
lecture includes an overview of the System, the Life Cycle analysis, and
a detailed description of the interface with the system using the SHEL
Model (Software, Hardware, Environment, Liveware) as a template.
• Lesson 2: Risk Assessment Matrix—Establishing Probability and
Severity codes based on the system description.
• Lesson 3: Preliminary Hazard Analysis—Assess every identified
hazard for probability, severity, potential causes, potential effects,
associated risk assessment codes, recommended controls, and
verification of controls. This section requires instructions on how to
create a Probability Table, Severity Table, Risk Assessment Matrix, and
Hazard Analysis Worksheet.
Lessons 4-8 detailed System Safety tools, their description, application, procedures
and examples:
• Lesson 4: Energy Flow/Barrier Analysis
• Lesson 5: Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA), Effects and
Criticality Analysis (FMECA)
• Lesson 6: Fault Tree Analysis
54
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
• Lesson 7: Success and Event Tree Analysis
• Lesson 8: Probabilistic Design Analysis and Risk Assessment
Each class was provided sample Risk Assessment documents, including the Federal
Aviation Administration’s Land and Hold Short Operation (LAHSO) risk
assessment, NASA’s Challenger Accident Risk Assessment, and the Department of
Defense Operational Risk Management document. Both groups used the same
course texts, System Safety Engineering & Risk Assessment, Nicholas J. Bahr,
1997 and System Safety and Risk Management NIOSH Instructional Manual,
published by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Safety/Health
Awareness for Preventive Engineering (SHAPE). Learners in both the PBL and
non-PBL classroom were given the following list of resources:
• National Transportation Safety Board Accident Incident Database
• Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), National Aviation Safety Data
Analysis Center (NASDAC), Accident Incident Data System
• Three NTSB final reports involving Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR)
Part 135 accident investigations in Alaska
• 1985 NTSB Aviation Safety Study
• Factors Associated with Pilot Fatalities in Work-Related Aircraft
Crashes: Alaska, 1990-1999
55
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Lecture M odel
The lecture group received instruction predominantly through lecture, group
discussion, quest speakers, presentations of industry risk management examples,
and application of well-structured risk management problems. The coursework
included three sample hypothetical or real world problems. Students were provided
with data sets, research questions, and in-class guidance from the instructor and
guest speakers from industry. Students were required to determine the appropriate
procedures and apply the appropriate System Safety process, to include risk
identification, assessment and recommended engineering and administrative
controls. Results from these findings were discussed in round-table presentations.
The research project consisted of a well-structured industry problem with pre
defined limitations as far as outcomes and procedures to be employed. Students
were required to develop a System Safety Plan and select and apply the correct
Risk Management process, to include a System Description, Preliminary Hazard
List, Preliminary Hazard Analysis (to include a Risk Assessment Matrix and
Hazard Analysis Worksheet), an event tree and a system summary. Finally, they
were tasked with presenting their findings and justification of procedure rationale.
No assessment of economic or other resource allotments necessary to implement
the prescribed interventions was required. The final grades were weighted as
follows:
56
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Final Exam 35%
Research Project 30%
Oral Presentation 25%
Class participation 10%
Problem-Based Learning Model
The instructor adopted a six-phase approach to the PBL coursework and
coursework assessment, which are categorized in Table 3 below (Thomas & Chan,
2002):
Table 3. PBL Developmental Stages
PBL Phase Description Assessment Level
Phase 1: Learners explore previous Level 1: Faculty and
Problem knowledge and experience for Peer Assessment. Assess
Enquiry possible solutions. This is the idea student behavior and
generation stage. collaboration.
Table continues next page
57
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 3 (continued). PBL Developmental Stages
Phase 2:
Learning
Issues
Phase 3:
Collaboration
Phase 4:
The Problem
Solution
At this stage, the learner selects,
organizes, and categorizes the
many ideas that would have
surfaced at the preceding stage.
The learners also delegate the
various learning issues here. The
group dynamics have to be good
for an equitable distribution of the
items listed in the issues/topics
stage for the group to progress.
Learners table the information
they have gathered through their
searches. Collaboration best seen
at this stage. Learners also use
management skills in that they
know turn taking and turn giving
cycles and are able to question and
seek further information as well as
do open sharing of new
information they have picked up in
their readings.
The group then proceeds to engage
in formulating the solution to the
problem, as the information they
have gathered will help them get
this stage together. This stage will
help the learners “gel” what they
have picked up into a solution,
which can address the initial
problem presented to the learners.
Present findings in round tables or
group presentations. Learners
share different information as well
as the perspectives taken by the
different learning groups.
Level 1: Faculty and
Peer Assessment. Assess
student behavior and
collaboration.
Levels 1 and 2: Faculty
and Peer Assessment.
Assess student behavior
and collaboration. Pre-
and post-test outcomes to
assess proficiency of
performance outcomes.
Levels 1, 2, & 3:
Faculty, Peer, and
Industry Personnel
Assessment. Assess
student behavior and
collaboration. Pre- and
post-test outcomes to
assess proficiency of
performance outcomes.
Assess students’ ability
to apply content and
skills to real world
issues.
Table continues next page
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 3 (continued). PBL Developmental Stages
Phase 5: The last stage in this entire process Levels 3 & 4: Faculty,
Reflection is the reflection and critique stage. Peer, and Industry
and Critique Learners share and critique each Personnel Review.
other’s processes, solutions, and Review student behavior
application. Teams critique each and collaboration.
other’s inputs as well as critiquing Review student’s ability
other team’s responses. Industry to apply content and
personnel elaborate as to the skills to real world
feasibility and appropriateness of issues. Review
solutions. application to industry.
Phase 6: Students are tested on content; Levels 2, 3, & 4 Students
Testing and feedback retrieved from industry are formally assessed on
Industry personnel and students as to long content understanding;
Feedback term cognition and applicability students and industry
and impact to industry. provide feedback.
The PBL group received instruction through mini-lectures, guest lectures,
and examples of the application of System Safety process in the aviation/aerospace
industry. The class was distributed into groups of five to seven students. Each
group was tasked with determining who the group leader would be, based on
student perceptions of pertinent problem-solving skills and industry experience and
training. Students were tasked to problem-solve three ill-structured problems
pertinent to the aviation/aerospace industry. The ill-structured problems allowed
for alternative solutions and had no single correct answer. Different procedures
could be chosen to determine controls necessary to mitigate or abate the problems.
59
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The following excerpts describing the course structure and Project 1 of the PBL
class were extracted from the PBL syllabus:
You will be divided into groups of 5-7 students. Each group will be
responsible for developing an accident/incident database that contains
variables specific to FAR Part 135 and 91 Alaska accident data. You, as
accident investigators are responsible for determining which variables are
pertinent to this database. The final outcome is a group round table
elaborating on the identified risk factors and recommended administrative
and engineering interventions associated with eliminating or mitigating the
impact of these risk factors. Team leaders will be chosen by the group,
based on your judgments as to who is best qualified. These team leaders
will devise smaller groups and assign tasks associated with the group
project. The instructor will act as mentor and facilitator to these groups.
The class will receive mini-lectures on accident investigation and System
Safety Engineering throughout the course. Industry experts from the FAA
and NTSB will also be facilitating and assessing the System Safety Process
and proposed solutions. We will assist you with resources, database
development, data analyses, and outcome development. We will have a
group round table to discuss and critique group findings. How the workload
is distributed for this roundtable is up to the team leaders. Students will be
assessed by process, content, collaborative effort, and public speaking
60
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ability. These assessments will be based on input from the instructor,
industry leaders, and your group peers.
The following scenario is an example of the ill-structured problems assigned to the
PBL group and was assigned as Project 1 of 3.
Despite its large geographic area, Alaska has only 12,200 miles of public
roads, and 90% of the state’s communities are not connected to a highway
system. Commuter and air-taxi flights are essential for transportation of
passengers and delivery of goods, services, and mail to outlying
communities. In part due to the substantial progress in decreasing fatalities
in the fishing and logging industries, aviation crashes are the leading cause
of occupational death in Alaska. During 1990-1999, aircraft crashes in
Alaska caused 107 deaths among workers classified as civilian pilots. This
is equivalent to 410 fatalities per 100,000 pilots each year, approximately
five times the death rate for all U.S. pilots and approximately 100 times the
death rate for all U.S. workers.
The minimum requirements required for each problem scenario were as follows:
Step 1. Define the problem.
Step 2. Generate possible solutions.
61
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Step 3. Evaluate the alternative solutions by constructing arguments and
articulating personal beliefs.
Step 4. Propose implementation of the most viable solution.
Step 5. Justify resource expenditure for personnel, equipment, time, and
other resources necessary to implement recommended controls.
In this problem, the students must understand and be able to apply the System
Safety process to move from Step 1 (identifying the problem) to Step 2 (generating
possible solutions). These steps are not clearly defined, as the problem statement
itself is ambiguous and not well defined. These steps would necessarily include a
system description and interface mapping; hazard identification; risk assessment;
intervention development, intervention implementation, intervention monitoring
and feedback throughout the system.
Final grades for the PBL course were based on a final examination, group
project processes, group presentations, and peer and industry reviews. The
following weights were assigned:
Final Exam 35%
Group Projects 25%
Group Presentations 20%
Industry reviews 10%
Peer Reviews 10%
62
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Data Analysis
Because it was not possible to randomly assign students to either
experimental group, post-test scores from each group were compared using an
analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) to control for the covariates of age, work
experience, and grade point average. A decision was made a priori to include the
covariates whether or not they were statistically significant due to the quasi-
experimental nature of the design.
Questions about perceptions and satisfaction were designed with Likert-
scale responses. While one could compare the qualitative responses directly, the
author chose instead to compare the means of the ordinally-scaled variables, in
order to have a clear indicator of the direction of the difference in response. The
results from the first PBL survey were then compared to the second PBL survey
using an unpaired t test to determine any differences in student perceptions after
they had time to apply the learned system safety principles to their workplace. A
significance level of 0.05 was used for the difference of means tests.
Open-ended questions from both PBL surveys were analyzed using content
analysis (Miles & Huberman, 1994; and Taylor-Powell & Renner, 2003). Using
emergent themes, taxonomies were developed to establish valid, exhaustive, and
mutually exclusive categories to determine student perceptions of PBL compared to
other non-PBL courses (see Table 4).
63
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 4. Content Analysis Categories
Questions
7. How would you compare your
experience in the PBL course
with your experience in other
non-PBL courses?
8. How did you benefit by
participating in this course’s PBL
projects?
9. How would you improve the PBL
projects for this course?
10. Do you think similar PBL
projects should be a part of other
courses? Why or why not?
Categories
• Overall impressions
• Workload
• Application to work
• Content understanding
• Collaboration
• Content/process understanding
• Application to work
• Problem solving skills
• Teamwork
• Time allotted
• More practice
• Less teamwork
• Black board structure
• Positive
Application to work
Better workplace tools
Learn problem solving skills
Knowledge transfer
• Negative
T ime-consuming
Teamwork difficult outside class
Heavy workload
To ensure inter-rater reliability, the researcher and a qualified faculty member
independently reviewed and coded student responses to the open-ended questions.
Each faculty checked the reliability of the coding until a 95% agreement was
established. A frequency analysis of established themes was conducted (Haney et
al, 1998).
64
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Chapter 3
R e s u l t s
Because students could not be randomly assigned to either, the researcher
needed to control for variables that could possibly have influenced the post-test
outcomes, aside from the intervention variable. Table 5 illustrates the similarities
between control and experimental demographics, specifically age, Grade Point
Average (GPA), and years of work experience.
Table 5. Group Characteristics for Experimental PBL and Lecture Groups
Group N Years Work
Experience
GPA Age
(years)
PBL 31 11.27 3.09 31.84
Lecture 28 10.04 2.94 30.79
Both the Lecture and PBL courses covered the same content dealing with
System Safety Engineering and the implementation of System Safety processes into
organizational Safety Plans. In the lecture group, students were instructed
predominantly via lecture and discussion methodology. Pre-test scores for both
groups indicate a similar baseline of understanding for the content (see Table 6).
65
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 6. Pre- and Post-Test Outcomes
Group Pre-Test Post-Test
PBL 23.58 86.87
Lecture 21.50 78.50
Because it was not possible to randomly assign students, an analysis of
covariance was conducted to control for the covariates of age, work experience, and
grade point average (see Table 7).
Table 7. Analysis of Covariance for Post-Test Results
Source d f F Mean Square p
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Pre-Test 1 42.385 1235.554 .000
Age 1 .102 2.971 .751
Years Work Exp. 1 .048 1.398 .828
GPA 1 .139 4.066 .710
Group 1 22.50 655.905 .000
Error 53 29.151
With regard to the PBL methodology, the model including the covariates explained
61% (adjusted R2 ) of the variance in the post-teaching test, F(5,53) = 19.02, p <
0.001. While age, years of experience, and GPA were not significant predictors of
66
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the post-test score, each person’s pre-test value was significant, F(l,53) = 42.39, p
< 0.001. ANCOVA results indicated a significant group difference in post
intervention test scores, F(l,53) = 22.50, p < 0.001.
Table 8. PBL Survey Results: Survey A
(« = 31)
SA = Strongly Agree, MA = Moderately Agree, SLA = Slightly Agree, N =
Neutral, SLD = Slightly Disagree, MD = Moderately Disagree, SD = Strongly
Disagree, and TR = Total Responses, AR = Aggregate Responses.
1. The problem-based learning projects in this course encouraged me to integrate
concepts and skills from different disciplines.
SA i ! MA SLA N
j
SLD
;
MD
S , P . ! TR AR
1 2
3
4 5 6 j
7 J
j f
[. . . . . . . . . . . i
24 4 1 1 2 ■ 3 ‘ i “ 5
2. The problem-based learning projects in this course enabled me to develop a
deeper understanding of System Safety.
SA 1 MA ! SLA | N 1 : SLD : MD : SD
TR | AR
1 2 3 1 4 1 5 i 6 7
z T " 7 6 2
I} ——
■"""31“ 1.42
3. The problem-based learning project in this course provided peer and group
interactions useful to me in completing the assignment.
67
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
SA :
1
MA
2
SLA !
:
3
N
4
SLD
5
MD j
6
SD
7
1 TR
20 6 3 2 " 31
4. The problem-based learning projects in this course helped me to improve my
oral communication skills.
SA
1
1
m a :
I 2
1 SLA 1
3
N
4
SLD
5
MD
6
SD
7
TR AR
20 * 3 2 6 31 1.81
5. The problem-based learning projects used in this course helped me to apply
new knowledge to real-world scenarios.
SA 1 MA ■ ■ SLA ■ ! N « SLD 1 MD SD « A 1 > j i
I 1 : ! 2 I ! 3 i ! 4 ( . 5 j i e „ 7 i | T R | A R
29 2 ' 31 1.06
6. The problem-based learning projects in this course required more of my time
than other projects in comparable safety courses.
SA
1
:[ MA
J 2
{ SLA U
1 3 1
N
4
1 SLD ;
j 5 I
I MD |
6
SD
7 |
TR I AR
3 2 3 ..19.... ' 2 2 .. . . o .... 1 31 3.68
7. How would you compare your experience in the problem-based learning course
with your experience in other non-PBL courses?
68
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Emergent Themes n Negative Positive % Positive
Overall impressions 31 2 29 94
Workload 28 22 6 21
Application to work 24 2 22 92
Content understanding 29 3 26 90
Group collaboration 23 17 6 26
8. How did you benefit by participating
projects?
in this course’s problem-based learning
Emergent Themes n Negative Positive % Positive
Content/process understanding 29 2 27 93
Application to work 19 3 16 84
Problem solving skills 22 1 21 95
Teamwork 27 19 8 30
9. How would you improve the problem-based learning projects for this course?
Emergent Themes n Negative Positive % Positive
Time allotted 19 13 6 32
More practice 19 2 17 89
Less teamwork 24 16 8 33
Blackboard* structure 12 4 8 67
* The Blackboard Academic Suite™ is a Web-based enterprise application to
power online education.
10. Do you think similar problem-based learning projects should be part of other
courses you will be taking? Why or why not?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Emergent Themes n Negative Positive % Positive
Positive 31 4 21 87
Application to work 26 4 22 85
Beneficial workplace tools 14 1 13 93
Learn problem solving skills 20 3 17 85
Knowledge transfer 29 3 26 90
Negative
T ime-consuming 17 11 6 35
Teamwork difficult outside class 26 21 5 19
Heavy workload 27 19 8 30
Table 9. PBL Survey Results: Survey B
(n = 30)
SA = Strongly Agree, MA = Moderately Agree, SLA = Slightly Agree, N =
Neutral, SLD = Slightly Disagree, MD = Moderately Disagree, SD = Strongly
Disagree, and TR = Total Responses, AR = Aggregate Responses.
1. The problem-based learning projects in this course encouraged me to integrate
concepts and skills from different disciplines.
TR AR
3C 1.53
2. The problem-based learning projects in this course enabled me to develop a
deeper understanding of System Safety.
SA MA t 1 SLA l | N SLD MD ;| SD
1
2
3 j 4
I 5 II
6 7
_
......3” ... “ 1 2 3
70
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 SA ! MA I SLA i n \ SLD i MD f SD :
TR AR j
; i 2 1 3
i
4
5 6 7
21 _ 5 ” ' " 3 '
____ ____
1 30 \ 1.47
3. The problem-based learning project in this course provided peer and group
interactions useful to me in completing the assignment.
SA MA | SLA
\ N
SLD 1 MD SD
TR AR !
1 2 3
4
5 6
i 7
17 2 3 2 3 f '.T “ ~ 3.: 2.17
4. The problem-based learning projects in this course helped me to improve my
oral communication skills.
SA
1
MA | SLA
| 2 j 3
1 N 1
4
SLD
5
MD !
6
SD
7
TR AR i
:: 4 3
1 " 2 _ 1
====^™i!
3'! i.53
5. The problem-based learning projects used in this
new knowledge to real-world scenarios.
course helped me to apply
: SA | MA 1 SLA N [ SLD MD ‘ SD
TR a r :
1 2 j 3 4 5 6 7
29 1
; i - — — s:-= -5 i;
30 1.03
6. The problem-based learning projects in this course required more of my time
than other projects in comparable safety courses.
71
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
SA MA SLA N SLD MD SD
TR AR
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10 "11
Z 3 1 Z
*
~ L J
0
Z I l Z
2T7
7. How would you compare your experience in the problem-based learning course
with your experience in other non-PBL courses?
Emergent Themes n Negative Positive % Positive
Overall impressions 30 3 27 90
Workload 26 21 5 19
Application to work 20 1 19 95
Content understanding 29 1 28 97
Group collaboration 23 18 5 22
8. How did you benefit by participating in this course'
projects?
’s problem-based learning
Emergent Themes n Negative Positive % Positive
Content/process understanding 29 1 28 97
Application to work 24 2 22 92
Problem solving skills 18 1 17 94
Teamwork 22 17 5 23
9. How would you improve the problem-based learning projects for this course?
Emergent Themes n Negative Positive % Positive
Time allotted 24 19 5 21
More practice 16 0 16 100
Teamwork 25 12 13 52
Blackboard* structure 18 6 12 67
* The Blackboard Academic Suite™ is a Web-based enterprise application to
power online education.
72
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
10. Do you think similar problem-based learning projects should be part of other
courses you will be taking? Why or why not?
Emergent Themes n Negative Positive % Positive
Positive
30 2 28 93
Application to work 26 2 24 92
Beneficial workplace tools 16 0 16 100
Leam problem-solving skills 23 2 21 91
Knowledge transfer 26 5 21 81
Negative
Time-consuming 20 13 7 35
Teamwork difficult outside class 24 18 6 25
Heavy workload 26 18 8 31
73
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Chapter 4
D is c u s s io n , L im it a t io n s, C o n c l u s io n s, a n d
R e c o m m e n d a t io n s
Discussion
Faculty Observations
PBL Versus Non-PBL
While some research shows little if any significant difference between
knowledge that PBL students and non-PBL students acquire, this study indicates a
significant increase in knowledge transfer and application in the System Safety
discipline. This research also suggests students were more likely to spontaneously
apply problem-solving skills than students who acquire System Safety skills via
more traditional methods of learning. In addition, PBL students required less
faculty facilitation in subsequent System Safety projects, than did the non-PBL
students. PBL students reported a greater level of satisfaction when comparing the
PBL course to other non-PBL courses they had previously taken. The faculty
reported PBL students to be more engaged, more motivated, more willing to work
outside of the classroom, more comfortable and engaged in in-house collaborative
74
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
work, and better able to exhibit problem solving skills pertinent to their
workplaces. Administrators suggest the retention rate was higher in the PBL
classroom, although making the association with the PBL method of teaching may
be onerous.
Instructor Assessment
The instructor reported preparation for, instruction of, and assessment of
PBL coursework considerably more time-consuming than that required for non-
PBL courses. The instructor also noted, because faculty are facilitating students in
current relevant real world problem solving, industry networking, research and
currency are paramount for success in PBL courses, where although desirable, are
not necessary in non-PBL courses. While many adjunct faculty maintain at least
part-time proficiency in industry events, many full-time faculty may not maintain a
working-knowledge of current industry operations and events. This may be
problematic for those colleges and universities that do not promote and financially
support faculty development for full-time and adjunct faculty.
Industry Collaboration
Industry collaboration may be beneficial on several levels and speaks to the
need for student work study programs, teaching assistants from industry,
experienced adjunct faculty team teaching with faculty of record, and industry
75
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
mentoring programs. This type of discipline specific collaboration may be
instrumental in developing relevant problem sets, assisting with ephemeral
resources, mentoring or facilitating brainstorming processes, and solution
assessment, presentation and critique phases. The benefits of industry-university
collaboration in PBL classrooms speak to the need for future research.
Interdisciplinary Connections
The instructor was more able to integrate multidisciplinary knowledge and
skills in the PBL classroom than in the non-PBL classroom, which seemed to instill
a greater level of appreciation for both science and core courses. Typically, ERAU
students are more motivated to take aviation related courses as opposed to math or
humanities courses, due to interest and applicability of the subject matter. The
application of PBL enlisted the need to understand statistics, management,
communications, economics, and in some problems, marketing and logistics.
Pre- and Post-Test Outcomes
Pre- and post-test scores variances between the PBL and non-PBL group
differed significantly, indicating the application of problem-based learning to adult
non-traditional students in the Aeronautical Safety Science curriculum was
beneficial in facilitating cognitive retention of the course content. These findings
also demonstrate students’ progress in applying skill sets to ill-structured problems.
76
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
These findings, although promising, may be generalizable only to the Aeronautical
Safety Science curriculum.
Interpretation o f Survey Results
The survey results were instrumental in capturing student perceptions of
problem-based learning. The PBL group was given a survey at the completion of
the course and again six months after the course ended. The second survey was
disseminated to ascertain whether student perspectives changed once they were
able to apply the course skills and content in their workplace. Both sets of survey
responses were positive with very little variance in mean scores, with the exception
of Question 6. An unpaired t test to examine differences in answers to Question 6,
“The PBL projects in this course required more of my time than other projects in
comparable safety courses,” did reveal a statistically significant change in
responses over time. Six months after the course, more students indicated that they
had felt the PBL project had consumed more time than other approaches, t(1.19,
59) 4.98,/? < .0001. This finding implies that students may have valued the PBL
approach more than other, more traditional teaching methodologies, as their overall
satisfaction levels did not appear to change. Surprisingly, the second survey also
elicited more anecdotal responses to the open-ended questions. Many of the
comments were more supportive of the PBL methodology as compared to other
non-PBL courses they had taken or were currently taking subsequent to SFTY 440.
77
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
It is thought that the changes in responses were due in part to comparing the PBL
courses to subsequent courses, rather than courses taken prior to the research.
Some responses indicated dissatisfaction with more traditional lecture
methodologies used in subsequent coursework.
Overall, students indicated dissatisfaction with collaboration required after
classroom hours, citing predominantly that it was difficult for working adults and
working adults with family responsibilities to schedule meeting times conducive to
all group members. In-class collaboration met with approval.
Industry Response
When a need to improve employee skills has been identified, industries
traditionally have turned to short-term, narrowly focused continuing education
courses to meet training needs. As external pressures drive companies to higher
standards, companies look to upgrade existing skills for employees in an effort to
create cross-trained, multi-functional technical employees. Because they are
attempting to keep the workforce lean, companies cannot release employees for
full-time educational activities, but must fit education around work schedules.
Also, companies want instruction to give immediate “value added” for present job
duties. For these reasons, companies have avoided traditional academic courses,
such as mathematics, sciences, and communications offered in traditional settings.
The PBL approach instituted at ERAU counters this resistance by using workplace-
78
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
based problem scenarios that can be designed to meet industry-specific and
academic objectives. Through the integrated content presented in a problem-based
learning format, the workplace relevant approach supplements and strengthens
industry-specific content with appropriate mathematics and communications
content.
Limitations, Conclusions, and Recommendations
Limitations
The findings of this research endeavor indicated it was beyond the scope of
the time allotted and the measurement devices used to adequately assess the impact
of PBL methodology in Aviation Safety curricula to industry (Kirkpatrick’s 4th
level of assessment). Although in developing, facilitating and assessing the
curriculum it was necessary to collaborate with industry personnel to verify the
applicability and relevance of the modules, the impact of safety curricula within the
aviation industry would entail years of collected data. Industry leaders indicated
the best long-term measure would be decreases in occupational losses (including
personnel and equipment) as well as damage to the environment.
Measurement of changes in the PBL group’s responses to Surveys A and B
proved difficult. One common approach to changes in test scores over time, paired,
or matched t tests, could not be conducted for this research component, for two
reasons. First, ERAU policies prohibit tracking of individual student survey
79
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
responses by name or other unique identifier. Thus, matched scores were not
possible. Second, t tests do not lend themselves to measurement of the null
hypothesis, which was the hypothesis of interest in this study. Specifically, the
researcher hoped to demonstrate that student satisfaction with the PBL approach
remained unchanged. There was only one item, question six, which asked about
students’ opinions about the amount of time that PBL projects consumed, versus
projects in other, more traditional teach approaches, that demonstrated any
statistically significant change in student scores.
Conclusions
This study proved beneficial and informative on many levels. First and
foremost, student perceptions were favorable to the PBL format and post-test
scores supported the theory that students would gain a better understanding of
complex System Safety science. Student performance on post-test exams also
demonstrated the students’ abilities to apply new skill sets to ill-structured
problems with minimal assistance. The faculty member noted a greater level of
student participation, motivation, and regulation. Industry guests seemed
impressed by the results of the surveys, participation, and post-test scores. Greater
levels of industry collaboration have been planned for future PBL coursework.
80
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Recommendations
The PBL format was much more time-consuming and resource-consuming
than had originally been anticipated. Specifically, the faculty member noted the
PBL methodology comprised approximately 25% more time for preparation,
instruction, and assessment than did traditional courses. Without additional faculty
support, it would not be recommended to conduct a System Safety course using the
PBL format with more than 25 students in the condensed 10-week schedule. More
in-depth studies should be accomplished to determine the cost associated with
implementing PBL methodology in the Extended Campus network.
Extensive collaboration requirements outside of the classroom are difficult
for non-traditional learners with work and family commitments. Most of the
scheduling conflicts were associated with the large military enrollments, due to
extended work schedules, shiftwork, and deployments. To facilitate PBL
collaboration, students should become more familiar with the attributes of Web-
based software, which enables real-time and delayed discussion boards and chat
rooms. Faculty and industry leaders can also be signed in to the Web-based
environment to mentor online collaborative sessions. Use of such software would
in many cases negate the need for face-to-face meetings and reduce schedule
conflicts.
81
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
R e f e r e n c e s
Air Transport Association of Canada. (2001). Human resource study o f commercial
pilots in Canada. Ottawa, Canada: HRDC.
Air Transport Association of Canada. (2003). Follow-up to the human resource
study o f commercial pilots in Canada. Ottawa, Canada: HRDC.
Airline Transport Association, Office of Economics. (2003). U.S. airlines: The big
picture. Retrieved December 2, 2003, from http://www.airlines.org/econ/
files/EconlOl.pdf
Albanese, M. A., & Mitchell, S. (1993). Problem-based learning: A review of
literature on its outcomes and implementation issues. Academic Medicine,
68, 52-81.
American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE). (2004). What safety professionals
do. Retrieved September 18, 2004, from http://www.asse.org
Aslanian, C. (2001). You’re never too old: Excerpts from Adult Students Today.
Community College Journal, 7/(5), 56-58.
Bahr, N. J. (1997). System Safety Engineering & Risk Assessment (course texts).
Philadelphia, PA: Taylor & Francis.
Baron, L. (2004). Advantages of interdisciplinary teaching and learning. Journal
for the Art o f Teaching. Retrieved March 18, 2004, from
http://academy. fiu.edu/ aatpublicationsj oumal .html
Barrows, H. (2000). Problem-based learning applied to medical education.
Springfield, IL: SIU School of Medicine.
82
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Benshoff, J . M. (1991). Nontraditional college students: A developmental look at
the needs of women and men returning to school. Journal o f Young
Adulthood and Middle Age, 3, 47-61.
Billington, D. D. (1996). Seven characteristics o f highly effective adult learning
programs. Retrieved October 12, 2003, from http://www.newhorizons.org/
lifelong/workplace/billington.htm
Booz, Allen, & Hamilton, Inc. (1996, February). Challenge 2000 reports:
Recommendations for future aviation safety regulations. Shifting roles and
responsibilities between FAA and industry. Retrieved November 27, 2003,
from http://www.faa.gov/avr/AFS/CHAL2000.HTM
The Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University.
(1998). Reinventing undergraduate education: A blueprint for America's
research universities. New York: The Carnegie Foundation for the
Advancement of Teaching. Retrieved February 10, 2004, from
http://naples.cc. sunysb. edu/Pres/boyer .nsf/
Bridges, E. M., & Hallinger, P. (1991, September). Problem-based learning in
medical and managerial education. Paper presented for the Cognition and
School Leadership Conference of the National Center for Educational
Leadership and the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, Nashville,
TN.
Camp, G. (1996). Problem-based learning: A paradigm shift or a passing fad?
Medical Education Online 1:2. Retrieved October 20, 2003, from http://
www.med-ed-online.org/f0000003.htm
Cantor, J. (1992). Delivering instruction to adult learners (pp. 35-43). Toronto:
Wall & Emerson.
Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Safety/Health Awareness for
Preventive Engineering (SHAPE). (1998). System Safety and Risk
Management NIOSH Instructional Manual. Cincinnati, OH: U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services; Public Health Service, Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 96-37768.
83
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Clark, R. E., & Blake, S. B. (1997). Designing for training for novel problem
solving transfer. In R. D. Tennyson, F. Schott, N. Seel, & S. Dijktra (Eds.)
Instructional design: International perspectives, Vol. 1: Theory, research,
and models (pp. 183-214). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Conrad, D. L., & Harris, J. (2003). Aviation, adult learning, and andragogy: A
Canadian perspective. In I. Henley (Ed.), Aviation education and training:
Adult learning principles and teaching strategies. Vermont: Ashgate
Publishing.
Cranton, P. (1992). Working with adult learners (pp. 13-15 and 40-63). Toronto:
Wall & Emerson.
Cross, K. (1980). Our changing students and their impact on colleges: Prospects for
a true learning society. Phi Delta Kappan, 630-632.
Cross, K. P. (1999). Learning is about making connections: The cross papers
number 3. Mission Viejo, CA: League for Innovation in the Community
College and Educational Testing Service.
Cruikshank, D., Bainer, D., & Metcalf, K. (1995). The act o f teaching. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Culliver, J. A. (2000). Effectiveness of problem-based learning curricula: Research
and theory. Academic Medicine, 75(3), 259-266.
Des Marchais, J. E. (1993). A student centered, problem-based curriculum: 5 years’
experience. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 148,1561-1512.
Doerr, J. (1998). The importance of the high-tech industry, the changing economy,
and the need for an educated workforce. Advisory-AEA 3-23-98.
Donaldson, J., Graham, S., Kasworm, C., & Dirkx, J. (1999, April). Adult
undergraduates ’ participation and involvement: Future directions for
theory and research. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Ontario, Canada,
April 19-23. (ED 430 473)
Draper, J. (1998). The metamorphoses of ‘andragogy.’ Canadian Journal for the
Study o f Adult Education, 12(1), 3-26.
84
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Drucker, P. (1999). Knowledge-worker productivity: The biggest challenge.
California Management Review, 41(2).
Ewell, P. T. (1997). Organizing for learning: A new imperative. AAHE Bulletin, 50
(4), 3-6.
Ezzell, M. & Turner, S. (2001, October). The Language of Interdisciplinary
Programs. In The Changing Face o f Adult Learners. Proceedings o f the
Symposium conducted at the Alliance/ACE Conference 2001. Austin Texas:
Adult Higher Education Alliance. Available from: http://www.ahea.org/
0 lproceedings.htm
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). (1996, September). FAA 90 Day Safety
Review. Sept. 16, 1996. Retrieved 12 December 2003 from http://
www.gao.gov/archive/1996.pdf
Freire, P. (1971). Pedagogy o f the Oppressed. New York: Seaview.
Gabric, K., & Ludovice, T. (2003). [The effect of problem-based learning on long
term content retention]. Unpublished manuscript.
Galand, B., Bentein, K., Bourgeois, E., & Frenay, M. (2003, August). The impact
of a PBL curriculum on students' motivation and self-regulation. In D.
Bedard (Chair), Pedagogical innovation in higher education and its impact
on student learning and motivation. Symposium conducted at the Biennial
Conference of European Association for Research on Learning and
Instruction, Padova, Italy.
Haney, W., Russell, M., Gulek, C., & Fierros, E. (1998). Drawing on education:
Using student drawings to promote middle school improvement. Schools in
the Middle, 7(3), 38-43.
Henderson, N. (2004, February 21). Greenspan calls for better-educated workforce.
The Washington Post, p. E01.
Hmelo, C. E., & Evenson, D. H. (2000). Problem-based learning: A research
perspective on learning interactions. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the
literatures. Organizational Science, 2(1), 88-115.
85
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Jones, R. T. (February, 1998) A Changing Workforce in a Changing World. USIA
Electronic Journal, 3(1). Retrieved October 10, 2003 from http://
usinfo. state. gov/j oumals/ites/0298/ij ee/ejj ones.htm
Kasworm, C., & Blowers, S. (1994). Adult undergraduate students: Patterns o f
learning involvement. Final research report. Knoxville, TN: University of
Tennessee.
Kasworm, C., Sandmann, L., & Sissel, P. (2000). Adult learners in higher
education. In A. Wilson & E. Hayes (Eds.), Handbook o f adult and
continuing education (pp. 449-463). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kingsland, A. J. (1996). Time expenditure, workload and student satisfaction in
problem-based learning. In L. Wilkerson & W. H. Gijselaers (Eds.)
Bringing problem-based learning to higher education: Theory and practice
(pp. 73-81). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1994). Evaluating training programs: The 4 levels. San
Francisco: Berret-Kohler.
Knowles, Malcolm S. (1980). The modern practice o f adult education: From
pedagogy to andragogy (rev. ed.). Chicago, IL: Follet Publishing Company.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning. New York: Cambridge.
Lewis, L., & Williams, C. (1994). Experiential learning: past and present. New
Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 62, 5-16. (EJ 492 388)
Longuevan, C. G. (2000). Hewlett problem-based learning initiative PBL course
survey, fall 2000. Engineering, 54.
Marshall, F. R., & Briggs, Jr., V. M. (1989). The economics of education and
training: Competing theories. Labor Economics: Theory, Institutions and
Public Policy (pp. 177-210). Homewood, IL: Irwin.
McLellan, H. (1994). Situated learning: Continuing the conversation. Educational
Technology, 34(8), 7-8. (EJ 491 532)
Mealman, C. (1993). Incidental learning by adults in a nontraditional degree
program: A case study. In K. Freer & G. Dean (Eds.), Proceedings o f the
Twelfth Annual Midwest Research-to-Practice Conference. Columbus, OH:
College of Education, the Ohio State University. (ED 362 663)
86
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Merriam, S. (2001). Andragogy and self-directed learning. In S. Merriam (Ed.),
The new update on adult learning theory. New directions for adult and
continuing education (no. 89, pp. 3-13). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2n d ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Nowak, J. A., & Plucker, J. A. (1999). Do as Isay, not as I do? Student assessment
in problem based learning. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.
Quigley, B. A. (1997). Rethinking literacy education: the critical need for practice-
based change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Reason, J. (1997). Managing the risks o f organizational accidents. Aldershot, UK:
Ashgate.
Reich, P. B. (1991). The work o f nations. New York: Alfred A. Knopf and
Company.
Reynolds, F. (1997). Studying psychology at degree level: Would problem-based
learning enhance students' experiences? Studies in Higher Education, 22,
263-275.
Riley, R. W. (1997, February 18). U.S. Secretary of Education, Fourth Annual
State of American Education Address “Putting Standards of Excellence into
Action.” The Carter Center, Atlanta, Georgia, February 18, 1997.
Royeen, C. B., & Salvatori, P. (1997). Comparison of problem-based learning
curricula in two occupational therapy programmes. Canadian Journal o f
Occupational Therapy, 64(3), 197-202.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1991). Literate expertise. In K.A. Ericcson & J.
Smith (Eds.), Toward a general theory o f expertise (pp. 172-194).
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Sipe, E. (2001). Adult education in the congregation: An andragogical approach.
Lutheran Education, 137(2), 87-94.
Taylor, K., Marienau, C., & Fiddler, M. (2000). Developing adult learners:
Strategies for teachers and trainers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
87
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Taylor-Powell, E., & Renner, M. (2003). Analyzing qualitative data. University of
Wisconsin, Cooperative Extension. Retrieved July 13, 2004, from
http:// cecommerce.uwex. edu/pdfs/G3 65 8_ 12.PDF
Thomas, M., & Chan, L. P. (2002). Achieving learner independence using the
problem-based learning (PBL) approach. Journal o f Language and
Linguistics, 1(3).
Thurrow, L. (1992). Head to Head. New York: William Morrow and Company.
Titmus, C. (1999). Concepts and practices of education and adult education:
obstacles to lifelong education and lifelong learning? International Journal
o f Lifelong Education, 18(5), 343-354.
Tice, E. (1997). Educating adults: A matter of balance. Adult Learning, 9(1), 18-21.
U.S. Census Bureau. (1996). School enrollment—Social and economic
characteristics o f students: October 1996 (Update). Population
Characteristics. Retrieved November 30, 2003, from http://www.
census.gov/prod/3/98pubs/p20-500.pdf
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2004). Census o f fatal
occupational injuries summary, 2003. (USDL Publication No. 04-1830).
Retrieved September 24, 2004, from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/
cfoi.nr0.htm
Vaske, J. M. (2001). Critical thinking in adult education: An elusive quest for a
definition o f the field. Ed.D. Dissertation, Drake University. (ED 456 251)
Vernon, D. T. A., & Blake, R. L. (1993). Does problem-based learning work? A
meta-analysis of evaluative research. Academic Medicine, 68, 550-563.
Vernon, D. T., & Blake, R. L (1993). The approaches to learning of students in
traditional and in an innovative problem-based medical school. Medical
Education, 20, 267-273.
Watkins, K., & Marsick, V. (1992). Toward a theory of informal and incidental
learning in organizations. International Journal o f Lifelong Education,
77(4), 287-300. (EJ 451 048). Retrieved October 11, 2002, from
http://ericacve.org/ docs/leaming.htm
88
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security. (1997). Final report to
President Clinton. Retrieved November 28, 2004, from http://www.fas.org/
irp/threat/212fm~ 1 .html
Wilkerson, L., & Gijselaers, W. H. (1996). Bringing problem-based learning to
higher education: Theory and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
89
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
A p p e n d i x e s
Appendix A: Safety Curriculum—PBL Student Course
Survey
Appendix B: System Safety Pre-Test
Appendix C: System Safety Post-Test
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix A
E m b r y-R id d le A ero n a u tic a l U n iv er sity
A n c h o r a g e Resid e n t C e n t er
S a f e t y C u r r i c u l u m — PBL S t u d e n t C o u r s e S u r v e y
Course ID Term Code Instructor’s Name
SA = Strongly Agree, MA = Moderately Agree, SLA = Slightly Agree, N -
Neutral, SLD = Slightly Disagree, MD = Moderately Disagree, SD - Strongly
Disagree, and TR = Total Responses, AR = Aggregate Responses.
1. The problem-based learning projects in this course encouraged me to integrate
concepts and skills from different disciplines.
2. The problem-based learning projects in this course enabled me to develop a
deeper understanding of System Safety.
SA i ! MA || SLA J N || SLD ! ) MD SD
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
TR || AR
SA MA I SLA 1 N j SLD f MD ij SD
1 I 2 3 4 5 1 6 I 7
TR I A R
91
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3. The problem-based learning project in this course provided peer and group
interactions useful to me in completing the assignment.
SA 1 MA SLA
1 j 2 | 3
N
4
SLD
5
i MD !
6
SD |
7 !
•
TR | AR
......._ .... J L ..........| ............
!
4. The problem-based learning projects in this course helped me to improve my
oral communication skills.
SA
1
MA
2
SLA
3
N
4
SLD
5
MD
6
SD
7
TR AR
5. The problem-based learning projects used in this course helped me to apply
new knowledge to real-world scenarios.
SA j ; MA ; i SLA f n 1 SLD ! MD 1 SD i ! _ j [ A O
1 3 2 3 3 1 4 ; 5 I 6 I 7 i i I
6. The problem-based learning projects in this course required more of my time
than other projects in comparable safety courses.
SA 1 MA 1 SLA :f n f SLD I MD 1 SD I _ 1 A D
1 2 « 3 J 4 J 5 6 7 | J
92
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
7. How would you compare your experience in the problem-based learning
course with your experience in other non-PBL courses?
I
8. How did you benefit by participating in this course’s problem-based learning
projects?
9. How would you improve the problem-based learning projects for this course?
10. Do you think similar problem-based learning projects should be part of other
courses you will be taking? Whv or why not?
93
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix B
Sy stem Sa fe t y Pr e-test
P r etest-S y stem Sa fety a n d Sa fety P r o g r a m M a n a g em en t
This pretest is an instructional tool to assist the instructor in establishing a
baseline understanding in the subject matter and to determine knowledge gain at
the end of the course. The score on this exam will have no impact on your final
grade and will not be included in the final measurement outcome. Please answer
the following questions to the best of your ability (you may use this form and the
blank paper provided). You have two hours to complete the exam.
1. (5 Points) Explain and contrast the concepts of Compliance Safety and
System Safety.
2. (5 Points) The most cost-effective way to control risks is to implement a
comprehensive system safety program throughout the product or system
life-cycle (from cradle to grave). Please define the stages in an aircraft life
cycle.
3. (5 Points) Describe the overall purpose of the system safety process. How
would this process benefit your workplace?
94
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
4. (10 points) Draw a flow chart to illustrate the steps of the system safety
process.
5. (5 Points) Referencing this flow chart, list the system safety tools you
would employ to execute steps 2, 3, and 4.
6. (10 Points) Referencing this flow chart, discuss the system safety tools you
would employ to execute the risk management section (steps 5-10) of the
process.
7. (10 Points) Define the following symbols and logic gates used in a Fault
Tree Analysis:
a. b. c. d. e. f.
8. (20 Points) In October of 2001, a Cessna Caravan 210 crashed three
minutes after takeoff, .5 miles from the end of the runway in Dillingham,
Alaska. All 10 souls on board received fatal injuries. Create a Fault Tree
Analysis (minimum 4 levels, not including the initial Intermediate Event) to
illustrate the potential causal factors for this crash.
9. (5 points) Using Reason’s SHEL Model, select and define a system in your
workplace (examples might include: launching, fueling, pre-flighting or de-
icing an aircraft; loading cargo or passengers; performing a maintenance
operation, etc.)
10. (10 Points) Draw a standard Risk Assessment Matrix (RAM) and define the
levels of probability and severity for the system you defined in Question 9.
95
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
11. (15 points) Identify 2 potential hazards in your system. Using the RAM
you created in Question 10, assess the potential risk of these hazards.
Complete the Risk Assessment Worksheet below for these two hazards.
System:
Control
#
Hazard
Descrip
tion
Potential
Causal
Factors
Potential
Effects
Hazard
Risk
Code
Hazard
Control
Recom m en
dation
Effect o f
Recom m en
dation Risk
Code
Hazard
#1
Hazard
#2
96
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Appendix C
Sy st e m S a fe t y P o st-test
P o sttest-Sy stem Sa fety a n d Sa fety P ro g ra m M a n a g em en t
Please answer the following questions to the best of your ability (you may use this
form and the blank paper provided). You have two hours to complete the exam.
1. (5 Points) Hazard Controls fall into two broad categories-please list and
define these two categories.
2. (5 Points) The System Safety Process entails the implementation of a
comprehensive system safety program throughout the product or system
life-cycle (from cradle to grave). Please define life-cycle stages of a hangar
facility.
3. (5 Points) What is the purpose of the System Safety Process. Give an
example (real or potential) illustrating the benefit of this process in your
workplace?
4. (10 points) Draw a flow chart to illustrate the steps of the system safety
process.
5. (5 Points) Referencing this flow chart, list the system safety tools you
would employ to execute steps 2, 3, and 4.
97
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
6. (10 Points) Referencing this flow chart, discuss the system safety tools you
would employ to execute the risk management section (steps 5-10) of the
process.
7. (10 Points) Define the following symbols and logic gates used in a Fault
Tree Analysis:
a. b. c. d. e. f .
8. (20 Points) In November of 2000, an aircraft mechanic was servicing the
landing gear of a Beechcrafit 99 Queenair in a hangar in Talkeetna, Alaska.
He was crushed to death when the aircraft fell on him. Create a Fault Tree
Analysis (minimum 4 levels, not including the initial Intermediate Event) to
illustrate the potential causal factors for this event.
9. (5 points) Using Reason’s SHEL Model, select and define a facility
associated with your work environment (examples might include: a hangar;
Fixed Base Operation; maintenance facility; Air Traffic Control Tower;
Hazardous Materials (HAZMAT) storage facility; fuel bam; engine test
cell; etc.)
10. (10 Points) Draw a standard Risk Assessment Matrix (RAM) and define the
levels of probability and severity for the facility you defined in Question 9.
11. (15 points) Identify 2 hazards in your facility. Using the RAM you created
in Question 10, assess the potential risk of these hazards. Complete the
Risk Assessment Worksheet below for these two hazards.
98
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
System:
C o n t r o l
#
Hazard
D escrip
tion
Potential
Causal
Factors
Potential
Effects
H a z a r d
Risk
Code
Hazard
Control
R e c o m m e n
d a t i o n
Effect o f
Recom m en
dation Risk
Code
H a z a r d
#1
H a z a r d
#2
99
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

A comparison of the perceptions of senior and junior enlisted Air Force personnel concerning deterrents to enrollment in and completion of adult education courses by junior personnel

PDF

A comparative case study: Tutoring in reading in two settings

PDF

Cost of university -based online, distributed, and traditional learning

PDF

Fulfilling the mission to serve the underserved: A case study of a private, Catholic, urban college's two -year program

PDF

An analysis of the implementation of content standards in selected unified school districts of California

PDF

California school dropouts: An analysis of the common characteristics and duration of programs identified as successful in retaining students in school

PDF

Development of a diagnostic tool for assessing knowledge management

PDF

Implementation of literature circles in a rural high school English class: One teacher's journey of changing student attitudes toward reading

PDF

Evaluation of the effects of a continuous improvement program on special education student achievement

PDF

A quantitative and qualitative study of computer technology and student achievement in mathematics and reading at the second- and third-grade levels: A comparison of high versus limited technolo...

PDF

A qualitative exploratory study of a proceduralized system to learning key sport knowledge: Will a proceduralized approach enhance cognitive aspects of sport team performance?

PDF

Exploring a team-based model for organizing schools: The case of Fenton Avenue Charter School

PDF

A case study of teacher evaluation and supervision at a high performing urban elementary school

PDF

Current and future managerial competency requirements for manufacturing, assembly, and /or material processing functions

PDF

A longitudinal comparative study of the effects of charter schools on minority and low-SES students in California

PDF

Comparing practices to foster values in charter, parochial, and traditional public schools

PDF

Class size reduction: A case study

PDF

Improving math and science education in charter secondary schools through the use of technology

PDF

Filmmaking, language and culture learning in higher education: A USC case study

PDF

A study of doctoral student -advisor satisfaction: Considering gender and ethnic grouping at a private research university

Asset Metadata

Creator Moran, Katherine Ann (author)

Core Title Implementing and assessing problem -based learning in non -traditional post -secondary aviation safety curricula: A case study

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag education, curriculum and instruction,education, tests and measurements,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Rueda, Robert (committee chair), Hentschke, Guilbert (committee member), Hocevar, Dennis (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-420217

Unique identifier UC11340756

Identifier 3155453.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-420217 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 3155453.pdf

Dmrecord 420217

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Moran, Katherine Ann

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA