Using a blended learning instructional design for ...

Sury, P., Riesen, P., Nef, J., & Schwaninger, A. (2011). Using a blended learning instructional design for secure handling of air cargo. In Gesellschaft für Arbeitswissenschaft (Ed.). Mensch, Technik, Organisation - Vernetzung im Produktentstehungs- und herstellungsprozess, 845-848.

1

Using a blended learning instructional design for secure handling of air cargo Philipp SURY, Pascal RIESEN, Jasmin NEF und Adrian SCHWANINGER School of Applied Psychology, University of Applied Sciences Northwestern Switzerland Riggenbachstr. 16, CH-4600 Olten Summary: Container security and contraband interdiction in air cargo have become highly relevant topics at airports all over the world. The European Union (EU, 2010) requires detailed measures for standards in the field of aviation security that also cover training and certification of security personnel. In Switzerland, the same standards are being enacted by the Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA, 2010). The training for security personnel is rather widespread and covers topics as for example legal requirements, the history of terrorists' acts and current threats, the ability to identify prohibited articles, proficiency in emergency response procedures, and many more. To efficiently train these complex topics we use a blended learning instructional design that is based on the E-CLASS (Gerson, 2000) and the four step cognitive method (Murphy, Neequaye, Kreckler & Hands, 2008). At the conference we will demonstrate these educational concepts in the environment of air cargo security and how they are to be evaluated according to Kirkpatrick (2010). Key words: blended learning, aviation security. 1. Introduction Aviation is one of the key industries on a worldwide scale. The transportation of goods and passengers by means of airways is a major facilitator of the global economy. Because of its economic importance and the huge public interest in incidents involving aircraft, aviation is an attractive target for unlawful interferences based on a range of motives. To protect human beings, goods, and infrastructure, various organizations connected with aviation have to implement extensive security measures. High quality security measures require high quality training of human operators. Despite the high evolvement of modern technology, in the end it is still the human operators who need to assess a current situation and react accordingly. High quality training programs are about meeting required learning objectives in the most efficient way possible. For this purpose, we use a blended learning approach (Bonk, 2006) to draw from the strengths of both computer based training (CBT) and the traditional training in face to face settings (F2F). The field of aviation security is highly regulated by the European Union (EU, 2010) and the Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA, 2010) in the case of Switzerland as she enacts the same regulations as the EU. Every terror event adds up to increasingly tighter regulations as for example in the field of air cargo with the recent Yemen based parcel bomb plot (CNN Wire Staff, 2010). Due to these regulations high demands in training program

2 quality are established while airlines, airports and security operators are pressed to save money. It therefore has to be shown if fresh innovations in the field of security training programs allow to meet the high demands in training as well as being as efficient as possible. In this context, a systematic evaluation of training programs is the cornerstone to the answer of whether those programs actually meet the requirements in quality or not. Research shows, however, that in modern organizations evaluations hardly go beyond the measurement of the trainees’ satisfaction with the training (Kauffeld, Brennecke, & Strack, 2009). For the purpose of evaluating training programs in the field of aviation security, we suggest the four step method by Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick (2006). This method delivers a profound understanding of training efficiency and is considered a wellestablished tool. 2. Methods For the purpose of delivering our security training programs, we will use two methods. For the CBT part of the security training program we use Gerson’s (2000) E-CLASS model. The E-CLASS model provides a structure for CBT modules geared towards a high recollection performance of the learning content. Therefore every lesson in our security training program is built according to the following steps: Table 1:

The E-CLASS structure of a blended learning lesson.

E-CLASS Step Explain Clarify Look Act & Share

Self Evaluate Summary

Explanation Used to motivate the student by explaining the lesson’s purpose and connected benefits. The main part where theory and the learning content in general is being presented. In this part, one or several examples are being presented to illustrate what previously was discussed in theory. In this part, students are supposed to act and work with the learning content for example by solving problems, write summaries, give presentations, engage in groups discussions, etc. In the self evaluate part students solve test questions autonomously to verify whether they have reached the lesson’s learning objectives or not. The summary provides a “take home message”, in other words the most important parts of the lesson condensed into a couple short sentences to be remembered.

For the delivery of the F2F part of the security training program (located in the act & share part of the E-CLASS structure) we use the four step cognitive method by Murphy, Neequaye, Kreckler & Hands (2008). The four step cognitive model uses a series of simple repetitions to boost students learning performance. Table 2:

Step

The four step cognitive model for F2F instruction.

Instructor and student behavior

2 1 2 3 4

The instructor silently performs the task. The student silently observes. The instructor performs the task and continuously provides comments. The student silently observes. The instructor silently performs the task. The student continuously provides comments. The student performs the task and continuously provides comments. The instructor corrects the student where needed.

Results by Murphy et al. (2008) show that the four step cognitive model leads to shorter instruction times despite the innate repetitions and students show better final performance compared to a control group in a field experiment. The evaluation of our security training program is based on the evaluation tool as explained in Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick (2006) and Kirkpatrick (2010). Kirkpatrick (2010) describes a list of four simple evaluation steps to determine the benefits of a training program: Table 3:

Kirkpatrick’s (2010) four steps evaluation tool.

Step 1

Name Reaction

2

Learning

3

Behavior

4

Results

Explanation This step deals with how favorable students reacted to the training, how they liked it, whether they found it useful or not, etc. This information is typically being collected using questionnaires. This step tests how much the students retained of the learning content. Usually they have to perform some sort of final exam. This step deals whether the newly acquired learning content is being transferred into the daily work routine or not. Work analysis is the typical tool for this step. This step is concerned with the training program’s economic benefits for a company. The challenge in this step is to find key performance indicators (KPI) that validly reflect the former students’ performance.

3. Next steps In a next step we plan to deliver and analyze the performance of our security training program by means of a security organization willing to participate in a field experiment that involves a training and a control group. Training is expected to start in spring 2011, results are expected for fall 2011 and will be presented at the GfA spring conference in 2012. 5. Literature 1. Bonk, C.J. & Graham, C. R. (2006). The handbook of blended learning: global perspectives, local designs. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

2 2. CNN Wire Staff (2010). Yemen-based al Qaeda group claims responsibility for the parcel bomb plot. Retrieved January 17, 2011, from http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/11/05/yemen.security.concern/?hpt=T2 3. European Commission. (2010). Commission regulation (EU) No 185/2010 of March 2010 laying down detailed measures for the implementation of the common basic standards on aviation security. Official Journal of the European Union. 4. Federal Office of Civil Aviation. (2010). National civil aviation security programme. [CD-ROM]. Bern: Swiss Federal Government. 5. Gerson, Steven M. (2000). E-CLASS: Creating a Guide to Online Course Development For Distance Learning Faculty. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, Volume 3, Issue 4. Retrieved June 14, 2010, from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/winter34/gerson34.html 6. Kauffeld, S., Brennecke, J., & Strack, M. (2009). Erfolge sichtbar machen: Das MassnahmenErfolgs-Inventar (MEI) zur Bewertung von Trainings. In S. Kauffeld, S. Grote & E. Frieling (Eds.), Handbuch Kompetenzentwicklung (pp. 55-78). Stuttgart: Schäffer-Poeschel. 7. Kirkpatrick, D. (2010). The philosophy behind the Kirkpatrick model. Retrieved June 28, 2010, from http://www.kirkpatrickpartners.com/OurPhilosophy/tabid/66/Default.aspx 8. Kirkpatrick, D. L., & Kirkpatrick, J. D. (2006). Evaluating training programs: The four levels. San Francisco: Berret-Koehler Publishers. 9. Murphy, M.A., Neequaye, S., Kreckler, S. & Hands, L. J. (2008). Should we train the trainers? Results of a randomized trial. Journal of the American College of Surgeons, Vol 207, No. 2, 185190.