Posts made in November, 2020

Theoretical Frameworks – Meaning and Understanding Please

Posted By Mark on Nov 29, 2020

My titled ARP as of so far is “Air Traffic Control Training Addressing Student Task Saturation through the Use of Simulator Technologies by the Royal Canadian Air Force.” My main question of research: In what ways might technology be used to address concerns of trainee task saturation during air traffic control simulator training?

In approaching this research project, I am currently looking at two theoretical frameworks that may fit the bill for this project. Firstly, Technology Acceptance Model (TAM): the model that answers the question, why do people use technology? Under the TAM model, people use technology because of its ease of use and perceived usefulness (Davis, Bagozzi, & Warshaw, 1989; see also Venkatesh & Davis, 2000). Portz, et al. (2019) states “the theory posits that a person’s intent to use and usage behavior of a technology is predicated by the person’s perceptions of the specific technology’s usefulness” (p. 1). Secondly, the theory of cognitive apprenticeship will also be used as a theoretical framework. Cognitive apprenticeship is defined as “learning-through-guided-experience on cognitive and metacognitive, rather than physical, skills and processes” (Collins, Brown, & Newman, 1989, p. 456). Cognitive apprenticeship is a model of instruction that works to make thinking visible; it is composed on four main concepts: methods, ways to promote the development of expertise; sequencing, keys to ordering learning activities; sociology, social characteristics of learning environments; and content, types of knowledge required for expertise (Collins, Brown, & Holum, 1991).  Much of air traffic control instructional practices are based on the underlying processes of cognitive apprenticeship due to the complex-tasks students must be able to demonstrate consistently throughout their training.

Questions

• Is the TAM model an appropriate framework for assumptions in reference to my research question?
• What issues, if any, may I have when using the TAM model framework?
• Is cognitive apprenticeship an acceptable theoretical framework or is it more of a way of instructing then a framework itself?
• What positives, if any, do you see if I use these frameworks in reference to my research question?

Collins, A., Brown, J.S., & Holum, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship: Making thinking visible. American Educator, 15(3), 6-11. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.124.8616&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Collins, A., Brown, J.S., & Newman, S.E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the craft of reading, writing, and mathematics. Knowing, Learning, and Instruction: Essays in Honor of Robert Glaser, L.B. Resnick (Eds.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P., & Warshaw, P.R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Managing Science, 35(8), 982-1003. doi: https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982

Portz, J.D., Bayliss, E.A., Bull, S., Boxer, R.S., Bekelman, D.B., Gleason, K., & Czaja, S. (2019). Using the technology acceptance model to explore user experience, intent to use, and use behavior of a patient portal among older adults with multiple chronic conditions: Descriptive qualitative study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 21(4). doi: 10.2196/11604

Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F.D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186-204. doi: https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926

Disseminating my ARP

Posted By Mark on Nov 9, 2020

In terms of disseminating my final product, I have already been invited to present my paper and research to the Aerospace Control Advisory Group (ACAG). For those who did not read my PADLET post, I am an Aerospace Control Officer within the Royal Canadian Air Force and my main specialty is Air Traffic Control. The ACAG is a high-ranking military group of senior Aerospace Control officers whose main purpose is to evaluate and make key decisions into the training and operations carried out by all Aerospace Control Officers within the Canadian Armed Forces. This include both domestic and international operations…combined and joint operations. One of my senior officers has already said they are interested in hearing my finding in terms of how they can better train air traffic controllers. The military spends significant resources to train just one air traffic controller, yet due to the high-stressors within the training and the equally high-standards required to pass both knowledge and practical based assessments, many students are not successful. The Aerospace Control training community has worked hard to innovate the training within the past decade in order to bring down the failure rate within the training programs. With domestic and international operational commitments on the rise and combined with a World that appears to becoming more unstable, the Canadian Armed Forces cannot afford to fail students of any trade.

One of my goals in taking on a Master’s Degree was to aid the aerospace control community in some shape or form. As I thoroughly enjoy teaching air traffic control students in all phases of training, it made sense to do an applied research project to help aid the ACAG group in making training better and students more successful. The ACAG group meets usually twice a year and I most likely will be invited once finished my Master’s to present my research project paper in an open forum with most senior level military brass within my trade. I look forward to making a difference but also completing this undertaking myself.