Learning within the field of aerospace control has countless hurdles for individuals who attempt a career in this difficult vocation. Hurdles can be in the form of learning within a high stress environment, complexity of material, technology overload, and even financial considerations for training. Xing and Manning (2005) describe air traffic control, a branch within aerospace control, as a “dynamic environment where controllers constantly receive a large volume of information from multiple sources to monitor changes in the environment, make decisions, and perform effective actions in a timely manner” (p. 1). Learning environments that have heavy complexity such as the one described above require extremely efficient and effective curricula, instruction, and learning resources in order to provide students with the best chance of success. Instructional designers have a huge task, specifically described by Ertmer and Newby to “translate principles of learning and instruction into specifications for instructional materials and activities” within the realm of aerospace control education (as cited in Smith & Ragan, 1993, p. 12). But apart from providing key instructional design elements, which are integral to any learning course design, Ertmer and Newby (2013) suggest and more poignantly argue the notion that instructional designers should be urged to consider which learning theory is applicable to the learning environment of interest (see also Snelbecker, 1983). Although it may seem highly relevant for instructional designers to take learning theories into account in relation to their work, “less than two percent of the courses offered in university curricula in the general area of educational technology emphasize ‘theory’ as one of their key concepts” (Ertmer & Newby, 2013, p. 45). This lends to the possible issue that instructional designers are not routinely defining which learning theory(ies) is/are applicable to their job at hand. The question in this introductory blog entry seeks to answer the question: what applicable learning theory applies best to aerospace control?
In order to answer the above question, one first must know how to distinguish one learning theory from another. Ertmer and Newby (2013) propose five “definitive questions that serve to distinguish each learning theory from others: how does learning occur? which factors influence learning? What is the role of memory? How does transfer occur? And what types of learning are best explained by the theory?” (p. 46). In applying these questions to the job learning environment within aerospace control, cognitivism theory most closely aligns itself in the context to answering the five questions posed by Ertmer and Newby. In aerospace control, learning occurs based on how information is obtained through knowledge acquisition and internal mental structures (Ertmer & Newby, 2013; see also Bower & Hilgard, 1981). Instructors apply set discrete expected knowledge and proficiency levels that students must attain. Note, a student’s proficiency level may not meet the expected proficiency level within a particular phase of aerospace control training. Aerospace control learning emphasizes the role of environmental factors as key influencers in learning which aligns itself with cognitivism. In terms of when the transfer occurs, as described by Ertmer and Newby (2013), “transfer occurs when a learner understands how to apply knowledge in different contexts” (pg. 52). This also aligns very readily with aerospace control learning and instruction in that aerospace controllers must demonstrate application of knowledge through pre-set simulator exercises as they progress through training phases. “Workers in the aviation environment are often highly skilled professionals who are required to have a large body of knowledge ready for application in a range of contexts; trainers with an understanding of cognitive processes…are better equipped to assist trainees in the type of preparation needed to function in highly skilled and demanding jobs” such as those in the aerospace control community (Henley, 2003, pg. 17). Although it appears that aerospace control learning environments readily support cognitivism theory, it does not necessarily mean that this is the best theory or only theory to apply to such a complex learning environment. A more comprehensive analysis of aerospace control training as a whole would be required in order to properly deduce what main theory(ies) is/are most relevant to today’s learners and learning environments.
Reference
Bower, G.H., & Hilgard, E.R. (1981). Theories of learning (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall
Ertmer. P., & Newby, T. (2013). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 23(2), 43-71. doi: 10.1002/piq
Henley, I.M.A. (2003). Aviation Education and Training. London: Rutledge
Smith, P.L., & Ragan, T.J. (1993). Instructional Design. New York: Macmillan
Snelbecker, G.E. (1983). Learning theory, instructional theory, and psychoeducational design. New York: McGraw-Hill
Xing, J., & Manning, C.A. (2005). Complexity and automation displays of air traffic control: Literature review and analysis (Report No. DOT/FAA/AM-05/4). Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration.
Recent Comments