Learning Styles and their relevance to Pilot Training

It is hoped that this document will get a wide readership and generate some constructive comments from students and instructors alike and be considered a reasonable topic for discussion.

There are many ways of looking at training. Obviously there are more ways than looking from just the provider’s and/or customer’s point of view. Whichever way we view training there will be common factors to take into account and similar results expected however we look. It is suggested here that in all cases the 5E’s described here are relevant. When the customer is satisfied and successful after training (T) then T=5*E or if not then T=5E-k where k is the missing E or other component(s) but may often be any or all of the 5 suggested Elements. The views expressed here are partly based on experiences gained over many years whilst employed mainly in the public sector fire and rescue services. It was common to have a broad-ranging and mixed population of candidates for training courses. The same issues are still evident today in the private sector flight training world. The same difficulties arise with monotonous regularity, will we ever learn how to learn? Many other E words come into play as above including employment and employability, evidence and experience but restricting this discussion to the first 5 E’s some opinions are offered here. It seems entirely relevant given my observations.

The Author has experienced modular flight training with various providers for the purposes of gaining qualifications i.e. JAA ATPL theory, CPL(A), FI(A), MEP, IR and instructor ratings for Night, Aeros and IMC in recent years. Whilst gaining these ratings he has worked as a freelance instructor and aerial photographer for small companies and FTO’s with relevant approvals and for private flying groups as owner, check pilot and instructor. As a professional pilot, manager and mentor a common theme has been to observe behaviours in all of the companies and courses involved in this low level study. Initially the 5 elements will be introduced and some questions posed that may be answered or not, as we progress. The views are variously taken from viewpoints relevant to the matters being discussed. Not that long ago the Audit Commission used the “first 3 E’s” to great effect in the 80’s when examining public sector organisations and exposing inefficiency fitness for purpose and waste .

Economy in Training. Training managers, teachers and some instructors may already have realised that this article will deal with learning styles and attitudes of the providers and customers. The straining of the relationship between the two parties and the likelihood of their being a mismatch of aims and expectations at some point during training is highly likely in certain circumstances. Customers may discontinue at great loss to their wallets and confidence levels let alone their learning. For example, let us look at a young and confident would be professional pilot who is highly motivated to fly (for whatever reason) and who may somehow scrape together in excess of £25,000 in order to gain his necessary licence and first rating via the modular route. It may or may not involve big and expensive loans and guarantors for the staged release of funds. Let us look at the stages. Stage 1 of the process involves the theory examinations ideally after a successful medical. How does one choose the level of training and the provider? Do we believe the adverts or have we been contacted in a marketing exercise. Perhaps one has been recommended to the organisation by a colleague or by an acquaintance? It would appear obvious to a training provider that the student should train with said company because after all, the company has CAA approval for JAA compliant courses and this is not easy to achieve. Many have done this however and there is a wide choice. Sadly, of course, this holding of a UK FTO number will not necessarily be an indicator of whether or not any particular teacher/instructor can impart the necessary knowledge in the allotted time or to the necessary level, regardless of the perceived or advertised prestige of the organisation. What then is the likely outcome of handing over several or even many thousands pounds Sterling, of Euros or even dollars in hard won cash? Can one predict the economic value of a course before it is begun?

It is not only possible, it is essential to know that one’s training is not simply expected to be, but actually will be, economically delivered and received. Economics are not the only or even the main issue here but a cost benefit analysis of some sort is key. There are few guarantees and certainly no free lunches.

Efficient Training. This element is aimed mainly at the provider who may ask, “Is the syllabus content delivered in a way that provides hard copy of the necessary knowledge and explanations of the many concepts in a way that is not wasteful of resources, be they material, human or time based?” Is rote learning sufficient or is knowledge transfer with understanding highly valued? The student may not be consciously concerned with the logical progression of the course taking her along from the unknown through knowledge acquisition to a new and more informed level. Some progression is bound to occur, but with uncertainty that it will be timely and organised and at the right level for the particular exam or test. Inefficiency may lead to dissatisfaction and high stress. Examinations must be taken only when ready.

Effective Training. Training must be effective in delivering that which was promised in a way that can be used for the purpose agreed at the outset. Was enough promised or too much, perhaps? Allied to a quality monitoring process the results in this area may be assessed partly through customer feedback including visits to the PPRuNe forums. Did the training deliver the skills and knowledge required in a way that was recognisable let alone measurable? Is the course and syllabus content relevant and if not why not? A diversion here might be to the ATPL theory syllabus but let us not digress just now! We live in hope of more relevant subject matter.

Enabling Training. If training is undertaken for a specific task it follows that at the end of the training period or course the student must be enabled to do the job that required that training to be undertaken. This must be believed by the student and reinforced by the offer of employment or at least some interest in her newly gained skills, knowledge and attitudes. Unemployed trained people are unacceptable but common and to some extent inevitable in the aviation industry.

Evaluated Training. At completion of training most students will acquire the expected rating or examination passes, be it in theory or on skill test. What of those who do not pass first time? Whose responsibility was it to ensure a satisfactory completion and can it be ensured? Obviously there is an informal if not a formal contract between provider and student. Is it implicit that the student will be successful if she follows the course as instructed? Who takes responsibility for the failure and drop out i.e. wastage rates and do we acknowledge these publicly? The provider takes cash in exchange for a training course that is meant to equip one for some part of the professional pilot training regime but how can anyone judge whether size of payment is a good way to gauge the quality of said training? In order to be sure of receiving adequate let alone exceptional training, surely, there must be some sort of evaluation process be it formal or informal. It is important to know whether a student can absorb the knowledge in the time and with the teaching methods employed. Some investigation may help to assess this.

Up to this point many questions have been posed and remain as yet unanswered. Now we will look at what ways that may help address some of the issues raised. The dual concepts of teaching and learning are key. It is widely accepted these days in the training world at least, that maximum communication occurs between teacher and pupil when teaching and learning styles match. Our learning style is linked to our personality and a student that has to adapt to the style of the teacher is subjected to unnecessary stress that will impede progress albeit on a sliding scale up to the point where we use the phrase “personality clash”. Good teachers know this and can vary their dominant teaching style to meet the needs of the student. It follows that if we know our own personality type and our own preferred and dominant learning style that we can at least in theory choose our teachers more easily, so matching like with like. If this seems obvious then why does it not happen on a most regular basis? Is it really that difficult? Of course not, but the pressure to sign up students can get in the way of providing true learning opportunities. Course timings are most likely directly linked to costing not to learning. We therefore seek the brightest and hope that they may be the best. This is of course unlikely to be true at all times.

This potential and in fact common dilemma raises some serious issues because it would appear that commercial enterprises without a wide selection of competent and well-educated teaching staff must by definition have less than the very best, flexible teachers available. This means teachers that can change their style at will to suit their students will be highly sought after and probably better suited to their instructional roles. Achieving this match may be easier in a one to one situation but what of the mass delivery of knowledge to an eclectic collection of individuals by correspondence or in class, be they young and old, male or female, culturally diverse or in some other way challenged when compared to their peers? Fortunately help is available from a number of sources including from self-help literature, over the internet or by engaging a professional consultancy. The psychological classification of people is now much better understood and has been widely published. It is reputedly soundly based following on from many broad ranging studies over many years carried out by distinguished and internationally renowned psychologists, mainly during the 20th century. This knowledge may be used to great effect in training but the motivation is not always present and the rewards not fully understood.

People may be broadly classified as introvert, extrovert, judgemental, practical, thinking or feeling, logical or intuitive and many others classifications too. This kind of grading was regularly used in testing for career placement and vetting. Many managers will remember their Belbin or Myers-Briggs types. Airline pilots said to ideally be stable extroverts with perhaps fairly even scores in other areas. These scores would be sought to prevent the problems that became evident as mass jet travel and its related accidents became subjects of media interest. This resulted in the introduction of Crew Resource (Awareness and) Management CR(A)M training. To find out what type you might be classified as one could take one or more of the many tests but to simply illustrate the point, take a few seconds here, be open minded and answer this multiple-choice question:

Whatever choice is made there will be an element of our personality that dictates it. This is so because of who we are and how we like to operate. For any one of us there is no wholly right or wrong answer. Each is acceptable if that is what we believe is the right course for our own personal style, development & skill acquisition. Knowing this, we can, at least in theory, take the training from a source that matches our preferred method of learning. Ask yourself this; will my chosen training provider be able to provide the training that I require in the style that I require, thus enabling me to learn with the fullest communication and the least amount of negative stress? If there are others on the course will we all be the same style of learner?, will our personality types be complimentary, tolerant or adversarial?. We know from how and whom we associate with, that we tend to gravitate toward those who we see as similar, just as we tend to gravitate to the jobs that suit our personalities, if we are to be working in low stress situations. For many however the perceived glamour of aviation skews the situation. From simple animal behavioural studies we know that if we mimic the members of the group, smile and be compliant we will be seen as friendly and treated as “One of Us”. Sales people know this and it helps us at interviews too. This is how some professional organisations carry on. They tend to develop their own jargon and protective professional associations. The world of flight training is no different and this behaviour is in fact innately human and the basis of our social interactions. It is something for which we need to be vigilant and use it to our own advantage and recognise when it is being used against us and for profit.

To apply the learning styles principle to modular training all we need to do is employ some criteria for selection, first to providers and then to potential learners. Really, it is fairly easy but not necessarily efficient, to produce the same information in many different formats i.e. in simple illustrated texts, CD, video, detailed manuals, individual case studies, self-test questionnaires, broad-based discussion groups, group and individual projects to research skills and attitudes, providing solutions to problems, formal lectures and traditional teaching sessions using projectors, chalk or white boards visual aids, models and handouts etc. Surely we do all of these to get the best from our staff and students? No? Well it is about time we did. The “tick in the box” mentality must not prevail. Immediately, our left-brain dominant logical thinkers will be feeling sceptical because their own style is dominant and one style fits all until there is solid proof that they must change. Conversely the right brain dominant, intuitive and creative types will see endless possibilities and be enthused to add some more channels of distribution for their hard won knowledge and skills.

This article is written to provoke discussion and to add to the debate about the need for professionals with improved qualifications (not sure which ones yet) for flight instructors. Any feedback will be welcomed and may be discussed directly with the author through email to: damian@skywalkerassociates.co.uk.

It would be interesting to know how others view the topics raised here before developing the themes any further. I am sure that there must be others who have dealt with this in the training arena but I fear that they may be few and mainly unheeded. Perhaps cash-flow is king and times are difficult but can we do better? Do we really need to be professionally qualified in teaching or not. Would or could a suitable course be easily put together to pass on the basis of the learning styles method. Is it true that things are satisfactory at present?

---o0o---