<Previous Displaying 2/2 Page 1, 2
View Article as Single page
The Next Generation Learner
While face-to-face learning remains significant, there is a change coming. Werth and Werth point out that a “generational shift is occurring in training environments worldwide.”19 The labels commonly applied to emerging adult populations [Baby Boomer, Generation X, and Millennials (also referred to as Generation Y, Nexters, the Net Generation, and Gamers)] “present a problem for those who depend on traditional training methods to prepare them for work in a variety of professions.” (19) This emerging trend as these adult learners move into the fire and emergency services professions will require the NFA to keep current with their learning needs.
Holyoke and Larson, in a comparative study of learning preferences among these three described generations, reported that “teachers and trainers of adult learners need to be aware of generational characteristics when developing lesson plans and training materials. Combining generational understanding with current adult learner theory provides a unique teaching as well as learning experience.”20
Even this new generation of learners prefers a variety of learning methods. Bracy, Beavill, and Roach21 report students requested that instructors do the following:
Vary the type of technology used. Even with their passion for IT, Millennial students prefer moderate use of technology in the classroom; in fact, the actual use of technology is not as important as the activity the technology allows students to do.22 When technology is used in class, it should vary; use different tools such as PowerPoint presentations, social networks, podcasts, streaming videos, blogs, virtual games, video clips, etc. Kvavik and Caruso refer to this as “Edutainment.”23
Educators should balance the use of technology in classes with other activities such as lectures, guest speakers, group assignments, interactive and hands-on activities, and class discussions. This will not only satisfy the Millennials’ preference for moderate use of technology in the classroom but also their desire for team collaboration, and it will keep them from boring so easily by switching up the delivery day to day [emphasis in original].
It is important to note that the NFA already is moving in that direction at a pace that meets its diverse constituents’ expectations and needs. As fire and emergency services’ demographics change, the NFA will continue to evolve its training and education methods based on sound needs assessment and analysis principles.
Some may argue that simply converting existing content to distance learning formats will achieve efficiencies, but it is by no means the answer to all learner needs. In a study for the U.S. Department of Education, Means, Toyama, Murphy, Bakia, and Jones reported the following:
Meta-analysis found that, on average, students in online learning conditions performed modestly better than those receiving face-to-face instruction. The difference between student outcomes for online and face-to-face classes . . . was larger in those studies contrasting conditions that blended elements of online and face-to-face instruction with conditions taught entirely face-to-face.24
In 2000, Ginsburg, Sabatini, and Wagner cleverly reported “with all the talk about the information superhighway, many people feel the need for driving lessons so as not to get left by the roadside.”25 The NFA is compelled to aid its student success by giving these lessons in the method most likely to achieve satisfactory outcomes.
Trivette, Dunst, Hamby, and O’Herin’s meta-analysis concluded that a blended approach to learning, what they call a “middle ground,” enables students to develop a deeper understanding of the focus of learning. (12)
Richardson, Jenkins, and Crickenberger (n.d.)26 reported the following with regard to adult vocational learners:
The selection of delivery methods for a program delivery system should be based on the needs and preferences of the targeted audience and the specific educational purpose [italics added]. For example, if the objective is to make the general population aware of some innovation, the delivery system might employ several mass media-such as radio, television, newspapers, and magazines-or other methods that can be expected to reach large numbers of people. On the other hand, if the objective is to provide information to targeted clientele who are prepared to test an innovation, the delivery system should emphasize experiential learning methods [italics added].
For a more technically focused student audience, the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) has recognized the changing educational environment affected by travel restrictions, competing budgets, and new learning methods, but alternative delivery modes are not the sole solution to its training challenges. Consequently, ANSI will do the following:
Continue to provide its traditional classroom training, which has been enhanced by new alternative delivery methods that save significant time and expense for the classroom participants.
Internet-based educational programs complement and enhance the traditional, face-to-face education and training programs that ANSI has been providing since the mid-1990s. Whereas many methods of delivering training by electronic means (“distance learning”) have not yet firmly established themselves, synchronous (live) and asynchronous (self-paced) training have gained a solid foothold. These technologies, which enable organizations to provide training via the Internet, are becoming more appealing because the costs to develop and implement e-learning and Web-based programs are coming down while travel costs and related security concerns are increasing.27
Finch and Jacobs, in Online Education: Best Practices to Promote Learning, found the following:
Students’ attitudes and perceptions of online versus traditional classroom approaches weighs [sic] heavily in the consideration of delivery approaches. Students’ competency and comfort with technology is [sic] essential in the choice of communication medium. Not all students will have the same affinity for one style as opposed to the other. Different approaches are desirable from the standpoint of offering students (and instructors) the venue best suited for their own learning (or teaching) style.28
Finally, Ross-Gordon (2005) found that adult students perform best when they are provided a variety of learning opportunities that are suited to their particular needs.29
Students exhibit varied learning styles and preferences influenced in part by their past encounters with higher education as well as by their social and cultural backgrounds, and are best seen as a monolithic group. This is especially true when considering subpopulations of adult learners who have not been consistently included in the large body of literature on adult students, including students of color. (6,3)
Classroom-based education, professional instruction, and practical application provide students with the skills and knowledge to meet the demanding challenges of a first responder career. They learn not only the responsibilities of an experienced first responder, but through interaction with students from many other agencies they also become acquainted with the missions and duties of their colleagues. This interaction provides the foundation for a more cooperative federal, state, and local response effort while building local strength, capacity, and redundancy. Donovant (2009) reported in a study of U.S. law enforcement officers: “Although most participants in the study say they prefer traditional instruction, the majorities feel that OE [online education] is an appropriate delivery method for professional development and that the use of OE for delivery of professional development provides increased training opportunities.”30 A later study of another law enforcement student population found that students preferred classroom instruction.31
NFA classrooms are filled with adult learners who bring a wealth of knowledge and experience to share with others. The classroom environment provides an opportunity for these students to network with one another, sharing both successful and unsuccessful experiences from their home agencies. The classroom instructors facilitate this discussion to achieve maximum experiential learning, often by guiding discussion to ensure it aligns with the course learning objectives. This shared experience creates an informal community of practice where individuals are connected by the desire to improve themselves and their communities through NFA training and education. According to Monaghan and Columbaro, acquiring knowledge through a community of practice provides students a means to simultaneously promote self-directed and collaborative learning, thereby fostering “the ability of students to learn about real-life contexts while encouraging them to transfer learning to a professional environment.”32
The residential nature of the NETC campus affords students an opportunity to “network” during class and in out-of-class social settings. According to FY 2013 data provided by the NFA Evaluation Center, “networking” ranked third as the “most beneficial aspect” of the training experience.
Figure 1, adapted from Online Learning vs. Classroom Learning by Neil Kokemuller and other sources, summarizes differences between and among the delivery modes.33
The American Council on Education’s review of the NFA provides assurance that the academy has voluntarily submitted to a process of outside, objective evaluation and has successfully achieved compliance with a set of standards established by peers within the professional community that demonstrate adherence to measurement, quality, effectiveness, and integrity.
The NFA collects Kirkpatrick Level 3 evaluation data from students and their supervisors three to six months after course completion (“long-term” evaluation). The most current data suggest both groups are highly satisfied with employee outcomes from current NFA training content and methods.
The NFA does not claim this research represents an exhaustive survey of existing and emerging adult educational methods, but it is clear from the brief literature review that scholarly research supports a mixed methods approach to delivering training and education based on adult student needs. No conclusive research was identified that substantially favors one training or education method over another.
The data suggest adult learners are using a combination of face-to-face instruction, paper-based and electronic self-study, blended learning, asynchronous and synchronous mediated learning, social media (Web 2.0), and mobile learning to achieve their learning objectives. Although distance education is an effective training venue that is here to stay, there remains a need for face-to-face instruction for sharing and understanding complex, technical, and expressive thought. NFA long-term evaluation data show a very high return of performance improvement on course content and delivery methods.
Given the diversity of the NFA student population and challenges of reaching many potential students, the NFA’s current strategy of moving incrementally toward distance learning while keeping grounded in face-to-face instruction provides a well-researched, academically sound, student-focused foundation to deliver education and training to advance the professional development of the fire and emergency services.
Endnotes
1. Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974, 15 USC § 2203 & 2206 (2013).
2. A “blended learning” course involves pre- or post-classroom work in an online environment.
3. Defined as serving a population of 250,000 or more, having 400 or more career personnel on staff, or being the largest municipal fire departments within a state (N = 168).
4. According to one report from the Texas A&M Engineering Extension Service, face-to-face course development time is about 14 hours per classroom hour, whereas online training development time consumes about 65 hours for one class hour. (Presentation at the North American Fire Training Directors annual meeting, College Station, TX, Sept. 25-27. 2012.)
5. This includes the highly regarded NETC Learning Resource Center, the ICS and Scenario Management Laboratory, the live-fire arson demonstration facilities, and a joint computer training center where students can work simultaneously on digital products. Opportunities exist for shared scenario-driven training experiences with students at the Emergency Management Institute.
6. Ross-Gordon, JM. (2011). Research on adult learners: Supporting the needs of a student population that is no longer non-traditional. Peer Review, Winter 2001, Vol. 13, No. 1. Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges and Universities. Retrieved from http://www.aacu.org/peerreview/pr-wi11/prwi11_RossGordon.cfm.
7. U.S. Fire Administration (2006). Four years later: A second needs assessment of the U.S. fire service (USFA Report No. FA-303). Emmitsburg, MD: U.S. Fire Administration.
8. U.S. Department of Labor (2012, April 5). Fire Inspectors and Investigators. Occupational Outlook Handbook. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/ooh/protective-service/fire-inspectors-and-investigators.htm.
9. The search phrase “best adult teaching method” alone returned 21,200 Google Scholar hits on August 8, 2013.
10. Thirunarayanan, MO; Perez-Prado; Aixa J. Research on Technology in Education. Winter 2001/2002, Vol. 34 Issue 2, p131-137. 7.
11. Levy, JD. (2009). Distance learning: The struggle for satisfaction. Journal of Student Affairs, Vol. 18, pp. 27-33. Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University, page 200. Retrieved from http://digitool.library.colostate.edu/view/action/nmets.do?DOCCHOICE=40623.xml&dvs=1376315207051~160&locale=en_US&search_terms=&adjacency=&VIEWER_URL=/view/action/nmets.do?&DELIVERY_RULE_ID=5&divType
12. Trivette, CM; Dunst, CJ; Hamby, DW & O’Herin, CE. (2009). Characteristics and consequences of adult learning methods and strategies. Winterberry Research Syntheses, Vol. 2, Number 2, p.1. Asheville, NC: Winterberry Press.
13. National Defense University (2012). 2012 Annual Report. Washington, DC: National Defense University. Retrieved from http://www.ndu.edu/Institutional%20Research/2011-2012%20NDU%20Annual%20Report.pdf.
14. Bejerano, AR. (2008). Face-to-face or online instruction? Face-to-face is better. Communication Currents, Vol. 3, Iss. 3. June 2008. Retrieved from http://www.natcom.org/CommCurrentsArticle.aspx?id=884.
15. Lee, Y & Choi, J. (2011). A review of online course dropout research: implications for practice and future research. Educational Technology Research and Development, October 2011, Vol. 59, Iss. 5, p. 594. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11423-010-9177-y.
16. Nielsen, S M. (2008). “Half bricks and half clicks”: Is blended onsite and online teaching and learning the best of both worlds? In M. S. Plakhotnik & S. M. Nielsen (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh Annual College of Education Research Conference: Urban and International Education Section (pp. 105-110). Miami: Florida International University. Retrieved from http://coeweb.fiu.edu/research_conference/.
17. Parry, M. (September 22, 2010). Preventing online dropouts: Does anything work?” The Chronicle of Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/preventing-online-dropouts-does-anything-work/27108.
18. CO249 Advanced Principles of Fire and Emergency Services Survival (June 2012) and CO262 Fire Protection Structures and Systems (June 2013).
19. Werth, E & Werth, L. (2011). Effective training for millennial students. Adult Learning, p. 12. Bowie, MD: American Association for Adult and Continuing Education. DOI: 10.1177/10451595110220030. ISSN-1045-1595.
20. Holyoke, L and Larson, E. (2009), Engaging the adult learner generational mix. Journal of Adult Education, Vol. 3, No. 1, p. 20. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ891074.
21. Bracy, C; Bevill, S & Roach, T D. (2010). The millennial generation: Recommendations for overcoming teaching challenges. In Proceedings of the Academy of Educational Leadership, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 21-25.
22. Oblinger, DG & Oblinger, JL. eds. (2005) Educating the net generation. ISBN 0-9672853-2-1. Available electronically at www.educause.edu/educatingthenetgen.
23. Kvavik, RB & Caruso, JB. (2005). Students and information technology, 2005: Convenience, Connection, Control, and Learning. Educause. Retrieved from http://scholar.google.com/scholar_url?hl=en&q=http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/EDU05166.pdf&sa=X&scisig=AAGBfm1kfD4ptET_h2uhGbCOxJvlH2Wk_w&oi=scholarr
24. Means, B; Tyama, Y; Murphy, R; Bakia, M & Jones, K. (2010) Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies, p ix. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/aboout/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html.
25. Ginsburg, L; Sabatini, J & Wagner DA. (2000) Basic skills in adult education and the digital divide, p 78. In Learning to Bridge the Digital Divide. Paris, France: Organization for Economic and Community Development. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/site/schoolingfortomorrowknowledgebase/themes/ict/basicskillsinadulteducationandthedigitaldivide.htm
26. Richardson, JG.; Jenkins, DM & Crickenberger, RC. (n.d.). Program delivery methods. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University Extension Service. Retrieved from http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/resources/education/sd6/.
27. Suett, P. (n.d.). The changing options for delivering standards education. New York: American National Standards Institute. Retrieved from http://www.ansi.org/news_publications/other_documents/standards_education.aspx?menuid=7
28. Finch, D & Jacobs, K. (2012, September). In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, Vol. 56, No. 1, pp. 546-550. SAGE Publications. Retrieved from http://pro.sagepub.com/content/56/1/546.abstract.
29. Ross-Gordon, JM. (2005). The adult learner of color: An overlooked college student population. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education 53 (2): 2-11.
30. Donovant, BW. (2009). The new, modern practice of adult education. Online instructions in a continuing professional education setting. Adult Education Quarterly, Vol. 59, No. 3, pp. 227.
31. Oliva, JR & Michael T Compton. (2010) “What do police officers value in the classroom? A qualitative study of the classroom social environment in law enforcement education,” Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, Vol. 33 Iss: 2, p 321 – 338. DOI: 10.1108/13639511011044911.
32. Monaghan, CH & Columbaro, NL. (2009) Communities of practice and students’ professional development. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, Vol. 20, No. 3, 421. ISSN 1812-9129.
33. Kokemuller, N. (2013) Online learning vs. classroom learning. International News: Global Post. Retrieved from http://everydaylife.globalpost.com/online-learning-vs-classroom-learning-4190.html
34. Stevens, J.B. 4 Benefits of Face-to-Face Classroom-based Workshops, retrieved from http://education076.wordpress.com/2012/01/06/4-benefits-of-face-to-face-classroom-based-workshops/.
35. Gray, Byron. 8 Benefits of Face to Face Classroom Workshops, retrieved from http://www.intellitrain.com.au/blog/financial-planning-courses/8-benefits-of-face-to-face-classroom-workshops/.
ROBERT A. NEALE was deputy superintendent of the National Fire Academy (NFA) when he wrote this article. Before that, he managed, for six years, the NFA’s Technical Fire Prevention curriculum, including fire inspection techniques; prescriptive and performance-based fire and building code interpretation and application; fire protection systems function, design, installation, and standards; and plan review for fire inspection personnel. In 2012, he received the FEMA Administrator’s Award for Innovation for his development of the Coffee Break Training series. He has a master’s degree from the Naval Postgradute School and a bachelor’s degree from Western Washington University.
<Previous Displaying 2/2 Page 1, 2
View Article as Single page
Fire Engineering Archives
