BY ROBERT A. NEALE
The U.S. Fire Administration (USFA) National Fire Academy (NFA) has a 33-year history of delivering executive leadership and advanced technical training to representatives of America’s fire and emergency services. Now, as it plans for the future, NFA faces new challenges as the demographic makeup of its student population changes.
The NFA’s congressional mandate is “to advance the professional development of fire service personnel and of other persons engaged in fire prevention and control activities.”1 Over its history, the NFA has observed a demographic and technological evolution in how students absorb course content: Today’s adult learners are using a combination of face-to-face instruction, paper-based and electronic self-study, blended learning2, asynchronous and synchronous mediated learning, social media (Web 2.0), and mobile learning to achieve their learning objectives. The NFA is responding to the changes in an incremental fashion.
HISTORY
At its founding, the NFA was built on a brick-and-mortar model: Adult learners from federal, state, and local jurisdictions (and occasional foreign students) are selected to attend a variety of classes at the school’s facility at the National Emergency Training Center (NETC) in Emmitsburg, Maryland, where they interact with one another (networking) and professional instructional staff. The NFA continues to develop and deliver face-to-face, on-campus curriculum for those courses that may address unique or emerging national issues; that are focused on advanced leadership, executive, and technical training; or, by the nature of their content, that are too expensive for state and local jurisdictions to replicate.
In one form or another, the NFA always has employed a complementary distance learning approach to its course deliveries either through sharing its curriculum with state and metropolitan3 fire service training organizations to leverage their resources or through partnerships with colleges and universities to deliver self-study correspondence courses. Through these partnerships, the NFA trains approximately 59,000 students per year in traditional classroom settings at the NETC and sites throughout the United States. As part of this relationship, the NFA categorizes its face-to-face content delivery methods into “NFA-sponsored” courses that are federally funded and “state-sponsored” courses, where the state training partners bear the costs of delivering NFA curriculum.
The NFA plays a significant role in connecting Department of Homeland Security (DHS) training and education doctrine-such as the National Incident Management System, the National Infrastructure Protection Plan, and the National Response Framework-to state and local first responders. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2013, 7.73 percent (6,370) of NFA students attended classes in residence at Emmitsburg; 45.7 percent (37,664) attended classes delivered at the state, local, or college level; and another 46.6 percent (38,389) took training through NFA Online.
In recent years, the NFA has expanded incrementally into different learning modes to take advantage of technology and new delivery methods while not creating a “seismic shift” in its traditions. Its electronic learning management system, NFA Online, hosts 62 self-study classes that reach an estimated 40,000 students each year. The NFA also is experimenting with asynchronous mediated learning where adult students participate in college-level education through combined electronic discussion boards, e-mail, and NFA Online courses.
By the end of 2015, it is expected at least another 15 self-study, blended, or mediated courses will be added, many of which are being developed by staff.4 Traditional face-to-face courses now are offered in two-, six- or 10-day formats to meet student schedules: There are approximately 60 courses delivered on campus in this mode; another 45 are delivered by NFA in off-campus venues.
For NFA on-campus courses, students are eligible to obtain one travel stipend per fiscal year. The travel stipends were authorized by Public Law 93-498 that created the U.S. Fire Administration and National Fire Academy. (1) The purpose of the stipend is to support student attendance at on-campus courses. Course materials and lodging are provided to the students at no cost while they are in residence at the NETC. Table 1 summarizes the National Fire Academy FY 2013 student attendance and stipend/instructor cost data for the variety of delivery formats currently in existence.
As new courses are developed and existing courses modernized, the NFA Curriculum Management Committee has adopted the following informal policy: If the nature of the course content demands a geographically diverse classroom population to enhance student interaction or there is a unique feature of the NETC to which students need physical access,5 courses will be built around a traditional face-to-face format for delivery in Emmitsburg. These on-campus courses generally include blended elements such as precourse online exercises or postcourse online evaluations. All other courses are to be developed or revised for the maximum flexibility of face-to-face or other learning methods.
Anecdotally, students report that one of the key reasons they attend the NFA on-campus deliveries is the ability to network with other students from around the country. Students often report they “learn as much outside the classroom” from their peers as inside the formal classroom setting. Instructors build in expectations that students will learn from their peers both inside and outside the classroom. The NFA’s adult learning model promotes and relies on lively interaction among students facilitated by experienced and competent instructors.
The nature of the NFA student population differs from a traditional community college or baccalaureate student body. It is a “targeted” population of adult emergency first responders and their management staff: Students have some current nexus to fire service, emergency medical services, disaster preparedness and response, or other agencies involved in all hazards threat response and mitigation. Generally, students either are full-time employees of these agencies or are highly committed volunteers who want to increase their professional skills.
The NFA may be unique in the federal government because its specific mission is training persons who are not federal employees. In current jargon, the NFA is an “outward-facing” training and education entity rather than “inward-facing.” Unlike similar DHS training organizations, such as the Transportation Security Administration, Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, Emergency Management Institute, Center for Domestic Preparedness, and Customs and Border Patrol Academy, the NFA’s primary mission is to train state and local first responders and their leaders, not federal employees. Although these other entities offer some training to state and local representatives, their principal student population is federal employees.
However, NFA students do not present an entirely homogenous population. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, 38 percent of 18 million students enrolled in the nation’s colleges and universities are ages 25 years and older.6 By comparison, NFA student ages range from 18 years old and upward; it is routine to have students in their 20s through 60s in the same classroom. This diversity creates a training challenge, as many of the students have been educated throughout their lives by different teaching methods. Many students are intimately familiar and at ease with modern technology; others are reluctant to adopt it. As one example, beginning in FY 2013, the NFA committed to transferring its traditional paper-based student manuals to electronic readers. As of August 7, 2013, up to 85 percent of students who have been afforded the opportunity to “go digital” (depending on the course) report they prefer to use the electronic manuals, leaving merely 15 percent who prefer paper-based products (J. Glass, National Fire Academy personal communication, August 7, 2013).
Furthermore, the NFA target student population is skewed by a preponderance of applicants whose main vocational focus is in emergency response and operations, which is reflective of the typical demographic of America’s fire and emergency services. Table 2 represents a five-year summary of NFA application data for six- and 10-day on-campus courses based on students’ self-identified primary employment responsibility. These data are important to NFA staff as they plan and develop course materials and delivery methods, as they represent the imperative training audience and potential “market demand.”
According to a joint USFA/National Fire Protection Association study, there are an estimated 1.1 million firefighters in the United States that comprise the potential NFA student audience.7 By some estimates, only 1.36 percent of all firefighters are employed in fire prevention services,8 but this is an important USFA target audience to help fulfill its congressional mandate to “educate the public and overcome public indifference as to fire, fire prevention, and individual preparedness” and reduce community risk against all hazards. (1) The NFA consistently tries to balance popular customer demand with providing leadership through strategically important courses intended to prevent, prepare for, and respond to the nation’s all hazards threats. Courses with titles such as “Command and Control of Incident Operations” appeal to a larger potential audience than an equally important course entitled “Leading Community Risk Reduction.”
RECENT RESEARCH
To get a picture of the changing adult learner, in August 2013, the NFA conducted a literature search of contemporary scholarly research on adult and professional education. Using several easily accessible search engines on the World Wide Web (ERIC, EbscoHost Academic, USFA WorldCat, and Google Scholar), the NFA searched on the following key words: “course delivery methods,” “blended learning,” “mixed delivery,” “online versus traditional,” “online versus classroom,” “blended best practices,” “online best practices,” “educational content delivery methods,” “adult classroom education,” “adult classroom learning,” “adult online dropout rate,” “adult distance training attrition rate,” “experiential learning,” and “best teaching adult method.”9 To ensure a contemporaneous source of material, searches were limited to the years 2008 to 2013. Research was conducted by the USFA National Fire Programs Learning Resource Center staff and me. NFA Curriculum and Instruction branch staff were invited to review this paper’s draft, and several contributed substantial comments.
Findings
Adult education and training remain under constant and rigorous scholarly analysis. Depending on how one frames a Web-based search phrase, Google Scholar alone returns more than 20,000 “hits” of books, academic reports, journal articles, and other research. Educational scientists debate the variety of methods available to deliver content to ensure learning transfer occurs from the source to the student. A short-term survey of recent literature shows that there is no single instructional method that serves all adult audiences and a healthy scholarly debate over the benefits of each learning method. Search results respond to how the search question is framed.
Research reports delimited to not older than 2008 quantitatively appear to study mostly distance learning methods, but that may be a result only of the field’s relative newness compared to long-standing teaching (traditional) methods. A brief survey of articles from 1999 to 2009 contained more content on the transition from classroom to distance education. As one example, Pérez-Prado and Thirunarayanan (2002) concluded, “Courses that require students to develop empathy or other affective orientations may not be suitable candidates for web-based distance education.”10 With academic success possibly hinging on the discipline or course material, this is certainly an area of distance learning in need of further research.”11
Ross-Gordon found that the body of research suggests that while adult learners desire flexibility (like that offered through the variety of NFA delivery modes), they desire structured instruction. (6) Each of the delivered modes NFA employs (from face-to-face to self-study) are structured on sound and well-tested instructional design principles.
According to one teaching method meta-analysis of 58 separate adult education studies:
Results showed that all six adult learning method characteristics [instructor introduction and illustration, learner application, evaluation, reflection, and self-assessment] were associated with positive learner outcomes, but that methods and practices that actively involved learners in acquiring, using, evaluating, and reflecting on new knowledge or practice had the most positive consequences on learner outcomes.12
Another federal institution, the National Defense University, recently spent two years evaluating its curriculum and delivery methods. Based on its mission of developing national and international executive strategic leaders, it elected to keep traditional face-to-face courses because of the needs of strategic learners to meet and share ideas in a real-time collaborative.13
Most of NFA face-to-face courses use “performance-based” instruction. In this manner, the NFA is able to address training to solve job performance problems and not just a lack of requisite skills or knowledge. That immersion training cannot be accomplished online. The experience NFA provides allows the learner to be immersed in the job by doing the job-e.g., participate in command and control or EMS scenario-based exercises, excavate the evidence from a live-fire scene, or process post-fire forensic evidence.
Bejerano14 posited that one of the problems with distance learning is the lack of sufficient student support:
In face-to-face classes, students have their classmates, learning centers on campus, professors’ office hours, tutors, and teaching assistants to support and help them with their various learning needs. These resources guide them, clarify and reinforce the material, and allow them to succeed in their education. Teachers understand the value of these resources and forms of support. As online courses become more popular, teachers are trying to find new ways to incorporate these resources and forms of support into their class. The problem is that student drop-out is increasingly high in online courses and these resources and forms of support need to be more effective in combating student attrition. (14, 1)
Bejerano also noted over the timeframe of her study that the student dropout rate is increasingly high in online courses. (14) According to Lee and Choi’s 10-year survey of online dropout rates in post-secondary education, the evidence suggests that “online courses have a significant higher student dropout rate than conventional courses.”15 Lee and Choi identified 69 separate factors that influenced students’ ability to complete online classes for which they had enrolled. (14, 593-618) Jones (2006) reported that “of students who begin online courses, 50% do not finish due to lack of support and problems inherent in online learning”16 A headline in The Chronicle of Education online magazine that asked “Preventing Online Dropouts: Does Anything Work?” was answered curtly: “Nothing works.”17 (In two recent NFA mediated online courses, the student dropout rates over 12 weeks were 44 percent and 41.9 percent.18 By comparison, the average annual dropout rate for NFA on-campus courses from FY 2010-2012 was 0.59 percent.
Maintaining the quality, effectiveness, and integrity of the NFA training programs is done through resident course delivery of practical and simulation-based exercises. This method provides a safe training environment while providing a realistic field experience for the students. Students may make errors without suffering life-threatening consequences. Practical exercises emulate highly dangerous scenarios while enabling student learning in a safe and controlled environment. This training can measure the student’s knowledge for point of possible perception, point of actual perception, reaction time, reaction decision, and point of no avoidance for each particular set of conflicts. This enhanced training capability augments existing first responder skills, allowing the student to face the consequences of his/her decision and allowing for immediate instructor feedback, thus producing a better trained and better prepared responder. The stimulus that instructors observe by responding to student classroom behaviors leads to greater exploration of the content. Furthermore, face-to-face instruction allows instructors and trainers to provide immediate feedback and support for students’ special or functional needs.
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.
Fire Engineering Archives
