Principle 1. Content competence--high level of subject matter knowledge, ensures
that course content is accurate, representative, and appropriate to the position of
the course within the student's program of studies [read training]
Principle 2. Pedagogical competence-communicates the objectives of the course to
students, is aware of alternative instructional methods or strategies, and selects
methods of instruction that, according to research evidence (including personal or
self-reflective research) are effective in helping students achieve the course
objectives.
Principle 8. Valid assessment of students--instructors are responsible for taking
adequate steps to ensure that assessment of students is valid, open, fair and
congruent with course objectives.
An additional principle, (4), refers to "the overriding responsibility of the teacher is
to contribute to the intellectual development of the student, at least in the context of
the teacher's own area of expertise".
This fourth principle may be controversial to some in the context of CRM, but is
consistent with earlier ideas discussioned in this forum on the importance of
training in ways that foster career-long learning.
I would be interested to hear people's reactions to these principles. Do they seem
relevant? Should they be aspirational, or requirements when high stakes are
involved?
Ros Woodhouse
On Wed, 4 Feb 1998 13:47:30 -0500 Peter J. Wolfe wrote:
> From: Peter J. Wolfe <pjwolfe_at_ix.netcom.com>
> Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 13:47:30 -0500
> Subject: Re: CRM facilitator/instructor.
> To: crm-devel_at_db.erau.edu
>
>
> Ernst,
>
> I very much agree with David Keasal's thoughts on your questions.
>
> The CRM program developers, as well as classroom facilitators, seem to
> have widely varied academic backgrounds. But, ALL seem to share a genuine
> interest in flight safety through improved crew performance.
>
> Re: Teaching Qualifications
> A strong teaching background is extremely helpful, although the
> experience may have come in a wide range of settings; formal schools
> (college, etc.), trade/technical schools, and/or corporate/military
> training programs. The only "catch" to this qualification is that many of
> the more successful CRM/HumFac courses are conducted in a DISCUSSION
> format, rather than the more traditional LECTURE style.
>
> Re: Flying Experience
> Most of the CRM programs I'm familiar with use current or former line
> pilots from the company as course facilitators. Some courses are
> developed by contractors and co-facilitated by the contractor and a
> company pilot. The pilot's role is to keep the course material relevant
> and applicable to the crews that attend.
>
> Some consulting firms recruit "outside" pilots to serve as their
> presenters. These pilots CAN be successful, depending on how well they
> are able to connect with the kind of flying and organizational culture of
> their audience. The closer the facilitator's experience to that of the
> class, the more likely the material is to be accepted over the long-term.
>
> Clearly, Dave's comment about the importance of the instructor having
> credibility with the crews in-training is vital to the success of the
> program.
>
> Re: Instructor Qualification/Certification
> If it required a degree in CRM (specifically), most of us wouldn't be
> here. The full spectrum of degrees that apply would certainly include,
> but not be limited to: psychology, industrial and flight safety,
> industrial engineering, education and training, ... to name just a few.
>
> Dave's encouragement of participation in forums (like this) and industry
> workshops is quite correct. The discussions/presentations often provide
> participants an opportunity to see/hear/experience some of the most
> innovative and advanced thinking that is available on the topic.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Pete Wolfe
>