Unfortunately, flight instruction evolved over the years, and in the more recent ones, to focus almost exclusively on behavioral pedagody.

So lets define some terms. Behavioral pedagodgy is pretty much what we do when we teach to the objective, namely the PTS. In the interest of safety, this is a good thing, as we have measurable objectives, and once the student achieves them, we sign them off. We apply the same throughout a pilots career with flight reviews, and advanced ratings.

Social contstructivism otoh, is more a function of students developing their own knowledge through social interaction and building. Or as some have said, social constructivism is a process as compared to a product of knowledge. Its one of the big issues with primary and secondary education, to focus on group activities, often times to the exclusion of the individuals competancy, with the intent that higher levels of learning will be achieved rather than by objective based education.

Now, for the experienced CFI, they are going to go ballistic, in that they see that social constructivism could have severe safety implications. Remember, our accident rates in general aviation have dropped significantly since the 50's, so behavioral pedagody must be working. For flight operations, and skills, it does work. It may lack somewhat in effiency, but it produces safe pilots. If by no other factor, the rote knowledge of IFR and VFR conditions make a go/no-go decision pretty explicit. However, we are now at a point where the accident rates are reaching a plateau, and the hours needed to earn a certificate have never been higher. This imho is where adding social constructivsm has an oppurtunity to increase safety, and increase efficiency. Please note, I said add, not replace. Aviation is an unforgiving arena, as is medicine. We must still stay with outcome based education, in other words the PTS. However, as an additional tool, social constructivism can foster faster learning, and provides an incredibly tool for building pilot judgement.

So lets go back to my original statement. Flight training was ahead of the world when it came to social constructivism. Namely, the hanger was flown with knowledgeable mentors. Initial students hung out at the airport, transient pilots, and others with years of experience would sit around and BS. Sure, no one really needs the BS portion, but for us older guys, we can remember back to watching others land, discussing weather conditions, and even "never again" scenarios. If we think about it a while, what will have a larger impact, a fellow pilot crabbing about loosing an alternator in an Aztec, or reading the emergency procedure in the pilots operating handbook. What would usually happen, is that a pilot would crab, someone would pull the manual, and maybe even a mechanic might jump in with some ideas. The net result, everyone from the 5 hour student, to the 5000 hour ATP who flew the Aztec learned something.

And then lets think about landings. As CFI's we know the 3 ways, wing low, crab, and combination. Most of us teach only one to our primary students. Few of us will expose them to the other methodologies not only from the standpoint of avoiding confusion, but also in the interest of safety and judgement. Now, if we are flying the hanger, we can discuss the pro's and con's of each methodology as we see them, and why we prefer and teach one method over the other. The same scenario lends itself to a multitude of other areas.

The net result, is the student is constructing a knowledge base through social interaction with others, and based upon their own personal experiences. There is nothing that hits home for the group, than for a student to bring up the wild ride he had with a fellow pilot that ran out of rudder, or blew a tire due to a bad crosswind landing. Sadly, what has happened with flight instruction, is the lack of hanger flying with knowledgeable partys. If hanger flying occurs at all, it may well be just with other students, and the net result, is that a fake reality can occur which could have a horrible effect on safety.Thus social constructivism does have a place in flight training, as an added tool for improved safety, and greater efficiency.

Unfortunately, within the flight instructor community, it is tough to implement. Since 9/11 airport security has made hanger flying more difficult, instructors have many more competing demands, and it seems fewer and fewer students hang out at the hanger anymore. Otoh, the internet has allowed its return in some ways through forums, and chat programs, yet these tools, in and of themselves, do not foster social constructivism as occured in the early days, but are at least a step in the right direction. With todays technology, it is entirely possible to go much further in an integrated approach to flight/ground training with behavioral, and social constructivist pedagody added as an additional tool. 

Additional Resources

M. Gail Jones, Laura Brader-Araje The Impact of Constructivism on Education:  Language, Discourse, and Meaning, American Communication Journal Vol 5 Issue 3 Spring 2002

Von Glasersfeld, E. (1998).  Questions and answers about radical constructivism.  In K. G Tobin (ed.), The Practice of Constructivism in Science Education. AAAS, Washington, DC.

Hmmm, it that us the case for college students, what must it be like for the 50 year old aviation student taking a private pilot ground school. Part of the issue stems from the ability to organiza ones thoughts on paper. When the subject material is new, capturing the highpoints can be quite problematic, and before too long, ones notepad ends up looking like a big fubared mess. Even more so, is the inherrant distraction of notetaking in and of itself. In the past, it was common to provide handouts to the students before the lecture. Such notes would be completely filled in with all the relevant detail. Unfortunately, what this does, is it allows the student to be passive, rather than forcing their active involvement in the lecture.

 
An idea proposed by Gales^₂ is a compromise which provides for better student organization, and active participation The idea is a simple one, a set of key point notes at the beginning of class, for the student to fill in, followed up by a complete set of notes for the student to review at the end of class. However, such a practice is not common place, due to the resource constrants of professional educators, as noted in aeroinstructor.^₃

To me, this seems a golden idea, and I am definitely going to put it to use at my next ground school class. In addition, I'm going to see what sort of feedback this concept generates after trying it a session or two.

(1) Kiewra, K. A. (1985). Providing the instructor's notes: An effective addition to student notetaking. Educational Psychologist. 20. 33-39.

(2) Gales, P. (2005). Instructor-provided notes. In  B. Hoffman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Educational Technology http://coe.sdsu.edu/eet/articles/instprvdnts/start.htm

(3) Amundson, R. H. (2006) Why we should look at educational psychology http://aeroinstructor.com/content/view/26/29/

The other issue is one of highly constrained resources in education. The average professional educator is often time more cost and time constrained than a freelance flight instructor or one working for a small FBO. Ok, now that the rocks have been thrown, I too will admit teaching for a total wage of $0.50/hour when all was said and done. The advantage we have, is that if we provide a better training experience, our feedback loop is small enough, that it will equate to more money in our pocket, unlike other professional educators. This hit home when a student gave me a $100 tip for his oral test prep session. Improving your educational effectiveness will affect your bottom line. Using educational psychology is one of many tools to improve your effectiveness.

The other thing is that for some newbie instructors, educational psychology is something learned to pass the written exam, and then it is soon forgotten. If used effectively, it is a wonderful tool to foster increased learning on the part of your students. Since every FIRC I have taken since 1993 emphasizes it, as well as a number of grey beard instructors I have worked with, or worked for, it is best not forgotten, although for some instructors, it comes automatically.

Law of Readiness A person learns best when he has the necessary background, a good attitude, and is ready to learn. Outside responsibilities, overcrowded schedules, health, finances, or family affairs can take away a student’s desire to learn. However, these are facts of life, and will at some point, enter into a pilots decision making process.

In the early stages of training, readiness is critical. An instructor will try to create an environment to foster a students readiness to learn. This can be done as part of a preflight discussion, as well as scheduling. In addition, an instructor will try to keep an eye on the students fatigue level, such that if it is getting too high, a lesson will be cut short, or parts may be rescheduled for a later time.

In latter stages of training, I think the law of readiness should take on less of a role, as the lack of readiness, can be used as an instructional example for aviation decision making such as go-no/go decisions. Sure, a flight lesson might not be all that productive if a go decision is made. However, this will create a high impact memory, which can leave to improved decision making later in the pilots career. This ties into the law of intensity.

Law of Intensity A sharp, clear, or exciting learning experience teaches more than a routine or boring one. This law implies that a student will learn more from the real thing than a substitute. And there is nothing better for teaching judgment, than to allow a student to deal with the consequences of a poor go-no/go decision. (Of course, under the eye of a watchful flight instructor). Judgement is a tough one to teach, and the law of intensity is a good tool to utilize when it comes to readiness and decision making. One can also work this into sim training. An intense sim session is an incredible tool. If the student is not sweating, it probably pays to increase the workload in the sim, subject to instructor judgement. We don’t want to do too far and make the experience too unpleasant.

Law of Effect This law is based on the feelings of the learner. Learning is stronger when joined with a pleasing or satisfying feeling. It is weakened when linked with an unpleasant feeling. An experience that produces feelings of defeat, anger, frustration, futility, or confusion in a student is unpleasant for him. This will decrease his learning capabilities. Therefore, instructors should be cautious about using punishment in the classroom. Every learning experience does not have to be entirely successful, nor does the student have to master each lesson completely. However, every learning experience should contain elements that leave the student with some good feelings.

I think this is key. Everyone has a bad day now and then, and especially during the early hours of flight when encoutering a learning plateau, it can be exceedingly frustrating for the student. By the same token, as an instructor, we see progress, even when the student does not. This is where true praise is in order. My primary instructor years back had over 40 years of experience, with over 20 of those in the military, including time in WWII as a B17 captain, and later instructor. His style while not politically correct today fostered amazing learning. He was intense, and to some extent, things would get heated in the cockpit. In almost every lesson, I would leave mentally quite tired, and a few times exhausted. In fact today, I still hear him hollering in my ear. However, every post flight briefing ended on a positive note. For me, the intensity, and the positive effects worked wonders. For others, the commotion in the cockpit was not compensated for in the post flight briefing, and he had a few students who had problems dealing with his style. It was one of the reason’s he employed other instructors who were less intense.

Should you be wondering where I stand…. I am intense, but I don’t yell. My instructional style changes as we progress, almost to the point that you won’t think I’m even there as we get closer and closer to checkride time. At that point, I let you fly and operate the aircraft, and only make critiques and suggestions after a manuever or lesson. Afterall, you will be on your own in short order. In addition I try to balance my techniques depending on my read of the students stress level. This is in sharp contrast to the early hours where I talk you through every manuever. I don’t want any bad habits to start, and as soon as something starts deviating, you will hear about it.

Law of Primacy Primacy is being first, which often creates a strong impression. This means that the instructor must be right the first time. Everyone knows from experience how hard it is to break a bad habit. “Unteaching” wrong first impressions is harder than teaching them right the first time. One thing I thought was especially cool was the use of a landing gear switch, and up/down lights in a Cessna 150. Another local CFI, George Bolon, had them installed in his fleet of 150’s. Since George runs a flight school which emphasizes commercial aviation, getting the landing gear and procedures down early on, is a great thing for prospective airline pilots. George emphazied the law of primacy big time in adding this feature. Since I don’t have a fleet of aircraft, I don’t have a landing gear switch as an option in a 150.

The law of primacy is critical, and is one of the reasons I introduce radio work from the first lesson. Its also why I emphasize looking outside for traffic, and flying by the seat of your pants rather than staring at the instruments too much for the first couple lessons. If one is used to flying by looking inside, rather than looking for other traffic, its a hard habit to break. Once the traffic scan is achieved, and basic flight by outside reference, we slowly start adding the instrument panel as an additional tool, rather than something we are dependant upon from day 1. Please note, that even within the seat of the pants methodology, I do emphasize procedures, standard climbs, banks, and descents. However, rather than using the instrument panel, you will use outside references at the beginning. Of course the exception is the airspeed indicator, that does get introduced right away. Only later on, do we fly with it covered up, and then only for a short time. However, we always go back to the traffic scan, and flight by reference to outside indications, especially after an instrument session. Things need to be continually reinforced.

Law of Exercise Those things most often repeated are the best learned. This is the basis for practice and drill. The mind rarely retains, evaluates, and applies new concepts or practices after only one exposure. A student learns by applying what he has been taught. Every time he practices, his learning continues. There are many types of repetitions. These include student recall, review and summary, and manual drill and physical applications. For example, I will present a flight lesson, and manuevers on the ground, and will ask you to repeat back to me. Then, once we are in the air, I will demonstrate, while you explain, and then we will reverse roles. You will do the manuever, while I walk you through it. And then you will drill on the manuever at hand. The key to practice, is practicing correctly, and then repeating the practice in a short time frame.

Law of Recency Other things being equal, the things learned last will be best remembered. The opposite is also true. The longer the student is away from a new fact or understanding, the harder it is to remember. For example, it is fairly easy to recall a telephone number dialed a few minutes ago, but it is usually impossible to recall a new number dialed last week. The instructor must recognize the law of recency when planning a good summary. As a summary can tie into the law of effect, and in some cases intensity. The student also needs to take a proactive role in the early days of flight training. Flying once every 2 weeks, or once a month is too long a gap until one is ready to solo. The first 5-10 hours can be likened to drinking from a fire hose. It can be overwhelming, and is more difficult, if one forgets information inbetween lessons. This can lead to frustration, and a longer learning plateau, thus diminishing learning due to the law of effect. The students responsibility in this matter is to plan on flying every 2-3 days for those first few hours, in order to mazimize retension from lesson to lesson. Sure, one can spread things out, and weather inevitably will mess up the best laid plans. Otoh, sceduling every 2-3 days in most cases ensures the gap between lessons will seldom exceed 10 days, thus maximizing learning potential through the law of recency.