The interconnection between evaluated and self-assessed performance in full flight simulator training

IF 1.9 2区 教育学 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Ari Tuhkala, Ville Heilala, Joni Lämsä, Arto Helovuo, Ilkka Tynkkynen, Emilia Lampi, Katriina Sipiläinen, Raija Hämäläinen, Tommi Kärkkäinen
{"title":"The interconnection between evaluated and self-assessed performance in full flight simulator training","authors":"Ari Tuhkala, Ville Heilala, Joni Lämsä, Arto Helovuo, Ilkka Tynkkynen, Emilia Lampi, Katriina Sipiläinen, Raija Hämäläinen, Tommi Kärkkäinen","doi":"10.1007/s12186-023-09339-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This study explores potential disparities between flight instructor evaluations and pilot self-assessments in the context of full flight simulator training. Evaluated performance was based on the Competency-based Training and Assessment framework, a recent development of competency-based education within aviation. Self-assessed performance is derived from survey responses and debriefing interviews. The simulator session involves eight multi-crew pilot training graduates and eight experienced flight captains, encompassing two tasks featuring sudden technical malfucntions during flight. The flight instructor’s evaluations reveal no significant differences in pilot performance. However, disparities become apparent when pilots engaged in reflecting their performance. Novice pilots, despite perceiving both tasks as easy, exhibited an overconfidence that led them to underestimate the inherent risks. Conversely, experienced pilots demonstrated greater caution towards the risks and engaged in discussing possible hazards. Furthermore, this study highlights the challenge of designing flight simulator training that incorporates surprise elements. Pilots tend to anticipate anomalies more readily in simulator training than during actual flights. Thus, this study underscores the importance of examining how pilots reflect on their performance, complementing the assessment of observable indicators and predefined competencies.</p>","PeriodicalId":46260,"journal":{"name":"Vocations and Learning","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vocations and Learning","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-023-09339-6","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study explores potential disparities between flight instructor evaluations and pilot self-assessments in the context of full flight simulator training. Evaluated performance was based on the Competency-based Training and Assessment framework, a recent development of competency-based education within aviation. Self-assessed performance is derived from survey responses and debriefing interviews. The simulator session involves eight multi-crew pilot training graduates and eight experienced flight captains, encompassing two tasks featuring sudden technical malfucntions during flight. The flight instructor’s evaluations reveal no significant differences in pilot performance. However, disparities become apparent when pilots engaged in reflecting their performance. Novice pilots, despite perceiving both tasks as easy, exhibited an overconfidence that led them to underestimate the inherent risks. Conversely, experienced pilots demonstrated greater caution towards the risks and engaged in discussing possible hazards. Furthermore, this study highlights the challenge of designing flight simulator training that incorporates surprise elements. Pilots tend to anticipate anomalies more readily in simulator training than during actual flights. Thus, this study underscores the importance of examining how pilots reflect on their performance, complementing the assessment of observable indicators and predefined competencies.

Abstract Image

全飞行模拟器训练中被评估性能与自评估性能之间的联系
本研究探讨飞行教官评估和飞行员自我评估在全模拟飞行训练中的潜在差异。评估的表现是基于能力为基础的培训和评估框架,这是航空领域能力为基础的教育的最新发展。自我评估的表现来源于调查回复和汇报访谈。模拟课程包括8名多机组飞行员培训毕业生和8名经验丰富的机长,包括飞行中突然技术故障的两项任务。飞行教官的评估显示飞行员的表现没有显著差异。然而,当飞行员参与反映他们的表现时,差异就变得明显了。尽管新手飞行员认为这两项任务都很容易,但他们表现出的过度自信导致他们低估了内在的风险。相反,经验丰富的飞行员对风险表现出更大的谨慎,并参与讨论可能的危险。此外,本研究强调了设计包含惊喜元素的飞行模拟器训练的挑战。飞行员在模拟器训练中往往比在实际飞行中更容易预测异常情况。因此,本研究强调了检查飞行员如何反思其绩效的重要性,补充了对可观察指标和预定义能力的评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Vocations and Learning
Vocations and Learning EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
17.90%
发文量
21
期刊介绍: Vocations and Learning: Studies in Vocational and Professional Education is an international peer-reviewed journal that provides a forum for strongly conceptual and carefully prepared manuscripts that inform the broad field of vocational learning. The scope of the journal and its focus on vocational learning is inclusive of vocational and professional learning albeit through the very diverse range of settings (e.g. vocational colleges, schools, universities, workplaces, domestic environments, voluntary bodies etc) in which it occurs. It stands to be the only truly international journal that focuses on vocational learning, as encompassing the activities that comprise vocational education and professional education in their diverse forms internationally. Vocations and Learning aims to: enhance the contribution of research and scholarship to vocational and professional education policy; support the development of conceptualisation(s) of vocational and professional learning and education; improve the quality of practice within vocational and professional learning and education; and enhance and support the standing of these fields as a sectors with its own significant purposes, pedagogies and curriculums. Vocations and Learning: Studies in Vocational and Professional Education encourages the submission of high-quality contributions from a broad range of disciplines, as well as those that cross disciplinary boundaries, in addressing issues associated with vocational and professional education. It is intended that contributions will represent those from major disciplines (i.e. psychology, philosophy, sociology, anthropology, history, cultural studies, labour studies, industrial relations and economics) as cross overs within and hybrids with and amongst these disciplinary traditions. These contributions can comprise papers that provide either empirically-based accounts, discussions of theoretical perspectives or reviews of literature about vocational learning. In addition, books, reports and policies associated with vocational learning will also be reviewed. Topics addressed through contributions within the proposed journal might include, but will not be restricted to: curriculum and pedagogy practices for vocational learning the role and nature of knowledge in vocational learning the nature of vocations, professional practice and learning the relationship between context and learning in vocational settings the nature and role of vocational education the nature of goals for vocational learning different manifestations and comparative analyses of vocational education, their purposes and formation organisational pedagogics transformations in vocational learning and education over time and space analyses of instructional practice within vocational learning and education analyses of vocational learning and education policies international comparisons of vocational learning and education critical appraisal of contemporary policies, practices and initiatives studies of teaching and learning in vocational education approaches to vocational learning in non-work settings and in unpaid work learning throughout working lives relationships between vocational learning and economic imperatives and conceptions and national and trans-national agencies and their policies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信