Introduction
The purpose of the study was to test the usefulness of grounded theory in aviation training. Huddlestone and Harris (2007) describe the goal and do not divide it unnecessarily into small tasks. This goal stands on an interdisciplinary position, being at the same time pedagogical, methodological, and technological. The authors analyzed the example of how groups of students with flight simulators during their assignments. As participants were affiliated with military aviation, now, it makes the study specific and may require additional reservations when extrapolating what was written in the field of civil aviation. The investigators set a goal to study aviation training in the context of the complexity of modeling student achievement.
The need in research is due to the lack or complete absence of methods or algorithms for evaluating the crew’s performance. The results of completed tasks in the simulations remain broken into many reports that contain many different detailed aspects. Often this makes the messages unreadable for people indirectly related to aviation. This can cause difficulties for psychologists studying human factors and flight behavior. Huddlestone and Harris (2007) state: “The challenge is in finding a suitable way to sample and then analyse the data in these reports to produce meaningful model” (p. 371). Therefore, globally, the authors propose the organization of a unified performance evaluation model based on a method that, in their opinion, is ideal for structuring non-structural qualitative data. They refer readers to the Royal Air Force Panavia Tornado F3 Operational Conversion Unit (OCU) and their problem of finding a performance model. Thus, investigators demonstrate practical utility, need, and rationale in the most specific context of organizations.
The authors ask the research question directly, but is perceived exclusively in the context. They describe it as “How grounded theory techniques was used to perform sampling and analysis of such [unstructured] data to develop a model of student performance?” (Huddlestone and Harris, 2007, p. 371). Researchers introduce readers to the research question, intertwining it harmoniously with the theoretical aspects of the grounded theory technique. Scientists allow readers to understand the foundations of the theory through inductive analysis and careful, systematic data collection. They cite studies to support their claims, most notably Glaser and Strauss (1967) and Strauss and Corbin (1990). These studies postulate the impossibility and incorrectness of constructing an abstract theory without the initial collection of data. Grounded theory is thus a vital descendant of the classical inductive methodology from Francis Bacon’s New Organon.
Methodology
Stratified sampling and theoretical sampling became the basis for this study. The first type of sampling refers to a specific group that generated data for processing, inductive collection, and analysis. The sample was substantiated by the professional activity and the role of the subjects in the military educational institution. Thus, teachers and students are participants in the experiment, constituting the content. Theoretical sampling expands an approach by incorporating new academic data that can add further details and aspects to the study. These materials can be interviews, recent reports, and similar data to the original.
The grounded theory became the main design for this study, as the paper’s title suggests. The authors did not mix designs or make references to other research methods. Huddlestone and Harris (2007) justify the use of grounded theory in detail, as they consider the many complex reports of teachers and trainers to be unreadable and inconvenient for performance evaluation. Inside such messages, there is usually a lot of unstructured information that interferes with creating a performance model. Grounded theory is based on a structured approach to qualitative data and distributes it by similarity.
Investigator triangulation is built into the basic rules of the experiment, as it includes double analytics of the categories mentioned during aviation training. The first scientist conducted open coding, and the second one was engaged in more abstract axial coding, which refers to the fundamental meanings of words. Data triangulation is respected and developed: the scientists used students’ comments (about 200), 46 reports of 28 teachers, and the final written assessments of some of them. However, all these data sources do not differ drastically in form, as if reports differed from interviews. One can mention theoretical studies illustrating the grounded theory in detail. Theory triangulation is based on grounded theory and some psychological aspects of communication; however, the authors do not explore several ideas in a row or a chain. For example, the psychological elements include the attentiveness of students, their interaction with devices, and leadership. Methodological triangulation is not appropriately presented, although the authors study both the theoretical literature and specific assessments and reports. However, the core of the study is the categorical and lexical analytics of concepts.
The article has high credibility, as it does not try to comprehend too large concepts and solve significant problems. Initially, Huddlestone and Harris (2007) clearly outline the theory used and its goals. Credibility is added in the context of using fundamental theoretical works. The authors do not act as apologists for the grounded theory and do not believe that they have come up with a universal model for student performances. The paper has an average transferability since the authors aimed not at the theoretical utility but the practical one. The article should not help further research but practice teachers. However, the data obtained can be easily extrapolated to pedagogical or psychological examination, explicating students’ perceptions in simulators. The dependability of the article can be assessed as average: the material is readable and structured to the extent that a new reader can understand the data. The report is highly confirmable, and the authors successfully show their scientific disinterest. With the help of tables and schemes, they offer the improvement of analytical work, making it understandable to experienced researchers and young professionals; those can provide constructive criticism.
Results and Conclusion
Contextual data was presented in great detail in the first half of the article. The investigators described both the general context of the problems of aviation training and education and the specific one focused on military and student groups. They explained that the leading training courses were designed for navigators and pilots, with less emphasis on other crew members; the communication aspects of performance evaluation suffered.
The crew’s assessed activities were communication, information interpretation, and decision-making. The authors have developed eight main and nine additional categories, which serve as the foundation for the proposed performance model. They not only introduced the readers to these categories but explained the mechanisms for obtaining subcategories, akin to their formulas: tactics and decision-making are combined into groups of tactical decision-making. Breaking down the complex process of lexical analytics for readers, Huddlestone and Harris (2007) distinguish three types of coding: open, axial, and selective.
In conclusion, the authors proposed their grounded theory techniques for coding unstructured teacher assessment reports. They provided tables and schemes of how the processed categories are related and how they reflect students’ performances. The practical recommendations of the scientists consisted of the careful use of grounded theory in forming unique evaluation and performance models. The theory allowed the researchers to break down the training in the simulator into components that correspond to specific categories. This splitting is expected to make assessments more accessible, fair, and understandable for students. Finally, the investigators conjectured that the study should be conducted with many scientists to reduce theoretical sensitivity. They indicated that grounded theory is an appropriate method for analyzing descriptive reports in the aviation industry.
Critique
Huddlestone and Harris (2007) presented credible, specific cases of difficulties in forming educational performance assessments and the abstract problem of lack of structure in reports. In the background of information, the authors analyze in detail the context and relevance of the study, focusing on the lack of a structured assessment of the crew’s work. In particular, they draw attention to the US Royal Air Force and the problem of the inability to assess teamwork. It is often easy for teachers to evaluate the work of one specialist, pilot, or navigator, but military aviation is based on the result of a team or several teams.
Investigators found credibility with authoritative research by well-known scientists, which can be highly valued. They do not provide contradictory theoretical data and follow one position of devotion to the grounded theory from beginning to end. Researchers do not parasitize on ​​transferability and insist on the practical use of their theoretical foundations. They set a lofty goal: to combine fundamental theory with rigorous teaching practice. The authors do not develop the theme of the scientific significance of their research for colleagues. The dependability can be highly appreciated since the experiment is presented sequentially, and the four parts of the paper harmoniously replace each other without contradictions. It opens up an opportunity for constructive criticism and an in-depth understanding of the topic. A detailed description of the connection between theory and practice allows other specialists to conduct similar research or to set up thought experiments. The confirmability can be assessed as average since researchers do not focus on modern research but only touch on them as close to practical experiments in aviation. The core of the study is the theoretical work of the second half of the last century.
A thick description as a separate topic is absent in the article and its discussion; however, the authors give several examples of inattention during work. In general, it can be said that the issue of thick description stands firmly in the discussion of grounded theory and its techniques. Huddlestone and Harris (2007) mention the difficulties of conceptualizing categories since the aspect of non-verbal social interactions and reactions to information often falls into the assessment. Communication aspects are often challenging to assess, as a thick description plays a role that is difficult to structure. In particular, researchers give the example of students looking at a display and cognitively processing information from it. These actions are related to assessing and understanding the situation, which is difficult to fix.
There are no contradictions between the conclusions, conjectures, and fundamental experimental data. Researchers demonstrate this extremely transparently through schemes and pictures, the main of which is Figure 2 (Huddlestone and Harris, 2007, p. 380). This scheme displays the student performance model from beginning to end, forming a vicious circle. The authors pay attention to the communication issue, making it especially extensive. It echoes students’ comments that communication is essential in performance. All conclusions are based on specific data, including direct citations of students and teachers in italics.
The first strength of the paper is the provision of tables and detailed schemes (detailed visualization) simulating student performance. Such pictures show the process of conceptualizing categories and dividing them into subcategories. It makes the article understandable for many researchers, including inexperienced ones. The second advantage is the smooth and harmonious rhetoric of the narrative and the complete absence of contradictions. The third strength is the balanced presentation of statistical data (percentages): they do not overload the text and, at the same time, add credibility in certain places in the text. The first weakness is the truncated information about categories that could be provided in the appendix. Researchers mention passing the presence of annotations to eight concepts but leave this unattended throughout the text. The second weakness is the unclear number of participants in the experiment. 28 teachers and 46 reports are known in detail, but the number of students remains within assumptions based on the number of comments.
This article claims the full belief, and its credibility is exceptionally high. The paper has undergone careful editing and several edits, and the authors have filled it with pertinent statistical data. They have added some simple visualization elements that make the text more understandable. The authors proceed from the original context and assumptions about the usefulness of grounded theory in creating a performance model. They prove at the highest level the study’s relevance and embed it firmly in the modern context. Despite the lack of use of contemporaries’ data, Huddlestone and Harris (2007) create a robust theoretical foundation to help practicing teachers and trainers. By listening to student comments, and not only teachers’ complaints, they start an adequate model that will make life easier for students. The study can be considered an interdisciplinary asset, and the text will be helpful not only to aviation workers but to linguists (language and category theory), psychologists, sociologists, and many others.
References
Bacon, F. (2017). The New Organon: Novum Organum. Independently Published.
Huddlestone, J., & Harris, D. (2007). Using grounded theory techniques to develop models of aviation student performance. Human Factors and Aerospace Safety, 6(4), 371-382.
Glaser B. and Strauss A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.
Strauss A. and Corbin, J. (1990) Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. London: Sage.