1

Using a blended learning instructional design for secure

handling of air cargo
Philipp SURY, Pascal RIESEN, Jasmin NEF und Adrian SCHWANINGER
School of Applied Psychology, University of Applied Sciences Northwestern
Switzerland
Riggenbachstr. 16, CH-4600 Olten
Summary: Container security and contraband interdiction in air cargo
have become highly relevant topics at airports all over the world. The
European Union (EU, 2010) requires detailed measures for standards
in the field of aviation security that also cover training and certification
of security personnel. In Switzerland, the same standards are being
enacted by the Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA, 2010). The
training for security personnel is rather widespread and covers topics
as for example legal requirements, the history of terrorists' acts and
current threats, the ability to identify prohibited articles, proficiency in
emergency response procedures, and many more. To efficiently train
these complex topics we use a blended learning instructional design
that is based on the E-CLASS (Gerson, 2000) and the four step
cognitive method (Murphy, Neequaye, Kreckler & Hands, 2008). At
the conference we will demonstrate these educational concepts in the
environment of air cargo security and how they are to be evaluated
according to Kirkpatrick (2010).

Key words: blended learning, aviation security.

1. Introduction

Aviation is one of the key industries on a worldwide scale. The transportation of

goods and passengers by means of airways is a major facilitator of the global
economy. Because of its economic importance and the huge public interest in
incidents involving aircraft, aviation is an attractive target for unlawful interferences
based on a range of motives.
To protect human beings, goods, and infrastructure, various organizations
connected with aviation have to implement extensive security measures. High quality
security measures require high quality training of human operators. Despite the high
evolvement of modern technology, in the end it is still the human operators who need
to assess a current situation and react accordingly.
High quality training programs are about meeting required learning objectives in
the most efficient way possible. For this purpose, we use a blended learning
approach (Bonk, 2006) to draw from the strengths of both computer based training
(CBT) and the traditional training in face to face settings (F2F). The field of aviation
security is highly regulated by the European Union (EU, 2010) and the Federal Office
of Civil Aviation (FOCA, 2010) in the case of Switzerland as she enacts the same
regulations as the EU. Every terror event adds up to increasingly tighter regulations
as for example in the field of air cargo with the recent Yemen based parcel bomb plot
(CNN Wire Staff, 2010). Due to these regulations high demands in training program
 2

quality are established while airlines, airports and security operators are pressed to
save money. It therefore has to be shown if fresh innovations in the field of security
training programs allow to meet the high demands in training as well as being as
efficient as possible.
In this context, a systematic evaluation of training programs is the cornerstone to
the answer of whether those programs actually meet the requirements in quality or
not. Research shows, however, that in modern organizations evaluations hardly go
beyond the measurement of the trainees’ satisfaction with the training (Kauffeld,
Brennecke, & Strack, 2009).
For the purpose of evaluating training programs in the field of aviation security, we
suggest the four step method by Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick (2006). This method
delivers a profound understanding of training efficiency and is considered a well-
established tool.

2. Methods

For the purpose of delivering our security training programs, we will use two
methods. For the CBT part of the security training program we use Gerson’s (2000)
E-CLASS model. The E-CLASS model provides a structure for CBT modules geared
towards a high recollection performance of the learning content. Therefore every
lesson in our security training program is built according to the following steps:

Table 1: The E-CLASS structure of a blended learning lesson.

E-CLASS Step Explanation

Explain Used to motivate the student by explaining the lesson’s
purpose and connected benefits.
Clarify The main part where theory and the learning content in general
is being presented.
Look In this part, one or several examples are being presented to
illustrate what previously was discussed in theory.
Act & Share In this part, students are supposed to act and work with the
learning content for example by solving problems, write
summaries, give presentations, engage in groups discussions,
etc.
Self Evaluate In the self evaluate part students solve test questions
autonomously to verify whether they have reached the lesson’s
learning objectives or not.
Summary The summary provides a “take home message”, in other words
the most important parts of the lesson condensed into a couple
short sentences to be remembered.

For the delivery of the F2F part of the security training program (located in the act
& share part of the E-CLASS structure) we use the four step cognitive method by
Murphy, Neequaye, Kreckler & Hands (2008). The four step cognitive model uses a
series of simple repetitions to boost students learning performance.

Table 2: The four step cognitive model for F2F instruction.

Step Instructor and student behavior

 2

1 The instructor silently performs the task.

The student silently observes.
2 The instructor performs the task and continuously provides comments.
The student silently observes.
3 The instructor silently performs the task.
The student continuously provides comments.
4 The student performs the task and continuously provides comments.
The instructor corrects the student where needed.

Results by Murphy et al. (2008) show that the four step cognitive model leads to
shorter instruction times despite the innate repetitions and students show better final
performance compared to a control group in a field experiment.
The evaluation of our security training program is based on the evaluation tool as
explained in Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick (2006) and Kirkpatrick (2010). Kirkpatrick (2010)
describes a list of four simple evaluation steps to determine the benefits of a training
program:

Table 3: Kirkpatrick’s (2010) four steps evaluation tool.

Step Name Explanation

1 Reaction This step deals with how favorable students reacted to the
training, how they liked it, whether they found it useful or not,
etc. This information is typically being collected using
questionnaires.
2 Learning This step tests how much the students retained of the
learning content. Usually they have to perform some sort of
final exam.
3 Behavior This step deals whether the newly acquired learning content
is being transferred into the daily work routine or not. Work
analysis is the typical tool for this step.
4 Results This step is concerned with the training program’s economic
benefits for a company. The challenge in this step is to find
key performance indicators (KPI) that validly reflect the
former students’ performance.

3. Next steps

In a next step we plan to deliver and analyze the performance of our security
training program by means of a security organization willing to participate in a field
experiment that involves a training and a control group. Training is expected to start
in spring 2011, results are expected for fall 2011 and will be presented at the GfA
spring conference in 2012.

5. Literature

1. Bonk, C.J. & Graham, C. R. (2006). The handbook of blended learning: global perspectives, local
designs. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
 2

2. CNN Wire Staff (2010). Yemen-based al Qaeda group claims responsibility for the parcel bomb
plot. Retrieved January 17, 2011, from
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/11/05/yemen.security.concern/?hpt=T2
3. European Commission. (2010). Commission regulation (EU) No 185/2010 of March 2010 laying
down detailed measures for the implementation of the common basic standards on aviation
security. Official Journal of the European Union.
4. Federal Office of Civil Aviation. (2010). National civil aviation security programme. [CD-ROM].
Bern: Swiss Federal Government.
5. Gerson, Steven M. (2000). E-CLASS: Creating a Guide to Online Course Development For
Distance Learning Faculty. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, Volume 3, Issue 4.
Retrieved June 14, 2010, from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/winter34/gerson34.html
6. Kauffeld, S., Brennecke, J., & Strack, M. (2009). Erfolge sichtbar machen: Das Massnahmen-
Erfolgs-Inventar (MEI) zur Bewertung von Trainings. In S. Kauffeld, S. Grote & E. Frieling (Eds.),
Handbuch Kompetenzentwicklung (pp. 55-78). Stuttgart: Schäffer-Poeschel.
7. Kirkpatrick, D. (2010). The philosophy behind the Kirkpatrick model. Retrieved June 28, 2010,
from http://www.kirkpatrickpartners.com/OurPhilosophy/tabid/66/Default.aspx
8. Kirkpatrick, D. L., & Kirkpatrick, J. D. (2006). Evaluating training programs: The four levels. San
Francisco: Berret-Koehler Publishers.
9. Murphy, M.A., Neequaye, S., Kreckler, S. & Hands, L. J. (2008). Should we train the trainers?
Results of a randomized trial. Journal of the American College of Surgeons, Vol 207, No. 2, 185-
190.