Date of Award
2002
Document Type
Practicum
Degree Name
Doctor of Education
Department
Programs for Higher Education
Advisor
Chicago Cluster
Keywords
aerospace education, airport management, customer service, flight instruction, flight school evaluation survey, flight simulators, flight training, handbook consolidation, Indiana State University, program evaluation, quality of service, student satisfaction, survey research, training evaluation
Abstract
At Indiana State University, many students indicated their dissatisfaction with the contracted flight schools' ability to provide a quality customer service product. This was not only what students expected but also was required as part of the university's contract. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the quality of service provided by the university's two contracted flight schools, as determined by a voluntary student survey and verbal feedback from students, staff and faculty, and the airport managers of the two contracted flight schools.
There were two research questions for this study. The first question was, "What quality of service is the contracted flight schools providing Indiana State University?" The second question was, "What changes, additions, or deletions in the flight training schools' programs need to be made?"
Twelve procedures were implemented for this evaluation study. These were as follows: (a) review of literature; (b) establishment of formative committee and survey criteria;( c) establishment of summative committee; ( d) summative committee validation of criteria; ( e) survey development; (f) survey validation; (g) survey field-testing; (h) administration of survey, the Flight School Evaluation Survey (FSES), to all 66 students enrolled in the program; (i) feedback for changes, additions, and deletions; (i) data analysis; (k) validation of survey results; and (1) presentation of study results to chairperson of the Department of Aerospace.
In response to Research Question 1, results of the FSES showed that the level of student satisfaction at both flight schools was similar in many cases, such as adequacy of instruction, safety factors, flight instructors, and maintenance of the aircraft and facilities. Students were dissatisfied in their own progress, the schools' management not being open to improvement, and delay or denial of flight training.
In response to Research Question 2, results of discussions with students, staff and faculty, and the airport managers of the flight schools showed that students suggested more responsiveness to their requirements in several areas by both the department and flight schools and implementation of a formal procedure for instructor evaluation. Staff and faculty suggested consolidation of the department's flight handbook and contractor flight handbook, development of a flight simulator program, and reexamination of the entire flight program. The airport managers suggested consolidations of the two handbooks and use of flight simulators.
It was concluded that, first, students find the quality of service provided by the contracted flight schools to be generally adequate, although ratings of the two schools varied and in certain areas much improvement is necessary. Second, it was concluded that many changes, additions, and deletions need to be made to the flight training schools' programs.
Ten recommendations were made. These were as follows: (a) consolidation of the two flight handbooks, (b) departmental reexamination of the entire flight school program, ( c) implementation of a simulator program, ( d) distribution of study results throughout the school, ( e) monthly department meetings for review and continuous improvement of implemented changes, (f) inclusion of student representatives in the meetings, (g) invitation of contractors to the meetings, (h) development of a flight student satisfaction feedback mechanism, (i) development of a more comprehensive survey based upon the FSES, and G) administration of the comprehensive survey to students and comparison with present study results.