In the fire service industry, training has primarily been offered in the face-to-face format due to lack of leadership support and inability to keep fire fighters in service during required training. The purpose of this quantitative, ex post facto study was to compare the effectiveness of the blended and face-to-face delivery methods for fire fighter training by examining student performance on written certification exams within two fire fighter training programs. The specific problem addressed was the uncertainty of the Texas A&M Engineering Extension Service leadership concerning which of its fire fighter training programs was more effective, the blended or face-to-face program. Archival data from a series of five test scores for 1,100 fire fighter recruits completing training through blended and face-to-face delivery were collected. Comparative analysis using a one-way MANOVA for hypotheses 1, 2, and 5 indicated a significant difference favoring the face-to-face modality (p < .001), and a significant difference favoring the blended modality for hypotheses 3 and 4 ( p < .001). Findings are considered mixed. Examination of MANOVA group means indicated an average difference of 2.72 points between scores in the two delivery methods. Recommendations for future research include (a) replication of the study to include collection and analysis of demographic data, (b) a survey of students to assess satisfaction and knowledge transfer following completion of training, and (c) a survey of employers to assess perceptions of knowledge acquisition and transfer for new hires completing the training programs.
|Advisor:||Alston, Judy A.|
|Commitee:||Johnston, Elizabeth, van Niekerk, Hermanus|
|School:||University of Phoenix|
|School Location:||United States -- Arizona|
|Source:||DAI-A 80/06(E), Dissertation Abstracts International|
|Subjects:||Educational leadership, Adult education, Educational technology|
|Keywords:||Blended learning, Evaluation, Firefighting, Training|
Copyright in each Dissertation and Thesis is retained by the author. All Rights Reserved
The supplemental file or files you are about to download were provided to ProQuest by the author as part of a
dissertation or thesis. The supplemental files are provided "AS IS" without warranty. ProQuest is not responsible for the
content, format or impact on the supplemental file(s) on our system. in some cases, the file type may be unknown or
may be a .exe file. We recommend caution as you open such files.
Copyright of the original materials contained in the supplemental file is retained by the author and your access to the
supplemental files is subject to the ProQuest Terms and Conditions of use.
Depending on the size of the file(s) you are downloading, the system may take some time to download them. Please be