About truth.
Aristotle described three rhetoric appeals, which are proofs of the art of language, i.e. rhetoric. These appeals prove the worth of a speaker and they make an educator. Instructor, coach, or teacher in aviation realm has actually a safety role. What the learner learns, needs to be correct and it has to be internalized effectively. In aviation, you do not learn to pass the exam, but you learn to keep flying public safe. Teacher’s skill in rhetoric, is therefore really a safety tool.
Logically, but interestingly, the idea of the need to ensure that learning correct competencies well enough enhances aviation safety, has trickled to European regulation governing the technical requirements and administrative procedures relating to Air Traffic Controllers’ licences and certificates. Perhaps Aristotle was not specifically discussed while regulation was written, but his influence can easily be witnessed.
First rhetoric appeal under focus is the most clearly regulated. It is called logos, the logic of the subject matter and the reasoning to construct an argument. Logos is the correctness of the content. It is the correct material, right principles, accurate procedures etc. It also involves presenting this correct content in a manner that appeals to audience’s logic. It is facts, statistics, data and figures that are used to persuade the learner to accept the truth. It is the black and the white.
This sounds like a reasonable requirement for a teacher, right? It should not be a tall order to have teacher teach what is actually correct. To ensure that teachers, and training organisations for that matter, know what to teach to the aspiring cadets, regulations roll out an exhaustive list of subjects, topics and subtopics that are required to be covered during training. They even detail most of the relevant reference material to be used in training content.
The elevated level of detail in regulated training syllabi serves the benefit of harmonizing training programs and managing quality of training on macro level. It also is a direct attempt to support the rhetoric ambition of training organizations by ensuring that logos actually happens. When all the required material is included in the training design, then organization can breathe in relief, as they have successfully ticked the logos box.
How about the teachers then? How do they get their logos mojo up? The teachers of the logosful training organization indeed need to include logos in their daily communications with students. Their rhetoric skills are measured in one way by how well they are versed in the substance they are teaching both in class and outside of it. The challenge for teacher is to keep up with the latest documentation, developments, trends, technology, systems and so on. If the organization has latest reference material in use, then teachers may take support from the logos the training material provides, and this way fill the rhetoric requirement.
Let’s take this idea further? If the teacher can lean on the teaching material to make sure his or her teaching is correct, then it is not really necessary for him or her to update their own logos –bank. I am sure we’ve all seen that teacher, who stands (or sits) in the class and reads out loud the text on the dreary overhead projector slide. I call these teachers the talking heads. All the content is absolutely correct and valid, but somehow it is not inviting learning centers to open in our brains.
In fact, all the logos the trainee needs is already written out. The logos lies in ICAO documents, manuals, aeronautical publications, textbooks and what have you. Bring in the undeniably most correct material there is, the source material. Give the trainees the doc 4444 to read when they need to learn the separations, or give them the AIP to learn local airspace and procedures. Can’t get more logos than that.
This idea brings forward my point. Relying on correct content only, does not yet guarantee correct and effective learning. Especially in industry in which correct practical competencies are critical, learning takes more than reading “The Book of All Correct Things”, or listening a lecture by a talking head. The teacher needs to present more rhetoric abilities for audience to accept, learn and understand the message. If logos was the only proof of rhetoric, we would not need teachers. And we would not learn much either.
To be continued with ethos.
