A3.1 Purpose and Directions

#Facilitation Assessment

The facilitation strategies and techniques instructor pilots should use to assist crews in conducting their own debriefings while giving direction and focus as necessary. The two main goals of the debriefing are to:

1. Get the crew to perform an in-depth analysis of the situation that confronted them, how they understood and managed the situation, the outcome, and ways to improve.
2. Get the crew to participate in a proactive, rather than reactive, manner in which they initiate discussion and elaborate beyond the minimal.

These goals are based on the assumption that active participation by the crew will result in a higher level of learning and increased likelihood of transfer to the line. The same assumption underwrites the facilitation technique reproduced in A1.1 Foreword and Introduction and the C-A-L model that organises the debrief discussion in A1.3 The C-A-L Debriefing Model.

#Directions

Use the scale below to rate the instructor on each of the following elements, then total the scores to get the overall rating for each category.

#The 1-to-5 rating scale

Each behavioural marker (four per category, twenty across the rubric) is scored on this 1-to-5 scale; the four scores within a category are totalled to produce an "Overall rating" for the category. The rubric does not specify a pass-fail threshold or aggregation rule across categories: the operational interpretation of the totals is delegated to the training-quality function of the approved programme. Where an operator (or approved programme) sets a minimum standard for instructor facilitation performance, that standard sits below this rubric and is not part of the rubric itself.

#The five categories

The rubric organises instructor facilitation behaviour under five categories. Each category has four behavioural markers; each marker is anchored at five rating levels by an explicit descriptor. The categories and their pages in this appendix:

• A3.2 Category 1 The Introduction. Whether the instructor frames the debrief so the crew knows it is theirs to drive: their role, the expected depth, and the rationale for active participation.
• A3.3 Category 2 Use of Questions. Whether the instructor's questioning pattern gets the crew talking, keeps the focus on the crew, deepens the discussion beyond yes/no answers, and builds crew-to-crew interaction.
• A3.4 Category 3 Encouragement. Whether the instructor conveys interest in crew views, uses active listening and strategic pauses, draws out quiet members, and refrains from lecturing.
• A3.5 Category 4 Focus on Crew Analysis and Evaluation. Whether the instructor pushes the crew to analyse along CRM dimensions, evaluate their performance, explore CRM issues' line-operations consequences, and go beyond simply describing what happened.
• A3.6 Category 5 Use of Videos. Whether the instructor's video discipline (number, duration, equipment use, discussion focus, point-making) supports the debrief rather than substituting for it.

#How the rubric relates to upstream sources

The Facilitation Assessment Tool adapts the qualitative FSF / NASA criteria reproduced in A1.2 Instruction vs Facilitation. The FSF / NASA work supplies the conceptual taxonomy (levels of facilitation; criteria for effective crew participation; criteria for effective instructor facilitation; the question / silence / active-listening / video toolkit). The rubric in this appendix translates the criterion set into a structured scoring instrument: it picks four observable behavioural markers per category, then anchors each marker at five rating levels using language the evaluator can apply by direct observation rather than by interpretive judgement.

The translation is not lossless. Some criteria in the FSF / NASA discipline (the levels-of-facilitation continuum from high to low; the "all critical topics covered" criterion) are not directly represented as markers in the rubric: they sit upstream as the qualitative frame the rubric assumes. An evaluator using this rubric should read A1.2 Instruction vs Facilitation alongside, so the scoring is anchored not only in the cell descriptors but also in the discipline they encode.

#Connections

• A1.2 Instruction vs Facilitation. The FSF / NASA "Criteria for Effective Instructor Facilitation" upstream of the rubric; supplies the qualitative taxonomy this 100-cell matrix operationalises.
• A1.1 Foreword and Introduction. The full FSF / NASA citation and the empirical study (NASA TM 110442) that grounds the facilitation discipline.
• 7.3 General Debrief Techniques. References this rubric as the operational scoring tool that turns the criteria-for-effective-facilitation list into a rating; the chapter defers full reproduction to this appendix.
• A3.2 Category 1 The Introduction. The first category of the rubric, scoring how the instructor frames the debrief.
• A3.6 Category 5 Use of Videos. The last category of the rubric, scoring video discipline.
• Facilitation. The instructional technique the rubric measures.
• C-A-L model. The discussion frame the rubric implicitly assumes (Category 4 maps directly to the "A" component, Category 5 supplies the playback mechanism Category 4's analysis runs against).
• CRM. The performance dimensions Category 4 explicitly invokes.