The ALIVE training module has several logistic advantages over standard Classroom training in its ability to be delivered on demand at virtually any place and time in which a firefighter has time and access to a computer, tablet, or smart phone. It also has medium and long term cost advantages. The purpose of this study was to see whether, given these advantages, ALIVE can deliver training content as effectively as the Classroom. For that purpose we sought to create as fair a comparative test as possible. The Classroom situation was designed to be an example of excellent training of that mode - we chose the best instructors we could find and developed training lessons that comprehensively addressed the same material as did ALIVE, and made use of lecture, images, videos, as well as question-and-answer discussions. Subjects in three different cities, including volunteer firefighters, were randomly assigned to conditions.
Because all subjects were firefighters, there was always the risk that training would be interrupted by an emergency. This risk was low in New York and Chicago, where firefighters either took training on their days off, or were rotated to a training schedule. It was higher in Bloomington which had lower staffing levels. In fact, training on one morning was interrupted by a fire call which took a number of firefighters in the ALIVE condition away from training for about an hour. We were impressed by their ability to return and calmly resume their task. This event pointed to the capabilities of firefighters to adroitly manage their difficult jobs along with other tasks, but it also highlighted an advantage of ALIVE - that it can be interrupted and easily re-started at any point in training.
We were looking to see if online training through ALIVE was the equal of Classroom training on the same topics, using comparable material. In fact, the results described above show that the quality of learning using ALIVE was superior in almost every case, at a statistically significant level. While firefighters in both ALIVE and Classroom situations significantly improved their knowledge levels through training, those in ALIVE scored better in the post-test, and improved at a greater level, than did those in the Classroom.
These results held true for all three modules and in all three cities. Moreover, learning levels in the retention test (2 weeks after the training) remained higher than the pre-tests (before receiving the training), although there was some loss from post-test (immediately after receiving the training). ALIVE subjects improved more from pre-test to retention than did classroom subjects, showing ALIVE's capability of enhancing retention, although with less strong levels of statistical significance.
These findings were also supported by the use of a self-knowledge scale, which showed that ALIVE subjects rated their own acquisition of knowledge as higher than did those who had the Classroom training. This finding also held true across all modules and cities.
These results show that ALIVE has significant value and distinct benefits as a reliable means of delivering critical information to firefighters, and as such, can play an important role in supporting safe and effective firefighting in many venues. While we tested firefighters in or near major metropolitan areas, ALIVE's value may even be greater in small communities without the resources to support high level classroom training.
We should also make clear that these results do not suggest, and we do not support any claim, that ALIVE can or should replace Classroom training. Live discussion with effective instructors is and should remain a critical part of any training system. Rather, we suggest that ALIVE is most valuable when used jointly with Classroom training, as an effective means of delivering critical information. The use of ALIVE can free up an instructor to discuss application of techniques to real situations, to answer questions, and to demonstrate techniques and the use of equipment.