I am just in the process of putting together my ideas, notes, plans etc
for this semester - l am teaching "Instructional Psychology" to third
year pilots completing a B App Sci in Civil Aviation. This has brought
to mind two threads which have been under discussion on this list in the
last week or so, The science of Training and Negative Transfer of
Training.
I am essentially teaching the students the "science of Training" so as
they may be better instructors with an increased understanding of the
student pilots as adult learners. I use a lot of hands on experiments,
group discussions, experiential exercises etc; to successfully teach
adult learning they must be taught using principles of adult learning. I
have used one paper on "The Negative Transfer of Training" (Major
R.L.Myer; Flying Safety, Sep 1984) - an old paper but the students found
it a good intro to thinking about their own and potential examples of
neg transfer of training.
I would be interested to discuss this topic with other interested
members. I would also be interested in any scenarios, experiential
exercises etc specifically related to aviation. Whilst l have a aviation
background, l am not a pilot and feel at a disadvantage sometimes (l
have no war stories!) Any suggestions would be much appreciated.
Regards,
Jo-Anne Hamilton.
Vince Mancuso wrote:
>
> Hello Everyone,
>
> Since the early work in CRM was primarily conducted by social
> psychologists, most of the findings and proposed solutions that we all used
> for our early programs had a distinct social psychology spin. This early
> work by social scientists did a lot to help us put voice, understanding,
> and awareness to the domain we now call CRM. However, for many developers
> and managers on this forum, our predominant challenge involves identifying
> effective training methods rather than finding new CRM phenomenon to train.
> We all know that training cannot solve all of our human performance
> challenges, yet it remains one of our best tools. Since many of the
> individuals on this forum have jobs that include training development, I
> would like to focus a few paragraphs on the underrepresented science of
> training.
>
> Skilled training scientists are well suited for identifying effective CRM
> and safety training methods, yet, how many training scientists do you see
> at CRM and Human Factors conferences? While social psychologists still
> have much to tell us about the way humans interact, training scientists
> have scarcely begun showing us how to build better training solutions to
> meet CRM and safety training challenges. The body of knowledge on
> professional training is immense and very mature. By-and-large it has not
> been effectively tapped by the CRM community. Multimedia creates
> tremendous training potential if we have the wherewithal to seek experts
> who can help us maximize its effectiveness. The increased utility and
> accessibility of multimedia will further increase the need for skilled
> training scientists. The science of training is grossly underrepresented
> in today's CRM and safety training programs.
>
> New paths to training scientists, multimedia experts, and other training
> methodology experts will allow us to draw from expertise that we will not
> find if we use the traditional paths and doors we have used for the past 20
> years. This forum is an integral part of building better paths to other
> professionals and a refreshing change. Yet old paths have familiar footing
> and familiar paradigms are comfortable. I am reminded of a saying: "If
> you always do what you have always done, then you will always get what you
> always got". I am also reminded of a humorous definition of psychosis:
> "It's doing the same thing over and over but expecting different results".
> I am encouraged to see training scientists joining our discussions and I
> would encourage the group to invite other training scientists and experts
> (inside or outside aviation) to contribute. A talented and accessible
> training scientist will soon find a well-worn path to his or her door.
>
> Two excellent contributions that that focused specifically on the science
> of training come to mind immediately:
>
> 1. Ros Woodhouse's response today:
>
> http://www.caar.db.erau.edu/lists/crm-devel/Feb_98/0044.html
>
> 2. Wendy Santilhano's response on experiential training in June 1997:
>
> http://www.caar.db.erau.edu//lists/crm-devel/Jun_97/0043.html
>
> There have been countless others but these stick in my mind as addressing
> core "science of training" issues. Thanks for your expertise!
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Vince Mancuso
>
> ??? Wendy, are you still out there???