Greg,
An active involvement in learning via simulation/practice is desirable for
any real change, as has already been pointed out by others in this
discussion group. Case studies will not provide this type of learning
experience and will result in little if any real change.
The other issue to be considered is that in many behavior change programs
the learner may _appear_ to be able to adopt the desired behaviors during
the training/learning/class session, e.g., "crew members ask questions
regarding crew actions" (one of Helmreich's Crew Performance Markers) but
when they get into the air much of what they apparently were able to do
during training seems to disappear. This is especially noticeable when
things get busy or in emergency situations. People invariable revert to
their "own way" and forget their training. This is known as the "transfer
of skill/learning problem". The transfer problem plagues most training
efforts. For example, recent research from the University of Texas tells
us that it can take up to 1,000 hours for an experienced pilot to become
fully competent and comfortable with the FMS. The transfer problem applies
to all training and learning situations and not just flying planes - it is
universal and hence extremely important to address.
The traditional answer to the transfer problem is to make them practice -
"just keep practicing and it will come, eventually". While this is true
and most will catch on soon and other will take longer, the effects
associated with the transfer problem (frustration, extra training time and
cost, dropout rate) take their toll.
The transfer problem is the real bogey in CRM training (and in any other
training) and it has to be addressed. While you may undeniably produce
better learning gains using simulation than using case studies alone, you
will still face the problem of transfering what they have learned during
simulation to the real world situation.
We maintain that one of the main causes for the transfer problem and the
associated slow rate of learning progress is interference associated with
the learner's prior knowledge. Much of the earlier psychological research
by a fellow called Benton Underwood taught us the powerful effects of prior
knowledge on attempts to learn new knowledge and skills. The brain
mechanism responsible for the proactive (forward acting) interference
exerted by prior knowledge over new learning was called proactive
inhibition or PI for short. PI can be understood as the interference
(forgetting) exerted by prior (old) knowledge over new knowledge. PI
explains why old habits die hard and why trainees often appear to forget
what they have just learned and revert to their old ways of behaving and
performing. PI lost its popularity as a research topic (psychology is
unfortunately obsessed with recency in research and ignores much valuable
early work). However, the PI research still remains unchallenged and it
was not until recently that its full implications for all kinds of training
and learning training have become apparent. More about this later.
To answer Greg's question about research on effectiveness of training
methods, we did some research in 1996/1997 in the occupational skills area
with Commonwealth government funding to trial a new approach to changing
work habits/behaviors and skills. This was a comparative methods study
incorporating a control group and an independent analyst did the data
analysis. In this controlled field experiment we compared conventional
methods of training and error correction with a new method called Old
Way/New Way, developed in Australia by Harry Lyndon, an educational
psychologist. I should point out that we achieved a degree of experimental
control and precision not usually obtained in comparative methods
experiments - while most would agree that this kind of research design is
highly desirable, you don't see too much of it because it is difficult to
set up. Consequently, we felt we could place some degree of confidence in
our research findings.
We had 3 matched groups of trainees totalling 34 adults in 8 different
manual skill areas and 12 trainers. Trainees had typical performance errors
and bad work habits that trainers encountered year after year and that had
proven resistant to all correction attempts yet were important for
developing competence. In other words the kinds of habits and errors they
had posed significant problems for them. The research design was as
follows: One group was corrected using "conventional" skill correction
which typically can be described as, "No, don't do it that way (usually
accompanied by explanation); watch me - do it this way; now you copy it;
now go away and practice it." Just about all teaching and training follows
this general format. The second group received skill/habit correction using
Old Way/New Way which is a metacognitive approach to habit and skill
correction. It helps the person first develop an awareness of their own
(incorrect or sub-optimal) way of behaving or acting, then enables the
person to discriminate their way from the "correct" or better way of
acting; and then gives them practice in that new way. The third group of
trainees received no correction, although they were of course corrected
when the experiment was completed, in time to take their exams. The
control group was necessary to confirm that any observed improvements in
learning and error rate reduction were actually due to the treatments
(method of correction) and not due to some other confounding variable such
as "getting smarter", "getting tired", and so on.
The results indicated that Old Way/New Way was vastly superior to
conventional skill/habit correction. Habit correction was improved from an
average of 4% correct before intervention to 94% correct afterwards when
using Old Way/New Way. Conventionally corrected trainees improved from 4%
to 25% and the control group showed no improvement. Furthermore, the
dramatic improvement obtained with Old Way/New Way was immediate after one
session (there was no "adjustment period" to the new skill, technique or
procedure as is usual with other methods), was maintained over three
post-test periods, and was irrespective of skill type being considered.
This experiment, while dramatic, would of course not be conclusive by
itself but when considered with other published research evidence and years
of practical application (both paid and unpaid) in industry, education and
sport the picture that emerges is very clear. Old Way/New Way is very
effective in changing actual human behavior, misconceptions and improving
conceptual understanding in many different performance settings. We
typically achieve 80% or higher transfer of skill after one session and we
expect 100% behavior change after 2 to 5 brief sessions spaced at
fornightly intervals. The learner is also able to apply self-correction
after one session and since he or she becomes 90% effective in detecting
whenever they revert to their "old way", the rate of improvement is
understandably rapid. Old Way/New Way can deliver these learning gains
because it by-passes the PI mechanism. So, old habits no longer die hard.
Some of the recent applications of this methodolology include changing work
habits among aluminum casting pit crew members, flying light helicopters
(re-training pilots to use the correct technique for recovery from rotor
stall), and in competitive sport (quickly correcting technique difficulties
that cause injury or make for uncompetitive performance in golf, cricket,
football, rugby, swimming, track and field, etc). These case studies are
all described on my web site:
http://www.personalbest.com.au/~pbaxter/cases.htm
The case studies also include an example of how assertiveness training was
accelerated and this changed behavior quickly transferred to the workplace.
While solid research results can be impressive, to me it is even more
important to be able to show that the method actually works with real
people in the real world where they have to perform, often under pressure.
We are currently planning an Old Way/New Way trial to accelerate learning
and transfer in CRM and in simulation training with a large flight training
facility here in Australia and that work should hopefully commence within a
few months.
Old Way/New Way is the result of many years of effective collaboration
between researchers and practitioners in many applied fields.
Consequently, it is not only an effective learning method but it also has a
sound theoretical underpinning. A detailed explanation of the significance
of interference from prior knowledge, the meaning or errors and how
instructors deal with them, and the PI effect and how this is overcome
therefore now follows.
We believe this theoretical framework is a novel interpretation and
synthesis of established learning principles and is soundly based on
established research in learning, errors, habits, memory and transfer.=20
This methodology has strong implications for the acceleration of learning
in all areas including conceptual as well as skill learning.
This longish document contains these topics: The importance of habits. What
can we learn from mistakes? How do teachers respond to errors? Why do old
habits (knowledge, skills, attitudes, beliefs) die hard? Why is
prior knowledge so important? What are the implications for training
practice? A new model for teaching and learning. What are the benefits,
limitations and special requirements of Old Way/New Way? List of
published research papers.
The importance of habits.
We learn things by paying attention, observing, copying and practising. We
know we have "learned" something when we can remember it, i.e., recall some
information or repeat an action when necessary. Learning, an
internal process not directly observable, is therefore inferred from an
observed change in behaviour or performance.
Having been practiced over and over, learned actions and reactions have
become instinctive and happen without us having to concentrate on what we
are doing. We say our brain is on "automatic pilot". We are operating
under "force of habit". Most of what we do from day to day consists of
those automatic sequences of actions and reactions we call habits. When
what we do automatically is correct and appropriate for the situation, we
say we have developed, "good habits". Good habits or skills enable us to
function effectively. However, when our actions and reactions are
inappropriate, maybe even unsafe, we say we have developed "bad habits".
By the time we realise what we have done it is too late to stop. We find
that we are, "the prisoners of habit".
What can we learn from mistakes?
When someone makes an error it is usually taken as a sign that the person
has _not_ learned something. Many errors result from careless mistakes,
inattention or inexperience and these kinds of errors usually disappear as
the person gains mastery. Lets call these Type 1 errors.
Unlike the random errors made by beginners, errors made by more experienced
performers show a pattern - they are consistent, repetitive and clearly not
due to carelessness and inexperience. These "expert errors" are also
persistent in that they resist eradication attempts. They are examples of
what are called "habit errors", "learned errors" or "interference errors".
Let's call these Type 2 errors.
Instead of indicating the absence of learning, habit errors are a sign that
the person _has_ learned something - he has learned how to do it "wrong".
Error analysis can help identify which kind of error we are dealing with by
looking for a pattern or consistency. Type 1 and Type 2 errors require
quite different teaching approaches.
How do trainers respond to errors?
Type 1 errors indicate that the desired learning did not occur. Perhaps
the person was inattentive, careless, distracted or unmotivated or the
teaching method was inappropriate or the learning was unsuccessful for some
other reason. The remedy is to re-teach using appropriate compensations
and adjustments. Type 2 errors, however, indicate that learning did take
place but instead of learning the "right" way, the person unfortunately
learned a different and "wrong" way.
Conventional training methods point out errors whenever they occur and then
to emphasize the correct answer. Because errors are believed to indicate
the absence of learning, i.e., failed learning and by association possibly
failed teaching, trainers prefer not to dwell on errors any more than
necessary. This predisposition is also motivated by the mistaken belief
that paying too much attention to an habitual error will make it even more
difficult to eradicate. What the trainer is basically saying to the
trainee in all this is, "That's wrong; don't do it that way; I don't want
to see you doing it wrong; do it this way; copy me; now go and practice the
right way". This approach can be effective over an extended period of
intensive remediation but learning gains are typically slow. Transfer of
learning to performance settings outside the remedial setting is usually
poor because whenever the trainer is not directly attending to the trainee
the cues to correct performance are removed and so the trainee typically
reverts to his old wrong way.
Type 2 errors indicate that we are dealing with an _unlearning_ situation
rather than a straigh forward re-teaching situation. Incorrect prior
knowledge stands in the way of learning progress and it cannot simply be
ignored or glossed over; it must first be corrected, i.e., unlearned.
Why do old habits (knowledge, skills, behaviors, attitudes, beliefs) die
hard?
Prior knowledge and skills can either enhance or interfere with subsequent
learning. If pre-existing learning is correct and is consistent with new
learning, then the old enhances the learning of the
new. However, if prior knowledge is faulty and therefore differs from the
new, correct information being taught, then the brain immediately detects
this conflict and involuntarily activates a brain mechanism called
proactive inhibition.
Proactive inhibition (PI for short) is a knowledge protection mechanism. PI
was intensively studied by Benton Underwood and its powerful interference
effects are demonstrated in classical psychological
experiments using the mirror drawing apparatus, the learning of word lists
and the Stroop Colour Charts. PI can be described as, "old learning
interfering with new learning".
Underwood's ground breaking work spanned a lifetime and still remains
unchallenged but proactive inhibition eventually became somewhat
unfashionable (psychology suffers from an unfortunate obsession with
recency in research). It was not until 1989 that Lyndon developed a
synthesis of the PI literature and presented his novel interpretation of
how PI was the underlying cause of most non-achievement and apparent
failure to learn. According to Lyndon, PI's function is to automatically
protect everything we have learned and to resist and slow down any attempt
to change these things. PI preserves prior knowledge against the onslaught
of change demands. Without PI we would face having to relearn everything
from one day to the next.
Unfortunately, because PI does not "know" whether our current knowledge
base is "right" or "wrong", it equally protects incorrect as well as
correct knowledge and skills. This is why old habits die hard. PI works
by accelerating the forgetting of new knowledge and skills whenever these
conflict with prior knowledge and skills. Telling a person he is wrong,
however well-intentioned and received, only serves to activate PI which
then inhibits retention of the new learning the teacher is trying to
impart. Within a
matter of minutes or hours the learner appears to forget what he has just
been taught and reverts to his old incorrect knowledge and skills. This is
one of the main reasons why people so often return to their old ways after
soon after being taught something new, despite being well motivated to
change. Everyone has PI but some have more of it than others, hence some
individuals adapt to change remarkably easily while others find it hard going.
Why is prior knowledge so important?
"The single most important factor influencing learning is what the learner
already knows. Ascertain this, and teach her/him accordingly." (David
Ausubel). Most trainees are not a "blank slate" for the trainer
to write to. Even beginners already have at least some knowledge or
experience of the topic or skill being taught. More experienced
practitioners come to the learning situation loaded with prior knowledge
of the topic or skill being taught.
Some of this prior knowledge is correct but often, for one reason or
another, some of it is incomplete or incorrect or both. People often, "get
it wrong". When these wrong ideas and technique problems are not
picked up early enough and corrected, they become ingrained and like all
bad habits are then much harder to change. Consequently, many trainees
come to the classroom equipped with a raft of ingrained misconceptions,
learned errors, technique faults and bad habits upon which to base
subsequent learning. In other cases, a person's prior knowledge can soon
become outdated or unsuitable because they need to change their knowledge
and skills due to upgrading requirements or because they are transitioning.
In such situations the errors that trainees make and the length of time it
takes to achieve competence and feel comfortable with the "new way" poses
real problems for both trainee and trainer.
What are the implications for teaching practice? A new model for training
and learning.
The Lyndon Model offers educators and learners an alternative to straight
forward re-training. It is called the Old Way/New Way (copyright E.H.
Lyndon 1973). [To avoid possible confusion over terminology, the Old
Way/New Way methodology is also part of a learning package designed by
Lyndon called the Conceptual Mediation Program (CMP), Copyright Department
of Education, Training and Employment, South Australia].
Instead of always re-teaching, the trainer now has an additional
methodology to add to his or her repertoire of skills. Which method to use
depends on the results of diagnostic testing and error analysis. If
testing reveals underlying Type 1 errors, then re-training is in order. On
the other hand, if Type 2 errors are present then re-teaching will not work
because telling the student he is "wrong" will arouse proactive
inhibition and this will protect the student's prior (incorrect) knowledge
and skills from change by causing accelerated forgetting of the new
(correct) knowledge, thus producing an apparent re-emergence of the
prior incorrect learning (reversion to the old way). Type 2 errors require
correction using Old Way/New Way (copyright E.H. Lyndon, 1973) because this
method bypasses the PI effect and allows rapid change to
occur.
We maintain that because few learners are a clean slate the likelihood of
finding learned errors or "old ways" is actually quite high. Learned
errors tend to be underestimated due to the predominance of a particular
classroom testing procedure. Conventional classroom testing is typically
aimed at testing recognition rather than recall. In other words, in a
recognition test some cues to correct performance are usually present and
more or less obvious. Recall testing on the other hand is much more
demanding and
even more so is testing for application of knowledge. Since recognition
testing is the norm and cues as to the correct performance are present in
this type of test, the extent of incorrect prior knowledge and skill is
probably underestimated by these tests. Recognition testing does not test
for transfer of learning, in other words. The lack of transfer only shows
up later in real world performance situations.
We maintain that, apart from obvious cases where student motivation and
ability and teaching prowess are clearly deficient, most non-achievement in
learning is in fact due to the interference effects of prior learning (PI)
and is not due to "learning disabilities" as such.
Furthermore, PI is a problem not just with classic non-achieving or
"remedial" students, although it is likely that these individuals have
fallen into this predicament because they have more PI and hence more
"wrong old ways". Misconceptions and technique problems are widespread in
every aspect of learning and human performance. Because the level of PI
does not seem to be correlated with intellectual ability in general,
students of average or higher ability also suffer to a greater or lesser
extent from misconceptions and skill difficulties.
Misconceptions and technique difficulties are not unknown even among elite
and highly experienced performers as revealed in studies of elite athletes
and experienced airline pilots, for example. University of Texas flight
training research, e.g., showed that even experienced pilots had "wrong"
ideas about the way the FMS functioned and consequently tended to either
over- or under-estimate its capacities and acted accordingly. Prior
knowledge, whenever it is incorrect or incomplete, means that it takes
longer for learners to become competent and knowledgeable in their field.
To some extent then, much of what we try to learn can potentially suffer
interference from the PI effect due to the ever-likely conflict between our
prior learning and the new learning. This interference and the
associated accelerated forgetting of the new knowledge becomes apparent in
greater time (and expense) required to achieve competence. Since
interference from prior knowledge can affect almost all learning, we
claim that almost all learning can be _accelerated_ once these interference
effects are acknowledged and an effective compensatory learning methodology
is applied.
What are the benefits, limitations and special requirements of Old Way/New
Way?
Even a beautiful rose has some thorns and this method is no exception. Our
published research, experimental field trials and many years of successful
profit and non-profit applications have shown that Old Way/New
Way is very effective in accelerating all kinds of learning; is very
user-friendly; is non-manipulative; is empowering because it gives the
learner full control over the change process ; requires very little
monitoring; consistently achieves 80% or higher transfer of learning after
just one session and 100% transfer after two to four sessions; and is soon
picked up and adopted by learners who can then apply it to themselves after
initial guidance from their teacher, coach, instructor, therapist or trainer.
A significant requirement of Old Way/New Way is that it requires the
trainer to change the way he or she looks at learning and errors and
consequently to change his or her own way of training. Most trainers find
they have to make the change from relying solely on re-teaching to,
"re-teaching when appropriate and using Old Way / New Way when
appropriate". Since teaching style is a learned habit or established skill
and because old habits die hard (due to PI), many trainers experience great
difficulty in making the change. Recent adjustments to our professional
development workshop content and structure may help deal with this problem.
A third problem with Old Way / New Way is that to an inexperienced observer
it is deceptively easy. In our workshops we screen an Old Way/New Way
video that shows a vocational education teacher correcting an
apprentice's soldering technique and we also demonstrate a protocol for
correcting persistent spelling errors with adults and children. Teachers
are always surprised by the apparent simplicity of the technique and assume
that if it is that simple then surely anyone can easily pick it up.
However, like most procedures that are sophisticated but look deceptively
simple in the hands of experienced practitioners, there are many traps for
young players. Just like an iceberg there is much of significance below
the surface that lies hidden to inexperienced eyes. We have found that
unless teachers complete the full two-day program plus post-workshop
implementation support they invariably short-cut the method - they leave
things out, add extra things and change the instructions. This means that
their initial successes soon start to fade. They then blame the method,
start to mistakenly believe that it won't work for them and then stop using
it.
To counteract this problem we insist that all intending practitioners of
the methodology complete the full two-day training course which is half
theory and half application and also receive post-workshop implementation
support. Given that there are currently only two trainers in the
methodology, we are devising alternatives to the face-to-face workshop
approach to training in order to accelerate dissemination. A current
experiment employs distance education using email, audiotaped practice
sessions and structured assignments and the results of this trial will
inform future training in this methodology.
A fourth requirement which is sometimes problematic is that Old Way/New Way
requires an educator who can fulfil the role of subject matter expert. As
with any other learning process, this methodology needs a
practitioner who can conduct valid diagnostic tests and use the results to
identify any Type 1 and Type 2 errors that may be present. In other words,
the teacher has to know what the student is doing wrong, what the student
should be doing instead and how these differ. This requires a "thinking"
teacher, coach, therapist or trainer. Unfortunately, not every educator is
interested in errors and their correction.
A fifth difficulty is that both teachers and learners have come to accept
as "normal" the slow pace of improvement in skills and conceptual
understanding. They also accept as "unfortunate but normal" the even
longer period of time it takes to overcome ingrained misconceptions,
technique difficulties and bad habits because conventional wisdom tells us
that old habits die hard. The fact that learning takes a long time in
both these instances is therefore not even seen as a "problem". When
people do not see a problem then they see no need for a solution. These
beliefs are, by themselves, ingrained, have become habitual, are
protected by PI and are therefore resistant to change. Consequently,
convincing people that old habits no longer have to die hard is something
we have found very challenging, to put it mildly.
Paul
NOTE: Please note that all of this material is copyright and no part of
it can be reproduced in any form without the author's permission.
Published Research (copies available on request):
Baxter EP et al. 1996. Skill Correction and Accelerated Learning in the
Workplace. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Australian
National Training Authority Research Advisory Council, 3-4 November,
Melbourne.
Baxter EP & Dole SL 1990. Working with the brain, not against it. British
Journal of Special Education 17:19-22.
Dole SL 1991. New ways for old. Teaching Mathematics 17:3.
Lyndon EH 1989. I did it my way! Australasian Journal of Special
Education 13:32-37.
Rowell JR et al. 1990. Changing misconceptions. International Journal of
Science Education 12:167-175.
Department of Education, South Australia. 1983. Education Gazette. Vol.
11, No. 11, p.289.
Paul Baxter Ph.D. M.A. Dip.T. MAPS
PERSONAL BEST SYSTEMS A performance enhancement consultancy
25 Coolaroo Crescent Jindalee Australia 4074
Ph. 0500-579-257. Fax +61-7-3376-1576. Mobile +61-418-784-951
E-mail: pbaxter_at_personalbest.com.au
http://www.personalbest.com.au/training.htm