Re: Training effectiveness
TRACY S. DAY (tmday_at_leading.net)
Sat, 18 Jul 1998 08:16:34 -0400
I just completed a study of the impact the Navy ACT program has had on P-3
mission effectiveness. The results amazed me. We utilize a classroom
facilitation of case study, sea stories, role play, and exercises, but,
mostly case study. This has been the training for about 6 years and the
feedback I was getting from the fleet caused me to feel we were experiencing
a boomerang effect. This may be true and may be shown later on with newer
data. My finding however, showed the opposite, that ACT did not have a
negligible negative impact and probably was a cause for an increase in
mission effectiveness. The hypothesis was that there would be no
significant difference (.05 level) between mining and torpedo exercise
scores of ACT trained crews and non-ACT trained crews. This was a causal
comparison study utilizing paired t-tests and a mean comparison to test the
hypothesis. The subjects were fleet crews from the west coast for the
torpex and Jacksonville squadrons for the minex. There were 280 data points
for the torpex comparison using crews from 1990, 91, 92 as the non ACT crews
(P-3 started ACT training in 93), and 94, 95, 96 crews for the ACT crews.
The same years were used to compare minex scores but since only MRCI's of
Jacksonville squadrons were used there was only 14 data points. The threats
to validity were other training program changes the major being Tactical
Proficiency Course, I consider this ACT training. Software changes on the
aircraft were considered not significant by expert users. The use of GPS
was eliminated in the study. Experience of the crews was not measureable
and is a recognized threat. The aircraft hardware is considered as a
non-threat by expert users.
These are my initial findings and they support the fact that the use of
a case study, excercises, and role plays together are effective. I do not
know if one of those is better than the others however, in the critiques I
receive the case studies and sea stories receive the highest approval
rating.
Tracy Day
LT USN
P-3 ACT Program Manager VP-30
-----Original Message-----
From: CRMDEEN_at_aol.com <CRMDEEN_at_aol.com>
To: crm-devel_at_db.erau.edu <crm-devel_at_db.erau.edu>
Date: Wednesday, July 15, 1998 7:38 PM
Subject: Training effectiveness
>
>Hi gang, got a new question:
> Has anyone ever done a research study on the effectiveness of a
>particular technique of training, compared to others? Someone in my area
has
>proposed changing our CRM teaching methods to do only case studies.
> My initial reaction is that while reviewing case studies, maybe
even
>watching a video tape of the mishap, and trying to analyze what the mishap
>crew did and did not do, this is a very shallow approach to effective
behavior
>modification. Isn't this only generalization, and not experiential? I
>certainly don't think it approaches a behavioral skill level that Vince
>Mancuso is advocating.
> The challenge I'm facing is telling these folks that while case
studies
>are good, they are not AS good as some other techniques. So the question
will
>be, HOW much better is experiential, role-play, exercises, etc. type of
>training? Does anyone have some supporting data or experiences?
>
>Greg Deen
>Raytheon
>