Jens,
The case histories section of the web site goes into some detail on what I
do with individuals and groups to enable them to reduce the interference
effects of their prior learning.
Your question is a challenging one because much of what we do as
professionals appears, to an unpracticed eye, to be easy or simple.
However, like all things that are developed to a high level of performance
refinement, there is much that goes on below the surface that is critical
to the success of the process. It is so with flying and the same goes for
changing old ways into new ways. Having to "explain" all in simple terms
won't be easy but let's try it, anyway.
People who attended my presentation at the Royal Aeronautical Society's
Human Factors Conference at Gatwick last month saw a simple demonstration
of how Old Way/New Way can be used to treat a very basic learning problem -
the correction of a persistent misspelling of a word. That demonstration
showed the main steps involved and while that kind of problem is a long way
from trying to improve crew members'adherence to SOP's or trying to improve
situational awareness, there are specific Old Way/New Way protocols for
each of those problems, too.
The Old Way/New Way process has a number of steps. How these are applied
and what I actually say and do with the person who is trying to change
depends, of course, on the specifics of the "problem" but broadly speaking
these are the steps involved.
Step one is error diagnosis. I have to determine if we are dealing with a
learned error or a simple transient "mistake" because the remedy is
different in each case. Mistakes can be dealt with using conventional
training or re-training or perhaps they are to be expected as part of the
normal learning process. Learned errors, however, require Old Way/New Way
because trying to correct them using conventional means (e.g., "that's
wrong, don't do it that way; watch me - do it this way; now you copy me;
now go away and practice") does not work - it arouses proactive inhibition
and causes interference with new learning (that very thing you're trying to
teach the person) so that the new learning suffers accelerated forgetting
(within minutes or hours) and the old inappropriate learning returns. This
is the basis of the transfer of training problem so well known to trainers
and trainees alike.
Error diagnosis relies on *expert* input, e.g., from a flying instructor.
I'm not a pilot or a sports coach so when I work with pilots or elite
athletes I'm part of a team who works out the problem - the pilot trying to
change; the instructor and me as the change facilitator. Together we work
out what's going wrong. (At this point you can probably see how this
methodology would ideally be part of the instructor's own set of training
*tools* on which he or she could draw during normal day-to-day instruction.)
Step two involves teaching the person the difference between his or her
"old" and "new" way, i.e, the way they normally or often do it, and the way
they *should* be doing it.
This difference is then reinforced until it is clear in their heads, before
proceeding with the final step which is the practice of the "new" way.
Conventional training and teaching methods never spend much time on the
"error" apart from pointing it out first time and reminding the person each
time they do it wrong. Trainers are not interested in seeing errors because
they are a sign that the desired learning has *not* occurred - the training
that was provided did not *take* - training failed. Old Way/New Way
practitioners look at errors quite differently - if the error is consistent
then it indicates that learning *did* take place. Unfortunately, for one
reason or another, that learning was incorrect - he learned to do it
*wrong*. But you have to start with what the person already knows, which is
their error. You can't ignore it and simply teach the right way over the
top of it and hope that the wrong way will go away, because it doesn't go
away. It returns to haunt you when you least expect it.
Conventional training simply points out the error and then goes straight
into showing the person why its wrong, what they should be doing instead
and then gets the to practice the *right* way straight off. Conventional
training never spends much time looking at what kinds of error patterns the
person reveals, and even if it did do that and found that the person's
error was consistent and therefore *learned*, it has no other remedy to
offer than the time-honoured one of telling the person to *practice*,
*practice*, *practice*.
Here's another issue. Your training may appear to be successful because the
trainee is doing all the right things during training and also in the
simulator and most times when up in the air. But when the going gets tough
and stressful *then* and only then will you find out whether what you
taught them has really *taken*. It is in those moments, as you rightly
point out, that people revert to their early experience, their familiar,
well-practiced routines, even though these may be sub-optimal, completely
innapropriate or downright dangerous in the situation.
Old Way/New Way by-passes the interference from prior learning and
accelerates the change process because it addresses these fundamental
learning processes, while conventional training does not really deal with
them at all.
Another part of what I do is try to make the person an informed participant
in the self change process. Remember that the process enables individuals
to change *themselves* - no one can change us - change must come from
within. I find it works better when the person or crew receives some
preliminary instruction in our novel version of the learning process; why
old habits and skills die hard, why self change is so slow and frustrating
and how this knowledge will enable them to take direct personal control of
the self change process. While it is also possible to *do it* without
giving them this knowledge, the results are not as good and the
counter-intuitive aspects of the methodology tends to put people off if
they haven't been *primed* beforehand. After all, what would *you* think if
I told you to *do it wrong* for me, again and again? Without the proper
sharing of knowledge about the methodology the client would soon start to
treat you with suspicion, and understandably so.
I hope this explains broadly yet clearly enough what I do as an Old Way/New
Way facilitator of change. The range of applications for this methodology
are still being charted and each day we hear of new and exciting ways
people have used it to change their lives.
However, Old Way/New Way is not for everyone and it is certainly no *quick
fix*. We like to think of it as an intelligent fix. For the method to work
you really do need someone who is able to identify exactly what is being
done wrong, what should be done instead and what the differences are
between these two ways. Not everyone is that analytical. Secondly, you need
people who are willing to change or at least see a need to change. The
methodology is able to sort out those people who are *really* unwilling
from those who appear to put up a resistant front because they believe,
deep down, that it is impossible to change themselves (based on past
experiences of failure perhaps). If you're truly unwilling and refuse to
cooperate then nothing, not even Old Way/New Way will change you. However,
even where there appears to be an *attitude problem* or a *culture problem*
believed to be responsible for lack of change, we have shown that Old
Way/New Way, when properly handled, can achieve self change among employees
(refer to the ALCOA/KAAL case history). Thirdly, for the methodology to
work you need someone who is prepared to practice their new way. Without
practice, as we all know, what you learn is soon forgotten and this is no
exception. Finally, self change is an intensely personal process and can be
demanding. The person must be prepared to put in the effort and cooperate
with the facilitator all the way through the process. The facilitator can
share with them the knowledge they need to achieve self change, but the
effort is something they alone can produce. However, we can usually promise
them that if they are prepared to put in the effort then they will get the
rewards; whereas with conventional training and learning they might put in
the same effort or more and be disappointed with the result.
Paul
--Paul Baxter Ph.D. M.A. Dip.T. MAPS The Habit Shop: A performance enhancement consultancy 25 Coolaroo Crescent Jindalee Australia 4074 Ph. +61-(0)500-579-257. Fax +61-(0)7-3376-1576. Mobile +61-(0)418-784-951 E-mail: pbaxter_at_personalbest.com.au http://www.personalbest.com.au/~pbaxter/training.htm