quote:

And the research is pointless. I understand that you are not in the training field and don't realize just how useless this task really is. But that is all the more reason to listen to people like LoveLearning who know what they are talking about.

Help me understand this. You are saying that looking at the research is pointless, so instead listen to a complete stranger or strangers who are completely anonymous, who's qualifications and experience are unverifiable?

You? Lovelearning?

If you or lovelearning provided unbiased and reasoned explanations, that would be one thing. Or if you used something, let's say learning theory to explain your position. But absent a show of literacy about learning, understandable explanation, etc and given the implicit insults once again posted by the two of you, why should anyone put credence in what you are saying?

It's a seriously meant question. The passive-aggressiveness you guys seem to dredge up is sure curiousity provoking. It an embarrassment, or should be that the face of trainers is so mean-spirited, and narrow.

If you are seriously inclined on this issue, take a look at issues like overlearning, automization, and the conditions needed to disrupt currently used cognitive or psychomoter routines through training.

If you don't know what these mean, it's probably not a big deal, except when you jump on someone for a well meant and interesting question. Anonymously too.

I don't agree with you and LL. I don't see any argument that even approaches an attempt to do anything but assert your views, and in the process be "one up" on yet another questioner. I don't see any information about you and LL to make you credible, or any reason to give anything you say any credence. Stating "so and so knows what she's talking about" is a weak argument, yes?


It's enough, already.

Thank you for the simulator/FAA lead. I'm not sure why you provided it if you think it's a different thing (maintaining competence is probably different than reaching competence with respect to refreshing/re-training).

Could you explain? Civilly.

If I could find a study which says that retraining people is pointless and doesn't work, that would ALSO be useful to me, KaliKo.

I've spent enough time in academia to know that you don't get to say anything is true or false until you've tested it, so I rather reject the notion that "the research is pointless." The research may support the conventional wisdom, or it may not, but there's no way to know if the conventional wisdom is true or not until you test it. (You wouldn't think there'd be a whole body of research on screen captures, but there is, and it doesn't all say what you might expect.)

I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything; I just want to know what, if any, research has been done on it.

I don't know why LL deleted his/her posts. There was some stuff in there I wanted to look at more later. Very disappointing.

quote:

Originally posted by KaliKo:
[QUOTE]But if the OP and you have time to spend on an interesting topic, then go ahead because it is interesting. But I believe this forum should be a venue for education, especially when the person is going down a path that will not result in fixing the problem.

To be fair, part of my task is to prove due diligence in this matter. It's not just an "interesting question," ('though it is interesting) but proof one way or the other that someone with expertise in analyzing effective training is going to make a difference.

I'm afraid I'm latched onto this question like my terrier latches onto stray socks.

Anecdotally -- and this has nothing to do with my research -- I often use this method myself informally: read the directions, try the task, then -- having potentially done it wrong or found a step confusing, re-read the directions. Having already tried it, the instructions make more sense to me. As long as it's not something that's going to detach my fingers or kill me, of course. I'm a pretty mixed-style learner, though.

I'm sorry to have asked on the wrong forum. It seemed very promising.

quote:

I realize the question was meant seriously. I also realize that the answer the OP is seeking will not help fix the error rate. It is not a matter of re-training using the same techniques that failed the first time.

I also "realize" that people who repeatedly cannot figure out that you begin a quote with one command, and end it with the same comman prefaced by a / are not good learners and not to be trusted. That's MY experience. Well, it's wrong, isn't it.

There is a difference between presenting a position (as you have done in the form of an OPINION) and supporting that opinion. THe former does not educate. The latter does. What I'm seeing here that is most aggravating is that you have done the former and not done the latter. At least give us an argument if you feel the need to attack. Is that unreasonable?

quote:

But if the OP and you have time to spend on an interesting topic, then go ahead because it is interesting. But I believe this forum should be a venue for education, especially when the person is going down a path that will not result in fixing the problem.

I ask again. Why should anyone consider your opinion at all? You are anonymous. We don't know you, your experience, education, skill...in short nothing. If you want to "educate" then your arguments have to stand on logic, good data, and not just reiteration.

If you want to educate, you might consider that your anonymous opinion and your unverifiable "experience" has no value without a context, which we lack.

quote:

As for as experience being unverifiable, I have worked both sides of this - I participated in the aviation AQP research and also have spent considerable time in manufacturing training and have dealt with situations just like the OP mentioned - many times.

This tells me you might have something to contribute besides an opinion which you haven't yet backed up or explained. I'm sorry, but I just don't see anything here but you yelling out your position.

Do you have enough information about the issues the OP is facing, the environment, etc, to make your pronouncements. I think not. But who knows.

quote:

If I thought I had nothing to offer, I would not have responded.

I'm sure all of us have had occasion to at least initially think we had something to offer, only to find, through thinking it out, that we didn't. At least I hope other trainers go through that kind of thought process.

The value of a contribution to learning, be it in a forum or in a classroom, doesn't rest with you, the trainer, but with the person wanting to learn. I don't think it's going well.

Does that tell you anything about you as a learning facilitator? Or do you interpret the situation as the OP being at fault for not cheering your comments?

There IS a pattern of blaming others on this board for almost anything.

Sorry for rambling.

Mea Culpa. This is less valuable than I thought when I started.

The Conflict Resource Center
http://conflict911.com

quote:

Originally posted by KaliKo:
But first, one has to fully understand what is meant by the term "retraining." In the context above, it is very unclear what you mean by retraining.

I am quite surprised that after all my explanation as to what I am asking about, you still don't understand my question. I've explained what I mean by "retraining", explained that I understand we can't use that word due to its having another meaning, and given an example to serve as an illustration.

I've been discussing this with several people I know in real life, and no one seems at all confused about the idea of re-taking a class or training session. Quite a few of them have looked at this thread and are amazed at this conversation. Without asking them leading questions, I've asked them what they take away from the discussion, and their level of understanding is pretty good:
You train people on a series of steps. You test their skill level with those steps. You train them again. You test their skill levels again You compare the failure rate of Test 1 and Test 2.

quote:

There really is no such term, except that given to it by the person asking the question. I think that is one of the things LL was trying to get clarified. So, to talk about "retraining" someone and whether or not it is effective means nothing one way or the other until you clarify what you are calling retraining.

Yes, and this was done. Several times.

quote:

Again, I can understand the confusion since you are not in the training field, but I don't think you fully understand what you are asking here. You can't test anything until you have something valid to test.

Still? You STILL don't know what I'm asking? At this point, I get the impression that saying I am not in training is a huge detriment to actually getting help or information from anyone.

Lesson learned. I guess you can chalk this one up to a successful training method. Next time, may I suggest the cattle prod? I hear it achieves excellent results.