MadelynB,

I am sorry that you have found this experience so unsatisfactory. I have read and re-read your statements and explanations. The way I read them, they are not consistent. You are mixing apples and oranges and pears. I know the field of manufacturing and the training that occurs there. I also know the type of research that has been alluded to here by Robert. I have conducted that research myself in the field of aviation in the area of pilot training - which is the best place for you to look. But in this thread you're talking about things that don't go together. I am at a loss as to how to explain it any other way. You repeatedly acknowledge your own lack of understanding of the field of training, yet refuse the help that LL and I offered. I give up. I think we best end our dialogue, because it just gets more ridiculous and off topic. And nobody needs Robert's pompous attitude and continuing insults. Thus, I too have deleted my posts.

Perhaps someone else following the thread will provide what you're looking for. Another forum you might check out in addition to this one is TRDEV - a Yahoo group. Maybe someone else can understand this.

MadelynB,

Just dropped into your discussion hell....

Your original question is sufficiently clear. And, while I am not hopeful, I will see what I can scare up for you. No promises.

The below comments are merely observations, not judgments.....feel free to ignore
-------------------------
The difficulty in locating relevant resources (here or on your own) is that the premise of the question is flawed. In no way does this mean it is not important or relevant to your present project.

Learning and development professionals are more likely to be examining transfer of training issues and why people didn't learn versus the effectiveness of teaching them the same thing over again....since retraining is a solution (and probably not a useful one.) That simple refocusing of the question takes you into the arena of training design as well as problems with the work process itself.

And yes, the term "retraining" is probably not the most helpful term as it applies to your question. It is most often associated with training for a new job/career.

Jeff

This message has been edited. Last edited by: entropy,

quote:

Learning and development professionals are more likely to be examining transfer of training issues and why people didn't learn versus the effectiveness of teaching them the same thing over again....since retraining is a solution (and probably not a useful one.) That simple refocusing of the question takes you into the arena of training design as well as problems with the work process itself.

I just have a minute here.

Actually both questions are looked at, because there are enough situations where refresher training is done to warrant investigating.

However, you are, as were the two stonethrowers, making some incorrect assumptions. The poster says that errors are being made, which doesn't mean that learning didn't occur. It doesn't mean that learning did occur. We don't know. It means performance didn't change and/or it didn't change enough.

One means of addressing this is to provide refresher training which may not be identical in structure but covers the same or similar material. Workplace Safety and Health Training involves this almost all the time. One reason is that training isn't about learning facts...but I'll leave that for the moment.

This is a perfectly reasonable approach, albeit perhaps not the optimal approach which is to try to discover the root cause of the performance failures (errors).

Another error in this thread (perhaps not yours) is assuming that learning DID occur in the first place, so why offer the same training. This is simple minded in the extreme.

Anyway, I have to run. I'm willing to explain more if anyone asks in the spirit of good discussion.

MadelynB--You have asked about studies and research. I wonder have you contacted the National Association of Manufacturers (www.nam.org)? They may have done research on this topic.

Have you contacted other manufacturers in your industry to see if/how they address this problem?

You may want to look at international research sources for studies.

Jeff:

Thanks for your thoughts. You have, at least, illuminated some of the earlier frustration expressed by your colleagues, although I still find is mystifying that I keep being told, "you can't get there from here."

Is there, perhaps, some dislike for or mistrust of academic studies into training that, being an outsider, I'm not aware of?

As a technical communication professional, I don't conduct studies, but I do try to stay up on the latest research in my field. So, if someone were to ask me my opinion on a new font they want to use in their unspecified deliverables, I have at least 3 possible responses:
1) My frank opinion of the font, disregarding what they want to use it for;
2) Some links to research regarding the preference of serif vs. sanserif fonts on computer screens and on the print page; or
3) A screed on how, if the deliverable is poorly written, it can be in Symbol font for all the good it's going to do for anyone, so it's a stupid question and it makes my head hurt to have to deal with people so stupidly lacking in my area of expertise, so let me insult them, throw my hands in the air, and pretend like this conversation never happened, *flounce flounce flounce*.

These are all reasonably true responses, which doesn't make them all equal in usefulness, especially in a science-based company.

quote:

retraining is a solution (and probably not a useful one.)

Ah-ha. On what do you base your statement that this solution is "probably not a useful one,"?