Published online: 19 Dec 2006.

This article was downloaded by: [178.63.86.160] On: 07 July 2015, At: 23:49 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place, London, SW1P 1WG Journal of Vocational Education & Training Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjve20 Less pain, more gain: rapid skill development using old way new way Paul Baxter a, Harry Lyndon b, Shelley Dole c & Diana Battistutta d a Personal Best Systems, Mt Ommaney, Queensland, Australia b Department of Education, Training and Employment, South Australia, Australia c Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Australia d Queensland University of Technology, Australia Published online: 19 Dec 2006. To cite this article: Paul Baxter, Harry Lyndon, Shelley Dole & Diana Battistutta (2004) Less pain, more gain: rapid skill development using old way new way, Journal of Vocational Education & Training, 56:1, 21-50, DOI: 10.1080/13636820400200244 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13636820400200244 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content ) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Journal of Vocational Education and Training, Volume 56, Number 1, 2004 Less Pain, More Gain: rapid skill development using Old Way New Way PAUL BAXTER Personal Best Systems, Mt Ommaney, Queensland, Australia HARRY LYNDON Department of Education, Training and Employment, South Australia, Australia SHELLEY DOLE Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Australia DIANA BATTISTUTTA Queensland University of Technology, Australia ABSTRACT This study addresses an issue of global concern in skills training, namely, the rapid and permanent eradication of persistent habit errors, and bad or unsafe working practices. This article offers an alternative human factors explanation for the profound difficulties and low transfer of training experienced during error pattern retraining, and the correction of habitual performance faults. It describes Old Way New Way, a metacognitive strategy for achieving rapid and permanent error and technique correction and habit unlearning, and presents the results of an experimental trial of this behaviour change methodology. Vocational education students, representing a broad range of skill types, were recruited and randomised to one of two error correction modes, or to a control group. One Old Way New Way correction session with students yielded 80% or higher performance improvement that was maintained over three post-test periods. Students and teachers reacted positively to the Old Way New Way learning method. The high level of transfer of learning obtained is consistent with results in other settings. Implications for education, training, coaching and other performance enhancement settings are discussed. This experiment addressed a human factors issue of global concern in skills training, namely the rapid and permanent eradication of persistent 21

Paul Baxter et al operator errors and bad or unsafe work habits. Teachers of manual skills typically report that incorrect, inefficient or unsafe manipulation of equipment and tools acts as a barrier to rapid, efficient and safe acquisition of manual skills by students. Student errors often result from either misconceptions about the way equipment and tools function, or from bad habits acquired from earlier self-taught experiences prior to commencement of their vocational studies. Left uncorrected, these operator faults soon develop into established habits and are then much harder to eradicate. Given that most if not all students come to the skill learning situation with preconceived notions of how things work, and how to manipulate equipment and tools, the potential for incomplete or misinformation and for poor, incorrect or even unsafe work practices is high. Students who exhibit persistent misconceptions and bad habits present a real challenge to the teacher who is attempting to help them achieve competence. Conventional teaching methods generally focus on improving the effectiveness of the initial teaching phase ( getting it right the first time ) and on subsequent re-teaching when progress is unsatisfactory ( remediation ). However, in terms of unlearning theory, simply persevering with getting the student to practise the right way, while ignoring what the student already knows (especially their incorrect technique), will activate habit interference with learning of the correct skill and greatly slow down or block skill acquisition. The present study involved an experimental comparison of the relative effectiveness of conventional skill correction, namely re-teaching, with Old Way New Way (Lyndon, 1989, 2000), a metacognitive approach to skill correction and development, for correcting common error patterns in operator performance. Error Patterns The failure to achieve rapid and permanent habit retraining and unlearning of erroneous knowledge and behaviour in education, in the therapeutic sciences, in sport, and in skilled performance in workplaces is widely documented. Despite quality training and re-training, people just keep lapsing back into their old ways. Error patterns, also known as learned errors, over-learned errors, habit capture errors, habit intrusion errors or simply habit errors, have been demonstrated in a wide spectrum of human performance where automated skill, knowledge, or behavioural routines are involved. Error patterns are evident in skilled performance when an operator repeatedly and consistently reverts to a previously learned action or procedure that is inappropriate. For example, one of the students in this study habitually gripped the tenon saw incorrectly when cutting wood. Not only did the 22

RAPID SKILL DEVELOPMENT student use an incorrect grip, but he also used the same incorrect grip each time. This consistently incorrect performance is the signature of a habit pattern or habit error. Error patterns have been observed and studied in the performance of both physical and conceptual skills, including: the learning of mathematics (Drucker et al, 1987), science (Rowell et al, 1990) and spelling (DeMasters et al, 1986); in athletic and sports performance (Hanin et al, 2002); in artistic performance (Khan et al, 1995); in driving a motor vehicle (Lourens, 1992) and in flying an aircraft (Degani & Wiener, 1993); in working with computers (Prumper et al, 1992); in medical practice (Cohen et al, 2002); in speech therapy (Lyndon & Malcolm, 1984); in overuse and sports injuries (Purdam, 1989; Khan et al, 1995); in postural problems (Gieck et al, 1989); in foreign language learning (Chung-yu, 1976); in management training and organisational change (Newstrom, 1983; West, 1994). The wide prevalence of habitual error patterns (Reason, 1990) has serious implications for corrective attempts. The significance of consistent and persistent errors, and misconceptions as obstacles to learning new ideas and learning new ways of doing things, however, is all too often underestimated (Ausubel, 1968; Houston, 1991). Habit pattern errors are among the most common of all error forms and the most difficult to eradicate. The extreme practical difficulty in eliminating habit errors in workplace settings like aviation and medical practice has led to the belief that error eradication attempts should be abandoned in favour of error management, i.e. controlling or minimising the consequences of errors (Reason, 1990). Crew resource management (CRM) training, an example of error management involving teams, has been widely adopted in aviation and, more recently, in medical practice (Helmreich, 2000). One of the aims of the current article is to show that, contrary to common experience, persistent habit errors can be eradicated using a specific teaching method. How Do Habitual Error Patterns Arise? Many habit errors develop when, for some reason, e.g. misinterpreted instructions, the performer learns to do things incorrectly and this learned error progresses, through practice, to the autonomous stage of performance (Pyke, 1980). At this point, the habit pattern is no longer under conscious control. 23

Paul Baxter et al Everyday situations present many opportunities for errors in understanding and in skilled performance to develop. Errors do not only occur when someone learns to do things incorrectly. Skilled performers are often faced with the need to change aspects of their performance in the face of new situations, e.g. new equipment, new procedures, when new techniques are required and so on. What was perfectly correct, acceptable and even best practice, can suddenly become wrong and unacceptable. The better someone has learned the original routine or action in the first place, the harder it is to change over to the new way (Lawler, 1996; Zapf et al, 1992). An example is the situation faced by sports coaches when they take over from someone else and the techniques taught by the new coach conflict with those taught by the old. If the old system or techniques have been well learned, the athletes will revert to the old system when placed under the stress of actual game performance (Tutko & Richards, 1971). Lack of consistency between systems or between different parts of a system can also be a major cause of error for expert performers (Zapf et al, 1992). Self-imposed change also creates problems, e.g. a golf player changes her club grip and her game deteriorates. This makes players put off changing until they absolutely have to do so. During the period of adaptation to the new way, performance often drops and errors increase (Maschette, 1985). Rule changes requiring a change in action sequences can also give rise to interference from old habits (Crampton & Adams, 1995). Whether the need for change arises out of an erroneous performance or out of the desire to improve further something that is already satisfactory, the key element in all these situations is that the learner is faced with having to change what he or she already knows. As we shall see later, having to change one s own established ways in the face of new and conflicting knowledge, is the root cause of the problem. Conventional Explanations of Habit Errors and Associated Teaching Methods Conventional explanations of why persistent errors arise and why they are so hard to eradicate are often based on assumed intellectual or perceptual deficits (e.g. Kephart, 1960). Under this deficit model, errors are seen as a sign that learning did not take place. Students had learnt little or nothing from the original instruction. Although the individual received instruction and appeared to pay attention, the information or learning did not take. The underlying assumption is that the student does it the wrong way because he or she still does not know the right way. 24

RAPID SKILL DEVELOPMENT Conventional deficit-based explanations of learning failure imply only one solution, i.e. once you assume that a consistent and persistent error implies a lack of knowledge or skill, then the obvious solution is to give the person the missing knowledge or skill, i.e. re-teach it. Re-teaching and retraining invariably follow a predictable pattern, i.e. tell them what they are doing wrong, show them the right way, model it for them and ask them to copy it and then get them to practise it (Ashlock, 2002; Maschette, 1985). Although different learning modes, e.g. tactile, aural, may be employed from those used in the original learning situation, the general approach tends to follow this model. Re-teaching and retraining is usually very time-consuming, expensive of resources and largely unsuccessful (Read, 1987; Baxter & Dole, 1990; Dole, 1991; Connell & Peck, 1993), yet we persist with it. Correction methodologies that do produce worthwhile results are often complicated, time- and resource-intensive, and difficult for all but highly trained practitioners to implement successfully (West, 1971). Even when learning gains are made during conventional retraining, these improvements often fail to transfer to situations outside the original setting where the retraining took place. Learners may appear to make satisfactory progress while under the teacher s or trainer s close supervision, but they revert to their old incorrect way of doing things when left to their own devices or when they leave the instructional setting. This happens because the cues for correct performance, e.g. the presence of the teacher close at hand, are withdrawn. Consequently, short-term gains are not permanent and soon fade over time. Reversion to old incorrect habits in the face of stressful performance situations, i.e. poor transfer of learning, is commonly experienced in the world of sport (Maschette, 1985; Young, 1985), ballet (Khan et al, 1995), language learning (Mukattash, 1986), education (Read, 1987; Lyndon, 1989), management training and organisational development (Newstrom, 1983), and in almost every other field of human performance. Clearly, something is wrong with the theory underpinning conventional methods of error correction and habit reversal. Teaching Methods for Correcting Habit Errors Persistent errors, by definition, are resistant to correction by conventional means and have become the target for special treatment (Dawson & Lyndon, 1997). These special methods, described by Dole et al (1997), include error pattern analysis and intervention (Gable et al, 1991; Ashlock, 2001), cognitive conflict and conflict teaching (Bell et al, 1986), using errors as springboards for enquiry (Borassi, 1994), belief-based teaching (Rauff, 1994) and teaching by analogy (Tirosh, 1990). These methods can be difficult to implement, often lack a sound theoretical framework, are not effective with many students, and can 25

Paul Baxter et al have undesirable side effects, e.g. a loss of student self-esteem and selfconfidence when confronted by one s own error (Bell et al, 1986; Rowell & Dawson, 1983). A New Explanation of Habit Errors Lyndon (1989) has proposed that the observed lack of learning transfer and associated regression to erroneous ways is due to the welldocumented mental mechanism of proactive inhibition. Mental mechanisms that affect learning and memory have been widely studied by psychologists. One of these mechanisms, proactive inhibition (PI), is an interference effect on learning and memory produced by, conflicting associations that are learned prior to the learning of the task to be recalled (Underwood, 1966, p. 564). In effect, if what the person has learned previously is in conflict with the new material he or she is trying to learn, PI is involuntarily activated and interferes with the recall of the new material. This effect on the recall of new learning and the associated problems with transfer of learning to new settings have been well documented in many experimental manipulations of the proactive inhibitory mechanism (e.g. Postman & Gray, 1977; Miller et al, 1986). However, the implications of such interference for error correction and habit reversal, and for ways to accelerate learning were not sufficiently explored. Lyndon (1989), in a novel interpretation and synthesis of well researched and accepted psychological learning principles, has extended our understanding of the influence of PI in meaningful learning situations and in habit change, and produced an explanation of why habitual errors in knowledge and skill are so difficult to eradicate: Given that repetition of a behaviour is a sign that learning has occurred, consistent, habitual errors indicate the presence, rather than the absence, of learning. In this case, what the person knows is how to do it wrong. When new information or ideas disagree or conflict with what a person already knows, this conflict generates proactive inhibition (Underwood, 1957, 1966), that causes accelerated forgetting (Underwood, 1966) of the new knowledge or skill. PI does not prevent learning from occurring, it merely prevents the association of conflicting ideas (Underwood, 1966). It does not matter whether what the person already knows is correct or incorrect. PI protects all prior knowledge and skills because without an individual s cognitive intervention there is no differentiation between what is right and what is wrong in a given context. At the autonomous level it is the prior association that is retained. 26

RAPID SKILL DEVELOPMENT PI therefore exerts a protective effect on prior learning, inhibiting change and protecting erroneous (as well as correct) knowledge and skills. Performance becomes cue-dependent and the individual reverts to prior behaviour patterns when the trainer s or instructor s presence is withdrawn, thus inhibiting transfer of learning to other settings (Postman & Gray, 1977), ensuring that the erroneous knowledge and behaviour continue to resist correction. By a process of psychological interference, then, old learning disables new learning. According to Lyndon, PI and accelerated forgetting are the reasons why old habits die hard. A key point in the PI explanation of resistance to change is the notion that PI is automatically activated whenever new incoming information is different from what is already learned and stored. In practical terms, conventional, i.e. currently available, methods of teaching, training, coaching, instructing and other behaviour change methods, inadvertently activate PI, and actually make it harder for an individual to understand and adopt the new information or skill he or she is trying to learn. Furthermore, this process operates at the unconscious level and the teacher, as well as the learner, are unaware of the mental interference being generated. The only outward signs of mental conflict are the typical symptoms associated with the adaptation period to new knowledge, namely mental confusion, slowed performance, increased error rate and reversion to prior behaviour patterns when asked to perform independently or under stress. According to Lyndon, the adaptation period that we all go through when learning something new is actually symptomatic of interference from PI, and indicates an abnormal, rather than a natural, learning situation. The literature on behaviour changes, particularly in the fields of education, psychology and the enhancement of skilled performance in sport and work, emphasises the challenge posed by habit errors with their associated transfer of learning problem, yet offers few practical solutions for dealing with these profound and universal learning obstacles (Solomon, 1994; Bliss, 1995). Old Way New Way (Lyndon, 1989, 2000) offers a new perspective on this age-old problem. Old Way New Way Learning Lyndon (1989, 2000) has developed an innovative teaching method to deal with the interference effects of proactive inhibition. Old Way New Way is a novel synthesis and interpretation of existing and newly emerging concepts and principles, including automaticity in behaviour (Bargh & Chartrand, 1999), learned errors (Reason, 1990), the influence of 27

Paul Baxter et al prior learning (Ausubel, 1968), metacognition (Flavell, 1987), and proactive inhibition and accelerated forgetting (Underwood, 1957, 1966). Experimental and quasi-experimental studies and field trials in sport (Hanin et al, 2002), in mathematics and science education (Lyndon, 1989, 2000; Baxter & Dole, 1990; Dole, 1991, 1993, 1999; Dawson & Lyndon, 1997; Baxter et al, 1999; Henderson et al, 1999; Lyndon & Dawson, 1995; Rowell et al, 1990), in speech therapy (Lyndon & Malcolm, 1984) and in workplace training (Weaver et al, 2000) have given consistently positive results with Old Way New Way. Typically, after one successful correction session with Old Way New Way, the learner has an 80% or higher probability of performing in the new way, a 20% or lower probability of performing in the old way. and a 90% probability of self-detecting an old way when it occurs and then selfcorrecting it. Spontaneous recovery (Underwood, 1966) of the old way can be expected at 2-3 weeks after the original learning trial, but is easily handled. The purpose of the present study with vocational education teachers and students was to compare the relative effectiveness for skill correction and work habit change of Old Way New Way, compared with re-teaching or retraining, the most widely used approach to skill correction (Lyndon, 2000). An Experimental Trial of the Old Way New Way Method The aim of the current experiment was to determine whether Old Way New Way would be superior to re-teaching with a larger sample under rigorous experimental conditions in terms of: reduction in student error rates; reduction in time to achieve learning criterion (accelerated learning); persistence of any learning improvements. Students and teachers were also observed and interviewed to collect qualitative data on their reactions to the Old Way New Way teaching method. Method Subjects Experienced vocational education teachers from eight different trade areas identified the kinds of errors in skilled performance that students typically make when learning their respective trades. These teachers also identified students in their own classes who required skill correction. On the basis of unobtrusive baseline observation of these students conducted by independent trained observers during one session of 28

RAPID SKILL DEVELOPMENT normal classroom instruction, 35 vocational education students were selected for study from a sample pool of 130. Three of the 35 recruited students were excluded as ineligible, since they were taught Old Way New Way in a group, rather than individually (Old Way New Way can be used with groups, but that was not the focus of this experiment). Selected students ranged in age from 16 to 19 years. Thirty-two subjects were observed at baseline and of these, post-test data were available on 26 at the first session, 19 at the second, and 17 at the third and final post-test session. Measures Employed Measures for comparison included: procedural improvement (error rates); time to criterion (acceleration of learning); persistence of any learning improvements. Observation conducted during the experiment and interviews with teachers and students afterwards yielded qualitative data on the following: incidence of self-detection and self-correction of errors by students; student reactions; student understanding of concepts involved in performance of the skill; transfer to other areas of learning; teachers reactions. Procedure Selection of teachers. Thirteen teachers originally volunteered and nine completed the experiment. One teacher withdrew during the training period, another teacher only had night classes and an independent observer could not be found for those classes and two other teachers could not specify target errors for their current students to the required level of detail. The selected teachers ranged in age from 25 to 50 years and had been teaching from 5 to 20 years. Training of teachers and observers in the Old Way New Way methodology. Teachers and observers undertook four days of intensive training in the Old Way New Way methodology, and in classroom observation and recording of the selected target behaviours. This training involved role playing, simulations and demonstrations of errors using actual tools of the trade that teachers brought to training classes, as well as instruction in the theoretical underpinning of Old Way New Way and other error 29

Paul Baxter et al correction methodologies. The theoretical background of Old Way New Way was presented to teachers through discussion of the concepts of attention, remembering and forgetting from a psychological perspective situation. In particular, persistent errors and the influence of proactive inhibition as a factor inhibiting learning were related to vocational education and training. Full details of the training workshop content and procedures are contained in the Conceptual Mediation Program Workshop Handbook (Lyndon, 2003). The training period was also used to make a final selection of target behaviours/skill errors to be corrected. The data record forms used by observers to record target behaviours were also tested and refined during the training. The intensive training program was split into three parts: two consecutive training days that dealt with the theoretical concepts involved and included practical illustrations; one day used for site visits to the classrooms and workshops where observation would be conducted when the experiment started, to assess the suitability of the environment for observation purposes and to determine suitable strategies for observation; another day of training with role-playing, simulations, final selection of target behaviours, and testing and refinement of observation record forms. Qualitative baseline data on teachers and observers personal conceptions of learning, memory and error correction were also collected during the training period for comparison with similar data collected later in the experiment. Implementation of Old Way New Way training in the classroom. Implementation of Old Way New Way training occurred with most teachers in the week immediately following their training. However, not all teachers were teaching classes in that post-training week. Consequently, classroom implementation of Old Way New Way was delayed with some teachers. However, their ability to execute an accurate Old Way New Way intervention with a student was re-tested and, if necessary, refreshed prior to their use of Old Way New Way with students. Selection of student errors. Only one error was selected per student. To be selected, the error had to meet the following criteria: the error had to be significant to the skilled performance in that trade area, i.e. the flaw in performance had to be one that adversely affected student progress in acquiring competence; 30

RAPID SKILL DEVELOPMENT the error had to be persistent, i.e. learned and habitual (automatic) rather than a transient mistake ; it had to be resistant to correction by conventional means; it had to be common or typical of students in that skill area; it had to be a discrete component of overall performance, i.e. a behaviour or action that was easy to detect and observe and easy to count; the student had to be demonstrably able to reproduce the new (correct) way when shown this; if the student could not copy the new way after one demonstration by the teacher, then the behaviour was too complicated for this experiment and was not selected; the error had to be something that was easily distinguished from the correct action, e.g. it was easy to tell if the way the student gripped a saw was right or wrong. The following errors that were selected covered eight skill types: incorrect clipper blade use in pet grooming; incorrect grip when hammering nails; unsafe way of handling glass onto a cutting table; incorrect use of cutter when cutting glass; incorrect microscope use; incorrect pincurling technique in hairdressing; incorrect procedure used in soil ph testing; incorrect technique used in soldering. Examples of these student errors are described in more detail later in this article. All the skills that students were required to perform during preand post-tests were part of their normal lesson activities. Use of Old Way New Way scripts for teachers and observers. Separate written instructions were given to teachers and observers on the correct procedure for application of the Old Way New Way methodology. These instructions or scripts outlined the method s procedural steps, and helped to ensure uniformity in how different teachers applied Old Way New Way with students. The script also enabled observers to check on how accurately teachers implemented Old Way New Way. Although scripts were tailored to the specific error a teacher was correcting, an example of a script can be found in Lyndon (2003). Classroom observation. Observers were trained to observe and record target behaviours unobtrusively during normal lesson periods. To control for the possible interactive effects of observation, all students in each experimental group and in the control group were told by their teacher that the observer was present in class to observe the teacher s teaching methods, as part of an assignment that the observer had to complete for 31

Paul Baxter et al his or her own studies. Due to resource limitations, only one observer was used for each classroom observation session. The use of trained observers provided an additional control during the experiment because it enabled teachers to concentrate on their teaching without also having to observe and record the effects of the experimental treatments. Teachers kept a diary in which they recorded intervention notes, personal observations and any noteworthy occurrences. The length of observation periods was usually one full lesson, to reduce sampling error, although only that proportion of the lesson time that involved actual performance in the target skill was included in any given observation period. Each student was associated with a particular learning skill. Students were observed for between 30 and 90 minutes, during which observers recorded the number of performance attempts of the skill, and whether or not the skill had been correctly executed. These data were collected prior to any correction methods being employed (baseline) and at three post-correction sessions spaced at approximately weekly intervals. Because there was more opportunity to attempt some skills relative to others, the results were expressed as percentages correct out of all attempts at the skill, rather than as the number of correct attempts. Control of extraneous variables. The study was designed to minimise the influence of other variables by frequency matching on skill types so that similar skills were represented in each experimental group, by randomising the order in which teachers used the two correction methods (Old Way New Way and conventional correction) in their classes, and by having each student observed by only one observer through baseline and all subsequent post-test observation sessions. To facilitate the likelihood that target behaviours would occur more often and thereby improve sampling of target behaviours, the teacher set up lesson activities requiring repeated performance of the target behaviour. For example, students using a microscope had to set up and examine at least five different specimens. Pre- and post-test sessions imposed similar task demands on students, were of similar duration and provided the same opportunity to perform errors. Apart from the experimental group, other sources of variation identified as potentially having an effect on mean percentage correct rate were: gender of student; skill type; teacher; length of session; number of attempts. 32

RAPID SKILL DEVELOPMENT The latter two reflected opportunity to learn. Old Way New Way treatment. The Old Way New Way methodology required that the student was informed of the various steps in the Old Way New Way procedure prior to its commencement. This was necessary because Old Way New Way attempts to empower the student with a metacognitive strategy (a mediation) for self-correcting errors. The Old Way New Way treatment therefore consisted of four steps, namely: An explanation of the steps involved. The active behaviour change component, referred to as Old Way New Way. This process consists of four components, namely reactivation of the error memory, labelling of the person s own way, successive discrimination of the old and new ways, and generalisation or practice of the new way. A brief demonstration of a one-step procedure for dealing with student errors that teachers detect after completion of the initial Old Way New Way learning trial (in cases where 100% eradication of the error was not achieved after one Old Way New Way trial). Instructions for students on how to self-correct when students selfdetect an error. In this experiment, step 1 was abbreviated for practical considerations and consisted of a brief explanation. The four steps took, on average, 10 minutes to complete and are described in greater detail in Lyndon (1989, 2000, 2003) and in Hanin et al (2002). Conventional treatment. Teachers spent approximately 10 minutes with each student in the conventional group, correcting errors using the teacher s usual method of error correction that, for all teachers, followed a re-teaching approach. Re-teaching is the most frequently used remedial approach in the face of persistent learning failure (Lyndon, 2000). Control group. Students in the control group did not receive any error correction from the teacher during the pre- and post-tests. However, control group students spent the same amount of time under observation as the experimental groups. At the completion of the experiment, controls received catch-up instruction and all completed their studies successfully. Statistical analysis. The analytical approach of choice for the comparison of the effect of correction method over time was repeated measures analysis of variance modelling. In order to minimise the impact of missing data, a generalised estimating equations approach was used in these models to permit the inclusion of partial data records. An independent working correlation matrix structure was defined for these analyses, 33

Paul Baxter et al which were implemented using the SUDAAN statistical package (Shah et al, 1997). This permitted the simultaneous consideration of all potential sources of variation in percentage correct scores. Prior to modelling, the assumptions of normality of distribution of percentage correct scores and homogeneity of the variances in these scores over time were qualitatively considered through frequency distributions and summary measures of location (mean, median), variance, skewness and kurtosis, and more formally, through use of nonparametric Kolmogorov Smirnov tests for normality. There was practically no variation in baseline percentage correct scores, since the median percentage correct score was 0% for nearly all students, ranging from 0 to 39%. Baseline similarity of the three randomised groups was thus established using non-parametric Kruskall Wallis analysis of variance (ANOVA) and chi squared tests of association. Statistical significance was set at the conventional type I error rate of 5% (two-tailed). Results A total of 92 observations was available for 32 students, who contributed between 2 and 4 time points of data to the analysis. Baseline Similarity of Experimental Groups By design, eight skill groups were approximately equally represented in each of the three experimental groups. The Old Way New Way group included one clipper blade use, one cutting glass, one hammering nails, one handling glass, two microscope use, three pincurling, two soil ph testing and one soldering. The conventional error correction group included one less pincurling student and cutting glass was not represented in the control group. Students allocated to the three experimental groups (11 Old Way New Way, 11 conventional correction and 10 control) were similar with respect to gender (χ 2 = 0.62, df = 1, p = 0.431), median observation time (Kruskall Wallis ANOVA χ 2 = 0.226, p = 0.893), median number of attempts (Kruskall Wallis ANOVA χ 2 = 4.070, p = 0.131) and median percentage correct scores (Kruskall Wallis ANOVA χ 2 = 2.128, p = 0.345). The average percentage of correct attempts was nil within all three treatment groups and ranged no higher than 39% correct (Table I). 34

Experimental group % Male Median number attempts (min, max) Old Way New Way (n = 11) Conventional (n = 11) Control (n = 10) Median observation time (min, max) RAPID SKILL DEVELOPMENT Median per cent correct (min, max) 64 5 (3, 23) 55 (30, 90) 0 (0, 31) 90 5 (3, 19) 50 (30, 60) 0 (0, 0) 60 6 (4, 46) 60 (30, 60) 0 (0, 39) Table I. Pre-test (baseline) similarity of the three experimental groups. Effectiveness of Old Way New Way Overall and relative to pre-test levels, the average percentage of correct attempts improved at post-testing (time main effect, F 3,25 = 10.6, p < 0.001) from an average pre-test level of 2.8% (standard error 4.4), to 29.9% (5.9) at post-test 1, 45.1% (6.8) at post-test 2 and 47.2% (6.5) at post-test 3. However, error correction rates were significantly more improved for Old Way New Way compared to conventional correction (group by time interaction effect: F 6,20 = 32.6, p < 0.001; Table II and Figure 1). Old Way New Way (n = 11) Conventional (n = 11) Control (n = 10) Baseline % correct 2.8 (2.7) 0.0 (0.0) 3.9 (3.8) Post-test 1 85.4 (10.8) 18.3 (10.6) 10.5 (5.6) Post-test 2 94.3 (5.4) 24.0 (17.7) 11.8 (7.2) Post-test 3 94.4 (5.2) 35.9 (14.2) 4.0 (3.6) Table II. Model-based estimated least squares means (and standard errors) of baseline percentage correct scores at pre- and each of the three post-test periods by experimental group. The significant post-test 1 improvement over baseline was maintained over the three post-test periods (model-based contrast considering time main effect restricted to the three post time points: F 2,26 = 0.77, p = 0.472), and this effect was not influenced by any differences in number of attempts (F 1,17 = 2.57, p = 0.119) or differences in observation times (F 1,17 = 0.12, p = 0.730). There were insufficient data to permit stable model estimates of the influence of skill type or teacher on the association between Old Way New Way, and percentage correct scores. An analysis to address partially the latter restricted the data to consideration of the first difference from baseline, wherein the treatment effectiveness of Old Way New Way over 35

Paul Baxter et al conventional and control treatments was not teacher-dependent (F 8,11 = 1.4, p = 0.313). Figure 1. Mean percentage correct scores at pre-intervention and by each of the three interventions over time. Incidence of Self-detection and Self-correction of Errors by Students Because the students in the experimental group achieved 100% or almost 100% accuracy in skilled performance after one correction session, few students were observed self-detecting and self-correcting errors. On three occasions teachers reported that they had observed students engaging in self-detection and self-correction. In one instance, a student was observed by his teacher to have reverted to an old way 2 weeks after the Old Way New Way session, but was then seen to immediately self-correct and was heard saying to himself, Almost got it wrong. In another instance, an Old Way New Way student was observed performing the skill incorrectly, but was then observed to pause in his action, rearrange the tool in his hand and then start using the tool correctly. Another student actually expressed to his teacher his own surprise that he had not reverted back to his old incorrect way of performing the skill. Student Reactions As previously stated, Old Way New Way was used without explaining to students the rationale for the method. Teachers merely followed the script. Consequently, although students were successful in rapidly correcting their skills, their initial reactions were mixed. Some reactions were positive as indicated by the following teachers notes: 36

RAPID SKILL DEVELOPMENT The student was keen to try a new method that would help. The student was very keen to learn anything. She took on Old Way New Way and participated willingly. The student was accepting, quite quickly, of the new way because he found that the new way required less physical exertion. The student reacted positively. The student was quite cooperative. Other student reactions ranged from active resistance to confusion, vague interest or no response, as shown by these teachers comments: The student was a little resistant. The student responded: Oh, not this again. Do I really have to do it again? After the fourth discrimination, the student became agitated about having to continually repeat the old way, then the new way so many times. At the teacher s request for the student to verbalise each of the steps for correct performance of the new way, the student responded: This feels like Play School in a rather defensive tone. Sighs, comments, eyes rolled, to signify that Old Way New Way was perceived as a bit of a rigmarole, or a bit over the top. The student was obviously frustrated and stated: I m not doing this one more time. Teachers gave various reasons to try to explain this observed student resistance: Many students just want to jump through the hoops and exit the course. They have an attitude of anything is good enough so I can get through the exam and onto the next module. The student was very negative. She felt that she didn t need correction, and felt exposed to the rest of the class for having to be continually corrected. In cases of obvious resistance to the method, teachers found that they had to encourage students to persist with Old Way New Way, as illustrated in these comments: Once the students became convinced to give it a try, they became more cooperative. 37

Paul Baxter et al Implementing Old Way New Way required persistence, and cajoling the student to finish the session. Other students in the experiment expressed confusion about the process or their role in the process. As one observer noted: The student was obliging throughout but was unsure of what the teacher wanted. The student thought that every time the teacher asked him what the difference between the old way and the new way was, that he was required to think up something new every time. This was confusing to the student. In terms of the Old Way New Way process, many students appeared confused about the need to do their old way after being shown the new way. The following observations illustrate the teachers attention to detail in explaining a skill to two different students. The students reactions to the teachers requests indicate the lack of understanding of Old Way New Way. The first dialogue is between a teacher (T) and a student (S) in a glass handling activity: T: Can I call the way you used to handle glass the old way? S: [nods affirmative]. T: I want you to look at the difference between the old way you were doing it and this way, which I will call the new way. Now, instead of bending over the bench, with the glass on a fortyfive degree angle, you must come vertically to the bench putting your whole body behind the glass, and bending your legs. I want you to try your old way for me. S: My old way? This next dialogue is between a different teacher and student in a glass cutting exercise: T: Run a cut for me. S: (Performs task as required). T: Now, what you are doing is putting a lot of pressure onto the cutter, and producing an uneven cut in the glass. Now, I ll show you the way I want you to do it. Now line up the cutter, grip gently rather than choke the cutter, follow through the cut with one smooth cut, and don t finish at the end of the glass. Follow through. Now try to do a cut your old way. S: My old way? Teachers reflected on these incidents, as follows: The student was keen to participate but confused about having to continually do the old way. The student had trouble doing accurate old ways, and this was the confusing part. 38

The student appeared apprehensive. He did not like me encouraging him to hold the hammer the wrong way. RAPID SKILL DEVELOPMENT Student Understanding of Concepts Involved in Performance of the Skill Observations of students using Old Way New Way to correct errors provided evidence to suggest that students understanding of concepts involved in performance of the skill improved. As previously stated, under Old Way New Way, many students had become more aware of aspects of their own performance, and could identify when they performed a skill correctly or incorrectly. The following examples describe the actual process of change occurring through the application of Old Way New Way and shows students becoming more able to distinguish the correct from the incorrect performance of the skill: After the third Old Way New Way discrimination (Step 2 in the process), the animal science student had to consciously think about the sequences in her old way and had difficulty reproducing the old way. Initially, the hairdressing student could not articulate the difference between her old way and the new way, but noted that the old way looked terrible. By the third Old Way New Way discrimination, the student was able to articulate the differences quite clearly. At the end of the session, the student was able to point out the differences very quickly, she could easily articulate the steps, and could perform the skill competently. She could also identify sloppy work in her own and others performance and correct it or offer advice. Initially, the glazing student could not articulate the difference between the old way and the new way, but after two more Old Way New Way discriminations, he could clearly articulate the differences between his old performance and the new way: Well, in my old way, my elbow is sticking out. In the new way, I m not pushing so hard on the glass. I am running the cutter gently, I am not gripping the cutter so hard. There was also evidence to suggest that Old Way New Way improved the precision of skilled performance. As noted by one teacher, Once the old way and the new way were contrasted, the student could easily identify the skill error. The new way, once mastered, was markedly neater and the student paid more attention to detail of skill execution. Another teacher commented to a fellow teacher that the Old Way New Way student s skill execution had greatly improved. He was observed to say, Alan s cutting has improved out of sight. It s excellent now. 39

Paul Baxter et al Transfer to Other Areas of Learning With one student, there was evidence of improved transfer to other areas of learning. This occurred after Old Way New Way had been applied to this student s incorrect way of cutting glass. The student approached the teacher and asked: What you did with me the other day, to help me with my cutting, can you do that with me for the fan hole cut? This spontaneous request revealed the positive way the Old Way New Way strategy was regarded by this student, and indicated the extent to which this student believed the strategy could transfer to other learning situations. Teachers Reactions The Old Way New Way training, and the subsequent implementation by teachers of the method, appears to have influenced teachers attitudes to learning, as illustrated by these comments: Old Way New Way has enabled me to look at learning in a number of different ways. It makes me rethink my whole approach to teaching and learning. Old Way New Way provides an insight into the barriers which students form to education and training.[it] not only provides a medium for introducing change, but also advocates that previous knowledge is not necessarily wrong, but that there may be a better alternative. I have less difficulty with students forgetfulness. It has shown me just how ingrained old ways can be. It has had some effect on changing my thoughts on remediation of well-learned, wrongfully executed skills. Old Way New Way training also appeared to influence teachers overall approach to teaching. As one teacher reported, I found myself naturally using Old Way New Way to correct mistakes in other areas. Another teacher reported that she felt that the Old Way New Way approach was not dissimilar to her usual teaching style, in that she felt she often asked students to identify the difference between their old and new ways. This participant found Old Way New Way reinforced her usual style, as she stated, I feel I have used a form of this approach in my teaching, but not in its full form. This has crystallised it for me and I consciously plan to use Old Way New Way in my teaching. 40

RAPID SKILL DEVELOPMENT The Old Way New Way strategy appeared to be accepted by teachers as an effective teaching strategy, as suggested by the following comments: I have found this a very useful strategy and as I use it more, I hope to find more applications of Old Way New Way in my teaching, and thus fine tune its delivery. It is an additional tool that I use which produces effective results. I feel that it can be applied to many areas in my teaching and I am interested in improving on the application of this technique to get better results. Teachers commented that because students in the Old Way New Way group did not make any more errors after the single correction session, there was a reduction in teacher time spent monitoring errors. Furthermore, there was a consequent reduction in teacher time spent reteaching. These savings enabled teachers to spend more time teaching new material. When using Old Way New Way with students, it was observed that many of the teachers did not always follow the script precisely; the observers often had to prompt teachers on the correct procedure. In one instance, the words old way and new way were exchanged by the words my way and your way. In another instance, a variety of words were exchanged. One observer noted that the teacher she was observing followed the script, but also used words such as right, wrong, correct, preferred, incorrect and better. Other teachers were observed to have difficulty recalling the steps in Old Way New Way. For example, one teacher asked a student to perform an old way, then a new way and then stated: Oh, I think we d better do another old way, causing the observer to intervene and suggest that the student should first describe the difference between the old way and the new way. The Old Way New Way script is itself a simple series of steps, but like any method, it is open to misinterpretations during implementation by novices. The process of Old Way New Way highlighted the crucial nature of the teacher as subject matter expert. In order to exchange a faulty skill performance with a correct performance, the teacher needs to be able to clearly identify the nature of the skill and assist students by clearly explaining the differences between correct performance and the student s own faulty performance. The crucial expertise of the teacher is evident in this observation of an Old Way New Way session to correct a student s glass cutting technique: 41

Paul Baxter et al The student did the old way, and then the teacher asked that student to explain the difference between the old way and the new way. The student stated that the two ways felt about the same. The teacher then explained, In the old way, you were choking the cutter. Have an easy grip, and glide gently. In another observed incident, at the point in the Old Way New Way sequence where the old way and the new way were being compared, both the teacher and the student experienced difficulty in articulating the difference between the correct and incorrect performances. It was actually the student who began to differentiate between the old way and the new way, and then the teacher could articulate the previous difficulties the students had with the skill. Of this experience the teacher stated, Old Way New Way requires a deeper analysis of each skill to enable pinpointing of errors this results in a greater effort in preparation, not only in practical applications, but also in the conceptualisation of what is being taught. Another teacher reflected on how vital skill analysis was for the successful use of Old Way New Way in the following statement, This program has made me more meticulous when demonstrating skills, explaining theory and linking theory to practice. Discussion Old Way New Way was clearly superior to Conventional skill correction, i.e. re-teaching, for correcting errors in skilled performance and poor work habits. The improvement in learning was immediate and substantial, and was maintained over three post-test periods. These results confirm those obtained with Old Way New Way in other settings including sport, education and workplace safety training. Typically, after only one 10-minute session with students, an Old Way New Way intervention yielded: eighty per cent or higher improvement in skilled performance; accelerated learning; improvement that endured, with no requirement for additional correction; improvement across a broad range of skilled performance. The Old Way New Way methodology also appeared to be reasonably robust in terms of its tolerance for individual differences in teaching styles and the degree of strictness with which teachers followed the various steps involved. A limitation of this quantitative data due to resource limitations was that only one observer was used to identify and count student behaviour during each lesson, so inter-observer reliability could not be established. 42

RAPID SKILL DEVELOPMENT However, observers did cross-check their counts and observations with the teacher after a lesson was completed. The validity of this crosschecking was probably enhanced by the fact that teachers and observers undertook the same intensive training in how to use Old Way New Way, and in how to observe and rate student behaviour. Another limitation of this experiment concerned the possible effect of skill type on the results. Although major sources of extraneous variation in results were found to have no effect, the influence of skill type could not be determined. The experiment would have to be replicated with a different and greater range of skill types to answer this question. Based on anecdotal data collected by experimental observers, and from teachers notes and interviews with teachers, Old Way New Way appeared to improve student self-monitoring, namely self-detection and self-correction of errors, student understanding of concepts involved in performance of skills and transfer of learning to other areas. Overall, student reactions to Old Way New Way were positive, with some notable exceptions. These exceptions were attributable to the way Old Way New Way was implemented during the experiment, i.e. without the usual accompanying rationale for its use. In this experiment the students were naive, entering the process blind (Brown & Palinscar, 1982). They had no knowledge of the purpose of the Old Way New Way program, the procedure to follow or their role in the process. They had to trust the teacher and there was obvious pressure on the teacher to sell the process to students. To overcome students initial resistance and confusion, and to improve student acceptance of the method, it appears that prior instruction in Old Way New Way may have been of benefit. Clearly, this anecdotal data is only indicative and not too much significance can be attached to it because of the small number of students and teachers involved. However, these observations of the way teachers used Old Way New Way, and the reactions of students and teachers during and after the experiment, were useful in that they revealed the following implementation issues: Old Way New Way is potentially a powerful technique for affecting change, and can be valuable to both students and teachers. To the novice, Old Way New Way appears to be a simple technique consisting of merely a series of basic steps to be followed. This misconception can lead to oversimplification of the method. Successful implementation of Old Way New Way highlights the crucial nature of the teacher as subject matter expert. The Old Way New Way script, if not carefully followed, is open to subjective teacher misinterpretation and thus could lead to errors in implementation. Non-standard application of Old Way New Way could mistakenly lead to blaming the method for failure to produce the desired results. 43

Paul Baxter et al The theoretical background of Old Way New Way enables teachers to view teaching and learning from a new perspective. Uninformed use of Old Way New Way may result in student resistance to the method, indicating the need to share with students the theoretical background of the method before using it with them. Students and teachers regard Old Way New Way as a generic method that can be successfully applied to a wide range of learning situations. Although this experiment did not test whether Old Way New Way was also better than other correction methods besides re-teaching, there is evidence from earlier studies in science teaching that suggests that Old Way New Way enhances classroom learning when it is combined with more conventional methods. For example, Rowell et al (1990) compared the relative effectiveness of three approaches to correcting students misconceptions about displacement volume, namely: using Old Way New Way alone to correct the misconception; teaching a better theory plus using Old Way New Way; teaching a better theory plus cooperative discussion. A striking additional effect on learning was obtained when Old Way New Way was used after first teaching the better theory. From this earlier research and from the shared experiences of science teachers who are currently using Old Way New Way to correct school students misconceptions in science, a set of guidelines has emerged to assist teachers who have been trained in Old Way New Way to implement successfully this methodology in classrooms (Dawson & Lyndon, 1997). The Old Way New Way procedure shares similarities with other procedures for dealing with established performance errors and misconceptions, as described in previous sections, particularly those presented by Borassi (1994), Gable et al (1991) and Rauff (1994), but its method is more prescriptive. The key element in the Old Way New Way strategy is the active and overt discrimination of differences between the learner s incorrect knowledge, and the correct knowledge presented by the teacher, i.e. the student has to practise differences. Old Way New Way offers a direct method to deal with personal knowledge or an individual s belief system (Rauff, 1994) that under conventional correction methods is protected from change by PI. Old Way New Way differs from both conventional and operant conditioning approaches to error and technique correction and skill development. It differs from conventional teaching in that: persistent and consistent errors are a sign that learning has occurred, rather than a sign of learning failure or inability to learn; habitual errors must be acknowledged and not ignored; 44

RAPID SKILL DEVELOPMENT the learner must practise differences between the correct and incorrect responses in order to discriminate them. Old Way New Way differs from operant conditioning approaches to skill correction and development in that it: rapidly transfers the locus of control from external to internal; is readily incorporated into what teachers, coaches, instructors usually do; places the emphasis/responsibility on what the learner should do, rather than on what the teacher does; does not rely on external rewards or reinforcements to produce skill improvement; is well accepted by learners because it is simple to grasp and use, blameless, and non-manipulatory; assumes that improvement in performance does not depend on external consequences of the behaviour, but instead depends on overcoming proactive inhibition. When first encountered, Old Way New Way often seems to be counterintuitive. This impression can result from the requirement to perform the incorrect action or skill repeatedly during the process, a practice that runs counter to the widespread belief that repeating an error will make it even harder to eradicate. Consequently, novices can develop a reluctance to continue using the method unless they are instructed in its theoretical underpinnings. The counter-intuitive nature of Old Way New Way almost always generates proactive interference within learners, and for this reason teachers, coaches, instructors, therapists and other change agents find it extremely difficult to change their own, established ways of teaching, coaching, instructing and treating clients, and to adopt Old Way New Way as a generic teaching and change management tool (Lyndon, 2000; Hanin et al, 2002). A successful transition to and a lasting adoption of the methodology requires the individual to mediate his or her own established ways, a process that is undertaken in Old Way New Way training workshops. Old Way New Way offers a new model for teaching and learning. The key components of this model are these: Old Way New Way basically follows a Constructivist model the student, as the learner, is the one who is responsible for learning, understanding, and changing. The teacher s ability to identify and diagnose the student s error or misunderstanding is critical, as is his or her ability to identify, explain, and demonstrate to the student the correct information or skill. This befits the teacher s role as the subject matter expert. 45

Paul Baxter et al The student can be empowered through Old Way New Way to take on personal responsibility for improving. Old Way New Way as a metacognitive learning strategy offers direct control over the cognitive processes involved in skill development and correction. The student s prior knowledge and skills (incorrect as well as correct) must be incorporated into any teaching strategy. If no conflict is likely between new and pre-existing knowledge and skills, then a conventional teaching strategy is suitable, and new knowledge and skills will consolidate and build on old. However, when prior knowledge and skills are different from and likely to conflict with the new, the teacher needs to follow a prescribed Old Way New Way learning protocol, and not just attempt to practise the new while ignoring pre-existing knowledge and skills. The accumulated evidence to date suggests that Old Way New Way may be useful as a generic performance enhancement and change management tool in teaching, training, instruction and workplace coaching. Acknowledgements This research was funded by a grant from the Australian National Training Authority Research Advisory Council. The authors gratefully acknowledge the contribution of those students, teachers and administrators who took part in the study. Correspondence Dr Paul Baxter, Personal Best Systems, PO Box 197, Mt Ommaney, Queensland 4074, Australia (coaching@personalbest.com.au). References Ashlock, R.B. (2001) Error Patterns in Computation: using error patterns to improve instruction, 8th edn. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall. Ausubel, D.P. (1968) Educational Psychology: a cognitive view, 2nd edn. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Bargh, J.A. & Chartrand, T.L. (1999) The Unbearable Automaticity of Being, American Psychologist, 54, pp. 462-479. Baxter, E.P. & Dole, S.L. (1990) Working with the Brain, Not against It: correction of systematic errors in subtraction, British Journal of Special Education, 17, pp. 19-22. Baxter, E.P., Lyndon, E.H. & Dole, S.L. (1999) Old Habits No Longer Die Hard: accelerating the development of skilled performance using a novel approach to error and technique correction and habit unlearning, paper presented at 46

RAPID SKILL DEVELOPMENT the 34th Annual Conference of the Australian Psychological Society, Hobart, Tasmania, 29 September-3 October. Bell, A., Swan, M., Onslow, B., Pratt, K. & Purdy, D. (1986) Diagnostic Teaching: teaching for long term learning (report of an ESRC project). Nottingham: Shell Centre for Mathematical Education, University of Nottingham. Bliss, J. (1995) Piaget and After: the case of learning science, Studies in Science Education, 25, pp. 139-172. Borassi, R. (1994) Capitalizing on Errors as Springboards for Inquiry : a teaching experiment, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25, pp. 166-208. Brown, A.L. & Palinscar, A. (1982) Inducing Strategy Learning from Text by Means of Informed, Self-control Training, Topics in Learning and Learning Disabilities, 2, pp. 1-18. Cohen, H.A., Kitai, E., Levy, I. & Ben-Amitai, D. (2002) Handwashing Patterns in Two Dermatology Clinics, Dermatology, 205, pp. 358-361. Chung-yu, C. (1976) Pronunciation of English by Students from the Chinese Stream in Singapore: some salient features, RELC Journal, 7, pp. 54-60. Connell, M. & Peck, D. (1993) Report of a Conceptual Change Intervention in Elementary Mathematics, Journal of Mathematical Behaviour, 12, pp. 329-350. Crampton, J. & Adams, R. (1995) Expert Errors, Sports Coach, 18, pp. 28-30. Dawson, C. & Lyndon, E.H. (1997) Conceptual Mediation: a new perspective on conceptual exchange, Research in Science Education, 27, pp. 157-173. DeMasters, V.K., Crossland, C.L. & Hasselbring, T.S. (1986) Consistency of Learning Disabled Students Spelling Performance, Learning Disabled Quarterly, 1, pp. 89-96. Degani, A. & Wiener, E.L. (1993) Cockpit Checklists: concepts, design, and use, Human Factors, 35, pp. 345-359. Dole, S.L. (1991) New Ways for Old Systematic Computation Errors and Remediation, Teaching Mathematics, 17, p. 3. Dole. S. (1993) Error Patterns and Subtraction Knowledge Development a Comparison of Methods, in J. Novak (Ed.) Proceedings of the Third International Seminar on Misconceptions and Educational Strategies in Science and Mathematics. Ithaca: Electronic Publishing of Seminar Proceedings. Available at: www2.uscs.edu/mlrg/proc3abstracts.html Dole, S. (1999) Percent Knowledge: effective teaching for learning, relearning and unlearning, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia. Dole, S., Cooper, T. & Lyndon, H. (1997) Error Patterns, Conceptual Change and Accelerated Forgetting: another dimension to the jigsaw of effective conceptual mediation in mathematics, paper presented at the Fourth International Seminar, From Misconceptions to Constructed Understanding, Ithaca, New York, 13-15 June. Drucker, H., McBride, S. & Wilbur, C. (1987) Using a Computer-based Error Analysis Approach to Improve Basic Subtraction Skills in the Third Grade, Journal of Educational Research, 80, pp. 363-365. 47

Paul Baxter et al Flavell, J.H. (1987) Speculations about the Nature and Development of Metacognition, in F.E. Weinert & R.H. Kluwe (Eds) Metacognition, Motivation and Understanding. Hillsdale: Erlbaum. Gable, R.A., Enright, B.E. & Hendrickson, J.M. (1991) A Practical Model for Curriculum-based Assessment and Instruction in Arithmetic, Teaching Exceptional Children, 24, pp. 6-9. Gieck, J., Foreman, S. & Saliba, E. (1989) Evaluation and Correction of Common Postural Dysfunctions in the Athlete, Athletic Training, 24, pp. 310-316. Hanin, Y., Korjus, T., Jouste, P. & Baxter, P. (2002) Rapid Technique Correction Using Old Way New Way: two case studies with Olympic athletes, Sport Psychologist, 16, pp. 79-99. Helmreich, R.L. (2000) On Error Management Lessons from Aviation, British Journal of Medicine, 320, pp. 781-785. Henderson, R., Higgs, G., Lyndon, E.H., Wilkinson, D. & Yates, G. (1999) Conceptual Mediation Program in Science and Mathematics: effects on motivational indices and strategy awareness, paper presented at the Department of Education, Training and Employment Research Expo, Adelaide, South Australia, 10 March. Houston, J.P. (1991) Fundamentals of Learning and Memory, 4th edn. Orlando: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich. Kephart, N.C. (1960) The Slow Learner in the Classroom. Columbus: Merrill. Khan, K., Brown, J., Way, S., Vass, N., Crichton, K., Alexander, R., Baxter, A., Butler, M. & Wark, J. (1995) Overuse Injuries in Classical Ballet, Sports Medicine, 19, pp. 341-357. Lawler, P. (1996) Developments in the Javelin Technique, Modern Athlete and Coach, 34, pp. 12-17. Lourens, P. F. (1992) Young Car Drivers in The Hague: the prevention of bad driving habits after the driving licence has been obtained, International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health, 5, pp. 257-265. Lyndon E.H. (1989) I Did it My Way! An Introduction to Old Way/New Way, Australasian Journal of Special Education, 13, pp. 32-37. Lyndon, E.H. (2000) Conceptual Mediation: a new theory and new method of conceptual change, unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia. Lyndon, E.H. (2003) The Conceptual Mediation Program Workshop Handbook. South Australian Department of Education and Children s Services. Available at: www.southsupportservices.sa.edu.au/documents/cmphandbookplus2003.pdf Lyndon, H. & Dawson, C. (1995) The Conceptual Mediation Program: a practical outcome from a novel perspective on conceptual change, paper presented at the 26th Annual Conference of the Australasian Science Education Research Association. Bendigo, Victoria, 9-12 July. Lyndon E.H. & Malcolm, B.A. (1984) The Effects of Proactive and Retroactive Inhibition: the Old Way/New Way methodology and its application to speech pathology, Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Australian Association of Speech and Hearing: beyond 1984, Adelaide, South Australia. 48

RAPID SKILL DEVELOPMENT Maschette, W. (1985) Correcting Technique Problems of a Successful Junior Athlete, Sport Coach, 9, pp. 14-17. Miller, R.R., Kasprow, W.J. & Schachtman T.R. (1986) Retrieval Variability: sources and consequences, American Journal of Psychology, 99, pp. 145-218. Mukattash, L. (1986) Persistence of Fossilization, International Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, pp. 187-203. Newstrom, J.W. (1983) The Management of Unlearning: exploding the clean slate fallacy, Training and Development Journal, 37, pp. 36-39. Postman, L. & Gray, W. (1977) Maintenance of Prior Associations and Proactive Inhibition, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 3, pp. 255-263. Prumper, J., Zapf, D., Brodbeck, F.C. & Frese, M. (1992) Some Surprising Differences between Novice and Expert Errors in Computerized Office Work, Behaviour and Information Technology, 11, pp. 319-328. Purdam, C. (1989) Towards a Better Understanding of Overuse Injuries, EXCEL, 5, pp. 7-11. Pyke, F.S. (Ed.) (1980) Towards Better Coaching: the art and science of coaching. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service. Rauff, J. V. (1994) Constructivism, Factoring and Beliefs, School Science and Mathematics, 94(8), pp. 421-426. Read G. (1987) Following the Progress of Children who have Received Remedial Tuition, Support For Learning, 2, pp. 52-59. Reason, J. (1990) Human Error. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rowell, J.A. & Dawson, C.J. (1983) Laboratory Counter-examples and the Growth of Understanding in Science, European Journal of Science Education, 5, pp. 203-215. Rowell, J.R., Dawson, C.J. & Lyndon, H. (1990) Changing Misconceptions: a challenge to science educators, International Journal of Science Education, 12, pp. 167-175. Shah, B.V., Barnwell, B.G. & Bieler, G.S. (1997) SUDAAN User s Manual, Release 7.5. Research Triangle Park: Research Triangle Institute. Solomon, J. (1994) The Rise and Fall of Constructivism, Studies in Science Education, 23, pp. 1-19. Tirosh, D. (1990) Inconsistencies in Students Mathematical Constructs, Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 12(3&4), pp. 111-129. Tutko, T.A. & Richards, J.W. (1971) Psychology of Coaching. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Underwood, B.J. (1957) Interference and Forgetting, Psychological Review, 64, pp. 49-60. Underwood, B.J. (1966) Experimental Psychology, 2nd edn. New York: Appleton- Century-Crofts. Weaver, G., Baxter, P. & Lyndon, E.H. (2000) Changing Work Habits: more gain, less pain, Australian Safety News, October, pp. 58-59. West, P. (1994) The Learning Organization: losing the luggage in transit? Journal of European Industrial Training, 18, pp. 30-38. 49

Paul Baxter et al West, T.A. (1971) Diagnosing Pupil Errors: looking for patterns, Arithmetic Teacher, 18, pp. 467-469. Young, J.F. (1985) When Practise Doesn t Make Perfect Improving Game Performance in Secondary Level Physical Education Classes, Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 56, pp. 24-26. Zapf, P., Brodbeck, F.C., Frese, M., Peters, H. & Prumpers, J. (1992) Errors in Working with Office Computers: a first validation of a taxonomy for observed errors in a field setting, International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 4, pp. 311-339. 50