error patterns | how errors arise | errors explained | transfer of learning | error correction | habit pattern interference | Old Way New Way learning | new model for learning | applications | history of an innovation
error patterns
We all make mistakes when attempting to learn skills. The process of skill development, i.e., learning something new, involves making errors. Some errors are random and the result of memory lapses, distractions, carelessness, fatigue or inadvertent mistakes. These errors occur irregularly and are usually self-detected and self-corrected. These are among the kinds of errors novice practitioners make.
Many errors, however, are not random or careless but under error analysis appear to follow a pattern - they are consistent, systematic errors that through repetition, i.e., practice, have become learned, habitual and extremely resistant to correction. Error patterns, like all habit patterns, are produced automatically without conscious control and are for the most part no longer self-detected or self-corrected by the individual.
Consistency of errors in human performance appears to be the rule rather than the exception. While a superficial inspection of performance errors may suggest that errors are random, a closer inspection of the errors of individual performers invariably reveals a pattern. Across individuals, errors are often idiosyncratic, but there is considerable intra-individual consistency in the kinds of errors produced Most errors are not only consistent, they are also systematic because, unlike random or guesswork attempts, they reveal the existence of an underlying logical, though incorrect, reasoning.
Error patterns, sometimes called skill based errors, overlearned errors, habit intrusion errors, habit pattern errors, recurrent errors or expert errors are among the most common of all error forms.
Error patterns have been demonstrated in a wide spectrum of human performance where automated skill, knowledge or behavioural routines are involved, e.g., in the learning of mathematics and science; in driving a motor vehicle; in sport; in working with computers; in speech therapy; in chronic coughing; in postural problems; in foreign language learning; in artistic performance; and in management training and organizational change.
The performance inhibiting effects of error patterns have been documented in many sports, e.g., discus; javelin; shot put; ballet; soccer; cricket; hurdling; weightlifting; tennis, football, and in coaching. error patterns also play both a cause and effect role in overuse and sports injuries; and in postural problems of athletes.
Error patterns are also widely prevalent in workplace performance, e.g., the failure to follow standard operating procedures.
The wide prevalence of learned, i.e., consistent or habitual, errors has serious implications for corrective attempts because such errors resist correction. The failure to achieve rapid and permanent habit retraining and unlearning of erroneous knowledge and behaviour in skilled performance is widely documented. However, the significance of prior learning, i.e., consistent and persistent errors and misconceptions, as an obstacle to learning new ideas and new ways of doing things has been greatly underestimated.
how do error patterns arise?
Error patterns have multiple causes. Many error patterns develop when, for some reason, e.g., misinterpreted instructions, the person learns to do things wrong and this learned error progresses, through practice, to the autonomous stage of performance. At this point it is no longer under conscious control.
You do not have to be doing something wrong before you end up with a learned error. When change overtakes you then you can suddenly find yourself doing things incorrectly, e.g. when skilled performers have to change their behaviour when new equipment arrives, new procedures are introduced, new control panels are installed on previously familiar equipment, and so on. What was perfectly correct and best practice one day becomes unacceptable and wrong the next. The better someone has learned the original routine or actions in the first place, the harder it is to change over to the new way.
A common change management problem is faced by sports coaches when they take over players from another coach 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 intensive training and competition.
Self-imposed change also creates problems, e.g., when a golf player changes club grip, the game starts to deteriorate. During the period of adaptation to the new way, performance may drop and errors increase. This makes players put off changing until they absolutely have to do so, by which time they will have developed an ingrained technique problem that resists correction.
Rule changes requiring a change in game plan and consequently in action sequences can also give rise to habit interference.
A performance slump, that dreaded occupational hazard of athletes, occurs when the athlete appears to have lost his or her form and becomes uncompetitive. Years of hard work in developing good technique are lost and in its place is a consistent, learned error that is automated, unintentional and resistant to correction. The search for that lost touch is typically prolonged, frustrating and destructive of self confidence and may even, if it goes on long enough, cause the athlete to drop out of his or her chosen sport. Sometimes the coach's reputation perishes along with the athlete's.
The universal tendency in human learning to relegate much of our activity to automatic response sequences triggered by environmental stimuli is usually beneficial because it is a more efficient way of functioning. Unlike conscious, deliberate and willful regulation of thoughts, actions and deeds, automatic, nonconscious and unintentional performance routines require only one third the mental effort. This frees up much needed resources for higher order mentally demanding processes such as developing a strategy or implementing a game plan. Relegating practiced performance routines to "automatic mode" is, in itself, an unconscious, automatic and hard-wired part of how the human brain functions which serves to reinforce the universal significance of automated learning in all human performance situations.
Sometimes, however, as with established technique and other performance difficulties, the learned, automated, pre-programmed performance sequence that is unconsciously and inadvertently triggered by an event or situation is flawed, unsafe, inefficient or in some other way "wrong", and it makes us inefficient or uncompetitive or may even expose us to injury or death. It is then that we discover to our regret that old habits really do die hard.
conventional explanations of error patterns
Explanations of why persistent errors arise and why they resist correction are typically based on assumed intellectual or perceptual deficits. Under this deficit model, errors are seen as a sign that learning did not take place, e.g., the person learned little or nothing from the original instruction. Although the person underwent instruction, completed training and appeared to pay attention to the teacher, instructor or coach, the information or learning did not "take". Ruling out lack of motivation and other obvious factors, the underlying assumption is that the person continues to do it the wrong way because he or she still does not know the right way.
error correction—the transfer of learning problem
Conventional deficit-based explanations of learning failure imply only one solution - once you assume that a consistent and persistent error implies a lack of knowledge or skill, then the obvious solution is to give the individual the missing knowledge or skill, i.e., re-train or re-teach it; do it all over again.
Re-teaching typically follows this pattern:
1. Tell him what he is doing wrong and explain why it is wrong.
2. Improve his awareness of what he is doing wrong.
3. Show or model the right way and explain why this way is better.
4. Ask him to copy it.
5. Give him corrective feedback and reinforcement.
6. Get him to practice it.
While additional learning modes, e.g., tactile, aural, visual, may be employed to reinforce learning over and above those used in the original training session, the general approach follows this model.
Re-teaching and re-training in the face of established habit errors is usually slow to show results, very time consuming, expensive of resources and largely unsuccessful, yet we persist with it because there are few alternatives. Correction methodologies that do produce worthwhile results such as some behavioural approaches are often complicated, time- and resource-intensive and difficult for all but highly trained practitioners to successfully implement.
Even when learning gains are made during conventional re-teaching, these improvements often fail to transfer to situations outside the original setting where the skill correction took place. For example. athletes often appear to improve during coaching sessions while under the coach's direct supervision, but revert to their old incorrect way of doing things when left to their own devices during hard training and competition. Similarly, machine operators trained to operate new equipment, when unsupervised and left to their own devices or when placed under pressure to perform, often fall back to old ways learned with previous equipment. Consequently, short-term learning gains are not permanent and soon fade over time.
Reversion to old incorrect routines in the face of stressful performance situations has been commonly observed in sport; and other skilled performance situations such as in workplaces. Clearly, something is wrong with the theory underpinning conventional methods of skill correction and habit reversal.
Error patterns are among the most common of all error forms and the most difficult to eradicate. The universal and extreme practical difficulty in eliminating learned, automated errors has led to the belief that eradication attempts should be abandoned in favour of controlling or minimising their consequences. Error management, as it has become known, now represents best practice in dealing with errors in many hazardous industries and in aviation.
The error management approach defines behavioural strategies taught in crew resource management as error countermeasures that are employed to avoid error, to trap errors committed and to mitigate the consequences of error.
However, in many uncontrolled environments like sport and in many workplaces, error management or containment is not a realistic alternative. However, the usual coaching advice, i.e., to increase skill drills, keep practicing, be persistent and simply accept that old habits die hard is just as unhelpful.
When error patterns are present, the learning that the person gets from skill drills does not transfer to the normal performance setting. In sport, for example, during competitive play the athlete may appear confused, performs more slowly, makes more errors, and falls back to his old, incorrect, technique. Improvement comes only slowly, if at all. For example, with a serious established technique problem, it can take a full off season or even longer before the problem is fixed. Clearly, we need a better way of skills coaching when error patterns are present.
special techniques for correcting error patterns
Persistent errors in skilled performance are commonplace and constitute a significant obstacle to performance improvement for many participants including experienced performers as well as beginners. The coaching, workplace training and educational literature places great emphasis on, "getting it right the first time", because coaches, trainers and teachers know that when technique errors are allowed to go on uncorrected they soon develop into error patterns or bad habits, and are then much harder to eradicate. However, despite quality coaching, training and teaching and highly motivated athletes, trainees and students, coaches along with trainers and teachers inevitably end up spending a lot of their time trying to help people improve their poor technique.
Because of the overriding concern by all involved to gain that winning edge, sport is one of the few areas where the effectiveness of various skill correction methodologies has been assessed experimentally. Until recently, most coaching was limited to methods based on highly individual and intuitive approaches, rather than on developments in sport psychology and coaching and training science. Recommended methods for decreasing errors tended to be unsupported by data.
Persistent errors, by definition, are resistant to correction by conventional means and have therefore become the target for special treatment, notably behaviour modification. Studies of the application of behaviour modification to skill development in sport claim that manipulation of behavioural consequences, e.g., reward, negative reinforcement, behaviour shaping and modeling, can strengthen or suppress target behaviours. Studies in workplace behaviour change also claim similar results.
The advent of task analysis or behavioural checklists in sport which detail a description of each action needed to accomplish a target performance has led to the increasing application of behavioural psychology to skill correction and development in a limited but growing range of sporting endeavours including football, gymnastics and tennis; soccer; sprinting; swimming; and classical ballet.
The major criticisms of these studies is that, with few exceptions, most of them can be challenged on methodological grounds in that they are limited by small sample sizes, lack of a control group and lack of statistical validation of findings.
The limitations of behavioural approaches to error correction and skill development are also apparent in these studies. The manipulation of behavioural consequences inherent in operant approaches is a limitation, in that the locus of control is not readily transferred from external to internal sources of reinforcement.
Operant interventions also require a controlled environment that is not always attainable, e.g., the choice and timing of reinforcements can be critical to success or failure. Incorrect use of reinforcements by inexperienced practitioners of operant techniques is another problem. When skill improvement was observed, the effects were often small to moderate, took a long time to achieve, and even when performance improvement was more rapid, coaches as well as athletes, found the correction methods too difficult, too time consuming or unpleasant to implement, making them of limited practical value. These findings are mirrored in workplace training and educational settings.
Another approach to skill correction is one in which the coach, trainer or teacher directly confronts the person with his or her technique fault or misconception and its consequences. The assumption is that when the person is confronted with the error of his or her ways, he or she can no longer deny it, and he shock value of this revelation stimulates a desire to change and improve. Unfortunately, conflict teaching or confrontational teaching, as it has been called, has limited success even though it is quite widely used. It can also have undesirable side effects with people who are already under great pressure to improve and demoralised by their apparent inability to change.
So, if behavioural approaches to correcting error patterns tend not to be used by coaches, trainers and teachers, and conflict teaching methods do not work, what is the alternative? Almost all current methods of technique correction and skill development that are used rely on practice or repetition of the right way. Skill drills, as they are known in sport, are excellent for providing practice and improving learning of new skills, but practice drills are not very effective when trying to correct a technique problem or change an existing skill.
a fresh explanation for the persistence of error patterns
Mental mechanisms that affect learning and memory have been studied by psychologists since 1920. One of these mechanisms, proactive inhibition (PI), is an inhibitory interference effect on learning and memory produced by, "conflicting associations that are learned prior to the learning of the task to be recalled". In effect, if what the person has learned previously is in conflict (disagreement) with the new material he or she is trying to learn, PI is involuntarily activated and exerts an inhibitory effect on the recall of the new material, causing it to undergo accelerated forgetting and leading to the person reverting to their old way of doing things.
The main effect of PI on new, conflicting, learning is that although it does not prevent learning from occurring, it prevents the association of conflicting ideas. This, in turn, dramatically slows down change and improvement, resulting in a greatly prolonged adaptation period to the new learning.
During this adaptation period the person appears to "forget" the new technique or skill and repeatedly falls back to old ways.
Please go to the demonstration of this proactive inhibitory mechanism, complete the activities, and then read the explanation of your scores on the two tests. This "words in colour" demonstration will give the opportunity to experience PI for yourself, and will also give you some idea of how much PI you have hardwired into your brain. Follow this link to go to the PI demonstration.
These inhibitory effects on 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. However, the implications of such interference for error correction and habit reversal and for ways to accelerate learning were not sufficiently explored.
Studies of proactive inhibitory effects on skill acquisition in sport are scarce. In a controlled study of the effects of learning a forehand tennis ground stroke on the subsequent learning of a backhand, a significant and enduring proactive habit interference effect was observed. These results confirmed earlier demonstrations of proactive interference in non-sport motor skills.
Old Way New Way® theory has extended the PI story and produced an explanation of why habitual errors in conceptual understanding and skilled performance are so difficult to eradicate. The main principles are stated here, in the context of skill correction.
1. Repetition of a skilled behaviour pattern is a sign that learning has occurred, so consistent, habitual technique errors indicate the presence, rather than the absence, of learning. In this case, what the person knows is how to do it "wrong". This becomes the starting point for skill correction.
2. PI does not prevent learning from occurring, it merely prevents the association of conflicting ideas.
3. When new information or ideas disagree or conflict with what the person already knows, this conflict generates inhibition of the new learning. This leads to confusion, slower performance, and an increase in errors. PI produces accelerated forgetting of the new technique or skill, and within minutes or hours the person appears to forget what he or she has been taught.
4. It does not matter whether what the person already knows is correct or incorrect, because PI protects all prior knowledge and skills as it cannot discriminate between what is "right" and what is "wrong", in a given context.
5. PI therefore exerts a maintenance effect over prior learning, inhibiting change and preserving erroneous (as well as correct) knowledge and skills.
6. PI is an involuntary mechanism over which we have little or no control. It is universal but most people are not even aware they have this mechanism hard-wired into their brain.
7. There appears to be considerable variation within the population in the level of PI one inherits. Individuals with higher PI are less likely to achieve successful behaviour change (e.g., error or skill correction, habit reversal) under conventional correction methods.
8. Performance becomes cue-dependent, and the person reverts to prior behaviour patterns when the coach's or trainer's presence is withdrawn, thus inhibiting transfer of learning to other settings and ensuring that the erroneous knowledge and behaviour continue to resist correction.
9. This is why, "old habits die hard."
The emphasis in Old Way New Way® is on what the person can do, not on what the person can't do. For example, whereas in conventional coaching the coach would say, "He can't tackle properly", in Old Way New Way® coaching the coach would say, "He consistently tackles too high; he should be tackling lower."
The powerful effect of proactive interference observed in non-sport motor skills has also been demonstrated in sports performance settings. Over the years, various practitioners and researchers have suggested that the person's errors should be recognised and incorporated into the skill correction process. For example,
1. In one sport study, ball throwing became more accurate when the thrower practiced"short" and "long" throws as well as "on target" throws.
2. Practicing wrong movements was found to be useful in another study, because it clarified the difference between a good and a bad performance, but this strategy was likely to be useful only as long as the performer was aware that an "error" was being made.
3. Deliberate exaggeration of the performance error was found to assist skill correction in tennis.
4. "Contrast drills", in which the athlete performed the action in the "right" way followed by performance of the "wrong" way, improved sport performance.
The enormous significance of error patterns for human learning and continuous improvement, and the impact on skilled performance, is reflected in the vast amount of literature on behaviour change, particularly in the fields of education, psychology, sports coaching, and the enhancement of skilled performance. Despite the impact of this universal problem, Old Way New Way® is the first and still the only systematic education and training methodology that offers a cost-effective and user friendly solution.
skill correction and development using Old Way New Way®
Old Way New Way® protocols are prepared prior to an intervention, called a learning trial, and are tailor made for a specific performance difficulty or conceptual misunderstanding where change is required. Since no two performance situations are exactly alike, the Old Way New Way® practitioner needs to be thoroughly grounded in the theory and practice of this learning methodology in order to diagnose each performance problem and design an appropriate and effective Old Way New Way® intervention.
An Old Way New Way® protocol that is specifically devised for technique and skill correction in sport typically has the following steps:
- Diagnosis of the performance problem or technique difficulty.
- Improvement of bodily awareness.
- Systematic and progressive discrimination.
- Generalization or practice.
- Follow-up correction, if necessary.
Conventional technique correction used by sports coaches almost always follows the basic sequence described earlier, namely,
- Tell them what they are doing wrong and explain why it is wrong;
- Develop the person's awareness of what they are doing wrong;
- Show him the right way and explain why this way is better;
- Ask him to copy it and give them corrective and supportive feedback; and
- Then get him to practice the right way.
One of the main differences between Old Way New Way® coaching and training and conventional coaching and training is that Old Way New Way® requires the individual to mediate the differences between the "old" and the "new" ways. "Mediation" in this context, refers to the person's ability to "stand between" the old and new actions and to sort out their differences. However, while a "mediator" is typically a third party negotiator between two opposing parties, in Old Way New Way® the mediator is the learner him- or herself.
If the old way persists after four or five fortnightly repeat sessions then this strongly suggests that the original error diagnosis was incomplete or faulty. Much depends on the experience and ability of the coach or trainer, the athlete and the Old Way New Way® practitioner (the coach or trainer him- or herself), to jointly bring their expertise to bear on the situation so they can accurately;
- Identify and analyse the performance error;
- Identify and demonstrate the substitute action required; and
- Describe, and elicit from the learner, the essential physical and psychological differences between these "right" and "wrong" ways of performing the action sequence.
Studies of the effectiveness of Old Way New Way® in many different performance settings including Olympic sport coaching, schools and workplaces, and the results of numerous field trials, consistently report that after one successful correction session lasting from 20 minutes to an hour or so, the person has:
- An 80% probability of performing in the new way, and a 20% probability of still doing it in the old way, when compared with conventional skill correction.
- There is also a 90% probability of self-detecting an old way when it occurs and of self-correcting it. This further accelerates learning.
- Spontaneous recovery of the old way can be expected at two to three weeks after the original learning trial, and if it occurs is easily dealt with.
- Achievement of full correction and eradication of the technique or skill problem is influenced by how much the learner practices the new way after the learning trial.
- Everything being equal, more practice means that additional learning trials may not be necessary. However, with highly complicated performance skills it may require from two to five learning trials spaced at fortnightly intervals, to achieve full correction.
a new model for coaching, teaching, and training
- Old Way New Way® offers an entirely new approach to skill development, technique correction, the correction of misconceptions and other performance difficulties, whether these be physical or mental.
- Although highly innovative, this learning method is readily integrated into what coaches, trainers and educators normally do in their quest for skill development and continuous improvement.
- Old Way New Way® is a unique example of successful collaboration between researchers and practitioners to design the most effective learning protocols.
- Old Way New Way® is basically a Neo-Constructivist model - the person is the one who is responsible for learning, understanding and changing.
- The coach's or trainer's ability to identify and diagnose the error or technique problem is critical, as is his or her ability to identify, explain and demonstrate to the learner the "correct" technique. This befits the educator's role as the expert.
- The learner can be empowered through Old Way New Way® to take on personal responsibility for improving.
- The learner'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 OK and new knowledge and skills will consolidate and build on old.
- However, when prior knowledge and skills are different, and likely to conflict with the new, the learner needs to follow prescribed Old Way New Way procedures, and not just attempt to practice the new while ignoring pre-existing knowledge and skills.
The learner does not have to be doing something wrong, before he or she can benefit from Old Way New Way®. The Old Way New Way® learning method can speed up all kinds of learning and accelerate change in many contexts, apart from error correction.
Transition training is another kind of learning that greatly benefits from Old Way New Way®. For example in sport, when the person has to change over to new procedures due to a change of rules, or has to adopt a new style of play because of a change from one system to another, e.g., changing from rugby league to rugby union, or from gridiron to Australian Rules football, PI will try to slow down the desired change, create confusion, slow performance and increase errors. Old Way New Way® gets round this problem, bypasses PI and makes faster change possible. You do not have to be doing something wrong before you can benefit from Old Way New Way®; you simply have to want to change what you are currently doing.
Old Way New Way® applications
Old Way New Way® enables individuals, groups or teams to change and permanently improve their performance more quickly in sport, education, health and workplace training and safety. Old Way New Way® has accelerated adaptation to new skills, work procedures and routines, new systems, new equipment and new techniques.
For example, Old Way New Way®:
- assisted Jason Gillespie, world class cricketer, to overcome his injurious delivery action that threatened his career, and corrected Paul Wilson's back foot no-balling difficulty;
- improved the coaching effectiveness of cricket coaches at the South Australian Cricket Association
- improved performance in swimming, soccer, baseball, golf, and other competitive sports
- improved the coaching and the performance of Olympic level athletes in javelin, hammer throwing, soccer, track and field, swimming, and others
- improved rugby players' ball handling, tackling and kicking technique;
- improved diving technique of athletes at the South Australian Sports Institute;
- enabled casting pit operators at the KAAL Pty Ltd aluminium plant, a joint venture of Kobe Steel and Aluminium Company of America, to abandon their unsafe hazardous materials handling practices and quickly and permanently adopt recommended practice;
- corrected helicopter pilots' instinctive but incorrect and life-threatening reaction to rotor stall; and
- corrected fork truck drivers' habitual, high-maintenance driving practices.
history of an innovation
From its initial development in the 1970s, and its humble beginnings in schools, Old Way New Way® was gazetted by the South Australian Education Department and was taught to teachers in that state as part of their professional development. It later became known as the Conceptual Mediation Program (CMP) but remained basically a "sleeper" innovation for the next 15 years.
This all changed in 1996 when competitive Australian National Training Authority Research Advisory Council (ANTARAC) funding was won to conduct an experimental field trial of the CMP.
This highly successful trial involved 34 students and 12 teachers at Southbank, Yeronga, and Brisbane Institutes of TAFE. The convincing results of this trial were presented at the 1996 ANTA National Conference. This led to an invitation by KAAL Pty Ltd, a joint venture of Kobe Steel and ALCOA, to conduct a workplace trial at their aluminium factory at Point Henry in Victoria. The outstanding success of this trial, which involved changing casting pit operators' habitual work practices in dealing with hazardous materials, led to ALCOA purchasing further CMP training.
One thing led to another and expressions of interest came in from other major Australian industrial and retail enterprises, and sporting organisations.
Old Way New Way®, as it came to be known, was finally put on the map. The world-wide application of the Old Way New Way® approach to continuous improvement and change management became clear when Paul Baxter was invited by the Royal Aeronautical Society to address an international gathering of 95 civilian and military pilots and trainers at the September 1998 Human Factors Conference at Gatwick Airport, London.
How far Old Way New Way® has come and the wide range of successful applications of this learning method are shown in the list of published research, school and workplace trials and case studies on this website.
