Is there one best way to support skill retention? Putting practice, testing and symbolic rehearsal to the test

Abstract

While a great deal is already known about the effectiveness of training delivery methods, the effectiveness of methods to support skill retention has not yet been sufficiently examined. To address this gap, three studies with different task types were conducted, comprising a total of 240 participants (80 per study). Participants learned how to perform a simulated process control task, which served as a prototype for a setting prone to skill decay. The aim was to compare three refresher interventions (Practice, Testing, and Symbolic Rehearsal), which differ in their underlying theoretical rationale. Participants in all three studies learned a task in week 1 (Study 1: fixed-sequence task, Study 2: contingent-sequence task, Study 3: parallel-sequence task). In each study, participants were divided into four equal-sized groups, which received either no refresher intervention or one of the following three refresher interventions one week after initial training (week 2): Practice, Skill Test, Symbolic Rehearsal. After two weeks, they performed the task again without help (week 3). Independently of the task, refresher interventions reduced the number of mistakes, especially when a Practice refresher intervention was applied. The classical "testing effect" could not be replicated. Practical Relevance: Independently of the task, refresher interventions reduced the number of mistakes, especially when a Practice refresher intervention was applied. The classical "testing effect" could not be replicated. ZusammenfassungObwohl bereits vieles über die Wirksamkeit von Trainingsmethoden bekannt ist, wurde die Wirksamkeit von Methoden zur Unterstützung des Kompetenzerhalts noch nicht ausreichend untersucht. Um diese Lücke zu schließen, wurden drei Studien mit unterschiedlichen Aufgabentypen durchgeführt, die insgesamt 240 Teilnehmer (80 pro Studie) umfassten. Die Teilnehmenden lernten, wie man eine simulierte Prozesssteuerungsaufgabe ausführt, die prototypisch für Fertigkeiten ist, die, wenn sie nicht aufgefrischt werden, anfällig für Fertigkeitsverlust sind. Ziel war es, drei Refresher-Interventionen (Üben, Testen und symbolisches Wiederholen) zu vergleichen, die sich in den zugrunde liegenden theoretischen Prozessen unterscheiden. Die Teilnehmenden aller drei Studien lernten in der ersten Woche eine Aufgabe (Studie 1: Aufgabe mit fester Sequenz, Studie 2: Aufgabe mit bedingter Sequenz, Studie 3: Parallelsequenz-Aufgabe). In jeder Studie wurden die Teilnehmenden in vier vergleichbare Gruppen eingeteilt, die entweder eine keine Refresher-Intervention oder eine der folgenden drei Refresher-Interventionen eine Woche nach dem ersten Training (Woche 2) erhielten: Üben, Fertigkeitstest, symbolische Wiederholung. Nach zwei Wochen führten sie die Aufgabe erneut aber ohne Hilfe durch (Woche 3). Unabhängig von der Aufgabe reduzierten Refresher-Interventionen die Anzahl der Fehler, insbesondere bei erneuten Üben. Der "Test-Effekt" konnte nicht repliziert werden. Praktische Relevanz: Unabhängig von der Aufgabe reduzieren Refresher-Interventi...

The Job Perception Inventory: considering human factors and needs in the design of human–AI work

“…This productivity paradox means that despite the increased costs of acquiring such systems, there is a counterproductive slowdown in performance, which obviously has negative consequences for organizations—and is potentially due to not involving the human part in the redesign of work. It turns out that about half of the deceleration can be explained by (decreasing) employees' productivity (Gordon, 2018 ), who in addition experienced further undesirable side effects: experiencing monotony (Ralph et al, 2017 ), loss of skills (Frank and Kluge, 2019 ) with simultaneously increasing demands (Rieth and Hagemann, 2021 ), reductions in attention (Parasuraman et al, 1993 ), the unreflective acceptance of decision proposals by technology (Dalcher, 2007 ), and too much or too little trust in automation (Merritt et al, 2019 ). Reduced wellbeing and the fear of being completely replaced at the workplace resulted and persist (Vorobeva et al, 2022 ).…”

“…One facet is job security, which often suffers in the context of technologies due to discussions about the replacement of humans by smart technologies (Pollak et al, 2021 ). Increased use of technology often changes the role of the individual from an active agent to a passive controller (Parker and Grote, 2020 ; Rieth and Hagemann, 2021 ), which can result in a loss of capabilities (Frank and Kluge, 2019 ). Therefore, satisfaction with personal growth and development is also examined.…”

Human Resource Management in a Digital Environment

“…With this in mind, it is especially important to train for skill retention (Frank & Kluge, 2019;Parker & Grote, 2020).…”

Factors Influencing Attenuating Skill Decay in High-Risk Industries: A Scoping Review

“…Highrisk industries that have to deal with highly automated environments counter skill decay with periodic refresher interventions/recurrent trainings, which are declared mandatory in some industries (including aviation-see, e.g., [30]; nuclear power plants-see, e.g., [31]; maritime; see, e.g., [32]) but not in others. The type of refresher intervention (e.g., practice, mental rehearsal, or test) can have a positive impact on skill retention, but its effectiveness is dependent on the type of task and skills required [33].…”

“…As a result, we can extract valuable information from the existing literature about skill decay, but the transferability to complex cognitive skills in high-risk and highly automated environments is restricted. Third, the research regarding refresher interventions considering complex cognitive tasks in high-risk environments is limited [33], and the type of refresher intervention for mitigating skill decay has not yet been considered in detail. Thus, we extend the literature on skill decay by focusing on complex cognitive tasks, refresher interventions, and the retention of skills over a longer period of time (temporal transfer) and for novel situations (adaptive transfer), which to our knowledge have not been previously reviewed.…”