If this "problem" is something necessary for safe flight, why would it
be something not memorized by the student taking the accelerated
course, but IS memorized by the student taking the traditional course?

It all has to do with the theory on the way we humans memorise
information - and I agree it's subjective at the worst of times but many
parts are generally understood.

The student in the accelerated model (1) has learned how to recall the
information under a certain set of circumstances - i.e. when being
examined. He doesnt understand the material (yet) as he can't possibly
have had the time to comprehend it - but he does memorise it. In his
memory there is a direct link between the requirements of the test and
the answers (be they written or practical) but, the links between the
chunks of information are not present as the glue (comprehension) is not
present to allow them to be forged. Over time, unless rehearsed
regularly, the unlinked information is easily forgotton.

The student in the normal model (2) has learned the information through
understanding. With comprehension, the student does not have to remember
every peice of information required to pass the test as separate
unrelated items, but only has to retain an understanding of the topic.
Because all the information is linked through comprehension, he will not
forget it so easily. With a true understanding of a given system, he is
able to answer specific questions about it and even prove his answer. As
such his confidence builds and through experience, he is able to
instantly recall things when nescessary, backed up with true
understanding. A student in (1) would have to rely on recall alone and
thus would be left wondering if he remembered it correctly.

Now I'm not saying that graduates of (1) never reach a true
understanding eventually. With regular use and the discipline to
question information constantly, this would not be a problem. Some
information would undoubetdly have to be relearned. But given the way
human memory is understood to work, the chances are much higher that he
will not.

Put a graduate of (1) in an emergency situation and he might just
remember what to do. He might forget though and not have an
understanding of the relevant system required to work out what to do. He
will panic as a result.

Put a graduate of (2) in the same situation and he may still not
remember what to do. BUT the key is that he will understand the relevant
system and will be able to work out what to do. Sure he may be stressed,
but he has a much higher chance of doing the correct action and a much
lower chance of panicing and doing the wrong thing.

When the situation is over, the graduate of (2) is able to link the
newly learned solution with the rest of his understanding of the system
in general. The chances of him being able to confidently recall the
information are greatly increased and are substantially better than
those of graduate (1) who may not even remember what he did!

Paul B



wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 18:55:03 +0000 (UTC), Paul Banks
wrote:


When you couple 1) with experience gained after the test, the student
will learn why the answers he has memorised are the way they are - but
there is always the danger that when a student under 1) comes across a
problem that he hasn't memorised, his judgement, with lack of experience
in solving problems, will be impaired.


Corky Scott