Need the Hive Mind

[Totem Polar]

For them "expert" or "expertise" is the highest level of obtainable performance. The level of performance you see in world class musicians. These are people who have put in the 10,000 hours and then some and are the absolute experts for their field.

For whatever it’s worth, your best answers will probably be forthcoming from people who understand psychology’s unique language, and the how and why of that language’s application. Again, for what it’s worth, musicians themselves reverse that language in common usage (or more to the point, apply the common usage), e.g. the principal ‘cellist of the Spokane Symphony, or the Seattle Symphony is an expert; Yo-Yo Ma is a master. The principal of the Cleveland Orchestra is somewhere in between. Going further, audition classes with the highest-level touring concert artists are universally called "master classes." The older teachers that are held in the best regard, the teacher’s teachers that professionals travel to for coaching, are called "master teachers."

None of this to say that the way psychomotor learning uses the terms is wrong, but all that to say that it is very specialized—not that you don’t already understand that better than most.

Additionally, the current benchmark for musicians is now seen as more like 30k hours—but they have to be goal-directed.

Again, FWIW. I understand that in learning outcomes, a student can demonstrate "mastery" of a subject, say, writing a press release, or the basics of playing a c scale harmonized in thirds, and that hardly makes them an expert in the field.

We are indeed talking about two very different language conventions. I say this as a full-time pro musician who’s first degree program was psych.

I realize that this post isn’t helpful for you in any way, but it might be helpful for the discussion.

[RJ]

I've been digging through this massive 130 page Canadian study as part of my ongoing research for my Performance Under Fire material. An interesting point I've picked up is that they distinguish between mastery and expertise. (Their words, not mine - let's not dicker about words). Expertise is a very, very high level of proficiency that is the result of arguably years of work and practice. Mastery is a lower level of competence but it is a form of competency.

For years, Randy Harris and I have said "you can either shoot or you can't." Some folks can shooter better/faster but there seems to be a minimal threshold in there somewhere. Examples we've used of being able to shoot are spinning a Farnam Rotator or passing the old Air Marshall qual. Being able to shoot seems to equal mastery for me.

This leads me to my question for the hive mind - where are these lines? What does mastery look like and what does expertise look like with a pistol. I'm thinking there's low level mastery, high level mastery, and expertise. What tests, standards, etc. do you place in each category? (I'm talking psycho-motor skills not tactics, mindset, etc. Standards that lend themselves to quantification.)

This might be applicable to your question, but might also send you off in a different direction. If it is not of interest, disregard.

I've been involved in implementing solutions in Instructional System Design in Aerospace for 30+ years. Generally, we use a derivative of the so called ADDIE model of ISD: Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation and Evaluation.

I thought a bit about your question, and believe there might some daylight in looking at the Design phase of ADDIE, in which the approach to close the performance gap in the current system is designed. This includes the Knowledge Transfer Assessment, in which it is determined whether or not the instruction met the training effectiveness set for that learning module.

So, to your point, at least as far as from a formal ISD approach is concerned, it is a binary yes/no evaluation at the performance objective level, not a "graduation" or gray scale evaluation by a SME. Obviously several POs can be assessed and an overall "score" attained, however these are built on aggregate assessments, which by themselves are binary, in determining the objective assessment.


I did a quick search on the Design phase within the ADDIE model. Additional information on this is contained in the paper at the link below, in case this is of interest:

http://www.wright.edu/~gordon.welty/...sign_07_07.pdf

It is just a few pages but concisely outlines the D phase of ADDIE pretty well.

Hope this helps.

Rich

Edit to add: Of course, Some POs by nature are numeric, Circular Error Probable in landing a 155mm shell, hitting an X at 25 yards, etc. As far as I’ve seen, different customers and cultures append their own nomenclature to numerical results, at which point the word choices somewhat become semantics. There is usually some minimum standard to be met which is stated by the end user representative I.e. the SME in the design process who speaks for the User Community.

[Gio]

Sticking to the original intent of the thread, here is where I'd draw the line on pistol shooting for combat/defensive application with an iron sighted service type pistol. Obviously an open type gun with a comp, optic, and magwell would find some of these drills easier. I'm not saying you have to be able to hit every one of these standards cold, on demand, under pressure, but they should be easily doable and not just a pipe dream or prayer to connect on them.
Expert
USPSA Grandmaster (this is the best classification system in any of the shooting sports and measures real performance against extremely high standards under pressure. There may be a few exceptions where the system is gamed, but overall this is a solid metric)
All A/-0 hits on the following:
FAST - Sub 4.0 from concealment
Bill Drill - Sub 1.75
25yd Bill Drill - Sub 3.0
Blake Drill - Sub 1.90
25yd Blake Drill - Sub 3.75
Draw fire 2A's, reload fire 2A's, with sub 1.0 sec reload at 7 yds
Sub 2.5 sec plate rack at 10 yds (8" plates)
Sub 5 sec plate rack at 25 yds (8" plates)
>295 on FBI Bullseye course

Mastery:
USPSA Master / IDPA Master via shooting the longer classifier course
All A/-0 hits on the following:
FAST - Sub 4.5 from concealment
Bill Drill - Sub 1.90
25yd Bill Drill - Sub 3.75
Blake Drill - Sub 2.0
25yd Blake Drill - Sub 4.5
Draw fire 2A's, reload fire 2A's, with sub 1.3 sec reload at 7 yds
Sub 3.0 sec plate rack at 10 yds (8" plates)
Sub 6.0 sec plate rack at 25 yds (8" plates)
>285 on FBI Bullseye course

I work with and train a ton of shooters both in the competitive shooting world and the law enforcement world, and I think the 25 yard drills are much more indicative of a shooter's overall ability than anything else both slow fire and bill drill/blake drills/plate rack type shooting.

[Mr_White]

John, I'm glad you felt like I answered your question because after I read your last post I wasn't so sure myself.

Re-attempting with your additional thoughts in mind and using the chosen terms:

I'll use USPSA Classifications to keep it brief.

Low level mastery: B class.

High level master: M/GM class.

Expert: GM who wins or is a contender at major matches.

And that can then be translated into my answer for many other drills, tests, sports, etc., via THE CHART

[Otaku.edc]

I'm a nobody, but I figure an Expert is someone who can do any of the drills in any of the times people want to throw up there, cold and on demand.....consistently. By consistently, I imagine to the point where they have to make a conscious effort to screw it up, i.e. a demo for students on what not to do.

Anders Ericsson is another person to check out in the realm of expertise, his popsci book, PEAK is pretty good and understandable for a layperson.

[Clobbersaurus]

I think Gabes last post sums it up for me.

However, being a former tacticool nobody who found IPSC and fell in love with the sport (and still remain a nobody), I think folks that only shoot static drills are lacking a huge piece of the pistol shooting puzzle. I remain unconvinced that expertise in certain drills equates to expertise in IPSC/USPSA.

Sorry if my posts were outside of what the OP was looking for, otherwise I have enjoyed this thread very much.

[John Hearne]

However, being a former tacticool nobody who found IPSC and fell in love with the sport (and still remain a nobody), I think folks that only shoot static drills are lacking a huge piece of the pistol shooting puzzle. I remain unconvinced that expertise in certain drills equates to expertise in IPSC/USPSA.

I think that is an absolutely valid observation. IPSC/USPSA/IDPA require additional skills beyond marksmanship in order to be successful. I immediately think of the ability to move in and out of shooting positions and target transitions. A drill of just a few rounds will never test those skills.

I would offer that someone who can shoot a 4.5 second FAST can draw, shoot, and reload at a very high level of skill. Those base skills, which are some of the component of IPSC success, are also found in high levels in a lot of IPSC folks.

I think it is reasonable to argue that skill across multiple shooting domains might be the key indicator of a true expert. If you can classify around the A to Master level in USPSA, can shoot 280 on the Advanced Super Test, and post 290 or better on the FBI bullseye, I'd be hard pressed to argue that you aren't performing at an expert level.

My take is that most self-defense scenarios have a fairly low task complexity so being highly competent in most any measure of skill will eliminate mechanics as your reason for failing.

[Clobbersaurus]

I think it is reasonable to argue that skill across multiple shooting domains might be the key indicator of a true expert. If you can classify around the A to Master level in USPSA, can shoot 280 on the Advanced Super Test, and post 290 or better on the FBI bullseye, I'd be hard pressed to argue that you aren't performing at an expert level.

I really like this. I think you are onto something here.

[HopetonBrown]

Scott Jedlinski posted on the P&S Facebook page a few years ago what he thought made a "good" shooter.

50/50 Dot Torture at 5 yards
90/100 B8 at 25 yards
6.0 FAST
1r1 in 4.0 at 7 yards
1.5 from concealment at 7 yards
3.0 Bill Drill from concealment

... And a "great" shooter.

50/50 Dot Torture at 6 yards
95/100 B8 at 25 yards
5.0 FAST
1r1 in 3.0 at 7 yards
1.0 from concealment at 7 yards
2.5 Bill Drill from concealment

[Matt O]

This is definitely a fascinating topic.

Even though I’ve never shot USPSA, I would agree that their classifier system definitely seems be probably the best at assessing skill levels from a holistic technical shooting capability standpoint.

I do think Clobb has a point regarding the gap between performance in specific drills and the ability to string those skills together in new and demanding ways, e.g. a competition stage. That’s probably the biggest disconnect I see on the chart between the drills portion on the bottom and the classifications on the top. Though I can shoot a 4.5 sec FAST, I doubt I’d be able to qualify as M in USPSA or shoot at the turbo pin level.

That said, looked at another way, the chart could also be looked at from a diagnostic standpoint. If one can shoot a solid FAST and bill drill, and is at a turbo pin level, but can’t qualify as M or do well on the FBI standards, it can help identify where their deficiencies lie - e.g. transitions and accuracy at distance.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk