Measures of performance collected during initial skill acquisition can be misleading indicators of long-term retention or transfer (Soderstrom & Bjork, 2013). For example, previous research demonstrates that learning can occur in the absence of visible performance gains, and temporary performance gains can occur in the absence of long-term retention or transfer (Singer & Edmondson, 2006; Soderstrom & Bjork, 2013). Therefore, it is critical that authors clearly differentiate between Measures of Learning (MOLs) and Measures of Performance (MOPs) in their research. While this distinction was frequently made in the psychological literature until the 1950's, it has been somewhat forgotten since then (Schmidt & Bjork, 1992). As part of a larger study on the effects of simulator cue fidelity on aircraft carrier landing skills, we collected both MOLs and MOPs. The sample included fifteen Navy F/A-18 pilots (8 novices, 7 experts), each of whom flew 24 landing passes in a high-fidelity simulator over two consecutive days. MOPs were calculated for each pass, and were operationalized as deviations (measured in degrees) from the ideal angle of attack, glide slope, and center line. The data were then aggregated across all 24 passes. In contrast, MOLs were operationalized as changes in performance over time. The two sets of analyses – learning vs. performance – provide very different interpretations of the data. In this paper, we describe the conceptual differences between MOLs and MOPs; show how the choice of analysis can have profound implications for interpreting the results; and provide the reader with actionable guidelines that they can use in their own work to better differentiate learning from performance.