With respect to team training, traditional instructional design (ID) guidelines, mainly aimed at training at the individual level, seem to be insufficient given the different nature and characteristics of teams and team performance. In order to provide adequate support, guidelines have been developed supporting the analysis of team tasks, and the design of team training scenarios. This paper discusses an approach to the empirical validation of these guidelines and the implications for further research on ID for team training.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AnnettJ. (1996). Recent developments in hierarchical task analysis. Contemporary Ergonomics263–268.
2.
BrannickM. T.SalasE.PrinceC. (1997). Team Performance Assessment and Measurement: theory, methods, and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
3.
ChaseW. G.SimonH. A. (1973). The mind's eye in dress. In ChaseW. G., Visual Information Processing (pp. 215–218). New York: Academic Press.
4.
CookeN. J.StoutR.SalasE. (1997). Cognitive Task Analysis for Team Tasks. Presented at NATO/ONR Workshop on Cognitive Task Analysis Washington, October 31, 1997.
5.
ElenJ. (1995). Blocks on the Road to Instructional Design Prescriptions: A Methodology for ID-Research Exemplified. Studia Paedagogica. Leuven University Press.
6.
GoelV.PirolliP. (1992). The Structure of Design Problem Spaces. Cognitive Science, 16, 395–429.
7.
GreenoJ. G.KorpiM. K.JacksonD. N.IIIMichalchikV. S. (1990). Processes and Knowledge in Designing instruction. Internal report. Stanford University.
8.
McCombsB. L. (1986). The Instructional Systems Development (ISD) Model: a review of those factors critical to its successful implementation. ECTJ, 34(2), 67–81.
9.
MerkelbachE. J. H. M.SchraagenJ. M. C. (1994). A Framework for the Analysis of Cognitive Tasks (Report TM-94-B013). Soesterberg: TNO Human Factors Research Institute.
10.
NATO RSG 14 (1992). Panel 8 on the Defence Applications of Human and Bio-Medical Sciences. RSG 14 on Analysis Techniques for Man-Machine Systems Design. Technical Report AC/243 (Panel 8) TR/7, Vol. 2.
11.
PerezR. S.Fleming JohnsonJ.EmeryC. D. (1995). Instructional Design Expertise: A Cognitive Model of Design. Instructional Science, 23, 321–349.
12.
SalasE.Cannon-BowersJ. A. (1997). Methods, Tools, and Strategies for Team Training. In QuinonesM. A.EheensteinA., Training for a rapidly changing workplace: Applications of Psychological Research. Washington, DC: APA Press.
13.
Van BerloM. P. W. (1997). A field study on the development of team training systems (Report TM-97-B017). Soesterberg: TNO Human Factors Research Institute.
14.
Van BerloM. P. W. (1999). Guidelines Supporting the Analysis of Team Tasks and the Design of Team Training Scenarios (Report TM-99-B002). Soesterberg: TNO Human Factors Research Institute.
15.
WeaverJ. L.MorganB. B.Jr.HallJ. (1993). Team Decision Making in the Command Information Center: Development of a Low-Fidelity Team Decision Making Task for Assessing the Effects of Teamwork Stressors(Draft technical Report). University of Central Florida.
