This paper illustrates the utility of mental model assessment in discriminating between high and low performers in terms of cognitive and metacognitive processes. Distinct computer-based knowledge elicitation methods were utilized to assess the acquisition of different knowledge types as well as the development of participants' mental models when training for a complex task. Additionally, participants' metacognitive accuracy was also measured. Results suggest that mental model assessment is diagnostic of knowledge acquisition for a complex task and mental model accuracy is related to accuracy in metacognitive processes.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
CuevasH. M.FioreS. M.OserR. L. (2001). The facilitative effects of diagrams on scaffolding knowledge acquisition and metacognition in low verbal ability learners. Proceedings of the 45th Annual Meeting of theHuman Factors and Ergonomics Society, 936–940. Santa Monica, CA: HFES.
2.
FioreS. M.CuevasH. M.OserR. L. (in press). A picture is worth a thousand connections: The facilitative effects of diagrams on task performance and mental model development. Computers in Human Behavior..
3.
FioreS. M.FowlkesJ.Martin-MilhamL.OserR. L. (2000). Convergence or divergence of expert models: On the utility of knowledge structure assessment in training research. Proceedings of the XlVth Triennial Congress of the International Ergonomics Association and 44th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomic Society, 2427–2430. Santa Monica, CA: HFES.
4.
JonassenD. H.BeissnerK.YacciM. (1993). Structural knowledge: Techniques for representing, conveying, and acquiring structural knowledge.Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
5.
KalyugaS.ChandlerPSwellerP. (1999). Managing split-attention and redundancy in multimedia instruction. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13, 351–371.
6.
KleinmanD. L.SerfatyD. (1989, April). Team performance assessment in distributed decisionmaking. Paper presented at the Simulation and Training Research Symposium on Interactive Networked Simulation for Training, Orlando, FL.
7.
MarcusN.CooperM.SwellerJ. (1996). Understanding instructions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 4963.
8.
MayerR. E. (1999). Instructional technology. In DursoF. T.NickersonR. S.SchvaneveldtR. W.DumaisS. T.LindsayD. S.ChiM. T. H. (Eds.), Handbook of applied cognition (pp. 551–569). Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons.
9.
OsmanM. E.HannafinM. J. (1992). Metacognition research and theory: Analysis and implications for instructional design. Educational Technology Research & Development, 40, 83–99.
10.
PaasF. G. W. CVan MerrienboerJ. J. G. (1993). The efficiency of instructional conditions: An approach to combine mental effort and performance measures. Human Factors, 35, 737–743.
11.
PaasF. G. W. CVan MerrienboerJ. J. G.AdamJ. J. (1994). Measurement of cognitive load in instructional research. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 79, 419–430.
12.
RouseW.BMorrisN. M. (1986). On looking into the black box: Prospects and limits in the search for mental models. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 349–363.
13.
RouseW.BCannon-BowersJ.A.SalasE. (1992). The role of mental models in team performance in complex systems. IEEE Transactions on systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 22, 1296–1992.
14.
SmithE. M.FordJ. K.KozlowskiS. W. J. (1997). Building adaptive expertise: Implications for training design strategies. In QuinonesM. A.EhrensteinA (Eds.), Training for a rapidly changing workplace: Applications of psychological research (pp. 89–118). Washington, D. C.: American Psychological Association.
