There are many ways to think about the occurrence of team cognition, how it plays out among team members, how technology and context impact its expression, and how interdependencies develop given changing circumstances and plans. Our intent is to develop a generic metaphor with systematic expansions that provide a thought simulation to further enhance researcher's conceptualization of teamwork and team cognition. Knowledge can be constructed using a metaphorical view that can help develop new constructs within team cognition theories, models, technologies, simulations, and contexts. The paper looks at specific condensation of selected constructs by reviewing the author's involvement in team cognition paradigms, simulations, and research (TRAP, CITIES, JASPER, DDD). Perspectives developed across twenty years of experience are utilized to highlight similar yet differing approaches to team cognition while yielding guidance and lessons learned in designing scaled world simulations.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BrownC. E.LeuppD. (1985). Team performance with large and small screen displays. AAMRL-TR-85-033. Harry G. Armstrong Medical Research Laboratory, Wright-Patterson, Air Force Base, OH.
2.
Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (CGTV) (1997). The Jasper project: Lessons in curriculum, instruction, assessment, and professional development.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
3.
HessS. M.MacMillanJ.SerfatyD. (1999). Development of a team-in-the-loop, synthetic simulation environment based on data from cognitive task analysis. Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (p. 941). Human Factors Society and Ergonomics Society: Santa Monica, CA.
4.
HinszV. B. (2001). A groups-as-information processors perspective for technological support of intellectual teamwork. In McNeeseM. D.SalasE.EndsleyM. (Eds.). New trends in cooperative activities: System dynamics in complex environments (pp. 22–45) Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Press.
5.
HutchinsE. (1995). Cognition in the wild.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
6.
KincadeR. G.KiddJ. S. (1958). The effect of team size and intermember communication on decision-making performance. WADC TR 58–474. Aero Medical Laboratory, Wright Air Development Center, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH.
7.
LaveJ. (1988). Cognition in practice.UK: Cambridge University Press.
McNeeseM. D. (1998). Teamwork, team performance, & team interfaces: Historical precedence and application significance of the research at the USAF Fitts Human Engineering Division. Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Technology and Society (pp.161–166), IEEE Society on Social Implications of Technology, South Bend, IN.
10.
McNeeseM. D. (2000). Socio-cognitive factors in the acquisition and transfer of knowledge. Cognition, Technology, and Work, 2, 164–177.
11.
McNeeseM. D. (2001). Situated cognition in distributed multi-national, multi-cultural teams: A research prospectus informing socio-cognitive technologies. Final report submitted to the United States Navy, SPAWAR Center, San Diego, CA.
12.
McNeeseM. D. (2002). Discovering how cognitive systems should be engineered for aviation domains: A developmental look at work, research, and practice. In McNeeseM. D.VidulichM. (Eds.), Cognitive systems engineering in military aviation environments: Avoiding Cogminutia Fragmentosa (pp. 77–116) Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH: HSIAC Press.
13.
McNeeseM. D.PerusichK.RentschJ. R., (1999). What is command and control coming to: Examining socio-cognitive mediators that expand the common ground of teamwork. Proceedings of the 31st Annual Meeting of Human Factors Society, 2, (pp. 1345–1349). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society.
14.
McNeeseM. D.RentschJ. (2001). Social and cognitive considerations of teamwork. In McNeeseM. D.SalasE.EndsleyM. (Eds.). New trends in cooperative activities: System dynamics in complex environments (pp. 96–113) Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Press.
15.
McNeeseM. D.RentschJ. R.PerusichK. (2000). Modeling, measuring, and mediating teamwork: The use of fuzzy cognitive maps and team member schema similarity to enhance BMC3 I decision making. IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, (pp. 1081–1086). New York: IEEE.
SalomonS. (1993). Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
18.
Wellens (1993). Group situational awareness and distributed decision making: From military to civilian applications In CastillianN. J. (Ed.), Individual and group decision making: Current issues (267–291). Lawrence Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ.
19.
WhitakerR. D.SelvarajJ. A.BrownC. E.McNeeseM. D. (1995). Collaborative design technology: Tools and techniques for improving collaborative design. AL/CF-TR-1995-0086. Armstrong Laboratory, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH.
20.
WilsonD. L.McNeeseM. D.BrownC. E. (1987). Team performance of a dynamic resource allocation task: Comparison of a shared versus isolated work setting. Proceedings of the 43rdAnnual Meeting of Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, (pp. 209–212). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society.
