Higher-fidelity, scenario-based approaches for training teams and teamwork skills present unique challenges to trainees. These challenges include multitasking and prioritizing various actions given current scenario events. This paper highlights a unique methodology and modeling approach, based on intelligent tutoring system concepts, that is used to identify relatively critical activities during a training exercise and provide targeted feedback to trainees regarding their choice of actions. This feedback forms a basis for reflection and improved performance via focused post-training, after-action review sessions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlevenV.A.W.M.M.KoedingerK.R. (2001). An effective metacognitive strategy: Learning by doing and explaining with a computer-based Cognitive Tutor. Cognitive Science, 26, 147–179.
2.
AndersonJ.R. (1995). Learning and memory: An integrated approach. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
3.
AtkinsP.W.B.WoodR.E.RutgersP.J. (2002). The effects of feedback format on dynamic decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88, 587–604.
4.
BaldwinT.FordJ.K. (1988). Transfer of training: A review and directions for future research. Personnel Psychology, 41, 63–105.
5.
BoltonA. E.DorseyD. W.CampbellG. E. (2004). Application of time-sensitive computational models to training within a scenariobased team training system. Proceedings of the 13th Conference on Behavior Representation in Modeling and Simulation [CD-ROM].
6.
Cannon-BowersJ.SalasE. (1997). A framework for developing team performance measures in training. In BrannickM.SalasE.PrinceC. (Eds.) Team performance assessment and measurement: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 45–62). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
7.
CohenM. S.FreemanJ. T.ThompsonB. (1998). Critical thinking skills in tactical decision making: A model and training strategy. In Cannon-BowersJ.A.SalasE. (Eds.) Making decisions under stress: Implications for individual and team training (pp. 155–189). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
8.
CohenM.ThompsonB. (2001). Training teams to take initiative: Critical thinking in novel situations. In SalasE. (Ed.) Advances in cognitive engineering and human performance research, Vol. 1 (pp. 251–291). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
9.
DiehlE.StermanJ. D. (1995). Effects of feedback complexity on dynamic decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 62, 198–215.
10.
EndsleyM.R.RobertsonM.M. (2000). Training for situation awareness in individuals and teams. In EndsleyM.R.GarlandD.J. (Eds.) Situation awareness analysis and measurement (pp. 349–366). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
11.
EricssonK.A.KrampeR. ThTesch-RömerC. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100, 363–406.
12.
GoldsteinI.FordJ.K. (2002). Training in organizations: Needs assessment, development, and evaluation.Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Group.
13.
KirlikA.FiskA.WalkerN.RothrockL. (1998). Feedback augmentation and part-task practice in training dynamic decisionmaking skills. In Cannon-BowersJ.A.SalasE. (Eds.) Making decisions under stress: Implications for individual and team training (pp. 91–113). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
14.
KleinG. (1997). The recognition-primed decision (RPD) model: Looking back, looking forward. In ZsambokC.E.KleinG. (Eds.) Naturalistic decision making (pp. 285–292). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
15.
KlugerA.DeNisiA. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 254–284.
16.
KozlowskiS.W.J.ToneyR.J.MullinsM.E.WeissbeinD.A.BrownK.A.BellB.A. (1999). Developing adaptability: A theory for the design of integrated-embedded training systems. In SalasE. (Ed.) Human/Technology interaction in complex systems (Vol. 10). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
17.
LockeE.LathamG. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
18.
SalasE. (2001). Training crews for high performance: Myths, reality, and what works! Presentation at the Situation Assessment and Decision-Making Conference, Human Factors Group of the Royal Aeronautical Society, London, England.
19.
SchankR.NeamanA. (2001). Motivation and failure in educational simulation design. In ForbusK.D.FeltovichP.J. (Eds)., Smart machines in education. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
20.
Smith-JentschK.ZeisigR.ActonB.McPhersonJ.A. (1998). Team Dimensional Training: A strategy for Guided Team Self-Correction. In Cannon-BowersJ.A.SalasE. (Eds.), Making decisions under stress: Implications for individual and team training (pp. 271–297). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
21.
WangW.KleinmanD.L.LuhP.B. (2001). Modeling team coordination and decisions in a distributed dynamic environment. In OlsonG.M.MaloneT.W. (Eds.) Coordination theory and collaboration technology (pp. 673–710). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
22.
WoolfB.P.BeckJ.EliotC.SternM. (2001). Growth and maturity of intelligent tutoring systems. In ForbusK.D.FeltovichJ. (Eds.), Smart machines in education. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
