The scenario-based approach to training offers the potential for customized instruction. However, practical limitations and little theoretical guidance for individualizing instructional events to learners' needs have rendered difficult the realization of this potential. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to propose a framework for intelligent, scenario-based training that iteratively and adaptively tailors training events to the unique needs of the learner. Drawing from advances in assessment and psychometric theory, the proposed framework allows decomposition of scenarios into component elements, empirical investigation of how these elements influence training performance, and adaptive generation of scenario content that targets the occurrence of subjective learning events.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AckermanP. L. (1987). Individual differences in skill learning: An integration of psychometric and information processing perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 102, 3–27.
2.
AlligerG. M.KatzmanS. (1997). When training affects variability: Beyond the assessment of mean differences in training evaluation. In FordJ. K.KozlowskiS. W. J.KraigerK.SalasE.TeachoutM. S. (Eds.), Improving training effectiveness in work organizations (pp. 223–246). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
3.
Associates.
4.
AnnettJ. (1991). Skill acquisition. In MorrisonJ. E. (Ed.), Training for performance: Principles for applied human learning (pp. 13–52). Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons.
5.
CampbellJ. P.GasserM. B.OswaldF. L. (1996). The substantive nature of job performance variability. In MurphyK. R. (Ed.), Individual differences and behavior in organizations (pp. 258–299). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
6.
CampbellR. L.DiBelloL. (1996). Studying human expertise: Beyond the binary paradigm. Journal of Theoretical and Experimental Artificial Intelligence, 8, 277–293.
7.
ChanD.SchmittN. (2002). Situational judgment and job performance. Human Performance, 15, 233–254.
8.
CrockerL.AlginaJ. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory.New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
9.
CronbachL. J.SnowR. E. (1981). Aptitudes and instructional methods: A handbook for research on interactions.New York: Irvington.
10.
DwyerD. J.FowlkesJ. E.OserR. L.LaneN. E. (1997). Team performance measurement in distributed environments: The TARGETs methodology. In BrannickM. T.SalasE.PrinceC. (Eds.), Team performance assessment and measurement: Theory, methods, and applications (pp. 137–154). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
11.
EmbretsonS. E. (1997). Multicomponent item response models. In Van der LindenW. J.HambletonR. K. (Eds.), Handbook of modern item response theory (pp. 305–322). New York: Springer-Verlag.
12.
EmbretsonS. E.ReiseS. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
13.
EversonH. T. (1995). Modeling the student in intelligent tutoring systems: The promise of new psychometrics. Instructional Science, 23, 433–452.
14.
FlanaganJ. C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 41, 237–258.
15.
FowlkesJ. E.DwyerD. J.OserR. L.SalasE. (1998). Event-based approach to training (EBAT). International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 8, 209–221.
16.
JannaroneR. J. (1997). Models for locally dependent responses: Conjunctive item response theory. In Van der LindenW. J.HambletonR. K. (Eds.), Handbook of modern item response theory (pp. 465–480). New York: Springer-Verlag.
17.
OhlssonS. (1996). Learning from performance errors. Psychological Review, 103, 241–262.
18.
Olson-BuchananJ. B.DrasgowF. (1999). Beyond bells and whistles: An introduction to computerized assessment. In Olson-BuchananJ. B.DrasgowF. (Eds.), Innovations in computerized assessment (pp. 1–6). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
19.
Olson-BuchananJ. B.DrasgowF.MobergP. J.MeadA. D.KeenanP. A.DonovanM. A. (1998). Interactive video assessment of conflict resolution skills. Personnel Psychology, 51, 1–24.
20.
ParshallC. G.DaveyT.PashleyP. J. (2000). Innovative item types for computerized testing. In Van der LindenW. J.ClasC. A. W. (Eds.), Computerized adaptive testing: Theory and practice (pp. 129–148). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.
21.
SchoenfeldA. H.SmithJ. P.ArcaviA. (1993). Learning: The microgenetic analysis of one student's evolving understanding of a complex subject matter domain. In GlaserR. (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 55–177). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
22.
SeifertC. M.HutchinsE. L. (1992). Error as opportunity: Learning in a cooperative task. Human-Computer Interaction, 7, 409–435.
23.
SnowR. E. (1994). Abilities in academic tasks. In SternbergR. J.WagnerR. K. (Eds.), Mind in context: Interactionist perspectives on human intelligence.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
24.
SnowR. E.LohmanD. F. (1984). Toward a theory of cognitive aptitude for learning from instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 347–376.
25.
SnowR. E.LohmanD. F. (1993). Implications of cognitive psychology for educational measurement. In LinnR. L. (Ed.), Educational Measurement (3rd Ed., pp. 263–331). New York: Macmillian.
26.
Steele-JohnsonD.HydeB. G. (1997). Advanced technologies in training: Intelligent tutoring systems and virtual reality. In QuinonesM. A.EhrensteinA. (Eds.), Training for a rapidly changing workplace: Applications of psychological research (pp. 225–248). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
27.
Van der LindenW. J.HambletonR. K. (1997). Item response theory: Brief history, common models, and extensions. In Van der LindenW. J.HambletonR. K. (Eds.), Handbook of modern item response theory (pp. 1–28). New York: Springer-Verlag.
28.
Van LehnK. (1996). Cognitive skill acquisition. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 513–53.
