In this paper we use a conceptualization of a training space to argue that events within this space need be woven together such that the learner is able to experientially and cognitively link training concepts. We integrate memory theory into techniques to diagnose performance and methods for debriefing and illustrate how events within the training space can be monitored, filtered, and potentially structured such that performance feedback is idiosyncratically tailored. By utilizing a coordinated debriefing methodology that encompasses cognitively-based and technologically-based components, we illustrate how navigating the training space can be facilitated.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndréE.RistT.van MulkenS.KlesenM.BaldesS. (2000). The Automated Design of Believable Dialogues for Animated Presentation Teams. In CassellJ.PrevostS.SullivanJ.ChurchillE. (Eds.) Embodied Conversational Agents (pp. 220–255). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
2.
BousfieldW.A. (1953). The occurrence of clustering in the recall of randomly arranged associates. Journal of General Psychology, 49, 229–240.
3.
BowerG.H.ClarkM.C.LesgoldA.M.WinzenzD. (1969). Hierarchical retrieval schemes in recall of categorical word lists. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 8, 323–343.
4.
BrobstW. D.BrownA.C. (1998). Analysis of E-2C Aircrew Mission Skills (CRM 98-26). Alexandria, VA: Center for Naval Analyses.
5.
Cannon-BowersJ. A.RhodenizerL.SalasE.BowersC. A. (1998). A framework for understanding pre-practice conditions and their impact on learning. Personnel Psychology, 51, 291–320.
6.
CzerwinskiM.van DantzichM.RobertsonG.G.HoffmanH. (1999). The contribution of thumbnail image, mouse-over text and spatial location memory to web page retrieval in 3D. In SasseA.JohnsonC. (Eds), Human-Computer Interaction–Proceedings of Interact 1999 (pp. 163–170), Edinburgh, Scotland, IOS Press.
7.
FioreS. M.SalasE.CuevasH. M.BowersC. A. (2003). Distributed coordination space: Toward a theory of distributed team process and performance. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomic Science, 4, 3-4, 340–363.
8.
GagneR. (1985). The conditions of learning.New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
9.
GagneR.BriggsL.WagerW. (1992). Principles of instructional design.Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt.
10.
GagneR.DriscollM. (1988). Essentials of learning for instruction.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
HessK.P.EntinE.E.HessS.M.HutchinsS.G.KempleW.G.KleinmanD.L.HocevarS.P.SerfatyD. (2000). Building adaptive organizations: A bridge from basic research to operational exercises. Proceedings of the 2000 Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium, June 26-28, 2000, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA.
13.
KoedingerK. R.SuthersD. D.ForbusK. D. (1998). Component-Based Construction of a Science Learning Space. Paper presented at the International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems, San Antonio, Texas.
14.
MandlerG. (1967). Organization and memory. In SpenceK.W.SpenceJ.T. (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation, (Vol 1, 327–372). New York: Academic Press.
15.
NewellA.SimonH.A. (1972). Human problem solving.New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
16.
SalasE.Cannon-BowersJ. A. (2001). The science of training: A decade of progress. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 471–499.
17.
SalasE.FioreS. M. (Editors). (2004). Team Cognition: Understanding the factors that drive process and performance.Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
18.
TulvingE. (1962). Subjective organization in free recall of unrelated words. Psychological Review, 69, 344–354.
19.
VossJ.F.PostT.A. (1988). On the solving of ill-structured problems. In ChiM.GlaserR.FarrM. (Eds.), The nature of expertise (pp. 261–285). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
