Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Mission success in military operations is determined by team actions and is dependent on effective team training. Training has the potential to strengthen or weaken a team, and feedback during training is cited as a cornerstone for effective training. The Army currently employs an after-action review (AAR) process to provide post-action feedback to teams. Traditional AAR dynamics, with teammates and a facilitator in the same room, are being disrupted by the growing frequency of geographically-distributed teams; thus, distributed AARs are becoming necessary. However, past research has not determined the optimal techniques for conducting distributed AARs. This research compared no AAR, teleconference AAR, and teleconference AAR with visual feedback. Results show that teleconference with visual feedback condition was the best, followed by no AAR, followed by teleconference AAR. This research should be considered when designing distributed military training and feedback, as well as other domains that use distributed training and feedback.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Allen

(1977). Managing the flow of technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Baddeley

A.D.

Hitch

G.J.

(1974). Working memory. In Bower

G.H.

(Ed.), Advances in research and theory, 8, The psychology of learning and motivation, (pp. 47–90). New York: Academic.

Beard

Wilson

J. P.

(2002). The power of experiential learning: A handbook for trainers and educators. London: Kogan Page Ltd.

Cairncross

(1997). The death of distance: The trendspotter's guide to new communications. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Gorman

J. C.

Cooke

N. J.

Amazement

P. G.

Winner

J. L.

Duran

J. L.

Pedersen

H. K.

(2007). Knowledge training versus process training: The effects of training protocol on team coordination and performance. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 51st Annual Meeting (pp. 382–387). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

Hays

R.T.

(2005). The effectiveness of instructional games: A literature review and discussion. (Report No. 2005–004). Orlando, FL: Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division.

Mayer

R.E.

Moreno

(2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43–52.

Morrison

J.E.

Meliza

L.L.

(1999). Foundations of the After Action Review Process. (Report No. 42). Alexandria, VA: Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Paivio

(1986). Mental representations: a dual coding approach. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

10.

Rouse

W.B.

Morris

N.M.

(1986). On looking into the black box: Prospects and limits in the search for mental models. Psychological Bulletin, 100(3), 349–363.

11.

Spacy

B. D.

Trapp

M. I.

(1998) Train like we fight, fight like we train. Retrieved June 29, 2010 from Maxwell Air Force Base website: http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj02/win02/spacy.html.

12.

Salas

Fiore

S. M.

(Eds.). (2004). Team cognition: Understanding the factors that drive process and performance. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

13.

Tindall-Ford

Chandler

Sweller

(1997). When two sensory modes are better than one. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 3, 257–287.

14.

Wilson

K.A.

Salas

Priest

H.A.

Andrews

(2007). Errors in the heat of battle: A closer look shared cognition breakdowns through teamwork. Human Factors, 49, 243–256.

Distributed Team Training: Effective Feedback

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References