Development of the TARGET Training Effectiveness Tool and Underlying Algorithms Specifying Training Method - Performance Outcome Relationships

Abstract : A four-year research effort was conducted to collect empirical evidence on the effectiveness of different training methods for acquiring and transferring complex cognitive skills (see Plott et al., 2014). To accomplish this goal, a series of meta-analyses were conducted examining six training methods (training wheels, scaffolding, part-task training, increasing difficulty, learner control, and exploratory learning). Algorithms were then developed to quantify the relationships between the training methods, performance, and various moderating factors. These algorithms can be used to perform tradeoff analyses to determine the effectiveness of different combinations of training method(s), task/skill type(s) being trained (e.g., perceptual, psychomotor), trainee characteristics (e.g., experience, aptitude), and type(s) of training performance outcomes (e.g., learning, transfer). Finally, to ensure these research findings and algorithms would be easily consumable by training developers and researchers, a training effectiveness tool was developed, called TARGET (which stands for Training Aide: Research and Guidance for Effective Training). This tool can aid training developers and researchers in making decisions concerning the most appropriate training method(s) to use depending on their particular training context. This report focuses on the algorithm development completed as a part of this larger research effort, as well as the algorithm incorporation into TARGET.

[1]  Patricia L. McDermott,et al.  Transferring from the Simulator to a Live Robotic Environment: The Effectiveness of Part-Task and Whole-Task Training , 2013 .

[2]  Shaun Hutchins,et al.  Training Aide: Research and Guidance for Effective Training User Guide , 2013 .

[3]  W. Shadish,et al.  Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference , 2001 .

[4]  F. Paas,et al.  Teaching complex rather than simple tasks: balancing intrinsic and germane load to enhance transfer of learning , 2006 .

[5]  Patricia L. McDermott,et al.  Understanding the Impact of Training on Performance , 2014 .

[6]  Xiao-Hua Zhou,et al.  Statistical Methods for Meta‐Analysis , 2008 .

[7]  Thomas D. Cook,et al.  Threats to the validity of generalized inferences , 2009 .

[8]  S. Kozlowski,et al.  Active learning: effects of core training design elements on self-regulatory processes, learning, and adaptability. , 2008, The Journal of applied psychology.

[9]  C. Borland,et al.  Effect Size , 2019, SAGE Research Methods Foundations.

[10]  F. Paas,et al.  Cognitive Load Theory and Instructional Design: Recent Developments , 2003 .

[11]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  The Influence of Cognitive Load on Transfer With Error Prevention Training Methods , 2013, Hum. Factors.

[12]  E. Salas,et al.  Application of cognitive, skill-based, and affective theories of learning outcomes to new methods of training evaluation. , 1993 .

[13]  Patricia L. McDermott,et al.  Part Task Training Methods in Simulated and Realistic Tasks , 2012 .