Using networked simulation to assess problem solving by tactical teams

The assessment of problem solving by military tactical teams presents a compelling and nationally significant challenge to students of human behavior. Individual and team problem solving have much in common, but some processes of problem-solving are more accessible to assessment within teams because team members must explicitly share and communicate mental representations of the problem-solving environment with one another. Networked simulation promises unique opportunities to observe and assess these processes, which have been found to account for a substantial portion of tactical team success. A framework is suggested for use of networked simulation to accomplish these ends. In order to fulfill its promise for assessing tactical teams, data collection in networked simulation needs to be supplemented by display capabilities, communications records, direct observation, and biographical data.

[1]  T. Connolly,et al.  The reinvention of decision making. , 1993 .

[2]  W. Chase,et al.  Visual information processing. , 1974 .

[3]  R. Schmidt,et al.  Training for Performance - Principles of Applied Human Learning - Morrison,Je , 1993 .

[4]  E. Salas,et al.  Establishing the Boundaries of a Paradigm for Decision-Making Research , 1996, Hum. Factors.

[5]  Allen Newell,et al.  Human Problem Solving. , 1973 .

[6]  Mica R. Endsley,et al.  Toward a Theory of Situation Awareness in Dynamic Systems , 1995, Hum. Factors.

[7]  R. Townsend,et al.  Up The Organization , 1971 .

[8]  G. Miller,et al.  Plans and the structure of behavior , 1960 .

[9]  H. Simon,et al.  The mind's eye in chess. , 1973 .

[10]  Jack A. Thorpe,et al.  The New Technology of Large Scale Simulator Networking: Implications for Mastering the Art of Warfighting , 1987 .

[11]  Robert J. Sternberg,et al.  The Psychology of human thought , 1988 .

[12]  N. Wiener.  The Human Use of Human Beings , 1950 .

[13]  Robert T. Hays,et al.  Simulation Fidelity in Training System Design: Bridging the Gap Between Reality and Training , 1988 .

[14]  E. Thorndike,et al.  The influence of improvement in one mental function upon the efficiency of other functions. (I). , 1901 .

[15]  Marshall B. Jones.  Regressing group on individual effectiveness. , 1974 .

[16]  Jack H. Hiller,et al.  Determinants of Effective Unit Performance: Research on Measuring and Managing Unit Training Readiness. , 1994 .

[17]  Rex V. Brown,et al.  Decision Analysis for the Manager , 1974 .

[18]  Jared Freeman,et al.  Metarecognition in Time-Stressed Decision Making: Recognizing, Critiquing, and Correcting , 1996, Hum. Factors.

[19]  E. Salas,et al.  Shared mental models in expert team decision making. , 1993 .

[20]  N. M. Morris,et al.  On Looking into the Black Box: Prospects and Limits in the Search for Mental Models , 1986 .

[21]  Eva L. Baker,et al.  Technology assessment in software applications , 1994 .

[22]  Janis A. Cannon-Bowers,et al.  Work teams in industry: A selected review and proposed framework. , 1992 .

[23]  C. Wickens,et al.  Workload transition: Implications for individual and team performance. , 1993 .

[24]  Jon F. Fallesen.  Decision Matrices and Time in Tactical Course of Action Analysis , 1995 .

[25]  C. Bray.  Transfer of learning. , 1928 .

[26]  Robert W. Swezey,et al.  Teams: Their Training and Performance , 1992 .

[27]  G. Klein,et al.  Decision Making in Action: Models and Methods , 1993 .

[28]  A. D. D. Groot.  Thought and Choice in Chess , 1978 .

[29]  Herbert Weiss.  SYSTEMS ANALYSIS PROBLEMS OF LIMITED WAR , 1966 .

[30]  E. A. Alluisi,et al.  The Development of Technology for Collective Training: SIMNET, a Case History , 1991 .

[31]  William B. Rouse,et al.  The role of mental models in team performance in complex systems , 1992, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern..

[32]  W. D. Gray,et al.  Transfer of Cognitive Skills , 1987 .

[33]  Harold F. O'Neil,et al.  Cognitive and affective learning strategies , 1979 .