U.S. Army Research Institute 

for the Behavioral and Social Sciences 

Research Report 1853 

A Near Term Approach to Embedded Training: Battle 

Command Visualization 101 

John M. Fisher, Charles G. Heiden, 

James R. Gossman, and Charlotte H. Campbell 

Human Resources Research Organization 

Michael G. Breidenbach 

Northrop Grumman 

Carl W. Lickteig

U.S. Army Research Institute 

May 2006 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 
U.S. Army Research Institute 

for the Behavioral and Social Sciences 

A Directorate of the Department of the Army 

Deputy Chief of Staff, G1 

Authorized and approved for distribution: 

 MICHELLE SAMS ZITA M. SIMUTIS 

 Technical Director Director 

Research accomplished under contract 

for the Department of the Army 

Human Resources Research Organization 

Technical review by 

May H. Throne, U.S. Army Research Institute 

Paula J. Durlach, U.S. Army Research Institute 

NOTICES 

DISTRIBUTION: Primary distribution of this Research Report has been made by ARI. 

Please address correspondence concerning distribution of reports to: U.S. Army 

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, Attn: DAPE-ARI-MS, 

2511 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3926 

FINAL DISPOSITION: This Research Report may be destroyed when it is no longer 

needed. Please do not return it to the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral 

and Social Sciences. 

NOTE: The findings in this Research Report are not to be construed as an official 

Department of the Army position, unless so designated by other authorized documents.
i

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

1. REPORT DATE (dd-mm-yy) 

 May 2006 

2. REPORT TYPE 

 Final 

3. DATES COVERED (from. . . to) 

 February 2004 – September 2005

5a. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER 

 DASW01-99-D-0012 DO #0025 

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 

A Near Term Approach to Embedded Training: Battle 

Command Visualization 101 5b. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 

 622785

5c. PROJECT NUMBER 

 A790 

5d. TASK NUMBER 

 211

6. AUTHOR(S) 

John M. Fisher, Charles G. Heiden, James R. Gossman, 

Charlotte H. Campbell (Human Resources Research 

Organization), Michael G. Breidenbach (Northrop Grumman), 

Carl W. Lickteig (U.S. Army Research Institute) 

5e. WORK UNIT NUMBER 

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 

Human Resources Research Northrop Grumman U.S. Army Research Institute for the 

 Organization (HumRRO) 7575 Colshire Drive Behavioral and Social Sciences 

66 Canal Center Plaza McLean, VA 22102 121 Morande Street 

Suite 400 ATTN: DAPE-ARI-IK 

Alexandria, VA 22314 Fort Knox, KY 40121-4141

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER 

10. MONITOR ACRONYM 

 ARI 

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 

 U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social 

Sciences 

 ATTN: DAPE-ARI-IK 

 2511 Jefferson Davis Highway 

 Arlington, VA 22202-3926

11. MONITOR REPORT NUMBER 

Research Report 1853 

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 

 Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 

 Contracting Officer’s Representative and Subject Matter POC: Carl W. Lickteig 

14. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words): 

Design and development of embedded training (ET) has been hampered by technical barriers and a lack of viable 

training product exemplars. This report describes an innovative training product developed to complement the 

Army’s ongoing ET efforts for the Future Force and provide realistic training solutions for the Current Force 

wherever deployed. An exemplar product called Battle Command Visualization (BCV) 101 was developed to train 

many of the basic skills required for employing networked sensors to “see” the battlefield by completing a set of 

progressive and gated skill development and reinforcement exercises. Expert performance of the exercises on a 

prototype command and control (C2

) system linked to virtual simulation was recorded to generate high-fidelity source 

materials for interactive multimedia instruction (IMI) at IMI Levels 1 and 2. The source materials were augmented by 

teaching points, tactical and reference materials, and quizzes. A surrogate learning management system was 

developed to control exercise sequence, interaction, quiz administration, training feedback, and remediation. 

Limited formative evaluation was also conducted. The primary finding of the research is an innovative approach to 

training that markedly extends Army’s ability to deliver the high-fidelity training required by the Current and Future 

Force. 

15. SUBJECT TERMS 

Embedded training Visualization training Interactive multimedia instruction Human performance 

Progressive exercises Gate tests Learning management system Training fidelity 

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF 

16. REPORT 

 Unclassified 

17. ABSTRACT 

 Unclassified 

18. THIS PAGE 

 Unclassified 

19. LIMITATION OF

 ABSTRACT 

 Unlimited

20. NUMBER 

 OF PAGES 

21. RESPONSIBLE PERSON 

 

Ellen Kinzer 

Technical Publications 

Specialist 

703-602-8047

NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 
ii
Research Report 1853 

A Near Term Approach to Embedded Training: Battle 

Command Visualization 101 

John M. Fisher, Charles G. Heiden, 

James R. Gossman, and Charlotte H. Campbell 

Human Resources Research Organization 

Michael G. Breidenbach 

Northrop Grumman 

Carl W. Lickteig

U.S. Army Research Institute 

Armored Forces Research Unit 

Barbara A. Black, Chief 

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences 

2511 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3926 

May 2006 

Army Project Number Personnel Performance 

622785A790 and Training Technology 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

iii 
iv 
A NEAR TERM APPROACH TO EMBEDDED TRAINING: BATTLE COMMAND 

VISUALIZATION 101 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Research Requirement: 

In support of future training requirements, the U.S. Army Research Institute for the 

Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI) conducted a research effort titled Battle Command 

Visualization (BCV) 101. In earlier research (Lickteig, Heiden, & Holden, 2004), ARI developed 

a series of highly interactive simulation exercises designed to be performed on a prototype 

command and control (C2

) system linked to virtual simulation. Although technical limitations of 

the simulation system precluded full implementation of the exercises, numerous lessons were 

learned for developing near term approaches to embedded training (ET) and future ET designs. 

The research and development reported here was based on those lessons learned, and focused on 

building realistic exemplars of ET in the form of exercises that incorporate both interactive 

multimedia and progressive gated exercises. Realistic exemplars of ET have two important 

purposes: the innovative training methods can be applied directly to current training needs; and, 

the overall approach to high-fidelity training provides a working example for research and 

development on ET for Future Combat Systems (FCS). 

Procedure: 

The performance analysis for the earlier project (Lickteig et al, 2004) was the starting 

point for deriving training objectives for this effort. Because the prototype C2

 simulation system

did not support structured training with automated feedback, the decision was made to prepare 

exercises that could be conducted in a web browser supported system, such as a personal 

computer (PC). The features identified for the training approach included graduated 

interactivity, progression from procedural to more complex requirements, and interspersed 

criterion tests, or gates. These features permitted application of four training principles: 

guidance, control, feedback, and assessment. 

The tactical scenario for the exercises is presented by means of a set of Priority 

Intelligence Requirements (PIR) focused on limited reconnaissance and surveillance (R&S) 

objectives within an overall tactical mission. The exercise progression, modeled loosely on the 

Conduct of Fire Trainer (COFT) training matrix, was derived from “chunking” training 

objectives into five training modules of increasing complexity. Within each module, the 

exercises are interspersed with gate exercises. If participants do not demonstrate achievement of 

the training objective on the gates, exercise controls lead back to previous exercises. 

Design of a training delivery system to manage exercise presentation and sequencing, 

participant responses, feedback, and data collection was driven by both technical training 

capabilities and constraints. The training approach followed the Army’s Interactive Multimedia 

Instruction (IMI) model: observing expert demonstrations of sensor tasks nested in a tactical 

framework (IMI Level 1); performing highly structured similar tasks with simulation-based 

v 
feedback and automated coaching (IMI Level 2); and, performing more free play tasks through 

hands-on interaction with a C2

 system linked to simulation (IMI Level 3). Construction of the 

IMI Levels 1 and 2 exercises required the researchers to capture data and images of the expert 

using the prototype C2

 simulation system and manipulate those data and images using a variety 

of off-the-shelf software packages for delivery through a standard web browser interface. A 

learning management system to control the sequence of exercises and the feedback and 

remediation features was also developed. 

The resulting exercises (a total of 94) begin with supporting procedural steps and proceed 

to more conceptual requirements for visualization. Throughout the development process, 

ongoing formative evaluation (FE) was conducted by the research team to test and refine 

linkages, screen layouts, and other features of the design. A limited FE with other training and 

military subject matter experts was conducted to gather data about the exercises, the training 

approach, and the expected utility of the exercises for training on a future C2

 system. 

Findings: 

The primary finding of the research is an innovative training approach that extends the 

delivery of high-fidelity training; it is not the BCV 101 training product per se. In fact, the FCS 

sensor and C2 systems as well as the ET addressed in the training of BCV 101 do not yet exist, 

and will not for quite some time. Rather, the research proactively designed and developed an ET 

exemplar with particular relevance to FCS. The training requirement addressed by the research 

is how to train the tactical and technical complexity introduced by FCS that requires, to the 

extent possible, train as you fight fidelity. 

The BCV 101 approach markedly increases the Army’s ability to deliver high-fidelity 

training at IMI Levels 1 and 2. It creates and packages more realistic training for essentially 

unlimited computer-based or web-based delivery. As a result, the BCV 101 approach provides 

an important complement to ET that readily extends to a wide range of conceptual and 

procedural skill training requirements. And quite unlike the ET of the future, today the BCV 101 

approach can be readily adapted to deliver high-fidelity training on computers at home, at home 

station, or onboard operational systems of the Current Force wherever deployed. 

Utilization and Dissemination of Findings: 

Results of the BCV 101 were briefed to Program Manager for Future Combat Systems 

Command and Control (FCS C2), to representatives of the Training and Doctrine Command 

(TRADOC), to the Integrated Product Team (IPT) Lead for FCS, to the Program Manager for 

Future Force Simulation, and to representatives of the American Psychological Association’s 

Division 19. 

The BCV 101 training product demonstrates an innovative high-fidelity approach to 

training development and delivery that applies to many of today’s Army training requirements. 

Despite the heralded potential of ET, complementary training methods like the BCV 101 

approach will be needed to train the tactical and technical skills that are hard to acquire and 

increasingly critical to both the Current and Future Force. 

vi 
A NEAR TERM APPROACH TO EMBEDDED TRAINING: BATTLE COMMAND 

VISUALIZATION 101

CONTENTS

Page 

Introduction................................................................................................................................... 1 

 The Army’s Embedded Training Requirement ................................................................. 2 

Interactive Multimedia Instruction and Progressive Gated Exercises for Embedded 

Training .............................................................................................................................. 2 

Sensors and Visualization for Future Forces...................................................................... 5 

Prior Research on Sensors and Visualization Training ...................................................... 7 

Prior Research on BCV 101 ............................................................................................... 8 

 

Purpose of the Research................................................................................................................ 9 

Approach.......................................................................................................................................10 

Initial Decisions...................................................................................................................10 

Training Objectives..............................................................................................................11 

Tactical Scenario and Materials...........................................................................................11 

Battle Command Visualization 101 Program Structure ......................................................15 

Training Delivery System....................................................................................................17 

Development Process...........................................................................................................20 

 

Battle Command Visualization 101 Training Program Description............................................. 21 

Description of Battle Command Visualization 101 Level 1 Training ..................................24 

Description of Battle Command Visualization 101 Level 2 Training ..................................29 

Description of Battle Command Visualization 101 Level 3 Training ..................................32 

Formative Evaluation.................................................................................................................... 33 

 

 Modify sequencing and chunking of Level 1 and Level 2 exercises to allow 

 practice closer to demonstration; focus the practice with less repetition...........................34 

 Reexamine amount of demonstration included in remediations...........................................34 

 Allow participants more control of processes to manipulate C2

 interface and 

 perform tasks.......................................................................................................................34 

 Improve way that the C2

 Display represents multiple detections..........................................34 

 Retain Level 2 exercise summaries as reminder of “big picture”..........................................35 

Conclusions................................................................................................................................... 35 

References.....................................................................................................................................37 

vii 
CONTENTS (continued)

Page 

Appendix A Acronyms............................................................................................................. A-1 

List of Tables 

Table 1 Definitions of Levels of Interactive Multimedia Instruction.......................................... 4 

Table 2 Priority Intelligence Requirements.................................................................................12 

Table 3 Relationship between Modules and Tactical Scenario ...................................................17 

Table 4 Battle Command Visualization (BCV) 101 Exercise Descriptions................................18 

Table 5 Essential Battle Command Visualization (BCV) 101 Training Delivery System 

 Features........................................................................................................................19 

Table 6 Technical Process and Applications for Development and Delivery of Level 1 

 and 2 Battle Command Visualization (BCV) 101 Exercises.......................................21 

List of Figures 

Figure 1 Example of an integrated reconnaissance and surveillance (R&S) overlay 

 to support the mission environment framework for the Battle Command 

 Visualization (BCV) 101 exercises.............................................................................13 

Figure 2 Completed sensor tasking matrix for Battle Command Visualization 

(BCV) 101 exercises....................................................................................................14 

Figure 3 Relationship among modules, levels, exercises, and gates (indicated in 

 shaded cells).................................................................................................................15 

Figure 4 Battle Command Visualization (BCV) 101 Login screen..............................................22 

Figure 5 Battle Command Visualization (BCV) 101 Module Selection screen ...........................22 

Figure 6 Startup screen with Module Map for Module 1 of the Battle Command 

Visualization (BCV) 101 training, showing title and objective for Exercise 2...........23 

Figure 7 Example of Training Interface showing Task Guidance, Task List, Reach, 

 and Command and Control (C2

) Display areas, at the start of Module 1, 

 Exercise 3 (Level 1)....................................................................................................25 

Figure 8 Example of Task Guidance area at the end of Module 1, Exercise 1 (Level 1).............26 

Figure 9 Example of Robo-Scout information, accessed through the Sensor Ref portion 

 of the Reach area ........................................................................................................27 

Figure 10 Example of terrain information, accessed through the OPORD portion of the 

 Reach area.................................................................................................................27 

Figure 11 Example of Garm vehicle information, accessed through the Intel Pics portion 

 of the Reach area ......................................................................................................28 

Figure 12 Example of item from Check on Learning for Exercise 15 in Module 1, Level 1 ......29 

Figure 13 Example of Command and Control (C2

) Display for Module 1, Exercise 17 

 (Level 2) with Task Dialog box................................................................................30 

Figure 14 Example of cross-cueing notification between the Shadow 200 and 

 micro-unmanned aerial vehicle (mUAV).................................................................31 

Figure 15 Example of summary statement for Exercise 24 in Module 1, Level 2 ......................32 

viii 
A NEAR TERM APPROACH TO EMBEDDED TRAINING: 

BATTLE COMMAND VISUALIZATION 101

Introduction 

Providing embedded training (ET) is a key goal in the U.S. Army’s ongoing effort to 

develop and field Future Combat Systems (FCS). In support of that goal, the U.S. Army 

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI) conducted a training

development research effort titled Battle Command Visualization (BCV) 101. The purpose of 

BCV 101 was to investigate innovative training approaches for the Current and Future Force 

based on anticipated technical capabilities and limitations of both operational systems and 

training methods. To provide a working example of the subject training approach, BCV 101 

focused on training the conceptual and supporting procedural skills needed to use networked 

sensors to see the battlefield (Lickteig, Heiden, & Holden, 2004). 

This report presents an innovative training approach that markedly extends the Army’s 

ability to deliver high-fidelity training anytime and anywhere. To provide a working example of 

the training approach, a prototype training product was developed to provide realistic training for 

many of the basic skills required to employ networked sensors and “see” the battlefield. The 

BCV 101 training approach and product are documented in this report as follows: 

• The Army’s Embedded Training Requirement—describes the context of the U.S. 

Army’s stated requirement for ET. 

• Background—discusses the major research and development underpinnings for the 

work, including the early visualization training research1

 to develop the BCV 101 

program. 

• Approach—addresses the developmental processes from analysis to actual production 

of exercises.

• BCV 101 Program Description—contains detailed descriptions of the exercises, with 

screen shots that illustrate features of the training approach. 

• Formative Evaluation—describes internal processes for evaluating products and the 

limited tryout of the exercises. 

• Conclusions—discusses how the BCV 101 increases the Army’s ability to deliver 

high-fidelity training and provides a complement to ET that extends to a wide range 

of Army conceptual and procedural skill training requirements. 

In addition, the overall BCV 101 approach, methods, lessons learned, and implications 

are documented and visually illustrated in a companion multi-media product (Fisher, et al., in 

preparation). The product is intended for training developers, system developers, decision 

makers, and others involved in the Army’s ongoing research and development to combine 

training theory and technology. 

 

1 When used in the context of battle command, “visualization” takes on meaning as the core mental process that 

commanders use in decision-making to determine how to get forces from their current state or position to the end

state that represents mission accomplishment (Department of the Army, [DA], 2003c). The first step in the 

visualization process is to collect information, hence the “101” in BCV 101.

1
The Army’s Embedded Training Requirement 

The U.S. Army has a stated requirement for ET for both individual and collective 

training. The use of ET is, in fact, a central objective in the Army’s ongoing effort to develop 

and field its Future Combat Systems (FCS). The goal is to provide performance-based training 

embedded in operational systems, including vehicles, command centers, networks, and other 

FCS components. With ET capabilities, Soldiers, leaders, and staffs will participate in individual 

and collective training, on everything from basic system operations to complex applications, 

while seated in the vehicle or command center. Achieving that goal, however, will be a difficult 

task. For nearly two decades, the Army has mandated that developers consider ET in all Army

acquisition programs, yet there have been few, if any, successful ET applications. 

In order to be truly embedded, ET environments must be developed in parallel with the 

operational systems. System developers are willing to do that (they have, in fact, been directed 

to do it), but to date have been hard-pressed to produce viable working prototypes. In large part, 

this is because the FCS systems, including the global network, are still under development. It 

also reflects the fact that there are few exemplars or models that realistically and persuasively 

demonstrate an ET functionality. 

As FCS designers continue their work on defining the array of diverse and interdependent 

systems that will comprise FCS, researchers in the training community are engaged in sustained 

efforts to formulate ET solutions that take advantage of those systems and to identify essential 

additional training features and capabilities. The FCS is proceeding along a path of spiral 

development, where new capabilities will be integrated into Current Force systems and 

operations; training solutions must likewise address both near- and longer-term possibilities. 

With FCS technologies slated for periodic “spin-outs” to the Current Force over the next few 

years and full FCS capabilities to be achieved by about 2014, it has become a matter of some

urgency to be able to design and demonstrate ET approaches and prototypes in the near-term.

Developing realistic approaches to ET now, in advance of FCS fielding, offers two 

advantages: The methods can be applied directly to current training needs, and the overall 

approach provides a working example for research and development on ET for FCS. The 

research and development reported here focused on demonstrating innovative approaches to 

training that stress training fidelity and availability and serve as realistic exemplars for further 

ET efforts. 

Interactive Multimedia Instruction and Progressive Gated Exercises for Embedded Training 

While we have few actual working examples of an ET capability, there is no shortage of 

models and techniques that can be exploited in designing and developing ET. One approach that 

offers promise is interactive multimedia instruction (IMI), whether delivered via CD-ROM or the 

internet, on a personal computer (PC) or personal digital assistant (PDA), or through the 

computer interface on a simulator or operational system. Documentation for FCS design 

requirements indicates that IMI will be one of the three critical elements of future ET (the others 

being simulation and integrated electronic technical manuals, or IETMs). 

2
There is no one IMI system; for the Army, the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine 

Command (TRADOC) defines IMI as “...computer-based technology, integrating a combination 

of, but not limited to, text, graphics, animation, sound, and video.... Training applications that 

leverage IMI technologies are developed in many forms, including tutorials, simulations, virtual 

reality, expert systems, as well as ‘just-in-time’ training embedded in performance support 

systems” (Department of the Army [DA], 2003b, paragraph 1-4.b; emphasis added). Thus IMI, 

for the Army as for the larger training and education community, covers a wide array of training 

approaches. In common are the requirements for some level of interactivity and the use of 

delivery modes beyond simple paper-based text. 

The interactive courseware component of IMI has been embraced in training 

environments because it combines the interactivity and management features of computer-based 

training with the benefits of realistic audio and video. As a general term, IMI refers to course 

materials that use multiple sensory and functional modes for presentation and student responses 

as a primary means of facilitating instruction and learning. These materials are suitable for use 

as part of a normal course of instruction, or distribution to operational activities. Frequently, IMI 

materials will link media that may include, but are not limited to, programmed instruction, 

videotapes, slides, film, text, graphics, digital audio, animation, and up to full motion video, to 

enhance the learning process. While IMI products can range from very simple to highly complex 

training tools, the generally accepted differentiation among levels of interactivity, adopted by 

TRADOC (DA, 2003b), is as shown in Table 1. 

In addition to the interactivity features of computerized training, IMI courseware 

applications can support the collection of both qualitative and quantitative data on participant 

interactions with the training system. Quantitative data can show selections made, number of

iterations for success, and the like, that support usage feedback and training assessment. 

Qualitative data are useful for both performance feedback to participants and content feedback to 

developers to improve the quality of materials presented in the future (DA, 2003b). 

Another instructional model that may be useful in designing exercises for ET is the 

progressive exercise approach used in the Army’s Conduct of Fire Trainers (COFT). The COFT 

is a gunnery simulator in which two participants (gunner and vehicle commander) train together 

on target acquisition and firing in a realistic engagement environment. The exercise sequence 

begins with simple performance requirements and proceeds through increasingly difficult 

requirements. Test exercises, referred to as “gates,” are used to assess proficiency at set points in 

the progression. Most of the exercises are fairly short (2 to 5 minutes), and both process and 

outcome are measured. 

The COFT exercise matrix is focused on gunnery. While there is no doubt that gunnery 

involves considerable skill, the activities are largely procedural. Yet there is much about the 

COFT model that coupled with IMI features should apply to training more conceptual skills. As 

with the COFT exercises, the BCV 101 training approach applies a progression of increasing 

difficulty to train conceptual skills. The progression begins with basic instruction in a passive 

participation mode, adds procedural skill-building with limited participation, then introduces 

complex conceptual skills with more unprompted participation, and finally provides culminating 

3
practice opportunities with real-time participation. Gate exercises are used to provide checks on 

learning and skill acquisition before presenting more difficult exercises. 

Table 1 

Definitions of Levels of Interactive Multimedia Instruction 

Interactivity Levels 

Level 1 – Passive participation (low simulation presentation). 

Normally a knowledge, or familiarization lesson, provided in a linear format (one idea after 

another). Primarily used for introducing an idea or concept. The user has little or no control over 

the sequence and timed events of the lesson material. Minimal interactivity is provided by

selective screen icons. Commonly called ‘a page turner.’ 

Level 2 – Limited participation (medium simulation presentation). 

Involves the recall of more information than Level 1, and allows the user more control over the 

lesson’s scenario through screen icons and other peripherals. Typically used for lessons covering 

noncomplex operations and maintenance. Extensive use of remediation to reinforce the learning 

objectives. Simple branching may be used, permitting the user to veer from the main 

instructional path to seek additional information. Instruction is essentially linear. At its most 

rudimentary, Level 2 presents a choice or question, and after student interaction, immediately

provides ‘the correct solution,’ or additional information.

Level 3 - Complex participation (high simulation presentation).

Involves the recall of more complex information (compared to Levels 1 and 2), and allows the 

user an increased level of control over the lesson scenario. Involves applying information, even 

complex information, to solving a problem or producing a result. Prompting is much reduced. 

Emulation and simulation are used as an integral part of equipment operation and maintenance, 

along with extensive use of peripherals. Multiple branching provides more realism. 

Remediation, if any, occurs at the end of an instructional block, or at an important learning point 

(i.e., ‘go/no go’ condition). Instructional sequence is only vaguely linear—the user moving from

a start point to an end point; but because of the multiple branching feature, the user is able to 

progress using any of multiple paths. 

Level 4 – Real-time participation (real-time simulation presentation). 

Involves more in-depth recall of a larger amount of information (compared to lower levels), and 

allows the user an increased level of control over the lesson. Every possible subtask is analyzed 

and presented with full, on-screen interaction, similar to the approach used in aircraft simulator

technology. Lesson material is extremely complex, and involves more frequent use of 

peripherals, to affect the transfer of learning. Users prove they can perform specific tasks, errors 

are compounded, training prompts do not occur, and feedback occurs after the user passes or fails. 

Remediation only at end of lesson. 

Note: Adapted from TRADOC Regulation 350-70-2 (DA, 2003b, paragraph 1-5). 

Because of the capability for including visual enhancements, IMI products that 

incorporate features of the COFT model appear to be particularly valuable where performance 

depends on visual detection and identification. An IMI product delivered via an ET capability 

could offer the participant a view of an operational system interface with visual enhancement 

add-ons, reference materials, and directions to conduct coaching and feedback about 

4
performance of certain tasks (Department of Defense [DoD], 1999). It could even allow use of 

actual system controls in responding to or manipulating instructional content. Additionally, both 

TRADOC’s IMI descriptions and FCS documentation link IMI and ET: ET for FCS will include

IMI materials as one of the three components, and ET is cited as one of the logical delivery 

systems for IMI-based training (FCS-LSI, Force Development, Build and Sustain, in 

preparation). 

Sensors and Visualization for Future Forces 

The decision to conduct research on a BCV 101 training program was prompted by 

consideration of the operational expectations for Soldiers manning Future Force combat vehicles 

and other systems for the U.S. Army.

2

 The ongoing transformation of battlefield systems posits 

a virtual fusion of humans and computers into a hybrid-networked system for command, control, 

and communications. This alliance of manned modules and (initially) semi-autonomous ground 

and air platforms will form a coherent, seamless, tactical force for mission accomplishment. 

Soldiers will be equipped with and trained to use sensors and beyond-line-of-sight weapons 

capabilities to attack and defeat enemy targets. 

The vision for transformation encompasses not only systems, but also operations. Future 

Force units equipped with FCS will deploy rapidly, engaging in entry and follow-on operations. 

Units at every level will be tactically employed in full-spectrum missions and will operate well 

beyond the capabilities of potential foes. As described in the Army’s Field Manual (FM) 6-0, 

Mission Command, the Future Force concept of visualization is related directly to familiar 

concepts of reconnaissance and force protection in that it emphasizes the processes of 

discovering information about the enemy and shielding friendly information from the enemy 

while developing the situation out of contact (DA, 2003c). 

The ability to integrate the raw data flowing into a command and control (C2) system

with information already acquired to construct a coherent common operating picture has long 

been a critical requirement for commanders. For the Future Force, commanders at all levels 

down to the company will have greater access to all collection sources on the battlefield. As 

commanders with Current Force expertise enter Future Force organizational structures, they will 

adapt familiar methods and procedures to exploit the new capabilities. The start-point of the 

operational planning-execution cycle for Future Forces is described as follows: 

During operations, commanders first observe the situation—that is, they collect

information. They learn about the status of their own forces, the environment, and 

the enemy through intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, information systems 

(INFOSYS), and reports from other headquarters. Sometimes they actively seek 

information; sometimes the command and control (C2

) system disseminates it to 

them (DA, 2003c, p. A-1). 

Other TRADOC guidance for the Future Force (DA, 2002) also discusses visualization 

requirements. Future Force units, using the networked, cooperative sensors within the joint 

operational environment, will see the enemy as a whole complex and adaptive organization. 

 

2

 Background information is drawn from Lickteig et al., 2004. 

5
Commanders will have the ability to examine and follow up on any particular input into the C2

system for their own purposes in order to gain critical information affecting an immediate 

decision. Parallel analyses will be conducted by higher, lower, adjacent, and supporting 

commanders working to identify critical enemy decisions or actions that indicate a particular 

enemy course of action. The data and conclusions will be mutually informing and supporting, 

allowing for a rich and accurate common operational picture that assists commanders in 

understanding what the enemy is currently doing and may do next. 

A vital contributor to achieving full visualization capabilities will be the system of

networked air and ground sensor platforms, particularly unmanned platforms. Unmanned 

systems will increasingly provide small unit commanders with reports, snapshots, and live video 

outputs of battlefield conditions. Such sensors include unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) sensors, 

micro-UAVs (mUAV) that are designed for use in urban areas and close terrain; and the 

prototype unmanned ground vehicle (UGV) sensor, the Robo-Scout. They will be equipped with 

both passive and active systems to provide target acquisition, real-time tracking, and 

identification of entities in the area of operations for the unit. Sensor data and other information 

will form the basis of commander’s ability to make decisions and control manned and robotic 

units on the battlefield. 

One assumption for Future Forces is that every Soldier, not just sensor operators, will 

understand the capabilities and limitations of the sensor network (ARI, 2003). This basic 

understanding will enable the use of the sensor network to effectively and efficiently form a 

common operating picture within the unit. Sensors will achieve a limited degree of information 

fusion (estimation and prediction of the detected entity’s state, but not situation or impact 

assessment; Scherl & Ulery, 2004), but multi-skilled warfighters, including small unit command 

groups, will need to gather and analyze data from multiple sensors, turning it into information 

organized in a coherent and immediately comprehensible operational picture. They will be 

supported by a repository of information, accessed by means of a “reach” capability (i.e., access 

to additional information) enabled by the command network. The requisite technical and tactical 

skills of the Future Force command group will have to be found at every echelon, allowing full 

and immediate exploitation of every advantage on the battlefield. 

Developing training that will support skill acquisition and sustainment and delivering that 

training when and where it is needed are the challenges. For visualization, the training to operate 

the systems—to deploy the sensors and capture feeds from those sensors—is relatively 

straightforward; such operator training is not intrinsically different from training to operate 

weapons or vehicles, which the Army has been doing successfully for many years. 

Visualization, however, is multifaceted and requires a high degree of conceptual understanding 

and interpretation. The challenge will be to train skills of understanding, appreciating, and 

exploiting capabilities, analyzing and interpreting input from multiple sources, obtaining 

additional information as needed by means of the reach capability, and using the fused data to 

answer key intelligence requirements. This training, too, must be deliverable in a wide variety of 

settings, to command group personnel at every level. 

6
Prior Research on Sensors and Visualization Training 

In a series of exploratory experiments on Future Force organizations and equipment, the 

U.S. Army’s Communications-Electronics Command (CECOM) at Fort Monmouth and the 

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) worked together to investigate how 

sensors, particularly unmanned aerial sensors, would support C2

 on the battlefield (Lickteig, 

Sanders, Durlach, Lussier, & Carnahan, 2003). The virtual simulation for this research 

represented a Future Force environment for a notional small unit (company-level) command 

group equipped with FCS. 

The training requirements for participants in the experiments involved establishing 

familiarity and basic skill with highly automated and interdependent network-based systems 

(Lickteig et al., 2003). For new participants in the FCS C2

 program, introductory training and 

practice on operating the C2

 system user interface took two weeks, followed by a one-week 

experimentation period. 

This introductory training began with a lecture-based non-interactive slide show primer 

with graphic depictions of weapon and sensor systems, including individual sensor coverage and 

outcomes, and description of the reach capability. Depictions of this type showing idealized 

results offer excellent information, but little opportunity for participants to assimilate the skills 

and interactions associated with the array of networked, organic, and external sensors required 

for their missions. Once Soldiers were trained on the use of the C2 interface itself and had 

practiced with overlays, files, reach, and various other menu-driven features, they were expected 

to engage in fairly high-level simulation-based training using actual system features. 

Lessons learned from the FCS C2

 experiments centered on the difficulties that even 

experienced participants had in mastering the technical and tactical aspects of individual and 

networked sensors. For example, participants were frequently unable to recognize and identify 

individual elements in the enemy array. This array included a large number of vehicle types 

along with dismounted infantry. Even when the participants were initially proficient, they soon 

became overwhelmed by the mass of data from the sensors. They sometimes lost track of 

individual threat entities and were unable to assemble and visualize an accurate common 

operating picture. Similar shortcomings in battlefield visualization and associated skills of 

Soldiers and leaders had been identified several years ago, most pointedly at the commander and 

staff levels (Reilly, 1997; Solick, 1997). 

Providing information is an essential component in developing expertise, but it is not the 

only component. After knowledge acquisition comes highly structured, guided training with 

feedback, followed by practice opportunities in increasingly complex settings. Observers of FCS 

C2

 training suggested that the C2 system and interface could be adapted to introduce, familiarize, 

and train multiple aspects of sensor employment and exploitation. Whether or not it could in fact 

be adapted was unknown, but the notion of using a simulated operational C2

 system to support 

training on that system closely parallels expectations for Future Force embedded training (DA, 

2003a; Throne & Burnside, 2003). 

7
Prior Research on BCV 101 

The system complexity and training shortcomings observed during the FCS C2

experiments underscored the need for ET research and exemplars. As a result, the BCV 101 

training program was initiated to research innovative training approaches for the Current as well 

as the Future Force. Notably, key components of the FCS C2

 program, a C2 system linked to 

virtual simulation, provided essential elements for exploring ET design and development. 

The initial BCV 101 research stressed ET’s relation to operational systems by requiring 

training participants to perform networked sensor exercises using the actual inputs and controls 

of a C2 system just as command group participants might perform the same exercises. The C2 

interface is important because the networked nature of FCS will elevate an operational C2 subsystem to supra-system. The C2

 systems link to virtual simulation, namely OneSAF Testbed 

Baseline (OTB), provided intrinsic feedback on performance by generating accurate models of 

system and setting interactions (OneSAF Objective System, 2004). Simulation is important 

because battlefield dynamics, the time and space interactions of operational systems and settings,

is essential to seeing and understanding the battlefield. 

 From the outset, BCV 101 design goals stressed the use of structured training for more

conceptual skills modeled after COFT’s progressive and gated training for more procedural 

gunnery skills. The initial BCV 101 research included an analysis of performance requirements 

for visualization, particularly at the initial skill acquisition stages of training. The focus was on 

conceptual visualization skills required for battlefield success by the company command group. 

For that earlier project, a comprehensive performance requirements analysis identified the use of

designated UAVs and UGVs as the critical component for battlefield visualization using FCS. 

Participants needed to learn to use individual and networked sensors to detect enemy targets and 

predict enemy intentions and actions. “Using sensors,” though, turned out to be a complex set of 

related behaviors. 

Operating ground and air sensor platforms requires an understanding of differing sensor 

capabilities and how they can work together. Coverage depth (distance from the sensor) and 

coverage fan (also called the sensor fan or range fan) must be factored into the use of the sensors 

singly, but also in a coordinated fashion that provides overlapping detection. Overlapping 

detection is achieved through physical ground sweeps and careful timing of observations so that 

expected changes are detected, and through cross cueing between long range sensors and smaller 

sensors that provide close observation. Several related concepts were thus identified for the 

training focus: sensor capabilities, limitations, and vulnerabilities; sensor tasking; dynamic 

sensor re-tasking; and sensor integration into tactical operations. 

During the earlier BCV 101 development work, a structured set of 20 complex, realistic, 

high quality exercises was developed, requiring FCS company-level command vehicle 

crewmembers to use remote air and ground sensors to find enemy dispositions on a battlefield. 

The exercises were all at IMI Level 3 (complex participation, high simulation presentation), and 

were progressively difficult. They addressed the concepts noted above within the context of a 

battlefield scenario, leading the participant through five training modules: 

8
(1) Detect stationary targets; 

(2) Detect moving/camouflaged targets; 

(3) Predict enemy intentions; 

(4) Predict enemy actions (basic); and 

(5) Predict enemy actions (advanced). 

However, because the prototype C2

 system was intended as a simulator for use in battle 

command experiments and not as a trainer, its functionality was not well-suited for training. For 

example, the system’s complex simulation programming permitted very little automated 

coaching, feedback, or remediation. Instead, a live coach or observer/controller was required to 

observe, provide feedback, and direct the learner to repeat exercises as appropriate for 

remediation. Thus, actual development and implementation of the exercises were only 

marginally successful. Lessons learned, coupled with the increased emphasis on development of 

ET, offer opportunities to formulate possible near-term approaches. Prominent among those 

lessons was the emphasis on realistic, high fidelity presentations coupled with more readily 

available training delivery systems. 

Purpose of the Research

The immediate objective of the effort that is the subject of this report was to develop a 

structured training program for basic battle command visualization skills. Based on lessons 

learned, the work focused on visualization training that could be delivered apart from the 

prototype C2

 system. The emphasis was on retaining as much fidelity as possible while 

increasing availability. The classic training principles of control, guidance, feedback, and 

assessment were fundamental to the design. 

The design process in this project included exploration of IMI and COFT features, in 

order to incorporate the best of both into an ET-like prototype with a blend of simulation-derived 

representations and interactivity. From the COFT model, the principles to be adapted included 

the progression of complexity and difficulty, opportunity for performance repetition, feedback, 

and gates. Using IMI Levels 1 and 2, along with notional inclusion of the designed exercises at 

IMI level 3, the training would provide part task–whole task instructional guidance, explicitly 

portraying the relationship between exercise content and tactical scenario requirements. 

This project originally had two purposes. The resulting training exercises were to be 

used in preparing participants for FCS C2

 experiments, but more importantly, the development 

process would yield valuable lessons learned in understanding future operating and training 

environments. While events in the experiment scheduling precluded use of the product as 

intended (Lickteig et al., 2004), developing an exemplar of IMI-ET that could guide usage in the 

Future Force remained a viable and critical goal. 

9
Approach 

This section describes a number of design and development considerations and processes 

associated with the BCV 101 training that was produced in this project. The specific topics, 

addressed in separate subsections, include: 

• Initial decisions regarding the scope of the ET prototype product, 

• Formulation of the training objectives, 

• Tactical scenario and products created to provide a realistic context, 

• Program structure in terms of exercise progression and gate requirements, 

• Training delivery method and features, and 

• Technical processes required to construct the exercise products and related materials. 

The research product is a set of 94 structured exercises arranged in a progression of 

increasing interactivity and complexity, delivered by means of PC and the prototype C2 virtual 

simulation system with OTB. Of those 94, 20 exercises are those developed in the earlier 

project. The new exercises are less complex than the original 20, but address the same learning 

objectives. A later section, BCV 101 Program Description, presents and illustrates the product.

Initial Decisions 

As is recommended in building structured training (Campbell, Campbell, Sanders, Flynn, 

& Myers, 1998), initial decisions were specified that defined the scope of the exemplar training 

program. Some of the early decisions for BCV 101 included the following: 

• Primary training audience is Company Command Group for FCS Unit of Action. 

• Focus is on generic training across the Command Group (i.e., training is not specific 

to duty positions in the Command Group). 

• Design is based on a small representative set of individual and networked sensors and 

platforms (air and ground). 

• Exercises are structured in an integrated tactical framework to relate individual tasks 

to the “bigger picture” of battle command visualization. 

• Design employs IMI Levels 1–3 for each training objective. 

• Screens and displays employ perceptual augmentation when possible and appropriate. 

• Design stresses training accessibility (usable from classroom to fully embedded). 

• Design stresses system fidelity (visual representations of system appearance and 

functions). 

• Design is not limited by currently available hardware and software. 

10
These considerations were particularly important for design of the BCV 101 training and 

were not expected to be translated wholesale into the developed products—some (such as the last 

one listed above) were logically attainable in design but not in development. In order to keep the 

emphasis on innovative products, the design process would consider all of these features and 

incorporate as many as possible. 

Training Objectives 

Designation of the specific training objectives derived from a number of considerations, 

including, first and foremost, the performance objectives as delineated in the predecessor BCV 

101 development (described earlier and repeated here): 

(1) Detect stationary targets; 

(2) Detect moving/camouflaged targets; 

(3) Predict enemy intentions; 

(4) Predict enemy actions (basic); and, 

(5) Predict enemy actions (advanced). 

While the five training modules titles explicitly state tactical objectives, supporting 

conceptual objectives were clearly identified within each module (described below). Equally 

important were the design goals of having a single comprehensive tactical scenario underlying 

the exercises and building progressively complex exercises.

One premise for the DARPA/CECOM experiments is that participants would enter the 

training with considerable tactical knowledge and skill, and also with some familiarity in using 

the C2

 interface (Lickteig et al., 2004). The exercises with IMI Level 1 and 2 interactivity 

features were designed to be a part of the training that would provide that familiarity. By 

analyzing the performance requirements for the original 20 exercises and building predecessor 

exercises focused on providing supporting information and enabling skills, a progressive 

sequence for training could be generated. 

Tactical Scenario and Materials 

In order to provide part task–whole task linkages with a continuously realistic thread, an 

underlying tactical scenario was created. Performance of the BCV 101 exercises occurs within 

an overall mission of addressing a set of priority intelligence requirements (PIRs) focused on 

limited reconnaissance and surveillance (R&S) objectives. 

The principal tactical product used to bind the scenario was the PIRs. As defined in FM

1-02 (DA, 2004), PIRs are intelligence requirements for which a commander has an anticipated 

and stated priority in his planning and decision-making. Table 2 shows the PIRs that were 

formulated to provide the tactical basis for the BCV 101 exercises. 

11
Table 2 

Priority Intelligence Requirements 

PIR# BCV 101 Priority Intelligence Requirement (PIR) Statements 

1. Where are the enemy recon vehicles?

2. Are there combat outposts in the security zone?

3. Has the enemy emplaced obstacles or other engineer work to channelize the attack?

4. Where are the main defense vehicle-mounted anti-tank weapons (tank and missile)? 

5. Where is the combined arms reserve or counterattack force? 

6. Where are enemy Non-Line-of-Sight (NLOS) systems (tube and mortar) located?

7. Are there activities indicating the enemy is preparing to attack, or continuing to defend? 

The PIRs focused on battlefield positioning and activities of the enemy forces within a 

context of friendly operations in a specified area. In order to reflect the FCS emphasis on 

developing the situation out of contact, the exercise conditions first guide the participant to 

locate the enemy as early as possible, with sufficient accuracy for weapon targeting. As the 

tactical situation develops over the course of the exercises, participants then must dynamically 

task sensor platforms during contact. The PIRs are used to keep the participant focused on 

conducting actions that reveal or confirm battlefield information and produce updated 

information to inform the tactical planning and execution based on known enemy actions, 

positions, or demonstrated intentions. 

A second type of tactical product is the R&S overlay (Figure 1). An R&S overlay 

provides an integrated and coordinated plan for gaining information superiority on the 

battlefield. Named areas of interest (NAIs) are drawn on overlays to mark the designated areas 

of terrain that hold battlefield interest to a friendly unit, based on the PIRs. 

For the BCV 101 exercises, a single comprehensive overlay for the scenario, with all 

NAIs already drawn, was produced on the prototype C2 system and then cut down into five 

separate “segments” that focus on the terrain area specific to each of the five modules. Versions 

of the overlays without the NAIs were then prepared, on which the participant learns to draw 

NAIs during exercises in Module 1. The expert version of the overlay then serves as a 

performance standard on which feedback to participants is based. The NAIs remain constant 

throughout all of the BCV 101 modules and exercises, producing an evolving and integrated 

view of the battlefield in relation to known or suspected stationary enemy units, moving enemy 

units reported by adjacent friendly units, and areas of potential enemy activity. 

12
Figure 1. Example of an integrated reconnaissance and surveillance (R&S) overlay to support 

the mission environment framework for the Battle Command Visualization (BCV) 101 exercises. 

A third key tactical product is a modified sensor tasking matrix, shown in Figure 2. This 

matrix serves as a tool to track actions being taken to address PIRs and record information 

gathered. In BCV 101, it guides the actions taken by the participants throughout the exercise 

progression. 

As training tools, the PIRs, overlays, and matrix serve as a framework for all exercises 

and a meaningful context for military users. The matrix permits the participant to see the 

relationships among PIRs, graphic control measures on the R&S overlay, focused areas of 

concern for sensor systems, expected enemy systems in the area from a war game of the coming 

battle, and reporting procedures needed to act on the battlefield information. Together, they are 

the instantiation of the part task–whole task training feature included in the design plan, showing 

how exercises are related to an overall plan that provides the participant with a mental model of 

enemy activity on the battlefield. By having these tools available and embedded in the training 

system, doctrinal battlefield methods for controlling and directing reconnaissance operations are 

reinforced. 

13
Decide Allocate Trace Assess

Priority 

(PIR #) Target Type Location 

Confirmed/ 

Suspected/ 

Templated 

Unit Platform/ Sensor

Locate

or 

Track 

Frequency 

of Update 

Identification

Level 

Required 

Inform 

1 

(PIR 1) 

Tracked & 

Wheeled

Vehicles

NAI 1, 2 S, T S200 synthetic

aperture radar

(SAR) xcue mUAV 

1, 2 

L 2 hrs Vehicle type,

grid 

Intel, Fires 

2 

(PIR 2, 3) 

Tracked, 

Wheeled, & 

Dismounted

Infantry Squad 

NAI 3 T mUAV 3 L 4 hrs Vehicle type,

grid, Squad 

center of

mass (CoM) 

Intel, Fires 

3 

(PIR 2, 4) 

Tracked & 

Wheeled

Vehicles

NAI 8 S A160 (SAR), S200

SAR xcue mUAV 

1 

L 2 hrs Vehicle type,

grid 

Intel, Fires 

Tracked 

Vehicles

NAI 9 S A160 moving 

target indicator 

(MTI), S200 xcue 

mUAV 2 

L, T 5 min Vehicle type,

grid, direction 

Intel, Fires, 

Cdr 

4 

(PIR 5) 

Tracked & 

Wheeled

Vehicles

NAI 10 S A160 (MTI), S200

xcue mUAV 3 

L, T 5 min Vehicle type,

grid, direction 

Intel, Fires, 

Cdr 

5 

(PIR 6) 

Tracked 

Vehicles

NAI 11 T A160 (SAR), S200

SAR xcue mUAV 

1, UGV 1 

L 15 min Vehicle type,

grid 

Intel, Fires, 

Cdr 

Tracked & 

Wheeled

Vehicles

NAI 12x

series

S, T A160, S200 SAR 

xcue mUAV 1 

L 2 hrs Vehicle type,

grid 

Intel, 

Maneuver, 

Fires 

6 

(PIR 3, 4,

5, 7) 

Tracked, 

Wheeled, & 

Dismounted

Infantry Squad 

NAI 13x

series

S, T S200 SAR xcue 

mUAV 2, UGV 1 

L 2 hrs Vehicle type,

grid, Squad 

CoM 

Intel, 

Maneuver, 

Fires 

7 

(PIR 5, 7) 

Tracked & 

Wheeled

Vehicles

NAI 14x

series

S S200 SAR xcue 

mUAV 3, UGV 2 

L 2 hrs Vehicle type,

grid 

Intel, 

Maneuver, 

Fires 

8 

(PIR 5, 7) 

Tracked & 

Wheeled

Vehicles

NAI 15x

series

S A160, S200 xcue 

mUAV 1 

L, T 5 min Vehicle type,

grid, direction 

Intel, 

Maneuver, 

Fires, Cdr 

9 

(PIR 6, 7) 

Tracked & 

Wheeled

Vehicles

NAI 15-

160, 16x

series

S A160, S200 xcue 

mUAV 2, UGV 1 

L 15 min Vehicle type,

grid 

Intel, Fires 

Tracked & 

Wheeled

Vehicles

NAI 17x

series

S A160 (MTI), S200

xcue mUAV 1 

L, T 5 min Vehicle type,

grid, direction 

Intel, 

Maneuver, 

Fires, Cdr 

10 

(PIR 3, 5,

7) 

Wheeled

Vehicles

NAI 17-

160, 18x

series

S A160 (MTI), S200

xcue mUAV 2, 

UGV 1 

L, T 5 min Vehicle type,

grid, direction 

Intel, 

Maneuver, 

Fires, Cdr 

Figure 2. Completed sensor tasking matrix for Battle Command Visualization (BCV) 101 

exercises. 

A number of other tactical materials were also created to add realism to the scenario. 

These include a complete analysis of the area of operations (AO), including a summary 

description of the operational area, terrain analysis, description of weather and effects on sensors, 

and description of the enemy situation and enemy courses of action (COA). All of the relevant 

14
tactical products are accessible by the participant during the exercises, replicating the reach 

capability on the FCS command network. 

Three UAVs (the mUAV, the Shadow 200, and the A160-MTI/SAR) and one UGV (the 

Robo-Scout) were selected for use in the BCV 101 exercises. Primary detection for all platforms 

is from optical sensors using either daylight or thermal imagery and radar, synthetic aperture 

radar (SAR), or moving target indicator (MTI) radar. This functional sensor array is both 

representative of the types of sensors most likely to be used by a company command group and 

characterized by a wide array of capabilities, and provides a realistic set of conditions for the 

exercises. 

Battle Command Visualization 101 Program Structure 

In formulating the structure of the BCV 101 training program in this project, with its 

combination of IMI and COFT-like features, development was initially based on the previously 

developed exercises. These 20 exercises were presented using Level 3 interactivity with 

considerable user control and branching, but little in-progress coaching, feedback, or 

remediation. The more structured, instructional segments with Level 1 and 2 interactivity 

provide the basic skills upon which participants build as they begin to understand and appreciate 

visualization concepts. The training is modular, progressing from the initial introduction of 

materials that reinforce procedural skills while introducing and then exercising conceptual skills 

in the participant. As shown in Figure 3, there is a prescribed progression of exercises from

Level 1 through Levels 2 and 3 within each module. Participants proceed through the exercises 

in a way that presents linked instruction and practice across performance requirements of 

increasing complexity. The exercises lead to and model “a solution,” based on expert 

performance. This situation is specifically described in the training introduction. (The user 

interface, introduction and instructions, cues, controls, and coaching and feedback content are 

described and illustrated in a later section, BCV 101 Program Description.) 

Lvl Module 1. 

Detect stationary targets 

Module 2. 

Detect moving and 

camouflaged targets 

Module 3. 

Predict enemy 

intentions 

Module 4. 

Predict enemy 

actions (basic) 

Module 5. 

Predict enemy 

actions 

(advanced) 

3a 2

8 

2

9 

3

0 

3

1 

3

2 

3

3 

3

4 

3

5 

1

5 

1

6 

1

7 

1

8 

1

9 

1

3 

1

4 

1

5 

1

6 9

1

0 

1

1 9 

1

0 

1

1 

1

2 

1

3 

2 1

6 

1

7 

1

8 

1

9 

2

0 

2

1 

2

2 

2

3 

2

4 

2

5 

2

6 

2

7 8 9

1

0 

1

1 

1

2 

1

3 

1

4 7 8 9

1

0 

1

1 

1

2 4 5 6 7 8 4 5 6 7 8 

1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1

0 

1

1 

1

2 

1

3 

1

4 

1

5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 1 2 3 a The Level 3 exercises developed in the earlier BCV 101 project include: Exercises 28-34 in Module 1, 15-18 in

Module 2, 13-15 in Module 3, 9-10 in Module 4, and 9-12 in Module 5. 

Figure 3. Relationship among modules, levels, exercises, and gates (indicated in shaded cells). 

Within each of the five modules, Level 1 exercises give the participant demonstrations of 

the appropriate actions, nested in the tactical framework, to create elements on the R&S overlay 

and the R&S tasking matrix. The participant controls progress through the exercise, choosing 

15
either a text description of the required action and an animated demonstration of the steps to 

complete the action or an autoplay feature that dynamically demonstrates all steps and system

responses covered in that exercise. 

After successfully completing Level 1 for a module, the participant proceeds to Level 2 

for that module. In Level 2 exercises, the participant actually performs most of the same actions 

that were demonstrated in Level 1, following the same expert sequence of actions to perform the 

tasks. This reinforces the previous build of the R&S overlay and use of the tasking matrix. 

Level 2 exercises build on Level 1 exercises, using similar situations and screens with specific 

“hot” areas, corresponding to a representation of actual C2

 interface controls, where the user 

must interact (via keyboard or mouse) in order to proceed. Dynamic tips and feedback are built 

into Level 2 exercises to guide the participant. Simple automated coaching and feedback are 

presented on the user interface. 

For Level 3 exercises, the participant moves to the prototype C2

 system. While these 

exercises exist and can be conducted, it should be noted again that their high fidelity is paralleled 

by relatively low availability. That is, they can be conducted only on that simulation system and 

require the assistance of a live coach for feedback and remediation. In the Level 3 exercises, in 

an environment that closely emulates the features of future C2

 systems, the participant responds 

to highly realistic situational cues and performs actions using actual physical and screen-based 

system controls, rather than a strictly PC-based training interface with representation of the 

actual C2

 interface. 

Within each of the five modules, in addition to the exercises at all three IMI levels, there 

are gates (checks on learning or quizzes) to verify the participant’s understanding of the 

information and its application. (Level 1 gates are referred to as “Checks on Learning” while 

Level 2 gates are called “Quizzes” and gates at the end of each module are called “Module 

Quizzes.” The intent was to ease the participant into the evaluative aspect of the program.) 

Table 3 shows the relationship between the modules and the tactical requirements as 

defined by the PIRs, the R&S overlay, and the sensor tasking matrix. The modules proceed 

systematically to lead the participant to examine the NAIs, but this does not translate into 

systematically addressing the PIRs. Rather, the participant uses the sensor tasking matrix to 

determine which PIRs to focus on within each NAI. 

Table 4 describes the content of each of the modules, demonstrating the relationships 

among the exercises and levels. This part task–whole task approach is supported by means of 

direct portrayal of the overall tactical scenario and the command group tasks within that 

scenario. Each exercise is clearly linked to the previous exercises, building from use of higher 

headquarters directives to designating NAIs and Restricted Operating Zones (ROZs), assigning 

sensors, and tasking them to satisfy PIRs. With the Level 3 exercises, the participant can begin 

directed development of sensor tactics to maximize survivability and coverage. 

16
Table 3 

Relationship between Modules and Tactical Scenario 

Module Location

Priority Intelligence 

Requirement # 

1 Named Area of Interest 

(NAI) 1, 2 

1 

NAI 3 2, 3 

2 NAI 8 2, 4 

NAI 9, 10 5 

NAI 11 6

3 NAI 12x, 13x series 3, 4, 5, 7 

NAI 14x series 5, 7 

4 NAI 15x series 5, 7 

NAI 15x, 16x series 6, 7 

5 NAI 17x, 18x series 3, 5, 7 

Training Delivery System 

The earlier BCV 101 exercises were designed to run in the prototype C2

 system

environment. While that system allowed for the realism of a virtual simulation, it did not permit 

developers to modify any operating characteristics. As a result, every exercise could run only in 

real time. Developers could not isolate particular situations or conditions to use as teaching 

points, and could not insert feedback or coaching capabilities. Additionally, developers could 

not restrict the amount of interactivity in order to focus on particular objectives. The problem of 

adding teaching and feedback features to an already developed and implemented product was 

identified during the previous BCV 101 work (Lickteig et al., 2004). 

In the final analysis, the Level 3 exercises were invaluable in providing performance 

requirements and sensor system analysis products, training design specifications, and lessons 

learned on building ET-like training, but were not feasible as prototypes of near-term ET. (It 

should be noted that future ET developers may initially encounter similar difficulties using 

operational systems for ET incorporating IMI Level 3, complex participation and Level 4, realtime participation.) The prototype C2

 system was not designed for nor capable, without 

modification, of handling the required processes for training delivery—to control, guide, assess, 

and provide feedback. 

As a result of the analysis of those training barriers, and in consideration of the decision 

to use IMI Levels 1 and 2 and a COFT-like progression to structure the exercises (as described 

earlier), it was obvious that a system other than the prototype C2

 simulation environment would 

be used for training delivery. One widely-available system is the PC, with exercises provided on 

a memory device such as CD, DVD, or USB memory drive. Developing training for PC delivery 

also means that the training could be conducted in a classroom, via a PDA, over an intranet or 

the internet, or even in an operational system—as long as there is a common user interface, such 

17
as a web browser. By electing to use a web browser interface for the IMI Level 1 and 2 

exercises, one advantageous outcome is that the exportability and access to the training is 

assured. This type of Level 1 and 2 IMI training permits delivery at the convenience of the unit 

leadership. It remained important, however, to ensure that high fidelity would not be sacrificed 

for convenience or widespread availability—which is not anticipated as a problem for true ET. 

Table 4 

Battle Command Visualization (BCV) 101 Exercise Descriptions 

Module Objective and

Conceptual Overview

Level 1 describes and 

demonstrates how to... 

In Level 2, participant 

performs the steps

presented in Level 1 to... 

In Level 3, participant 

uses the prototype C2

system and acquired skills 

to... 

Module 1: Detect stationary 

targets. 

Provides background and 

underlying conceptual 

information that builds a

foundation for Battle Command 

Visualization.

Designate a named area of interest 

(NAI), view NAI integration, and 

use a restricted operating zone

(ROZ); task micro-unmanned aerial 

vehicle (mUAV) and unmanned 

ground vehicles (UGV); cross cue 

sensors and use templates. 

Exercises: 14 + gate 

Gate: NAI, ROZ, cross cueing, 

templates. 

Draw NAI and ROZ, task 

S200, mUAV, and UGV, 

demonstrate cross cueing

and templating, evaluate

sensor outputs. 

Exercises: 11 + gate

Gate: Sensor capabilities.

Identify vehicles and battle 

positions (e.g., counter -

reconnaissance position, 

security position). 

Exercises: 7 + gate 

Module 1 Quiz

Module 2: Detect moving/ 

camouflaged targets. 

Adds an additional sensor 

platform, detection of moving 

targets, evaluating sensor outputs 

and cross cueing methods, 

identification of enemy units,

and initial attempts to identify

enemy intentions.

View the output of cross cueing, 

task an A160, use the A160 to 

cross cue other sensors, detect 

moving targets, evaluate sensor 

outputs and sensor output 

differences, and evaluate cross

cueing methods. 

Exercises: 7 

Track moving targets and

evaluate sensor outputs. 

Exercises: 5 + 2 gates 

Gates: Moving target 

tracking methods, 

identification of enemy 

units and probable 

intentions. 

Confirm an enemy position

and detect enemy moving

and stationary vehicles.

Exercises: 4 + gate 

Module 2 Quiz

Module 3: Predict enemy 

intentions. 

Adds a focus on evaluating and

identifying sensor outputs and 

distinguishing outputs from 

clutter.

View output of cross cueing to 

templated vehicles, evaluate

outputs and sensors, and evaluate 

common assembly area actions and 

dispersal.

Exercises: 5 + gate 

Gate: Civilian vehicles, dispersal, 

search patterns, sensor capabilities. 

Identify and evaluate sensor 

outputs and activities.

Exercises: 5 + gate 

Gate: Evaluation of R&S 

data collected.

Confirm templated 

positions and intel reports.

Exercises: 3 + gate 

Module 3 Quiz

Module 4: Predict enemy 

actions (basic).

Introduces dynamic retasking of

sensors based on evaluation of

sensor output.

Perform dynamic retasking of 

sensors and retask sensors based on 

evaluation of sensor outputs. 

Exercises: 3 

Evaluate sensor outputs and

retask sensors.

Exercises: 4 + gate 

Gate: Sensor output and 

dynamic retasking. 

Detect and identify enemy 

units and equipment.

Exercises: 2 + gate 

Module 4 Quiz

Module 5: Predict enemy 

actions (advanced). 

Introduces higher level of sensor 

output interpretation including 

anticipating threat actions and

use of multiple sensors for R&S 

matrix tasks on PIRs.

Perform dynamic retasking of 

sensors to track and anticipate 

threat actions.

Exercises: 2 + gate 

Gate: Dynamic retasking of 

sensors 

Evaluate outputs, cross cue 

and retask sensors.

Exercises: 4 + gate 

Gate: Demonstrate the use 

of multiple sensors for R&S 

matrix tasks on PIRs. 

Confirm intel reports; 

detect, identify, and 

confirm multiple moving 

and stationary units. 

Exercises: 4 + gate 

Module 5 Quiz

 

Design of the training delivery system to manage exercise presentation and sequencing, 

participant responses, feedback, and data collection was driven by both technical training 

requirements and constraints. Several features were identified early as essential for managing 

18
the BCV 101 exercises, while other features were added as the project developed to increase both 

usability and training quality. The most important general delivery system features are shown in 

Table 5. 

Table 5 

Essential Battle Command Visualization (BCV) 101 Training Delivery System Features 

Feature Description and Use 

Common operating 

system

Exercises are readily accessible for most target participants without requiring 

specialized equipment or software. To run the Level 1 and 2 exercises, a 

Windows® operating system, the web browser Internet Explorer 6, and a color 

monitor are needed. (Note that that the exercises could easily be modified to run 

under Linux/Firefox or on a Macintosh®.) 

Expert performance 

model 

Exercises portray expert performance as a way to accomplish the tasks, but not as 

the only way to perform. 

Progress tracking Multi-user design and the capability to track multiple user progress over multiple 

training sessions. Include road map across modules. 

Gates (quizzes, 

checks on learning) 

Multiple choice questions addressing the topics covered in the preceding exercises. 

Most questions cover knowledge or procedures, although some items are 

performance-based, tied to specific situations. 

Remediation Gate questions in each module are linked to specific Level 1 or Level 2 exercises in 

that module. Answering a quiz question(s) incorrectly transfers the participant to 

the corresponding Level 1 or Level 2 exercise(s) for review. Provides 

reinforcement of the training objectives and concepts presented in the current 

module. 

Visual enhancement Use of visual cues to draw attention to particular screen elements or guide correct 

performance. Examples include: screenshot highlighting in the training 

introduction, drawing indicators for Level 2 exercises, vehicle template placement 

indicators, and onscreen additional participant information. 

Simulation 

feedback (intrinsic) 

Use of system-generated visual cues appearing as a result of participant actions to 

indicate the outcome of the actions. Examples include: dynamic sensor footprints 

displayed during exercises to show sensor coverage. Estimates for completion of 

sensor tasks available to participant upon route creation. The participant receives

auto alerts for sensor detections, cross cueing and sensor images. 

Training feedback 

(extrinsic) 

Text-based description and cues used to guide performance on current and 

completed exercise tasks. Participant is given feedback upon incorrect actions or 

responses with a pop-up information window in the display.

Objective 

assessment 

Status of completed exercises, quiz scores, number of attempts and remediation 

exercises stored for each participant. 

Participant feedback Opportunity for the participant to provide feedback or comments on the current 

exercise. Comments are stored until the current exercise is complete and then sent 

to a designated contact via email. This feature is only available if the learner has

access to properly configured local email client account and software. 

The resulting BCV 101 training delivery system is referred to as a surrogate Learning 

Management System (sLMS). The BCV 101 sLMS provides all of the basic functionality found 

19
in a commercial off-the-shelf LMS, such as tracking individual participant progress, managing 

content delivery, assessing outcomes, and providing rudimentary (i.e., not intelligent tutordriven) feedback. The sLMS also features the ability to track the progress of multiple users 

across multiple training sessions on a given training PC. 

However, there are significant differences between commercial LMS systems and the 

sLMS developed to support BCV 101. The BCV 101 sLMS is essentially client-centric, while a 

commercial LMS is almost always server-centric in that it is installed and run using a network 

server where processing takes place and data are stored. Under these circumstances a typical 

student is required to connect to the LMS network in order to train. The BCV 101 sLMS takes 

advantage of client computer resources and web browser technology, but does not require a 

student to connect to any network or more importantly a network server. It can be installed in a 

network environment, allowing the training to be delivered over a network, or can be used as a 

flexible “stand-alone” system, capable of running from virtually any removable media or storage 

type (e.g., CD-ROM, DVD, USB-drive) that is large enough to store the system and exercise 

files. In essence, the sLMS comprises one specific implementation of a basic LMS design, 

whereas commercial LMS software can typically deliver a variety of training content in various 

formats across a range of networks. 

Development Process 

The actual construction of the Level 1 and 2 exercises delivered through a standard 

browser-type interface required developers to capture data and images from the prototype C2

simulation system and manipulate those data and images using a variety of off-the-shelf software 

packages (as shown in Table 6). 

Using the prototype C2

 system, a complete screen recording was made as a military 

subject matter expert performed the previously developed exercises (those with Level 3 

interactivity). Variants of those exercises were also performed and recorded in order to obtain 

unambiguous examples for specific teaching points. Recordings were translated into a format 

that could be edited, and those files were then compressed by removing unnecessary footage. In 

this way, exercise performance time was cut to about one-fourth of its original length. 

The resulting multimedia files were then “chunked” into instructional segments, which 

were typically smaller for Level 1 than for Level 2. The chunking of instructional content 

conforms to guidance from cognitive processing experts on how to organize information for 

better comprehension and learning (Deatz & Campbell, 2001; Sanders, 2001). Text guidance 

was written to explain the content of the multimedia presentations, and a user interface was 

created that contained text guidance and participant controls as well as the multimedia 

presentations. The appearance and functioning of the interface is described in the next section. 

20
Table 6 

Technical Process and Applications for Development and Delivery of Level 1 and 2 Battle 

Command Visualization (BCV) 101 Exercises 

Development Steps Technology Application 

1. Perform complete Battle Command Visualization (BCV) 101 exercises 

(Level 3 interactivity) and exercise variants with expert manipulation 

of the presentation. 

Prototype C2 simulation 

system with OneSAF Test

Bed (OTB) 

2. Record and save raw movie files of each BCV 101 exercise in AudioVideo Interleave (AVI) multimedia format. Camtasia StudioTM 

Version 2.00 

3. Transfer recorded AVI files to desktop computer for frame processing. 

4. Convert raw AVI movies, in whole or in parts, into editable project 

files and remove redundant and/or unneeded frames, frames containing 

errors of screen capture (e.g., semi-transparent dialogs and/or graphics 

anomalies). 

RoboDemo Version 5.0.0 

5. Convert project files into frame-specific images and export selected 

movie frames from each exercise recording as joint photographic group 

(JPG) graphic files. 

RoboDemo FLASH 

module, FLASH Studio 

MX 

6. Develop descriptive text and cues for the individual steps within each 

exercise and merge text and JPG files. 

Microsoft® PowerPoint 

7. Add animations of mouse movements and user actions to simulate real 

time use. 

FLASH Studio MX 

8. Review training exercises for accuracy and interactivity. Microsoft Internet 

Explorer 

Delivery Mechanisms Technology Application 

Control of sequence of exercises, feedback, remediation HTML and JavaScript 

programming languages, 

running in Microsoft 

Internet Explorer 6. 

Task Guidance, Task List, and C2 Display areas of Training Interface (as 

described in the next section). 

FLASH ActionScript 

Battle Command Visualization 101 Training Program Description 

The previous section discussed the research and development considerations and 

decisions on which the BCV 101 is based, and described the overall structure of the BCV 101 

exercises for Levels 1, 2, and 3 interactivity. This section describes the training from the vantage 

point of the participant: what he or she sees and does during training. 

On opening BCV 101 for training, the participant first views the Login screen (shown in 

Figure 4). If desired, the participant can choose to view the training introduction, a series of 

eight dynamic screens that describe the overall BCV 101 training experience and environment. 

At the conclusion of the introduction, the Login screen again appears. 

21
Click for Introduction

Figure 4. Battle Command Visualization (BCV) 101 Login screen. 

When he/she is ready to begin the training, the participant enters first and last name. For 

a first time user, the sLMS uses this information to store and initialize a “cookie” on the client 

machine. Additional information on training progress will be stored to the cookie throughout the 

training. For the returning participant who has done some BCV 101 training on that PC, 

information which was previously stored to the cookie is read. In either case, the participant then 

sees the Module Selection screen (Figure 5). 

Click for Introduction

Figure 5. Battle Command Visualization (BCV) 101 Module Selection screen. 

22
The Module Selection screen displays a menu from which the participant selects a BCV 

101 training module. Again, the participant has the option of viewing the training introduction. 

Once a module is selected the participant sees the startup screen for the selected module. 

The startup screen for each module contains a Module Map (such as the one shown in 

Figure 6) which displays a visual representation of that module’s exercise organization, 

including Levels 1, 2, and 3. The title of the participant’s next exercise is displayed below the 

Module Map; in Figure 6 the participant is in Module 1, and the next exercise would be “Draw 

Named Area of Interest (NAI).” The participant can “mouse-over” any exercise control button 

to view the title and learning objective for that exercise. The participant can select either the 

next exercise (shown in gold on the Module Map) or any previously completed exercise (shown 

in green) from the Module Map. Any exercises that are grayed-out (neither gold nor green on 

the interface) are not selectable. This limits access to only the exercises that have already been 

completed or to the current exercise. The participant cannot skip over any exercise within a 

module nor skip any modules, but must complete the training in the prescribed linear format. A 

selection is made by clicking either the appropriate control button in the Module Map or the gold 

“Go” arrow. Once an exercise selection is made, the participant sees the Training Interface. 

Figure 6. Startup screen with Module Map for Module 1 of the Battle Command Visualization 

(BCV) 101 training, showing title and objective for Exercise 2. 

The participant views different features and controls on the Task Interface for Level 1 

and Level 2 exercises, because of the more directive nature of Level 1 exercises and the more 

interactive nature of Level 2 exercises. At both levels, there are four distinct areas on the 

Training Interface (such as shown in the example in Figure 7): Task Guidance, Task List, C2 

23
Display, and Reach. Participant actions using the Training Interface are described below, first 

for Level 1 training and then for Level 2 training. 

Description of Battle Command Visualization 101 Level 1 Training 

In Level 1, the Task Guidance area, in the upper left, will draw the participant’s attention 

first because of its position (see Figure 7). During a Level 1 exercise, when the participant 

observes expert performance and receives procedural instruction, the text in the Task Guidance 

area provides a detailed explanation of the current exercise step. This area is dynamic, that is, 

depending on where the participant is in an exercise, different control buttons will appear that 

allow participants to control their progress through each Level 1 exercise: 

• Next—advances to the next step, which will show the detailed explanation and also 

bring up a new image in the C2 Display area; 

• Back—shows the explanation and image for the previous step; 

• Show Me—triggers the exercise step to play in the C2 Display area; 

• Replay—plays the current step again from its beginning in the C2 Display area; 

• Autoplay—plays the exercise without breaks (available only at exercise start); 

• Rewind—restarts the current exercise at its beginning; 

• End—returns participant to the Module Map when an exercise is completed; and 

• Provide Feedback—allows participant to compose and send comments about the 

exercise to developers by email. 

For example, in Figure 7, the participant has just completed the animated demonstration 

of step 1 in an exercise in Module 1 (triggered by the Show Me control). The participant can 

select any of the controls except Autoplay. Figure 8 shows the Training Interface at the end of an 

exercise, when the participant has four choices: Rewind, Back, End, or Provide Feedback. 

As the participant completes each step in a Level 1 exercise, the text for that step is added 

to the scrollable Task List area in the upper center of the Training Interface. The Task List area 

allows the participant to review the exercise steps in text form during or at the end of the 

exercise. In Figure 8, where the participant is at the end of a Level 1 exercise, all seven of the 

steps for that exercise appear in the Task List area. 

24
C2 Display

Task Guidance Task List Reach

C2 Display

Task Guidance Task List Reach

Figure 7. Example of Training Interface showing Task Guidance, Task List, Reach, and 

Command and Control (C2

) Display areas, at the start of Module 1, Exercise 3 (Level 1). 

25
Figure 8. Example of Task Guidance area at the end of Module 1, Exercise 1 (Level 1). 

 The C2 Display is the largest area of the Training Interface, and is where the participant 

views expert performance of task steps during the Level 1 exercise. This display area replicates 

the appearance of the Graphical User Interface (GUI) from the prototype C2 system. At Level 1, 

the participant sees an animation of the steps that form the larger exercise. In essence, the 

participant is watching portions of the entire recorded exercise as separate “movies” that 

correspond to exercise steps. As noted above, the participant controls the progress within a 

Level 1 exercise using only the control buttons in the Task Guidance area; none of the C2

Display control buttons is active. In Figure 9, showing the end of the Level 1 exercise, the C2

Display includes the NAI that was drawn during the course of the exercise. 

The participant also has access to supplemental information to support the conceptual 

aspects and overall training objectives by means of controls in the Reach area along the right side 

of the Training Interface. These links are always available to the participant during every 

exercise at Levels 1 and 2. The links are divided into three sections: 

• Sensor Ref—Sensor Reference, which gives access to descriptions of sensor features 

and capabilities (see example in Figure 9); 

• OPORD—Operations Orders, providing representations of all of the tactical materials 

for the mission (see example in Figure 10); and 

• Intel Pics—Intelligence Pictures, which are reference representations of enemy 

vehicles or other objects that may be detected on the battlefield (see example in 

Figure 11). 

26
Figure 9. E he

Reach area

Figure 10. Exam

area. 

xample of Robo-Scout information, accessed through the Sensor Ref portion of t

.

ple of terrain information, accessed through the OPORD portion of the Reach 

27
Figure 11. Exam portion of the 

Reach area.

what would actually occur in the real world if certain actions were taken) or 

xtrinsic (emanating from a coach, whether automated or live). In BCV 101, the Level 1 

ty

ed

nce area. The Module Map for the current Module then 

appears, and the control button for the completed exercise changes color (from gold to green) 

. Each gate contains four knowledge or performance 

ased items (an example is shown in Figure 12). These gates, presented and performed on the 

ly 

redirects him or her to the corresponding exercise(s) from the current module and level for 

ple of Garm vehicle information, accessed through the Intel Pics

In general, performance feedback in simulation-based training may be either intrinsic 

(representing

e

exercises have very low participant performance requirement, and thus there is little opportuni

for participants to receive either intrinsic or extrinsic feedback concerning their own 

performance. In the course of watching expert performance, however, they view intrinsic

feedback as the system reacts to expert actions, and receive extrinsic feedback in the form of 

explanations of what happened. 

When all steps for the Level 1 exercise have been completed, the participant is prompt

to click on End in the Task Guida

re

to indicate that the exercise is completed. 

As described previously, each module has strategically placed gates. At Level 1, the 

gates are referred to as Checks on Learning

b

PC, are multiple choice and may have either single or multiple correct answers. A participant

selects his or her answers via mouse clicks and the answers are checked after all questions have 

been answered. If the participant answers any of the questions incorrectly, the quiz presents on

those questions to the participant again. If the participant again answers incorrectly, the system

28
remediation. After the participant completes the exercise(s), he or she is quizzed again. This 

process is repeated until all questions for the current quiz are answered correctly. 

Figure 12. Exam evel 1. 

y as

escribed for Level 1, through login, module selection, and exercise selection. At that point, the 

s instructional guidance than 

as seen at Level 1. For example, as shown in Figure 13, the text in the Task Guidance area is 

ple of item from Check on Learning for Exercise 15 in Module 1, L

Description of Battle Command Visualization 101 Level 2 Training 

For the BCV 101 Level 2 exercises, the participant enters the training in the same wa

d

Task Interface screen appears, containing the same four areas but les

w

only a prompt or cue for the learner to take some action to complete the current exercise step. 

Here, the participant has only a short prompt telling him/her to “Draw the corners of the graphic”

(ROZ R1) in the C2

 Display area. Once the participant completes the step correctly, detailed text 

appears in the Task List area, rather than just the prompt. Control buttons in the Task Guidance

area are not displayed during Level 2 exercises, because the participant must take actions on the

C2 Display to progress through and complete the exercise. 

29
Figure 13. Example of Command and Control (C2

) Display for Module 1, Exercise 17 (Level 2) 

with Task Dialog box. 

At Level 2, the participant responds to the cues in the Task Guidance area by performing 

the actions in the C2 Display as if he/she were using the actual C2 system through its GUI. The 

C2 Display area is coded in such a way that only correct actions (i.e., a click on a tool button or 

menu selection) are selectable or “hot” during a step. Most of the feedback is extrinsic: incorrect 

actions are immediately followed by (1) “incorrect” popups with additional guidance, or (2) auto 

replays of the required correct action (see example in Figure 10, where the “Incorrect” Task 

Dialog is shown). The Task Dialog displays detailed text that describes the actions required to 

complete the current step. This text provides more coaching than do the Level 2 cues shown in 

the Task Guidance area of the Training Interface. In fact, the Task Dialog box displays detailed 

remediating text that is similar to the corresponding Level 1 step description. If the participant 

again takes an incorrect action during the current step, he or she is automatically shown a Level 1 

demonstration of the correct action(s) for the current step. Correct performance is followed by 

appropriate system behaviors, thus providing the participant with intrinsic feedback. 

Within the C2

 Display, certain visual enhancements are provided to draw the participant’s 

attention to particular cues. (While this occurs in Level 1, it is much more prevalent and 

necessary in Level 2.) Figure 14 shows an example of the visual cue in the form of a pop-up 

30
alert given to a participant when sensor cross-cueing occurs. The sensor platform routes at the 

top of the display in this example show where the Shadow 200 SAR platform will move during 

the mission, as programmed or selected by the participant. The shaded gray area in the center 

portion of the screen (which appears as translucent yellow on the display) shows the immediate 

coverage area for the Shadow 200 as it moves along the route. Once the Shadow 200 makes a 

detection, the C2

 Display provides the participant with diamond symbols showing the detected 

enemy location and a pop-up notification window. When the participant clicks “OK” on the 

pop-up, a pre-designated platform, such as an mUAV, is sent to that location to take a daylight or 

thermal optics photograph. A small red circle appears next to the diamond representing the 

enemy location on the C2

 Display when the photograph is ready for participant examination. 

Figure 14. Example of cross-cueing notification between the Shadow 200 and micro-unmanned 

aerial vehicle (mUAV). 

At the conclusion of each Level 2 exercise, a brief statement is presented in the Task 

Guidance area to remind the participant about the training objective of the exercise in relation to 

tactical applications with the R&S matrix and PIRs. Figure 15 shows the summary statement 

presented at the end of exercise 24 of Module 1, a Level 2 exercise. 

Shadow 200 SAR Coverage

31
Figure 15. Example of summary statement for Exercise 24 in Module 1, Level 2. 

As in Level 1, gates are presented to verify that the participant has learned and 

understands the content. Again, the sLMS controls remediation of incorrectly answered items by 

either allowing the participant to try again or sending the participant back to the appropriate 

exercise. 

Description of Battle Command Visualization 101 Level 3 Training 

After completing all of the Level 1 and Level 2 exercises in a module, the participant 

would then move to the prototype C2 virtual simulation system for the Level 3 exercises. These 

exercises are performed under the control of a live trainer, who operates the prototype C2

 system

to bring up the appropriate exercises and also observes and provides feedback. 

The 20 exercises developed in the previous project (with slight modifications) served as 

the BCV 101 Level 3 exercises. They were grouped into five exercise bundles with three to 

seven exercises of progressive difficulty per bundle. Exercise bundles run continuously from

one exercise to the next with no break. The time to complete an exercise bundle was lengthy 

(approximately 35-45 minutes), but that length was necessary in order to allow enough time for 

sensor detections, sensor cross-cueing, sensor images received, and trainee assessment of sensor 

images. 

32
Unlike the Level 1 and 2 exercises, the Level 3 exercises require a training support 

package (TSP) that includes printed materials to stimulate performance (e.g., the sensor tasking 

matrix). All exercises provided simulation-based feedback on the process and outcome of sensor 

employment during the exercise. Process feedback included visual depiction of dynamic sensor 

footprints or coverage areas, and outcome feedback included automated alerts and data on sensor 

detections and sensor images received. Feedback after exercises was provided by the trainer 

rather than the C2 system. 

More detail on the 20 Level 3 exercises and the TSP for those exercises is provided in 

Lickteig et al. (2004). 

Formative Evaluation 

Throughout the development process, continual formative evaluation (FE) was conducted 

by the team to test and refine linkages, screen layouts, and other features of the design. In 

addition, a limited try-out and review was conducted to gather additional data about the 

exercises, the training approach, and the expected utility of the exercises for training on a future 

C2

 system. Three volunteers (one military, one retired military with expertise in training and 

FCS, and one civilian researcher with expertise in training and distance learning) completed 

Module 1, Levels 1 and 2, and the first two also completed Levels 1 and 2 of Modules 2–4. 

While the major portion of time was spent in trying out the exercises, valuable comments on the 

exercise system and learning management system were also obtained. Average time for the 

exercises, once the individuals had built up some familiarity with the system, was estimated to be 

between 12 and 14 minutes (researchers tried to account for actual participation time separately 

from time spent discussing features and flaws). 

In order to assist the FE participants in understanding the various actions they would see 

and perform, initial assistance was given to orient them to the tactical framework products and 

explanatory materials provided on the interface. Developing an understanding of the concept for 

using remotely controlled sensor platforms came relatively easily. During the tryouts, one 

participant was a player in tactical experiments in which he had to use a prototype FCS 

Maneuver Command and Control System. When he returned, he noted how closely the BCV 

101 procedures matched the requirements for using that system and stated that the BCV 101 

tryouts helped him in train-up for the experiments. 

Over half of the participant comments and observations by the team during the tryouts 

concerned fixes or improvements that could be (and were) implemented with little difficulty. 

These included such suggestions as increasing the visibility of certain cues, adding explanations, 

and rearranging screen presentations. There were also a number of substantive comments that 

either validated the current design decisions or were recorded for future revisions. The most 

useful comments (most of which were repeated both within and across participants) are 

described below. 

33
Modify sequencing and chunking of Level 1 and Level 2 exercises to allow practice closer to 

demonstration; focus the practice with less repetition. 

Two of the participants recommended that the sequencing and “chunking” of Level 1 and 

Level 2 exercises be modified. One participant commented that the time between watching and 

doing was longer than he liked. He also felt that there was too much repetition and that the same

learning could occur with fewer exercises. A shorter set of Level 1 exercises, possibly as few as 

2 or 3, should be immediately followed by a Level 2 exercise on those actions, allowing practice 

on the actions while the information is fresh. Accomplishing this would require simply 

redefining the scope of the individual modules, and would result in a greater number of shorter 

modules covering the same scope of material. 

Reexamine amount of demonstration included in remediations. 

Another observation concerned the remediation process in Level 2 exercises when an 

action was performed incorrectly twice in a row. Currently, the sLMS shows an animation of the 

correct action for the step being performed. This review and demonstration is very similar to the 

autoplay available at Level 1. Correct performance through the entire step is demonstrated, thus 

giving a view of some actions yet to be performed. The participant felt that while this was a 

useful feature for the system as a whole, it needed work. Specifically, for the exercises in 

Module 1, which are relatively simple, showing the entire sequence was valuable. For the other 

modules, the review should only demonstrate the action incorrectly performed plus one previous 

action and the next action. Otherwise, it takes too long, and viewing all the other actions in the 

step is a distraction. 

Allow participants more control of processes to manipulate C2

 interface and perform tasks. 

The participants who worked through Modules 2 and 3 expressed some minor impatience 

with the way the exercises led them through task performance. As they gained understanding of 

the system, how it worked, and what it could produce, they wanted more control in the Level 2 

training. They expressed a desire to zoom in on the pictures, try alternate methods of performing 

a task, or use control buttons other than those that were “hot,” and felt the requirement to 

perform a task in a certain way was somewhat too limiting. In light of the comments about 

repetition noted above, it seems likely that learning occurs faster than anticipated, and that 

participants are ready for more interactivity and complexity than had been planned. It is also 

possible that being able to perform Level 3 exercises would satisfy their desire for more control, 

as well as leading them to appreciate the relative directive nature of the Level 2 exercise 

requirements. Neither of these hypotheses was tested. 

Improve way that the C2

 Display represents multiple detections. 

One participant noted an instance where a sensor detected just one vehicle, and only one 

vehicle icon was automatically placed on the map display; yet an mUAV photo showed three 

enemy vehicles. While it was clear that enemy movement, positioning or camouflage could 

affect the radar detection, the system only places one icon per photo on the map display. Even 

with a correct label that would show up during a mouse over, this could result in a false sense of 

34
the battlefield without the ability to disaggregate and label the correct number of icons for the 

vehicles in the picture. A future desirable feature for the prototype C2

 system, and in the training 

version as well, would be the ability to disaggregate pictures into individual icons and tag those 

individual icons with portions of pictures. This subject came up in several exercises with 

multiple vehicles in a photo and could help reduce confusion when vehicles are in close 

proximity. As FCS UAVs and UGVs are further developed, and the capability for sensor fusion 

is achieved, that same capability will need to be represented in the training systems. This is, of 

course, a human factors issue more than a training issue, but bears mentioning. 

Retain Level 2 exercise summaries as reminder of “big picture.” 

At the end of each Level 2 exercise, a brief statement is presented to remind the user 

about the purpose of the exercise in relation to tactical applications with the R&S matrix and 

PIRs. One participant noted repeatedly that he liked this summation as a way of tying together 

mission tasks with the tactical framework and the required performance of the exercise. He saw 

this as a way to keep the participant thinking tactically about the use of the sensors and how they 

fit into the larger picture.

Conclusions 

The U.S. Army has identified the need to provide ET in operational vehicles and systems, 

and to develop a complementary mix of training methods best suited to a wide range of current 

and future training requirements. In support of that need, the training methods developed 

demonstrate practical and innovative ways to train the Current and Future Force. The primary 

finding of the research is an innovative training approach that extends the delivery of highfidelity training; it is not the BCV 101 training product per se. In fact, the FCS sensor and C2 

systems as well as the ET addressed in the training of BCV 101 do not yet exist, and will not for 

quite some time. The use of high-fidelity source materials in the training approach counters the 

traditionally inverse relationship between training fidelity and availability. 

The fidelity required to “train as you fight” is the primary objective of ET, and it is also

the primary challenge. For example, full-fidelity ET requires that FCS vehicles provide a 

training mode that uses all vehicle instruments, controls, menus, and screens just as they are used

in the operational mode. Responding to that objective, the high-fidelity source materials of BCV 

101 feature an expert trainer using a C2

 system to employ sensors on a simulated battlefield in 

order to provide realistic training at IMI Levels 1 and 2. This high-fidelity approach allows 

training participants to directly visualize and control the actions and interactions of prerecorded 

networked systems as simulated in a dynamic operational setting. The ability to widely deliver 

such high-fidelity materials is a rich and powerful source for the training feedback essential to 

performance improvement. 

For BCV 101, high-fidelity source materials provide intrinsic feedback during each 

exercise that includes how the C2 system responds to the human interactions that employ the 

sensors. It also includes how the sensors respond to human tasking. How different types of 

sensors maneuver over the battlefield and detect, or fail to detect, targets depending on enemy 

type and location. Intrinsic feedback also includes how a simulated FCS network of systems

35
responds to one another, including sensors cross-cueing other sensors to continue surveillance as 

well as sensors cross-cueing shooters to selectively engage detected targets. Unlike mere 

simulation, the BCV 101 approach couples high-fidelity with principled training in a progressive 

matrix of gated exercises integrated by a common and purposeful tactical framework. 

Unfortunately, higher levels of training fidelity typically limit availability. A pivotal 

example is that full-fidelity ET for a mounted force, by definition, will be available only when its 

Soldiers are physically onboard their operational systems. Similarly, IMI Levels 3 and 4 often 

require a technical infrastructure, such as a COFT or CCTT simulation site, that severely limits 

training availability. An imperative implication of this tradeoff is that despite the anticipated 

potential of ET, the Army cannot rely solely on ET. Rather, a mix of alternative training 

methods is needed for many reasons including responding to new and unforeseen conditions, 

overcoming degraded modes, and especially delivering realistic training to an increasingly 

distributed audience. However, alternative training methods at IMI Levels 1 and 2 are 

commonly low-fidelity approaches that fail to provide realistic systems and settings to, or 

demand realistic performance by, the training participants. 

In contrast, the BCV 101 approach markedly increases the Army’s ability to deliver highfidelity training at IMI Levels 1 and 2. It creates and packages more realistic training for 

essentially unlimited computer-based or web-based delivery. As a result, the BCV 101 approach 

provides an important complement to ET that readily extends to a wide range of conceptual and 

procedural skill training requirements. And quite unlike the ET of the future, today the BCV 101 

approach can deliver high-fidelity training on computers at home, at home station, or onboard 

operational systems of the Current Force wherever deployed. 

 

Another important goal of BCV 101 is to share training lessons and implications of 

relevance to ET and the Army’s training efforts. These lessons and implications are documented 

in a companion multi-media product (Fisher, et al, in preparation). Their documentation is 

intended for training developers, system developers, decision makers, and others involved in the 

Army’s ongoing research and development to combine training theory and technology. Overall, 

the BCV 101 approach, methods, lessons, and implications add to the growing body of work by 

ARI focused on training development for ET and FCS (e.g., Burnside & Throne, 2004; Campbell 

& Holden, 2001; Campbell, Throne, Black, & Lickteig, 2003; Carnahan, Lickteig, Sanders, & 

Durlach, 2004; Gossman, in preparation; Shadrick, Lussier, & Hinkle, 2005; Throne & Burnside, 

2003). 

More than usual, the proverbial conclusion that “more research is needed” applies to ET. 

Achieving ET is a difficult task requiring sustained research and development. One product of 

that research is BCV 101’s exemplary approach toward developing the ET of tomorrow as well 

as providing the realistic and readily available training needed today. The BCV 101 effort 

focused on the employment of networked sensors to show how the training approach applies to 

tactical and technical skills that are hard to acquire and increasingly critical to both the Current 

and Future Force. 

36
References 

Burnside, B. L. & Throne, M. H. (2004). Capabilities of future training support packages (ARI

Research Report 1828). Arlington, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral 

and Social Sciences. 

Campbell, C. H., Campbell, R. C., Sanders, J. J., Flynn, M. R., & Myers, W. E. (1998). 

Methodology for development of structured simulation-based training (ARI Research

Product 95-08). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and 

Social Sciences. 

Campbell, C. H. & Holden, W. T., Jr. (2001). Reflections on the structure of the future training 

system (ARI Research Note 2001-12). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for 

the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Campbell, C. H., Quinkert, K. A., & Burnside, B. L. (2000). Training for performance: The

structured training approach (ARI Special Report 45). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. 

Campbell, C. H., Throne, M. H., Black, B. A., & Lickteig, C. W. (2003). Research observations 

and lessons learned for the Future Combat Systems (ARI Research Product 2003-04). 

Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. 

Carnahan, T. J., Lickteig, C. W., Sanders, W. R., & Durlach, P. J. (2004). Novice versus expert 

command groups: Preliminary findings and training implications for future combat 

systems (ARI Research Report 1821). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for 

the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Conduct of Fire Trainer (COFT). (2003). Available on line at: http://www.raydon.com/ 

New2000/netscape/coft rehost net/coft rehost net.htm

Deatz, R. C. & Campbell, C. H. (2001). Application of cognitive principles in distributed 

computer-based training (ARI Research Product 2001-03). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army 

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. 

Deatz, R. C., Cobb, R. M., & Campbell, C. H. (2004). Training Modules for Optimal FBCB2 

Operation (Joint ADL CoLab Prototype #30) (HumRRO Final Report FR-04-86). 

Alexandria, VA: Human Resources Research Organization. 

Deatz, R. C., Greene, K. A., Holden, W. T., Jr., Throne, M. H., & Lickteig, C. W. (2000). 

Refinement of prototype staff training methods for future forces (ARI Research Report 

1763). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social 

Sciences. 

37
Department of the Army, Headquarters. (2002, August 1). Military operations, Objective Force 

Maneuver Units of Action (TRADOC Pam 525-3-90). Fort Monroe, VA: U.S. Army 

Training and Doctrine Command. 

Department of the Army, Headquarters. (2003a, April 14). Operational requirements document 

for the Future Combat Systems (Change 3, JROC Approved). Fort Knox, KY: Unit of 

Action Maneuver Battle Lab. 

Department of the Army, Headquarters. (2003b, June). Multimedia courseware development 

guide (TRADOC Pam 350-70-2). Fort Monroe, VA: U.S. Army Training and Doctrine 

Command. 

Department of the Army, Headquarters. (2003c, August). Mission Command (Field Manual 6-

0). Washington, DC: Author. 

Department of the Army, Headquarters. (2004, September). Operational terms and graphics

(Field Manual 1-02 [supersedes FM 101-5-1]). Washington, DC: Author. 

Department of Defense. (1999). Development of interactive multimedia instruction (IMI) (Part 3 

of 4 Parts) Department of Defense Handbook MIL-HDBK-29612-3. Available online: 

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/dod/hdbk3.pdf 

Fisher, J. M., Heiden, C. G., Gossman, J.R., Campbell C. H., Breidenbach, M. G. & Lickteig, C. 

W. (in preparation). A near term approach to embedded training: Combining training 

theory and technology 101 (ARI Research Product). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. 

Flynn, M. R., Dannemiller, M. A., Bonnett, Mitch, Gossman, J. R., Forrest, D, Bonnett, Michael, 

Shadrick, S. B., & Mauzy, R. P. (2001). The Commanders’ Integrated Training Tool for 

the Close Combat Tactical Trainer -3: Final prototype development (ARI Research 

Report 1781). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and 

Social Sciences. 

Gossman, J. R. (in preparation). Recommendations for revising “A guide for early embedded 

training decisions: Second edition” (ARI Draft Research Report). Alexandria, VA: 

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. 

Gossman, J. R., Beebe, M. E., Bonnett, Michael, Forrest, D., Shadrick, S. B., Dannemiller, B., 

Mauzy, R., & Bonnett, Mitchell. (1998). The Commanders’ Integrated Training Tool for 

the Close Combat Tactical Trainer: Design, prototype development, and lessons learned 

(ARI Research Report 1739). Fort Knox, KY: U.S. Army Research Institute for the 

Behavioral and Social Sciences. 

38
Gossman, J. R., Bonnett, Mitch., Forrest, D., Shadrick, S. B., Dannemiller, B., Flynn, M. R., 

Mauzy, R. P., & Bonnett, Michael. (2000). The Commanders’ Integrated Training Tool 

for the Close Combat Tactical Trainer – 2: Second generation design and prototype 

development. (ARI Research Report 1759). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research 

Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Gossman, J. R., Burnside, B. L., Flynn, M. R., Dannemiller, B., & Mauzy, R. P. (2002). 

Command group training in the Objective Force (ARI Research Report 1793). 

Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Social and Behavioral Sciences. 

Gossman, J. R., Heiden, C. G., Flynn, M. R., Smith, P. G., & Shadrick, S. B. (in preparation). 

Think Like a Commander – Distance learning (ARI Research Report). Arlington, VA: 

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. 

Gossman, J. R., Mauzy, R. P., Heiden, C. G., Campbell, C. H., Flynn, M. R., Lussier, J. W., & 

Shadrick, S. B. (2005). Flexible methods for Future Force concept development (ARI 

Research Report 1839). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the 

Behavioral and Social Sciences. 

Graves, C. R., Heiden, C. G., Jenkins, S. N., Flynn, M. R., Smith, P. G., Brown, S. H., & 

Shadrick, S. B. (2004). Multi-echelon distributed Army leaders’ information support 

training (Medalist): Prototype development and recommendations for future research

(ARI Research Report 1818). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the 

Behavioral and Social Sciences. 

Gropper, G. L. (1983). A behavioral approach to instructional prescription. In C. M. Reigeluth 

(Ed.). Instructional design theories and models (pp 101-161). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence 

Erlbaum Associates. 

Lickteig, C. W., Heiden, C. G., & Holden, W. T., Jr. (2004). Battle Command Visualization 101: 

Prototype embedded training on networked sensors. (ARI Research Report 1830). 

Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. 

Lickteig, C. W., Sanders, W. R., Durlach, P. J., Lussier, J. W., & Carnahan, T. J. (2003). Human 

performance essential to battle command: Report on four future combat systems 

command and control (FCS C2) experiments (ARI Research Report 1812). Alexandria, 

VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. 

OneSAF Objective System. (2004). Available on line at: http://www.onesaf.org/onesaf.html

Osborn, W. C. Ford, J. P., Moon, H. L., & Campbell, R. C. (1975). Instruction for unit trainers

in how to conduct performance training: Course development and course outline

(HumRRO Final Report FR-CD(L)-75-3). Alexandria, VA: Human Resources Research 

Organization. 

39
Reilly, G. D. (1997). Battlefield visualization: “We can't get there from here” (Monograph). 

Fort Leavenworth, KS: School of Advanced Military Studies, U.S. Army Command and 

General Staff College. 

Sanders, W. R. (2001). Cognitive psychology principles for digital systems training (ARI 

Research Report 1773). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the 

Behavioral and Social Sciences. 

Scherl, R. & Ulery, D. L. (2004). Technologies for Army knowledge fusion. (ARL Technical 

Report ARL-TR-3279). Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD: Army Research Laboratory. 

Shadrick, S. B., Lussier, J. W., & Hinkle R. (2005). Concept development for future domains: 

A new method of knowledge elicitation (ARI Technical Report 1167). Alexandria, VA: 

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. 

Solick, R. E. (1997). Visualization and judgmental forecasting of simulated duties (ARI 

Research Note 97-08). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral 

and Social Sciences. 

Thomas, J. C., Kellogg, W. A., & Erickson, T. (2001). The knowledge management puzzle: 

Human and social factors in knowledge management [Electronic version]. IBM Systems 

Journal. Retrieved July 22, 2005 from http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/ 

sj/404/thomas.html 

Throne, M. H. & Burnside, B. L. (2003). Integrated training and performance support for the 

objective force (ARI Research Report 1801). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research 

Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Throne, M. H., Deatz, R. C., Holden, W. T., Jr., Campbell, C. H., & Sterling, B. S. (1999). 

Prototype staff training and evaluation methods for future forces (ARI Research Report 

1745). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social 

Sciences. 

Tyler, J. G. (2003). Digital Training Systems Architecture : Proposal for Elaboration of the 

IEEE Learning Technology Systems Architecture, 1484.1. White Paper. McLean, VA: 

The MITRE Corporation. 

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. (2003). Battle command 

visualization 101 (BCV 101) Follow-on. (Statement of Work). Alexandria, VA: Author. 

(Available from U.S. Army Research Institute, Armored Forces Research Unit, ATTN: 

DAPE-ARI-IK, Bldg. 2423, Fort Knox, KY 40121-4141). 

40
Appendix A 

Acronyms 

AO Area of Operations 

ARI United States Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences 

AVI Audio-Video Interleave 

BCV Battle Command Visualization 

C2 Command and Control 

CCTT Close Combat Tactical Trainer 

CECOM Communications-Electronics Command 

CITT Commander’s Integrated Training Tool 

COA Courses of Action 

COFT Conduct of Fire Trainer 

CoM Center of Mass 

D2T2 Desktop Digital Tactical Trainer 

DA Department of the Army

DARPA Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency 

DoD Department of Defense 

EP Embedded Practice 

ET Embedded Training 

FBCB2 Force XXI Battle Command Brigade and Below 

FCS Future Combat Systems 

FE Formative Evaluation 

FM Field Manual 

GUI Graphical User Interface 

IETM Integrated Electronic Technical Manual 

IMI Interactive Multimedia Instruction 

INFOSYS Information Systems 

JPG Joint Photographic Group 

LMS Learning Management System

MTI Moving Target Indicator 

mUAV Micro-Unmanned Aerial Vehicle 

NAI Named Areas of Interest 

NLOS Non-Line-of-Sight 

A-1
NRFTT Networked Reconfigurable Full Task Trainer 

OPORD Operations Order 

OTB OneSAF Test Bed 

PC Personal Computer 

PDA Personal Digital Assistant 

PIR Priority Intelligence Requirements 

R&S Reconnaissance and Surveillance 

REP Recognize-Edit-Produce 

ROZ Restricted Operating Zone 

SAR Synthetic Aperture Eadar 

SCORM Shareable Content Object Reference Model 

sLMS Surrogate Learning Management System

TRADOC United States Army Training and Doctrine Command 

TSP Training Support Package 

TTP Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures 

UAV Unmanned Aerial Vehicle 

UGV Unmanned Ground Vehicle 

A-2