DOCUMENT IMBUE

ED 162 629 IE 006 392

AUTHOR Thurmond, Paul; Krihs, E. Levey 1 TITLE Computerized Collective Training fcr Teams. Final

Report.

INSTITUTION Sensors, Data, Decisions, Inc., San Diego, Calif.

SPONS AGENCY Advanced Research Projects Agency (DOD), Eashington,

D.C.; Army Research Inst. for the Eehavioral and

Social Sciences, Arlington, Va.-

REPORT NO ARI-TR-78-A1'

PUB DATE Feb 78

CONTRACT DANC19-76-C-0042

NOTE 112p.; For related document, see EL 140 EE4

ED RS PRICE MF-$0.83 HC -$6.01 Plus Postage.

DESCRIPTORS Computer Assisted Instruction; *Computer Managed

Instruction; Curriculum Development; Educational,

Strategies; Formative Evaluation; Individual - Instruction; Instructional Innovation; *Instructional

Systems; Models; *'Program Evaluation; *Team

Training

IDENTIFIERS *Computerized Collective Training for Teaas; TACFIRE

Computerized System

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this investigation was tc empirically

demonstrate and evaluate a brasaboard fcr computerized collective

training for teams (COLT2). The underlying tasks were tc (1) conduct

a state of the art assessment of instructional strategies appropriate

for COLT2, (2) derive a conceptual framework for CCLT2 instructional

strategies, (3) conduct a team:job/task and training analysis for

COLT2 on the Army-ccmputerized artillery fire control system

(TACFIRE) , and (4) develop TACFIRE team training scenarios for the

purpose of instructional strategy assessment. The procedures included

design and implementation of a- team IED model, via which sample

training materials were developed. The materials were adapted to the

team training version of the PLANIT CAI system. The results of the

developmental aspects of the project indicate that many of the

components of the team ISD approach that were designed fct this

effort would adequately meet the criteria for a generic team ISD

model. Preparation of team learning otjectives and evaluation_ of

interactive team skills are def4cient areas. PLANIT met tte basic'

team CAI requiretents. The results preliminarily indicate that there

are differences in regard to what types of behavior are learned

between team and individual instruction. (Author/3EG)

#414e#314####*44#1011144#41#14,4441101e#14410141.10111841.144,1411.41*##########431#1.1**#####**44 * ReproduCtions supplied by El:in are the best that can to made *

* from the original document. .. * ***********************************************************************
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.

EDUCATION IL WELFARE

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF

EDUCATION

THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPROOUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM

THE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION OR IGIN

ATING IT POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONS

STATED 00 NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF

EDUCATION POSITION OR POLICY

AD A050890

ARI TECHNICAL REPORT TR-78-A1

COMPUTERIZED

COLLECTIVE TRAINING

FOR TEAMS

FINAL REPORT

Prepared for

By

Ppal Thurmond

Pi. Dewey Bras

SENSORS, DATA, DECISIONS, INC.

U.S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE for the BEHAVIORAL & SOCIAL SCIENCES

& DEFENSE° ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.
U. S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

A F;eld Operating Agency under the Jurisdiction of the

Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

J. E. UHLANER

Technical Director

W. C. MAUS

COL, GS

Commander

Research performed for theDepartment of the Army

Sensors, Data, Decisions, Inc.

NOTICES

DISTRIBUTION: Primary distribution of this report has been made by .ARI. Please address correspondence

concerning distribution of reports to: U. S. Army Research I nstitUte for the Behavioral and Social Sciences,

ATTN: PERI-P, 5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22333,

fiNAL_DLSPOSITION: This report may be destroyed when it is no longer needed. please do not return t to

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

12.1L The findings in this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the Army position,

union so designated by other authorized documents.

3
_UNCLASSIFIED

UR IT Y C L ASSI I. IC ATION OF T S AGE (When Data !toured)

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE in.:An INSICTIONS

13WHWOMWWHIsa,MUM

1. RI i''ORT NUMBER

TR -78 -A1

2. GOVT ACCESSION NO. 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER

'4. TITLE (and Subtitle)

Computerized Collective Training for Teams:

Final Report

S. TYPE OF REPORT 5 PERIOD covEkr_t)

Final 30Aug76-180ct77

6. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMFAE.H, 7. AUTHOR(S) \3

Paul Thurmond and R. Dewey Kribs

B. CONTRA CT OR GRANT NUM BERM

DANC19-76-C-0042

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

.. Sensors, Data, Decisions Inc.

5404 Linda Vista Road

gan. Diego CA 92110

10. PRDGR AM ELEMENT PROJECT T 551.

AREA 6 WORK UNIT NUMBERS

2Q762722A764,I-764-B-2

11. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS

US Army Research Institute for the Behavioral &

-So-ci-al--Sciences --(PERI-0K), -5001-Eisenhower Ave.,

Alexandria, VA 22333

12. REPORT D ATIS

February 1978

13. NUMBER DF PAGES

98 !\ 15. MONITORING AGENCY N AM E 6 ADOR Ess(if different from ControllingOffice) TS. ;,SECURITY CLASS. (of this report)

UNCLASSIFIED

154 DECLASSIFICATION /DOWNGRADING

SCHEDULE

16. DISTRIBUTION ST ATEMENT (of this Report)

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited

,

, r

17. DISTRIBUTION ST ATEMENT (of the abstract entered is Block 20, if different from Report)

16. SUPPLEMENT AFIv NOTES

This work was jointly sponsored by ARI and the Defense Advanced Research

Projects Agency under ARPA Order 2887. Contracting Officer's Technical

Representative was J. D. Baker, Educational Technology and Training Simulation Technical Area, ARI.

19. N Ey WORDS (Continue on reverse side if necessary and identify by block number)

Team Training, Instructional Strategies, CAI, Collective Training, Small

Group Training, Computerized Team Training, Team Training CAI, Computerized

Crew Training,TACFIRE, Staff Training, Embedded Training, Team Training

Instructional StrategieS

20. AB-ST R ACT (Corti:nue on reverse side if necessary and ideality by block number)

The purpose of this investigation was to empirically

ate a brassboard for computerized collective training

demonstrate and evalufor teams (COLT2).

were (1) conduct a

appropriate for

instructional strategies,

for COLT2 on the Army

and (4) develop

The four tasks underlying the demonstration /evaluation

state-of-the-art assessment of instructional strategies

COLT2, .(2) derive a conceptual framework for COLT2

(3) conduct a team job/task 'and training analysis

computerized artillery firacontrol system (TACFIRE),

Dr, FORM 1473 DD I .1 AN 73 EDITION OF I NOV 63 IS OBSOLETE

SECURIT .1

UNCLASSIFIED

ASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (then Data fettered)
UNCLASSIFIED

st, (IRITY CLASSIt ANON OF THIS PAGE7r-.

TACFIRE team training scenarios )urpose of instructional strategy

assessment. The procedures includ4. :gn and implementation of a team

ISD model, via which smaple trainin, were developed. The materials

were adapted to the team training val., i of the PLANIT CAI 'system'. The

COLT2 brassboard was demonstrated at the US Army Research Institute for the'

Behavioral and Social Sciences, Arlin3ton, VA. The results of the developmental aspects of the project indicaL,T that many of the components of the

team ISD approach that were designed '"!ar this effort would adequately meet

the criteria for a generic team ISD rAel. Prepatation of team learning.

objectives and evaluation of intera. team skills are deficient areas.

PLANIT met the basic team CAI requirements. However, enhancement of the team

training directives should be undertaken in order to (1) broaden the CAI

base for Instructional strategies, and (2) facilitate authoring procedures.

Demonstration/evaluation subjects trained on the sample material in either a

team or-an individual mode. The results preliminarily indicate that there

are differences in regard to what types of behavior are learned between team

and individual instruction.

UNCLASSIFIED.

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF T NIS P AGE (ghen Data Entered) .1;
FOREWORD

The Educational Technology and Training Simulation Technical Area of the

Army Research, Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI) conducts

research to support the development of training concepts and evaluation techniques for applying automation, simulation and training devices in a unit

setting. A training concept currently under study is the use of automation,

viz., tactical computers, for training. Tactical computers have great potential for presenting individual and collective (or team) training. Individual

training using the tactical computer has been developed and evaluated. The

development of team training \1 was an expressed priority of the recent Defense

Science Board Report to the Director of Defense Research and Engineering. In

antic#ation of the Defense Science Board Report, the present Technical Report

(and a\previously issued companion report - ARI Technicil Report TR-77-A4)

reviethe problems of the development of instructional strategies:-for con-- --- ductin team training and examines the potential of the computer for controlling

and mo o ing team training.

, The,,e earch reported herein was jointly aponsored by ARI and the

Defense Wd anced Research Projects Agency (ARPA Order 2887), and is responsive

to specif4'requirements of the U.S. Army Field Artillery School, the Training Support,Ceti of the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, and to Army Project 207 b22A764. The work reported on here was performed by Sensors,

Data, DecislOns, Inc. under the technical monitorship of Jamas D. Baker,

Chief of th Educitional Technology and Simulation Technical Area, ARI.

J. E. UHLANER,

Technical Director
COMPUTERIZED COLLECTIVE TRAINING FOR TEAMS

BRIEF

Requirement

Past research..on team training has not focused,-to any substantial degree,

on establishing a methodology for-developing team training curricula or on investigating the potential of computer technology as a delivery system for

team training. The major purpose of this study was to develop an approach for

designing team'ttaining scenarios and testing the feasibility of the team

training version of the PLANIT CAI system as an instructional medium for

scenario presentation.

The project objectives were as follows:

1. To determine from the existing literature, previous surveys, personal.

contacts and other related sources the information which exists with regard to

state-of-tie-art findings and instructional theory directly applicable to the

problem of developing instructional strategies for computer- assisted team

training.

2. To derive historically, analytically and /or empitically a conceptual

framework, fleshed-out with detailed principles, for a general purpose (nonjob or system specific) set of instructional strategies applicable to team

training problems in a computerized setting.

3. To conduct a detailed job/task analysis for two classes of team

training: (a) the-man-computer-man paradigm, and (b) the man-(non - computer)-

man setting.

. 4. To develop an appropriate scenario representative of and permitting

the assessment of the job/task analysis and which will permit the insertion of

objeCtive 2 team training strategies into the scenario in order to make it a

training scenario rather than a purely drill and exercise vehiCle.
5. To construct, demonstrate and evaluate a "brassboard" team. training

system which ties meaningful aspects of all prOject findings together.

Procedures

Builchg on an empirical and theoretical base established in prior

research, a conceptual framework for deriving team training instructional

strategies was developed. In turn, .generic individual instructional systems

development (ISD) techniques were adapted to a team training ISD model. The

model was utilized to derive the team training smifications for a segment of

the U.S. Army's computerized artillery fire control system, TACFIRE, operations.

On the basis of these specifications, sample training materials which reflected

U'

a'selection of team instructional strategies were developed and adapted to the

team training version of the PLANIT comptiter assisted instruction (CAI) system.

The ' brassboard: of computerized collective training for teams (COLT2) was

demonstrated and evaluated at the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral

and Social Sciences in Arlington, VA.

Findings

Team operations, occur in a situaticnal context which is a continuum; the

end points of which are described as establiShed or emergent. An established

situation is one-for which performance requirements are specifiable, predict- __

able, and comply with standard operating procedures. In an emergent situation,

13 the environmental conditions during the performance requirements are unantick,

pated; and the state of the system does not comply with standard operating

procedures. Teams operate along. this continuum in either serial or parallel.

-Serial-activities are sequential with the input for one team member based upon

thb output of another. Parallel team structures are characterized by team

members performing the same or interrelated tasks simultaneously.

O
Team instructional strategies are defined as the product of a series of

decisions whiclOprovide for the structuring of learning activities by three

types of information: (1) the nature of the task to be learned, (2) the

characteristics of the learner and learner strategies, and (3) the capability

ofthe instructional delivery system. Underlying the development of team

instructional strategies, there is needed a team ISD model by which the

specifications of the instruction can be derived. The model should identify

team task dimensions, team objectives, and the scope and sequencing of specific

learning events for both established and emergent contexts and for both serial

and parallel structures.

Team training scenarios are task and environment specific in nature.

That is,, there must be adequate incorporation of team task interactions in the

instructional strategies underlying the scenario. Then the team interactions

must be placed in a simulated tactical environment. Rich combat representations built into the scenarios may be critical in order to involve a COLT2

trainee at more than a drill and practice level.

The team version of PLANIT adequately provided for the four major team

CAI considerations: (1) multi-person initialization of lessons, (2) communication among team members, (3) synchronization of team members and scenario

events, and (4) manipulation of a.. common data base for storing and retrieving

scenario-related information. Enhancements are required to increase the speed

of the operating system, to provide greater flexibility in communications, and

to facilitate authoring procedures..

The results of the demonstration/evaluation, while limited in inferential

power due primarily to the small number of subjects and the anecdotal nature

of the evaluation, indicate that tiltre are differences between the effectiveness of team and individual instruction in regard to what types of behavi6i

are being learned. Supporting this claim are the following observations:
1. The coordinated"(team) training did not seem to increase individual

skills as well as continuous individual training,

2. There appears to be little stability among independent variables for

explaining variance in subject scores between individual and team contexts,

and

. Coordinated behavior lends to better achievement on specific tasks.

Utilization of Findings

The findings of the study impact on three team topics: (1) the development

of a team ISD model, (2) requirements for a team CAI system, and (3) requirements for team training research. Recommendations for future developmental

-efforts-are suggested for each topic.

Generally, the team ISD approach- as designed and implemented was insufficiently fleshed out to serve as a step -by -step procedural guide for developing

team training. Deficiencies include (1) a methodology for preparing, analyzing,

and categorizing team learning objectives, 42) evaluation designs which would

address team member interactions as well as individual and team achievement,

and (3) the incorporation of applicable knowledge regarding small group

behavior into the data base of the conceptual framework for COLT2 instructional

strategies.

Recommendations for the enhancement of PLANIT focused on software modifications that would improve system operations and flexibility and design

modifications to facilitate authoring procedures. Recommendations for future

research emphasized (1) investigating the relationships of team personnel

composites, achievement, and modes of COLT2, and (2) testing TACFIRE training

scenarios in an operational setting.
CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION

Organization of Final Report

Background to TACFIRE Training Research

Project: Tasks and Objectives

AN OVERVIEW OF MAJOR TEAM ISSUES

Team Definition

Conceptual Team Models

Team Structure.

1

2

35

7

78

10 Implications for Team Training

11

A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR COLT2 INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES 14 = Instructional Strategies

15 Team Task Dimensions

16 Individual Learner Characteristics

19 Individual Learner Strategies

25

Computer-Assisted Instruction Capabilities 29 Implications for Developing Team Instructional Strategies 35

DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A TEAM ISD MODEL: BRASSBOARD DEVELOPMENT . 40 'Overview

40 Selection. of TACFIRE Functional Area to be Analyzed. 40 Job/Task Analysis Procedures

, 42 Del tlopment Of Team Training Objectives 47 rio Development_

47 Sc_ario Sequencing

49. Scenario Stiucture

52 PLANIT Implementation

52

BRASSBOARD DEMONSTRATION/EVALUATION

61 Sub Sects

61 Design

62 Measures

64 Fidings

67

DISCUSSION

81 Major Team Isdues

81

A Conceptual Framework for COLT2. Instructional Strategies 82

Implemehtation of a Team ISD Model 84 PLANIT Implementation

85

Brassboard Demonstration/Evaluation 88
'CONTENTS (Continued)

Page

RECOMMENDATIONS, 92

Recommendations for:Developing a, Team ISD7Model 92

Recommendations for'PLAMIT Enhancements 93

Recommendations for Future COLTRasearch 94

REFERENCES . '. .... - 95

FIGURES

Page

1. Excerpt from Job/Task Flow Chart of Fire Mission Processed

in Automatic Mode,.. ... . . . . . . 44

2. Lesson. Performance by Group . .. . 69

TABLES

LL-/'.

1: TeaM Learning Categoriesand task Dimensions 19

2. Representative'CAI Modea. .. . . , ............ .. .,. . . . 32

3. Example Summary Table.f Team Characteristic for a Fire Mission

Processed in the AutomatieMode 46

4. Example.of FireMissionYream Objectives ., . . . . 48

5. Summary of'Subject Characteristics 62

.6'. Means and Standard Deviations for. Independent Variables and41144`.

_Performance Score's .. 68

7. Mean Times (minutes) Eor LessOn, Completion 70 . 8. CorrelationCOefficients and Significance Levels for Independent

Page

Variablfs and Performance SOores t 72

9. Summary Of Stepwise Regression.. Dependent Variable:,

Individual Letson Score 73

10. SUMmarY.Of Stepwise Regression. Dependent Variable:

Beginning Lesson Score '. 74 . lr.. Distribution"of Decision Responses in Emergent Team Lesson Z . . . . 77

. 12. Means and.Standard Deviations for Confidence and Role Perception

Item Responses 79

13. Example of Match of:Team Lesson Levels with CAI Modes .... . .. . . 88
0 INTRODUCTION

e- Team training has been an active topic in Department of'Defense and

CivilianSector training research arenas for over two decades. Research

projects, addressing the subject have been extensive and have identified many

problems whose resolution is critical to effective team functioning. Yet to

/*date, R &D efforts have neither resulted in the establishment of a methodology

4. for developing team training curricula or, to any substantial degree, investi- . gated the potential of computer technology as an effective and efficient

1 .delivery system for team train,.

With the advent of *complex computer-based weapon systems which necessitate

coordinated actions of multiple operators and decision makers, team training'

of system users has become .a critical need. Recognition of the problem by the

Army has led,to the initiation of related research projects by the -U.S. Army

Research Institute (ARI) and by the Defense Advanced'Research Projects Agency

(DARPA). Further, the ARI research which is current'y focused on the use of

tomputerized tactical data systems as a majorNindividual training medium is

x being ex, ended to include investigations of the feasibility and effectiveness

/of embedding team training,on the Army's computerized artillery fire control

system, TACPIRE.

. The project finalireport which follows provides the results of the design

et )ta and application of a team instructional system design (ISD) methodology in the- , / development of computerized collective training for teams (COLT2). In essence,

C the design of the team ISD model involved extending generic individual instruction systems design concepts to encompass team training aspects and subsequently

, developing a computer assistance instruction (CAI) team training brassboard

based 2.ji the team ISD approach. Thus, the methodolOgy directly relates existing

knawledge.regarding various dimensions of individual and team training to the

3!,
development of a specific team computer-assisted instruction brassboard. In

turn, the brassboard reflects a sampling of instructional strategies which,

account for three critical components of team training: (1) team task dimensions, (2) individual learner characteristics, and (j)_CAI capabilities.

The COLT2 lessons developed and evaluated were designed to address a

specific operational Army team, an artillery battalion TACFIRE Fire Direction

Center ream composed of a fire direction officer (FDO) and a fire direction

sergeant (FDS). The team training - issues which emerged during the course'of

the project are not, however, delimited by the specific team environment being

daalt with, but rather are generic to the preponderance of military team

) %. ..- training. The issues are complex and make it clear that a single team .training

methodology without flexibility will not suffice as a derivator of team training requirements and as a guide to the development of effective team instruction.

It is our belief that the team training approach demonstrated' in this

project embodies the. comprehensiveness required of a team ISD model and possesses

the flexibility required for application to a broad range of team environments.

The conceptual structure of the project, with the supporting empirical data,

indicates that the representation of the intersection of team task dimensions,

individual learner characteristics, and instructional delivery system in

instructional strategies is critical to effectiveteam training. In 'turn, the

methodology proved effective in deriving team task dimensions and as a guide

for team curricular materials development. The methodology, however, is far

from being fleshed out in detail or from being adequately tested.

Organization of.Final Report

The remainder of the Final Report is organized as follows: The

iniroduction.Presenis a brief description of the TACFIRE training research

which leads up to this effort, and a listing of the specific tasks undertaken

14
in the present project. The second section contains an overview of the

fundamental issues underlying team training and their implications for developing tea/ training programs. The third section provides a discussion of a conceptual framework fro -which COLT2 instructional strategies may be derived.

Primarily, the three critical components of COLT2 instructional strategies- -

team task dimensions, individual learner attributes, and CAI capabilities--

are reviewed. Section four provides a description of the brassboard development. The major focus is On'describing the resultS'of implementing the.team

ISD model and the development of the training scenarios.

The results of the-brassboard-demonstrations are documented in section'

five. The sixth section is a discussion of overall project fihdings. Section

'seven contains recommendations.

Background to TACFIRg Training Research

As part of a long range plan, ARI is eng-aged. in an effort to maximize

, . utilizatiA of tactical data systems.to meet tactical training heeds. The

first phase of "ARI -'s effort toward'using tactical systems in an instructional

mode involved the MASSTER test 122 "IBCS: Automated Instruction" project.

This 'project demonstrated the feasijiility'of*using;a prototype tactical data

processing system in a stand alone mode to: support unit training requirements.

The instruction developed, however, was not related to training of system

users.The second phase of the ARI effort to employ tactical data systems'Iot

instructional purposes involved embedding, training that was directly related

to the operation of the tactical system itself.-, One benefit of embedded

T training is that it can-provide training at the unit level and location,

thereby teducing or eliminating the need to send personnel away to - school.

Embedded training also accomplishes. general faMiliarization with the tactical
data system through a self-instructional mode. That is, personnel whoare

operators or who are involved in maintenance of a tactical data system are

likely to have little experience with computers. Thus, instructional material

embedded in the tactical data system offers an additional opportunity to

become familiar with system equipment and operational characteristics.

In May 1975, ARI contracted with System Development Corporation for the

.development of embedded self-instructional programs for users of the TACFIRE

system. The overall aim of the effort was to extend.the -scope of computer-

. assisted instruction to' the development of self-instructional programs and

procedures for TACFIRE users.. The basic approach was to embed a training

subsystem package within the operating TACFIRE system and to use the system

-itself to train personnel in its operatidn and maintenance. The training

goalsof the courseware to be used in the embedded mode were:

1. To present techniques to aid the users in learning how to operate the

system.

2. To exercise and-update system related skills.

- 3. To provide on-line situational problems which enable the users to

exercise all the skills previously acquired (Hoyt, Butler and Leung, 1976.

TACFIRE courseware, using the PLANIT language, was developed and produced

five functional areas. ,The average course time for this individualized,

self-paced, embedded training program is approximately 40 hours and covers an

estimated 25 t6 35 percent of-the Battalion Fire Direction Center operations

(Hoyt, et al., 1976).

The present project, initialized in August 1976,, represents an extension

of the scope of embedded TACFIRE training. The previously mentioned courseware was designed to develop'and maintain individual skills in operating. the

TACFIRE system. Yrhe objective of the present .project is to.demonstrate-and

-evaluate training of TACFIRE system personnel. operating as a team.

N.,* -.4
Team training is a function of the requirement for coordinated activity

within the TACFIRE environment. As a computerized command/control system,

TACFIRE has a number of characteristics that are common to all such systems.

For example, the system is operated by teams of people whose interaction with

each other-in the environment is mediated by the computer complex with associated input/putput requirements. Within this sophisticated and complex computer-

:, based weapon system environment, it is essential for personnel to 'cooperatively'

perform tasks. The division of individual responsibilities and the team

member interactions require a broader training scope to be taken than .currently

exists. Therefore, the ultimate goal of this project is to investigate the

feasibility of extending the concept of embedded CAI training beyond individual

instruction to the training of teams.

Project Tasks and Objectives.:

The project tasks and.objectives are listed below.

is Task 1: State-of-the-art assessment of instructional strategies fox computer-assisted team-training. To determine, from the existing literature;:,

. -

. 1 previoUs surveys, personal contacts and other related sources the information _

1

...--) which exists with regard to-state -of- the -art findings and instructional theory

i directly applicable to the. problem of developing instructional strategiesjor

computer-assisted team training.

Task 2: Derivation and development of irptructional strategies for toms putter-assisted team training., To derive historically, analytically-and/or

empirically a conceptual framework, fleshed-out with detailed principles, for

a general purpose. (non-job or system specific) set of instructional strategies

applicable to team training problems in a computerized setting.

Task 3: Job/task and training analysis for computer-assisted TACFIRE

team training. To conduct a detailed job/task analysis for two classes of
team training: (1) the man-computer-man paradigm, and (2) the Man-(non .7,..

comptiter)-man setting.

;Task 4: Scenario development for instructional strategy assessment. To

develop an appropriate scenario representative of and permitting the assessment of the job/task analysis and which will permit the insertion of Task 2

team training strategies into the scenario in order to make it a training

scenario rather than a purely.drill and exercise vehicle.

Task 5: Development and demonstration/evaluation of a "brassbnrd"-computerized team training system. To construct, demonstrate and evaluate a

"brassbOard"._team training System which ties meaningful aspects of all of the

preceding Tasks together.-

6
AN OVERVIEW OF MAJOR TEAM ISSUES

Team Definition

-Task 1, a state-of-the-art assessment of instructional strategies for

computer-assisted team training, had as its objective the determination of

the applicability of.findings of previous research efforts to the problem of

developing instructional strategies for computer-assisted team training. In

the undertaking. of this. task, the Project TeaM was quickly confronted with the

'complexity of team training issues and with the lack of unanimity within the

research community regarding these issues. For example, two extensive reviews

of team training (Hall and Rizzo, 1975; Magner, Hibbits, Rosenblatt and

Schulz, 1976) identified the difficulty in defining team an&teamtraining.

As noted by Hall and Riizo "no tone seems to be able to'articulate its [team]

dimensions with sufficient clarity to permit the development of training

procedures for prOducingit.'!. It was further stated in this zeport that

another major issue that lacks_ esolution was,the determination.of whether a

team is simply a:collection of individuals performing separate task jobs in a group context or if there are unique trainable team skills that exist over and

above individual functions:

The first of these issues, that is, the definition of a team, was resolved

by employing an eXisting description of a team. The description was based on

observations offered by Klaus and Glazer (1968). They stated:

The team is usually well organized, highly structured and has relatively formal operating.ptocedures - as exemplified by a baseball team, an aircraft crew, or ship control team. Teams :generally:

(1) Are relatively rigid in structure, organization and com- munication networks.

-(2) Have well defined positions or numbers assignments, so that participation in a given task by each indiVidual 'can-be anticipated to a given extent.

19;

7
(3) Depend on the cooperative or coordinative participation

of several specialized individuals whose activities contain a little overlap and who must each perform their

task at least at some minimum level of proficiency.

(4) Are often involved with equipment or tasks requiring

perceptual motor activities.

(5) Can be given specific guidance on job performance based

on a task analysis of the team's equipment, mission or

situation.

Thus the criteria for team definition include: (1) rigid structure,

organization and communication networks, (2) ant1cipation of an individual's

task participation by virtue of well'defined assignments, and (3) cooperation

and coordination.

Conceptual Team Models . The second major team training issue is related to the conceptualization

of teams into two models. These model's are referred to as "stimulus response"

and as "organismic". Alexander and Cooperband (1965) distinguish between-the

two team training models based on situations in which the team behavior takesZL

place. The stimulus response model was applied to teams which operate primarily

in an established situation where tasks and the activities required to perform

the operation can be completely: specified and assignment of functions among

team members and equipment is relatively rigid: In the organismic model, the

team is considered tobe a synthetic organism of, which individuals are components. _This model is oriented towards teams operating in an environment

which includes a significant proportion of emergent situations. In emergent

situations, there are defined task assignments; however, the individual has a

considerable degree of discretion as to how to perform the task giVen various

contingencies. Consequently, team performance depends on the development of

appropriate team procedures for coping with environmental contingencies more
so than on individual job proficiency.. Thus, adaptive innovations are required

by team members, and decision making and problem solving skills are critical.

The two conceptual approaches take as their bases the situational contexts

in which team behavior occurs. In actuality, the situational context is a continuum, the end points of which are described as established or emergent.

Boguslaw-Snd-Porter (1962) define these. situations as follows:

An established situation is one in which (1) all action- relevant

environmental conditions are specifiable and predictable,

. (2) all action-relevant states of the system are specifiable

and'predictable, and (3) available research technoIogy"di . records are adequate to provide statements aboutliflOrobable

consequences of alternative actions. An emergent, situationis.

one in which (1) all action-relevant environmental conditions

have not been specified, (2) the state!of the system does not'.

correspond to relied upon predictions,; and (3) analytical solutions are not available given current States of analytical

technology.

The two conceptual viewpoints have also.serVed as contexts for teamtraining research. For example; investigation of team member interactions in

an established.situation was a'primary focus of a team training laboratory

program at the American InStitute of Research (Klaus and Glaser, 1960). There

are obvious advantages to thezeam training laboratory research, but the often.

necessary simplification of the team ftffictions can mask or omit possible

important variables which influence behavior in the real world. 'Abstracting

the situational contexts in the laboratory can result in a loss of opportunity

for trainees to react to breakdowns-or problems which may arise in an operational setting (Wagner, et al., 1976).

Providing skills to, deal -with emergent unstructured situations was seen

as a.major goal of an earlier team training program (Alexander and Cooperband,

1965). The development of coordination skills was stressed although it was

recognized that these are based upon attainment of minimum individual skills.

In turn, team training devices and techniques were seen as requiring orientation

9
for training innovative behaviors'and skills necessary to adapt to unforeseen

problems. It was agreed that, emergent situation training permits a more

realistic, less abstract approach than established situation training. In the

emergent case, what seems to be important is training team members to become

fully aware of their responsibilities, to compensate for the inability of

others, and to overcome temporary problems when the situation calls for it.

It is obvious that in actuality, no team operates in purely an established

or an.emergent situation. Therefore, in conducting the job/task and training

analysis, emphasis was placed-first on defining the precise TACFIRE established

situation as prescribed by standard operating procedureg and, secondly,%on

identifying the most common and critical emergent situations that impaet

actual operations of the TACFIRE system. By defining both the established and

the emergent situations, the team member interactions which occur in both

cases could be analyzed in order to determine the team task dimensions that

are present.'

Team Structure

A third major issue underlying the development of team training is.related.

to the structure "(interaction of team members) of team operations. -Basically,'

''teams function either in serial or.parallel,, In a serial or vertical structure,

activities are sequential with input for one team member based upon output of

another. Parallel team structures are characterized by team members performing_

the same or similar tasig2Atultaneously.

Research related to team structure and effectiveness has had mixed_ results.x

For. example, Briggs and Johnston (1967) suggested that parallel:team structures

fire preferable toserial structures because team performance in the parallel

structure is not dependent on the least skilled member.- On the other hand,

Klaus and Glaser (1968) reported that the parallel structure led only to a 10
short term gain and eventually to a decrement in team performance. There

is,-however; one. point of agreement. In a purely established situation the

serial team structure results in better performance. In the same situation,

parallel structures seem to inhibit or slow down team perforMances. On the

other hand, in emergent situations,.team failure is frequently a function of

.individual skill deficiency. Teams apparently respond more effectively to

emergent tasks if a parallel team structure is in effect.

In a TACF1pE,operation there is neither.A pure serial nor parallel team

structure. Whatcommonly is the case,is that more than one team member will

receive similar inputs, but the responsibility for output is.predetermined

by standard operating procedures. In the event of emergent or contingent

Situations, more than one team member is preparedtor should be prepared to

address problems which arise.

Implications for Team Training

e Each of the previoU4y discussed issues should be'taken into consideration

'.by the developer of a team training curriculum. First, the definition of a

team contains certain criteria which distinguish it from the multi-individual

task context as well as a small group. Ultimately, it is these same.critetia

.- . ._- 4

which se e as the foundation

1

r developing-and implementing a team ISD

17

approach in order to derive instructional strategies for the.training. Forekample, f the criteria of (1), a rigid structure, organization and communication

...

I network, 2) anticipation of an individual's task participation and (3)

1 cooperation and coordination are not present to some degree, any other

`issues (i.e., the conceptual team model and team structure) are mute.

If L is no rigid .team structure or standard operating procedure, it

..- is not poseible-to deterMine_en established situation for the team performance.

On the other hand, if cooperation and Coordination are not integral components

1213
of the team's operations then emergent situations do not impact on the team

as a whole but only on the individuals operating within the group context.

Further, if there is not overlap the individuals' task participation

by virtue of the defined assignments, then the team operation will be in its

purest sense "a stimulus-response" model and will, in effect, represent only

a multi-person operation. The inverse of this situation is also true. That

is, if there are no defined assignments related to specific task operations

but all individuals are cooperatively addressing all tasks withOut defined

'structure and organization, then it islikely that the team is in fact a

small groUp; should be defined as such, and the more general rules of small

group.behavipr applied.

Once a team has met the criteria for definitiOn as a team, the second

and third major team training issues discussed begin to have a tremendous

impact-on the subsequent development of the training curriculum: Primarily,

the connection is via'the team job/task and training analysis. The team

job/task and training analysis must be comprehensive enoughto provide for

the identification of both standard operating procedures tasks and unanticipated combinations of known tasks as well-as the emergence of preViously

'unaddressed and untrained to performance requirements. Thus, there is,a

direct tie froMrthe team model to the. establishment of. team instructional

strategies. For eicample, if upon analysis of the team tasks there are

significant emergent requirements, then the instructional emphasis should-be

.7._ more on developing: problem solving and decision making skillswithin the

individual team members as opposed to training to rigidly structured responses

to given situations.

The issue of team structure (serial vs. parallel) also is directly

-- -ija- -

connected to the development of instructional strategies via the vehicle of

12
the team job/ task and training analysis. Once the task and its. situational

context is identified, a last - requirement of the job/task and training

analysis is to identify how the team Is structured in the performance of the

task. In team operations, there will seldom be a purely serial or parallel

operation. The. likely case for the team operation is that it is a combination of serial and parallel structured events. Therefore, the team job/task\

t. and training analysis should define at what points members are performing

the same tasks simultaneously (parallel structure) and at what-points the

task.perforMance is*.a stimulus-response type activity (serial). NIn-turn,

the instructional strategies for directing the student through the learning

events will reflect the specific training task dimension by team structure

as well as by situational context.

13

5
A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR COLT2 INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES

As stated earlier, the first interim report contained the results of a

review of research literature related to the problem of developing instructional

strategies for COLT2. Additional bases for the report were interviews and

personal contacts with instructors currently operating in the following team

training environments: U.S. Army Field Artillery School (USAFAS), Ft. Sill,

Oklahoggi Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) School, San Diego, California; Amphibious

Base, San Diego,-California; and Fleet Combat Direction Systems. Training

Center, San Diego, California.

The analysis of the data led to two major conclusiOns.- The first was

that_A-conceptual framework for a general purpose set of instructional

strategies for team training does not exist. The-second conclusion was that

an ISD approach to team training has not evolved: The two- conclusions are

not mutually exclusive. A-conceptual framework forteam instructional

strategies, must in part rest on a teamISD approach for extracting the team

training taskS, establibhing'student attributes and learner strategies, andidentifying delivery system capabilities and matching them with tasks and

students.

Thus, a primary thrust of the Task 1 study was to define instructional

strategies within a conceptual framework which was responsive to elements

developed during a team ISD process:\ Specifiaally, the report addressed the

derivation of instructional strategies for COLT2 by three elements: team

training task dimensions, individual learner characteristics and strategies,

and CAI system capabilities. The remainder of this section contains a

discussion of instructional strategies based on the Task 1 findings. The

,.., 7

. . i,_:1 .

.

.

. "qpcus of the discussion is on the three major elements-comprising a team

Instructional strategy and what prior research findings are applicable to

team training questions.

14
- P Instructional Strategies

The phrase instructional strategies was first described in 1961 by

Stolurow as the logical flow of the instruction with consideration for

branching structures for correcting error responses or applying remediation. The concept of instructional

strategies thus has been with us for more than

fifteen years. More recently it;-has been subsumed as an integral component by the systems approach; to.certitulum design and development. However, as

pointed out by Gropper (1974)i while the literature do instructional design

has gtown rapidly. over the last several years, the formulation of instructional strategies has received little systematic description in most ISD

models. Definitio&of whaV is meant by instructional strategies are not

usually comprehensive or operational. Gropper uses the term instructional

strategies to refer to prescriptive rules for designing instructional events

which create learning experiences appropriate for the mastery of behavioral

objectives. ACcording,to this definition, the emphasis must be placed on

the propeities of behavior to which the instructional events must be respon- sive and then on theproperties of the instructional events which make them

responsive.

The documentation for interservice ISD procedures does not specifically use the phiase

instructional strategies.- However?'the ISD components which

are defined do contain the same elements of instructional strategies as

defined by Gropper. After job/task analysis, selection of instructional

setting, definition of objectives, and test development, the instructional

sequence and structure is determined With specified learning events and

activities. Thus, as with Gropper's definition, the strategies for meeting

the reqUired objectives consist of activities ,f or sequencing, structuring, and specifying learning events/activities. Maespecifically, instructional'

`15,

27
strategies, as defined by Hansen (1970),, are the product of a series of

decisions, which provide for structuring the instruction by such variables as

media choice, content, pacing, level of difficulty, reading. level, or feedback.

In developing the conceptual framework for deriving team training

strategiesi,it was concluded that these decisions are based upon three types

of information;. the characteristics of (1) the task typ be learned; (2) the

7 tl learner; and (3) the delivery system for instruction. In other-Wards, COLT2

. . instructional:strategies 'are derived on the basis of task dimensions, learner

characteristicsigitategies'ind CAI capabilities.

Team Task Dimensions

A number of team task diMensions were identified in the literature and

through the personal contacts. From these dimensions, three categories of

Ga. team learning were developed to serve as a link between team job/task analysis,

team training objectives, and team instructional strategies. Descriptions of

these categorieS are contained in the following paragraphs.

Knowledge of Team Roles. Central to a team effort is the understanding

by each team member of the roles--authority, responsibility, and duties - -of

other team members. Moreover, knowledge of team roles includes being able

to assess the capacity of oneself and other team members to fulfill the.

c. pretcribed roles. Twa skills, self-evaluation and team awareness, were

identified within this. category.

Self-evaluative skills are important in team training because an effective

team member must learn to detc:rmine when an overload point has been reached

and assistance is required from another team member (Doguslaw and Porter,

1962). This skill requires the analysis ok'one's own errors as well as

knowledge of other members' loads such that determination of reduction of
load by.another member can occur. Self-evaluation is related to the definitions

of well-defined, assigned team roles and team goals because evaluation

cannot occur withOut these criteria.'

Team awareness (Kanarick, Alden and Dani is, 1972) centers on the

knowledge of a team member about the roleS of each team individual in relationship to the need for effective communication and interaction. .That is, team

awareness, as a task dimension, is related. to the criteria of assigned roles

which are formal and structured.

Team Attitudes. The-terMs confidence, aggressiveness, and pride were

not addressed in the research literature. However, these attitudes and

their. manifestation in team-related behavior were emphasized by the team

trainers -hb were interviewed. The instructors indicated that a team member

must learn confidence in his-abilities as an individual and then learh

aggressiveness in his coordination as a. team member. The dimension of pride

also entered into these diecussions. Statements from instructors indicated

that teams must be trainecLtoward specific teamrgoals , or a'mission, and

, pride is a critical dimensibn to be addressed in. the training. MoSt importantly,

team pride must be related to the achievement of a team goal..

Team Communication. While communication is discussed as a coordination

task for teams, generally the research and theory does not immediately allow

for derivation of team communication definitions or strategies for teaching.

However, two studies demonstrate that communication is an important part of

a coordination task and training of such coordination skills develops more

effective performance in a team. _Johnston (1966), studying two person teams

-in a simulated radar situation, compared coordination skill training to

individual training.with'a criterion task requiring communication. The.

'findings indicate that performance was more effective when the coordination

17

1 4 29
'skill-training was given; In another condition, verbal communication was

not required and, as'might be expected, the coordination training was not

effective in final performance.

Williget-(1966) found that when two channels of communication, verbal

and visual, were allowed, the verbal communication training had no effect on

team performance. Federman and Siegel (1965) found. that the transmission.

quality of the primary sensing data had a.deciding influence on team performance for both communications and decisions. These two studiet indicated

that the team job/task analysis should have some focus on determining communi- . cation channels and the quality of the channels.

A study which provides some clues to types of team communication,

especially as applied to- coordinated tasks, was performed by Federman and

. .

. , ----- Siegel (1965). Thit study investigated the relationship between anti- r. , 0 Z' submarine warfare helicopteP team performance and the content and flow of

communications within the team during an attack. Fourteen different communication variables were found to be correlated with an objective 'performance'

:measurement criterion (miss distance). A factor analysis of the fourteen

communication variables resulted in four factors being identified: (1)

probabilistic structure, (2) evaluative interchange, (3) hypothesis formula-

- -tion, and (4) leadership control.

The factors defined by-these fourteen variables demonstrate the close

relationship between communications and decision processing. As de tined by

the authors of the study,

Probabilistic structure is marked by situations in. which

extrapolations contain the thought processes involved in

weighing alternatives, and in questioning add searching for

answers to questions. Evaluative interchange'is contained

in communications in which there are direct requests for

information and-opinion, as well as the responses to these.

requeatt. Hypothesis formulation categorizes those communications involving interpretations of-pabt.performande in the

,18

30
mission and evaluation of future tactics to-be followed.

Leadership control describes communication marked by a role- , assuming attitude; it serves to define goals and set asstamptions for decision making.

While the study doeS not directly address training for these types of

communication-oriented coordination tasks, the results suggested that the

four correlated communications variables are team task dimensions which

should be identified by a job/task analysis.

Summary. The review of the literature described in the first interim

report provided a framework for analyzing TACFIRE team tasks and for deriving

team training objectives from the job/task analysis. This framework is comprised of the three learning categories and their specific task dimensions

as shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Team Learning Categories and Task Dimensons.

, , Learning Category Task Dimension

(1)oKnowledge of Team Roles

(2) Team Attitudes

(3) Team Communication

a. Self-Evaluation

b. TeimAwarehesa

a. Confidence

b. Pride

c. Aggressiveness

a. Probabilistic Structure

b. Evaluative Interchange

c. Hypothesis Formulation

d. Leadership Control

Individual Learner Characteristics

For -the purpose of illustrating the relevance of student characteristics

to COLT2; emphasis will be given'to characteristics which may impact on the

CI ability of the student to process information, communicate, make decisions

and solve problems in'a coordinated task environment. In this way a model

of the-learner will be tied to a modelof-the-subiett-matter-sad-ailow-

. , derivation of COLT2 strategies.

*in
Learner characteristics may be used as a basis for a COLT2 strategy

With preprogrammed decisions or for teaching the learner,strategies to use

during COLT2. To,some extent, consideration of state characteristics, such

as the score on the last test,or the current state of anxiety, departs from

the, concept of entry behavior description because the measures may be used

. , . ,

, as dynamic indicators.f,a learher,etate. o However, the discussion, to be

relevant to COLT2, must allow both for analysis of learner tharacteristicS

which. will be used in,designing instructional strategies and those which

will be used during'the instructional manipulation in a real -time, dynamic,

interactive mode.

Dansereau, Actkinson, Long and McDonald, (1974), identified the following

factors which potentially affect a learner's choice of strategies. Many of

. the same characteristics have been used in CAI strategiesforeelecting

content, sequencing, and pacing. These factors are intellectual aptitude

and the availability of strategy skills, personality variables, cognitive

style, reception preferences, motivation, sex, and'eprior knowledge. Theresearch on each of these factors is too extensive anddiverse for even a

brief summariiation,to be' iticluded in this document, but examples of some

salient findings will be discussed. The purpose in discussing these examples

of learner characteristics is. to demonstrate how the general literaturemay

be used to generate,hypotheses.concerning learner characteristics and COLT2

strategies within the conceptual framework presented here. The hypotheses

...,. , Will have to be answered empirically.

. c i-'.. Intellectual Aptitude and Availatility,0fftfategy Skills. Several

-r"

,

,,,t*-.

1 1

examples that relate the learner chanacteristic of

,,- intlectualslliils to ,., 4

- .. A

the, categories of team 1:arning dishunsed earlier are provided. Conceptual

: complexity, the .capaciffidTihtegrati ad inter' rei1..;

1g.t e,d_.;.', Mh t o li a r, srit._ of- .

..-.---

.: /.' ,,;&-- v. .

,:',7,7'.., L, 32Y
information, ail intellectual aptitude that can be measured'(Schroder,

DriVer and Steufert, 1567) and that,appears to be an important factor in

determining the types of learner strategies upon which an individual can

call. The characteristic might be considered for training team members to

integrate information about eeam member roles in relation to the team goal.

Research-suggests that conceptualComplexity can be manipulated through

trainiqg,(Sieber ancY.Lanzetta, 1966).

pansereau, et al. (1974) employed the Structure-of the Intellect Model

'(GuidOrd and Hoepfner, 1971) as a framework for.discussing-the availability.

of learner strategy skills. In the model,.the following-fiye intellectual

operations have been identified by factor analysis-of a large variety of

paper and pencil tasks:

(1) Cognition - ,Immediate discovery, awareness, rediscovery, or recogniiiim

of information in its various forms, comprehension or understanding.

.(2) Memory -.Fixation and retrieval of information in storage.

( 3) Divergent Production - Generation of logical alternatives from..1::--. given informatiOn; where emphasis

(4) Convergent Production -

given information, where emphasis

tionally best outcomes.

is upon variety and quantity.

.Generation of logical conclusion from

is upon acbieving.unique or converse:-

(5) Evaluation -_ Comparisons of items of information in terms of.

variables and making judgments concerning, criterion satisfaction:.

, Research indicates that the abilitY,io'perform these operations strongly

relates"to achievement (Guilford, Hoepfner and Petersen, 1965; Dunham, Guilford

and Hoepfner, 19687,, Caldwell, Schroder, Michael and Meyers, 1970). The

structure of intellect operations may correspond to the basic skill components

required for the development and impleMentation of learner strategies. For

21

33
this reason, the intellectual operations correspond with the categories of

learner strategies developed in a subsequent section of this report. These

characteristics offer face validity as relevant to a team member's ability

to process the information communications in either a man-man or man-computer;

man situation.

Personality Variables. Three examples. are-provided to illustrate the

influence personality variables may have on team performance. Dogmatism and

tolerance of ambiguity primarily influence strategy selection in tasks

involving the manipulation of ambiguous or belief- discrepant information

(Rokeach, 1960; Feather, 1964). .The. characteristics could be useful for

communication training involving risk willingness or reluctance as defined

by Federman and Siegel (1965) and discussed earlier in the section on team

AimeMsions.

A measure of the persbnality construct, locus of control, was developed

by Rotter (1966). The construct itself is viewed as a generalized expectan4.

about control over the environment with a wide variety of situations included

within the spectrum of generalization. Internal control refers to the'.

individual's.belief that an event is

characteristics. On the other hand,

control attribUtes the occurrence of

to ihe,contrcil Of OtherEor as being

O'Neil and Spelt (1974) conducted an

contingent on his/her own behavior or

an individual characterized by external . - a significant event to fate, luck, or:

unpredictable-(:totter, 1966). Judd,

extensive review of the research that

has-appeared since Rotter'S initial. formulation. The research indicates

that the external:subject requires more specific guidelines than the internal

subject in order to.perceive his own needs and take the opportunity to

control. It 'also appaars that increasingly well-defined task instructions

provide a missing cognitive link for external subjects. which helps them to

22

34

1/4'
Improve their performance. The locus of control characteristic may assist,

therefore, in defining instructional strategies for adapting the feedback

and prompting to team members during COLT2 communications--especially those

associated with decision processing.

Cognitive Styles. Dansereau, et al., (1974) discuss cognitive style

as a characteristic which creates boundaries on the types of learner strategies

available to individuals. Cognitive. styles are considered to be preferences

in perceptual organizing and conceptual categorizing of the environment. A

number of spetific cognitive styles have been identified. While we will not

attempt to go into the specific investigations of the relationship between

cognitive style variables and performance, it should be noted that there are

..indications that cognitive styles are a variable to.be considered in the

development of adaptive instructional methods Which match media or level of

difficulty to the learner's style. The applicability bf cognitive style

characteristics to COLX2 is presented'with one example..

Cognitive style.tests, named field dependence/field independence (Witkin,

Lewis, HertzMan, Machover, Meissnei and Wapner, 1954), measure the ability

to isolate and process simple information from a more complex informational

environment. The tests use geometric figures butseem to have correlation

with a variety of real tasks. Kennedy (1972) found field dependence to be

related to success in aviation training. The characteristic may have

applicability to the communication training required for interaction between

the"artillery control console operator and fire direction officer in TACFIRE.

Each has a separate. display of complexinformatfbn and each must isolate

information from it. The operator must isolate and'pass inforMation to the

officer and the officer must make,a decision based on that information and

his own and then pass back.an order to the operator.

23
Rece tion Preferences. Research has indicated that individuals have.

preference: -for receiving information in certain ways (Hartnett, 1973). As

with cogni ive styles; these preferences can influence the , strategies available td a scudentand'the effectiveness of the

. appl cation of an instructional

strate(gy. Reception preference characteristics'may pe related to communica1 tion training. For example, Willeges (1966) found tht when two channels of

communication, verbal and visual, were used in a team', verbal communication

i training had no effect. Reception preference may be Ithe.reason for Students

using only the visual channel and not the verbalchannel available to them.

1. [ Motivation, Sex, dna Knowledge. It should alsO be noted that

there are a number of of er individual difference variables that could

potentially influence th selectiOn and utilization. of particular learner

strategies during COLT2. Any comprehensive attempt to identify these variables

and to take them into. ac ount for COLT2 instructional strategies would have

P to include the motivation, sex and prior knowledge of ',the subjects involved

I ,

.

. in the instruction.. Each of these variables has proven to be significantly

. A related to learning outco1111 es.

, Summary. The above isubsectiona provide examples pf-student entry

1 , characteristics which may impact on',the design and manipulation of learning

. -events. The categories o learner characteristics include (1) intellectual

aptitude and availability

\of strategy skills; (2) personality variables;

(3) cognitive styles; '(4).reception pieferenceST-and (5) motivation, sex,

. 1 and prior knowledge. The research behind the variables presented indicates

. . 1

. N-. that frequently significant differences in performance and achievement are

4-,

attributable to the individual's. composite of values related to these variables.

Learner characteristics, in turn, may serve in part as the basis for

instructional design--addressing such issue as content, Sequencing, pacing,.

24

36
leVels of difficulty, or instruction medium. Within COLT2 instructional

strategies, learner characteristics also may serve as the basis for the

real - time,, dynamic manipulation of both student and learning events.

Individual Learner Strategies

The three categories of learner strategies discussed in this section

were first developed by DiVesta (1971) and maintained by Dansereau.et al.,

(1974) in .a report for the U.S._Air Force. The categories are made up of

comprehension; memory, and problem solving strategies. The remainder of

this section will deal.with each of these learner strategy categories--

attempting to define the parameters of each category and'providing a brief

summarization of the state-of-the-art for learner strategies included within

each category. A series of tables corresponding to the learner strategy

categories is included in the first interim report for this project. Each

table includes specific strategies, a summary of the research with implications

for instruction, and a list of references. The purpose of-the tables is*to

illustrate the current directiOns of individual learner strategy research.

Comprehension Strategies. Comprehension strategies relate to the

, acquisition of cognitive processes that occur during learning. Specifically,

t , ths strategies, which have received the preponderance of attention from

researchers are those which attempt to explain how the learner underatands.

AS reviewed by Densereau, considerable' research has been conducted fOr the

purpose of asceriaining'the facilitative effects of comprehension strategies

, in the instructional process. The discussion on comprehension strategies'

includes coverage of the effects of organizational . . strategies (advanced

organizers, passage organization, and post organizers); the effect of questions, notetakingrulelPresentation presentation of learning objectives,

sad reading fleibilitp
Generally, the research dealing with comprehension strategies has

progressed beyond the "basic" stage and specific implications for e9 duCational

'4 applications can either be-inferred or posited on the basis of !-,.mpirical

findings,. Many of the comprehensiOn factors which appear to have a sUbdtan- . tial impact oWstudent performanCe also have implications for the development

of educational materials. Furthermore, the dimensions of comprehension

for individuals, appear to hold for team training.

Comprehension strategies are closely associated with team awareness. For example, a number of researchers have demonstrated that students tend to

1

, organize external stimuli in consistent, Systematic\patterns(Dansereau, et

al., 1974; Cofer, 1966) In turn, the preorganization of instructional

materials to correspond with those pattern's hAs led to more efficient learning

since the student is not as dependent on rational processes. In team aware-

-- ness training, the,organizational structuring of the materials in terms of

content, sequencing, and display may be critical if the desired-learning is

to, occur.

Memory Strategies. Atkinson and Shiffrin (1968) have'argued for the

importance of strategies in determining. which information is'entered into

an&retrieved from short- and long-term storage. .These authors refer to

processes that are not perianent features of memory, but rather transient

phenomena under the:control of the subject, as control. processes: The

appearance of these processes depends on such factors as the instructional

set, the experimental task, and the past history of the subject. The purpose

of this section is to discuss specific examples of these control processes

as memory strategies, and if poAsible, to extend them into the instructional

domain.

'26
Memory strategies include the presentation of selection cues, mnemOnic

techniques, visual imagery,'"Subjective organization, memory management, and

\ retrieval. Of the learner strategies listed, the first three appear to have

direct and positive-implications for instructional . settings. Subjective

organization, memory management, and retrieval strategies, on the other.

hand, have ninf pioven, as yet, to constitute'viable operational strategies

for the development of instructional materials or for the specification of

instructional strategies.

Selection cues and the'use of mnemonic techniqUes have-always been an

integral part of Army artillery verbal communications. The TACFIRE system,

.when in-a'digital mode, converts the traditional verbal messages into visual

representations displayed on the TACFIRE CRT. Selection cues, are reflected

in the message, format but no research has been conducted to'establish the

effectiveness of the present techniques.

Problem Solving Strategies. The third category includes learner'strategies'.

,associated With problem solving techniques., This category can be further

. broken down into learner strategies associated with problems which fall into

two major types: closed-system problems-and open-system problems. Bartlett

11958) described closed-system problems as ones that are-formed in such a

way that all; the elements for solution are available and the problem solvsr

has to fill in the appropriate element. In essence, closed-system problems

are-characterized by the existence of an identifiable solution and futther,

progressitowarci this solution is usually also identifiable. Examples of'?

-closed-system problems would include anagrams, chess, logic, math problems, . concept formation, equipment repair (troqbleshooting), navigational problems,

etc.

39
In open7system problems the'problem solver must go beyond the units

immediately. given in Order to'discover a solution. Ilither the solutions

nor the progress' towards solutions are readily identifiable. Examples of

open-system problems include determining unusual uses for common objects,

creating cartoon captions and movie titles, inventing a new device or product,

Writing a term paper,

-In closed-system problem solving three distinct approaches have been

.investigated: (1) partist strategies; (2) wholist strategies; and (3)

heuristics-. Although only limited research has'been conducted on each of

these closed-system problem solving strategies, and research findings on the

subjdct are not particularly substantial,, there

......t. are implications for instruc-

.tional'Processes associated with each strategy.

'

, A-good eNample of how problem solving is related to team instructional

strategies is a "brainstorming" session. Members of a "brainstorming" group

confront open-system problems on a team basis--each individual contributing

ideas yet building, whole or in part, on the contributions of the other

megbers. A Delphi exercise is another example of team open-system problem

solying.

To illustrate team closed-system problem solving, an,excellent example

can be taken from Ar 7 artillery procedures. The most important problem

faced by artillery -ersonnel is how to accurately and effectively fire a ..- round at at. enemy. In order to resolve the

must coordInate'information and actions.

Summary. Individual learner strategy

comprehension, memory, and problem solving

problem, a number 'of individuals

categories are made'up of

strategies. Comprehension

strategies relate t the cognitive processes underlying individual learning.

Included are instructional organization, the eifect of questions, notetaking,

28"

,
rule' presentation, presentation of learning objectives, and reading flexibility.

Memory strategies relate to the entry and retrieval of information from

short- and long-term storage. Memory strategies include the presentation of

selection cues, mnemonic techniques, visual imagery, subjective organization,

memory management, and retrieval. Finally, learner strategies associated

with problem solving techniques are placed in a third category. These

strategies may further be grouped as they relate to either closed- or opensystem problems.

_The analysis of the literature that is related to learner strategies

indicates number of strategies have proven effective in the desi n of /

instructiona. -aterials. Foremost among these are material organization and

student interaction (comprehension strategies); the use of selection cues,

mnemonics, and visual imagery (memory strategies); and training nf deductive

-, and heuristic techniques (problem solving strategies). Moreover, in most

instances the strategies would appear to hold for team training environments

. as well as for the individual environments in which they have been investigated.

Computer-Assisted Instruction_Cpabilities

CAI is a set of programmed components for presenting information,

providing student interaction; monitoring student progress, a:-.d manipulating

the sequence of instruction. Instructional strategies encompassing CAI as

the delivery system .----- are distinct only in that:they reflect the functional

( capab ities of the hardware and software unique to CAI systems. \

e prime

purpose of this subsection is to briefly describe the implications fo COLT2

instructional strategies of CAI --\ systems hardware and software and to discuss

how current CAI operational modes are tied to COLT2.

Hardware and-Software Capabilities. A prime component of media hardware

f6r CAI is the presentation device. Several different types of visual

29

4,1
information may be presented depending on the system. In some systems only

alphanumeric text can be displayed, and in others, it is possible to represent

pictorials by graphics. The type and complexity of graphics may also vary.

For example, still graphics such as diagrams, graphics which have partial

movement only, or full dynamic graphics similar to animation may each be

possible depending on the system. Some systems also have the capability to

present slide or microfiche pictures. Other systUms are capable of presenting

motion pictures through computer- controlled videotape, as exemplified by

4 TICCIT developed by the MITRE Corporation or the Navy Personnel Research and

Development Center's Computer Controlled Multi-Media System (CM)2S. The

use of split screens or more than one visual presentation monitor is also

possible, such as the Computer-Based Training System developed by General

Electric Ordnance Systems or the (CM)2S system. As an example of how the

presentation media relates to COLT2 strategies, one review of team training

t(Wagner, et al., 1976) suggested the possibility of using split screens to

present information relevant to.the position being trained, as well as

information showing the trainee the status of the coordinating position.

Response devices, as part of the media hardware, also influence which

instructional strategies are possible. Typical response devices include

standard keyboards, special function keyboards, graphic writing tablets,

lightpens, touch panels, voice recognition systems, .device similar to a

track ball called a mouse, and.special adjunct console controls. The choice

of response device determines the' mode of input during the interaction of

student and system.

Because of the nature of the presentation and response devices in a

general purpose CAI system, questions of fidelity and transfer of learning

for. many tasks involving equipment operator training may arise. It should

30 -- 42
be recognized that CAI instructional strategies, such as student progress

diagnosis in real-time, pacing, adaptive instruction, feedback, and optimization, can be included in many real man-machine systems with greater fidelity

available than on general CAI systems.

Similarly, the computer software available influences instructional

strategies. Just as the current team training version or PLANIT can assist

in developing COLT2 instructional strategies, we may expect additional

software capabilities to provide for other strategies. Software capabilities

,required can also be related to computa;tional capabilities, such as those

used in optimization or adaptiv3 techniques, and control of media hardware

presentation and response devices.

CAI Modes. Table 2 presents the names of instructional strategies

found in the literature on CAI. It should be noted that several of these

names are repeated in the various categorizations of instructional strategies.

For example, drill and practice and a tutorial CAI are represented in some

way in most of the lists. Only Hickey's (1968) definitions are shown since

he has summarized most of the others.

However, while these names are termed instructional strategies, as in

the case of Hickey, they are probably more properly called modes of CAI in

that they represent purposes for which CAI may be used in the overall instructional design. For example, drill and practice may be used, as described by

Suppes (1969), to supplement the regular curriculum taught by a teacher.

The ihtroduction of concepts and new instruction is handled in a conventional

fashion by the teacher, but the computer takes the role of providing review

and practice on those concepts and new instruction. While drill and practice

represents an instructional strategy in patt, there are many more details to

consider. For example, in the Stanford program on mathematics (Suppes, Jerman

31

43
Table 2. Representative CAI Modes

Hickey (1968)

(J) Tutorial,

(a) Linear: straight line, non-individualized instruction

(b) Intrinsic: individualized, branching instruction

(c) Adaptive: instruction which uses decision-making models to make

successive decisions from instructional altegnatives to

adapt the instruction to the learner

(2) Socratic: Tutorial but allowing student to assert an answer or solution and ask for information. Similar to Suppes Dialogue mode.

Learner Controlled: Instruction allowing student to select path of

events. k (4) Simulation: Instruction whichduplicates in the learning situation

the format and sequence ofIstimulus events in the real world.

(3)

(5) GaMe: A form of simulation involving situations of competition or

conflict.

(6) Testing: Testing is viewed as an instructional strategy by Hickey

because, with CAI, techniques may be used encompassing branching,

math models, decision theory, and other decision-making proce

dures of CAI.: The testing may also be embedded in the CAI as

an:integral part.

Suppes (1969)

(1) Drill-and-Practice

(2) Tutorial

(3) Dialogue

5tolurow (1969)

(1) Problem Solving,

(2) Drill -and- Practice

e- (3) Inquiry

(4) .Simulation and Gaming

(5) Tutorial Instruction

1.,

Zinn (1967)

(1) Drill

(2) Author Controlled Tutorial

(3) Dialogue Tutorial

(4) Simulating and Gaming

(5) Retrieval and Reorganization

of Information-

(6) Problem Solving

(7) Artistic Design

(8) Composition

,

_ RodgerS:(1967)

(1) Drill

(2) Tutorial

(3) Conversational

(4) Simulated Environment

(5) Simulated Decision
and Brian, 1968), an algorithm was developed for determining mastery Df

materials and adapting the drill to a learner's state. Algorithms of this

sort can vary and, as they vary, represent differences in the instructional

strategies. In fact, it is one of the benefits of CAI that such algorithms

can be.performed in real-time with dynamic decision making about the student's

learning state and the information to be presented.

The point is that the instructional strategies represented in Table 2

are actually overall purposes which are probably better termed modes.

Instructional strategies per se are more appropriately considered to be

combinations of the CAI modes, the media characteristics, the algorithms

used as a function of the software available, the components of the instructional setting which are adjunct to the computing system, and other factors.

Finally, while the modes of CAI described above denote the general

characterization of instructional strategies in a computer-based system,

they do not specifically delineate the techniques used to achieve the goals

(direct instruction, drill, etc.). The decisions in specifying COLT2

instructional strategies are many and include content, amount and type of

student control, media selection for presentation and interaction, difficulty

levels, adjunct materials, and pacing. In short, the decisions are based on

information from each of the conceptual framework categories that have been

established. The distinct advantage of COLT2 over other instructional media

fortis is CAI can incorporate measurement and computational techniques that

can more fully integrate these dimensions and allow for more individually

oriented strategies.

The rAleasurement techniques used in CAI are in fact part of the instructional

strategies since many of the presentation variables, response modes, and

sequencing techniques, as well as student evaluation, depend heavily on the
.0`

measuring techniques used (Hansen and Johnson, 1971). In adapt ve instruction,

for example, preliminary measures sucli,as scores on personality cales,

achievement scales, and aptitude scales may be used in regression\models

(Rivers, 1972; Suppes, Fletcher and Zanotti; 1973a, 1973b1. These student

characteristics, including measures of learner strategies, are also ttr

basis for many bf the decisions in CAI instructional strategies, bothpreinstruction and.within instruction. Besides these measures, within instruction measures are usually in two forms; (1) the criterion examination, and

(2) response latencies. Another type of measure sometimes used is error

rate. Several items of importance for measurement strategies in COLT2 may

be noted at this point. -First, as pointed out by Faust (1976), very little

has been done in measuring team learning progress within instruction.

Usually only a final criterion measure is used to !asure team effectiveness%

Along these lines also, little has been done to measure specific team task

dimensions other than communications variables. Secondly, measures of team

performance do not usually have well-dained conditions for the role and

specific behavior. of each individual in relation to'the team goal.

Summary. The primary CAI capabilities which impact on COLT2 instructional

strategies may be grouped into hardware and software categories. Hardware

capabilities essentially -reflect presentation and response devices.

turn, the characteristics of both devices are delimiters of the interaction

between students and system. Software capabilities underlie. the CAI modes

available to a lesson author. and, thus, also are a factor to be accounted

for in the instructional strategy. Examples of CAI modes include drill,

tutorial, learner controlled, simulation, game, and testing. Further, COLT2

instructional strategies are based in part on the capability of the language

system to provide coordinating_ functions among team members.

34

46
A third consideration in COLT2 instructional strategies is the measurement

technique employed in the CAI.' Many of the presentation variables, response

modes, lessun sequencing, and student manipulation depend heavily on what.

information. in regard to student charatteristics and performance and what

capability exists to analyze the data. These measures are the basis for

many COLT2 instructional strategy decisions, both pre-and .within instruction.

Implications for Developing Team Instructional Strategies

As defined:by Hansen (1970), an instructional strategy is a series of 7 /

decision points which lead to the-sequencing,'Structuring and specifying Of.

learning events and activities. Variables such as media choice, content,

pacing, level of difficulty, and feedback are examples of outputs from the

decision making. Information underlying these decisions' is based on the

characteristics of (1) thetask to be learned, (2) the learner, and (3) the

instructional delivery system. In turn, ;team instructional strategies must

account for the variables representing each of thede dimensions within a context typically requiring multiperson interactione. The coordinating and

cooperative behavior present in the job must also be present in the ,training.

The first step in developing team instructional strategies is to Identify

the team tasks. Team tasks are defined by the task dimensions previously

discussed and their parameters set by the task situation (established to

emergent) and by the intra-team member structure (serial, or parallel) typically

) established for achieving the task. A cleardelineation\of tasks by content,

situation, and team structure is critical to developing effective team

instructional strategies.

Specifically, the team instruCtional_strategy must represent the job/tasks

by the team requireMents which go beyokidibe individual technical proficiency

35

47
-requirements. For example, team operations are enhanced by a thorough

...- understanding by each.team member' of the roles--authority, responsibility,

and duties--of other team members and how one's own role couples with' the

roles of other team members. Knowledge of team roles is important when the

team functions in serial and in parallel and in both established and emergent

situations. Further, effective teams are frequently characterized by compensatory behavior; 'that is, one or more team members perform tasks which are

not typically defined as their responsibility. The bases for compensatory

behavior are numerous (e.g., individual weakness, situational task overload,

equipment outages,-etc.). What is critical is that team members recognize

potential catastrophic situations,_ make correct judgments as to how they. can

contribute to the correcting of a team "malfunction" and take corrective

actions. Each of these :.,eos is dependent on team members having the skills

to evaluate their own as fe11 as other team members' performance.

Other facets of knowledge of team roles include error recognition and

analysis, formulation of i tra-team feedback, and reception and evaluation

of feedback messages. individual technical proficiency underlies each of

these facets. however, tt.' training focuses on teaching the individual how

to optimally -,pply as and knowledge within a dynamic team environment.

In addition to knowledge of team roles, team attitudes and team communication

are task dimerviiods which must be addressed by team instructional strategies.

Second, decisions regarding the structuring and sequencing of learning

events must incorporate attributes, aptitudes, and strategies related to the

individual learners who will comprise the operational team. Prior research

on learner characteristics and strategies has primarily dealt with the

individual learner working on single person tasks. Thus, as a general

statement, it can be said that further investigation should center on the

36
relationships among such variablesas team personality complexion, cognitive

styles, reception preferences, motivation, sex, and prior knowledge as

'factors which effect team information: processing, communications, decision

making, problem solving and task achievement. The desired outcome of a program of research would be a model of team composites and learner strategies

which could be matched with specific team training task requirements.

In the interest of the present project and current team training efforts,

those learner characteristics and strategies which appear to hold for team

training are important. Among these are selected comprehension, memory,

problem-solving and feedback strategies. The applicability of each to team

training has been discussed in prior subsections. It seems appropriate,

however, to provide a synopsis.

Comprehension strategies are based on the cognitive processes which

occur during learning. They are manifested in'training through-the organization of instructional materials, student interactions, and the types and

level of materials presented to the student (i.e., objectives, rules, reading

flexibility, etc.). z:d

..74L ,, There is no reason to belieVe that comprehension strategieS are less

important to team training than to individual training. On thecontrary,

they may be more critical. For example, student interaction strategies are

primarily concerned with the interface of student and material (e.g., effect

of questions, notetaking, instructional prescriptions). In team training

the student/student interface, as representative of team member interaction,

is an added critical dimension.

Memory strategies relate to the entry and retrieval of information from

short and long term memory storage. Specificstrategies related to this

procesa include the presentation of selection cues, mnemonic techniques,

37
111 . visual imagery, subjective organization, memory management and retrieval. As

stated previously, the first three strategies have the-greatest immediate

implications for training and the development of team instructional strategies.

In the development of the brassboard materials, selection cues were used

'extensively. The cues were based on the priority 'and importance of the information presented in terms of task achievement. In addition, a form of mnemonics

was employed to represent team communications. Finally, visual. imagery was

stimulated. The project team considered this strategy to be critical to

rptention of the materials (rules) to be learned and to the enhancement of

learner attitudes and motivation.

Selected closed-system problem solving strategies are applicable to

military team training problems and could effectively be represented in

learning events. For example, TACFIRE operations at the Battalion Fire Direction

Center require a dynamic interplay of partist and wholist problem solving

techniques. Partist'strategies, in the form of reception paradigms, are

appropriate tothe analysis-of TACFIRE operational messageS. In essence, the

operator entertains positive instances and selectively scans the message data

to test and enlarge on the instances. The hypothesis related to actual

combat conditions is derived. . Wholist strategies also are integral to tactical problem solving. The

Fire Direction Officer (FDO) is taught-tactical hypotheses covering a broad

range of combat situations (these hypotheses also are represented in the fire

plan). AS the battlefield scenario unfolds, the FDO constantly checks the

positive instances (actual occurrences) with his hypotheses to determine his

tactical decisions. Both partist and wholist strategies are represented. in

the training scenarios developed for the-brassboard demonstration/evaluation.

38

50
Finally,:feepback strategies are proven effective in individual training.

The most difficult aspect of implementing comprehensive feedback strategies in

. team training is differentiating individual team members' contributions to the,

team effort. COLT? offers the optimum solution to. this problem as each member

can be monitored online simultaneously to the total team evaluation and feed -`'-

back. A second major team feedback issue has not been addressed. That is,

in most team operations' there is a.'process' paradigm which yields most reliable

results. Therefore, both,process and product evaluation models need to-be

-developed in order to more-uniformly train to team activities.' Such a process

model. would have the capacity for providing corrective feedback.

In summary, there are a number of learning strategies which currently

should be considered as part of the data base from which team training is

developed. Notably excepted from this group, however, are personality

variables, many of which have served as good-predictors of performance and as a basis for prescriptive instruction. There is little research in this area

from which conclusions, regarding optional make-up or complexion of teens can

- be drawn.

Finally, tfie third dimension of the conceptual fraMeWOrkfor devleoping

,team instructional strategies encompasses the instructional delivery system

or instructional medium. For - the-present study, the medium was CAI., The

COLT2 instructiOnal.strategies accounted for the hardware and software capa-

, lalitiesipresent in.PLANIT and the operating . 1 system available. In short,

'instructional strategies are delimited by the mediuth through which the

learning is to occur. A detailed description'of the potential of the team

training version.of PLANIT. is contained in the Discussion section.

1
DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A TEAM ISD MODEL: BRASSBOARI) DEVELOPMENT'

Overview.

In developing the CAI "Brassboard", a team ISD approach was designed and

implemented. The'major components of the appr6ach included job /task analysis,

development of team learning objectives, and scenario development inclusive of

instructional strategies. In turn, each of the components was developed in a

manner that reflected the team training concepts and issues that are discussed

in the previous sections. For example,.. the job/task analysis accounts for.

team behaviors required for bath-an established and etirgent TACFIRE environmerit as well as defining each task in terms of either a-parallel or serial

operation. F er, the instructional strategies underlying the scenarios are

based on the team'fask dimensions, individual learner strategies, and PLANIT

capabilities.

The foll4ang-jsubsections discuss the ISD procedures involved in developing the brassboard and describe the materials developed..

Selection of TACFIRE Functional Area to be Analyzed

For the task of developing and demonstrating a set of systematic procedures

for conducting a team job/task and training analysis,-representative.samples

of TACFIRE operations were selected to be analyied. The following riterion

categories were established as the basis for the svlection of aTACFIRE functional area:

(1) As directed in the-statement of work, the job/task and training

analysis must be conducted for two classes of:team training (a) the mart

computer7man paradigm, and (b) the man-(noncomputer)7man setting. In selecting

an aspect of TACFIRE operations for analysis, these classifications of interaction had to be represented.

40

52
(2) The second category of selection criteria had as a basis that the

functions to be analyzed must be representative. of critical TACFIRE operations.

Within this category the following criteria were posited: (a) the function is

directly related to mission success; (b) the function is performed frequently;

and (c) the function represents a specific block of activities, i.e., has a specific beginning, end, and logical continuity throughout.

The second category of criteria was also employed by ARI in the selection

orprimary-functions for automated individual (AI) training. In that analysis

of TACFIRE doc6mentation,operation of-the system, and discussions with TACFIRE

personnel, ARI concluded that many of the functions performed at the Division

- Artillery Fire Direction Center (DivArty FDC) and the Battalion (Bn) FDC were 0-

similar. Subsequently, the Bn FDC sphere of operations was selected as the

organizational context for developing'AI training. The same sphere of operations has been identified as appropriate for the team job/task and training

analysis. The Bn FDC sphere of operations fulfills the second class of selection criteria, and there are representations of both man-computer-manand manman interactions.

. The TACFIRE Bn FDC, is operated essentially by a three man'team: the

Fire Direction Officer (FDO), the Fire Direction Sergeant (FDS) and the Communication Control Unit Operator (CCUO)r The major figures are the FDO and

FDS. In the actual selection of a function area liSr the team.jobttask and

training analysis, a major consideration . . was that the points of greatest

interaction between the FDO and the FDS were represented.. In fact, an almost

complete, overlap exists between the tasks of the FDO and the FDS in the BnFDC. The-responsibility for operations and decision making rests with the

FDO, but TACFIRE operational knowledge and skills apply to both. These points
of interaction have been identified both within the TACFIRE,docuMentation and

previousiy performed job/task analysis.

In reviewing the TACFIRE documentation and the functional areas of

responsibility of the' Bn -FM, three- primary points of interaction between the.,

FDS and the FDO emerged. These three primary points fell within the Tactical

and Technidal Fire Control Functional'area. The firsr point was conduct -of a

fire mission (FM)--processing fire missions, producing firing data, and

sxedording and reporting fire missions. The second was maintaining and updating

the. data bases-that permit tactical and technical fire direction to be accomplished. The third was system operating. messages (SYS) used to initialize and

= update the Fire Control Computer files for operation within the FDC and within

other subscribers.

For .the purpose of the team job/task and training analysis the first of

these general areas, conduct of a fire mission, was selected for analysis..

The content and procedures in conducting a fire mission are a complete entity

in themselves, as well as a culmination of the application of individual

learning that has occurred in TACFIRE training. In addition, the conduct of

fire missions represents a broad range in complexity. for team training tasks.

Specifically, the analysis focused on three job areas: (1) process FM in

Automatic Mode, (2) process FM in Manual Mode, and (3) process FM received by

Voite Communication.

Job/Task Analysis Procedures

The major questions asked in the_team job/task and training analysis

were: (1) what does a Bn FDC team look like when operating in an established

situation? and (2) whachanges7in team interactive behaviors may occur in

specific emergent situations? In order to answer these questions, as much

42

54
data on team activities and performance was obtained as, possible. The data

were based on an analysis of TACFIRE documentation prepared by the U.S. Army

Field Artillery School (USAFAS), Ft: Sill, Oklahoma, direct observation of

teams during a Command Post Exercise (CPX) at USAFAS, detailed interviews with

TACFIRE personnel at USAFAS, and a survey of TACFIRE instructors.

A detailed team job/task and training analysis Etas made of the Bn FDC

team functions. This analysis included a description of each act carried out

by team members and the sequencing of the acts. Every act of team members was

k broken down into three elements: input, the signal or stimuli that elicits,

the behavior; process, the response; and output, the signals or stimuli

resulting from the process. Each act was then linked to subsequent acts as

either a man-man interaction or a man-machine-man interaction. In this way it

... as possible to set up a team task flow' for the established situation. Figure

0 is a segment extracted from a team task flow chart.

The man-machine-man interaction is representative of two

J types of machines,

the radio and the computer, and of two types. of machine mediation. The first

type of machine mediation requires only that the machine be a.vehicle for

.transmitting data from one point to another. The radio always performs this

type of function; the'computer frequently doe. The second type of machine

mediation requires that the machine perform-a function w!):ch before its intro

Iduction was perf rmed by man or a different, and ptobably a less sophisticated,

,machine.. The function may be, for example, a cali Lion, record keeping, a

check of procedures, or even the making of a decision. Only the computer,

with its associated peripherals, can perform these funcitions. Thus, in the

job /task flowcharts the types of system programs .g., TTFC and AFU) used

for data analysis and manipulation by the computer are identified as well as if the machine mediation is solely for the data transmittal.

43

55
Sequence

Forward

Observer (FP) Voice

Radio '-' Communications ChwratorlConun.°dI

FiroDirectionScrgeant ACC FircDet:tion °Micer(FO°)

EL P OPM External

(1) I: Sights

Target

P. Determines

. Target Data

0. Enters Fire _ ..... .. - ._. Request . .--..----....471-t TTFC TTFC TTFC "AA,

..

.-"Ae

. (2) 1 I. Priority Message I. DPM Plots i Sequence Occurs i Indicator Lights Every Time a Fire i P. Presses Priority P. Checks Message (FM) Is 1 Message Switch Plot for Processed, How- t Geometry

aver Sequence I - OS, Violation' I Wilt Not Be I Repeated I

I

I ..w-"-----VO. Fire Commands (FC) on RD

0. r 6 , - - -- , --

(3) I. FR on RD I. FR on Message of

RD/ELP Interest Receive.

P. Checks for P. Checks By Fire Support

Warnings for Officer

Warnings

O. Warnings' O. Warnings'

(4) I. Hears of Warning I. Warning I. Warning

P. Reviews Warning' P. Reviews Warning P. Determine: Procedures

for Clearing Warning

. O.O. O. Directs FDS or

Coral. Op. to Take

. -- Action to

Clear Warnings

(5) I. Hears FDO Order I.. Hears FDO Order I. P. .Takes Directed P. Takes Directed P. Checks to

-. ANA, Action Actiwn

........."-----4,..-Nr"- Ensure

Clearance MIT (WARNING MUST BE CLEARED) EMIT Procedures -"AA, (BY EXTERNAL SOURZE ) -WW- Uhilized

O. Warning-Cleared O. Warning Cleared O. .4

1. If No Warning, Go To Sequence 6

Figure 1. Excerpt from Job/Task Flow Chart of Fire Mission

Processed in Automatic Mock:.

56
Ater completing'the job/task*flow charts, a task/subtask summary table

was developed for each mode of processing a fire mission (see Table_3). .The

tslf/ subtask summary tables represent major tasks and subtasks which comprise

a fire mission. Th,..s, the table identifies what tasks are exercised in each

mode of processing a fire mission and provides the following information:

(1) Team member involvement,

(2) Type of team structure (serial or parallel),

(3) Class-of interface (man-man or man-machine-man), and

(4) Task (training) dimensions.

The la$t category includes the task dimensions making up the learning

categorieA discusseq previously. Two dimensions had to be reclassified.

Probabilistic structure as

-) a communication dimension was changed to information prompting. This dimension included messages which cue other team members - that their attention and action.are required. Second, the communication

dimension'of evaluative interchange was called' information interchange and

. denoted the reception and transmission of messages containing mission related

information. An example of the former would be the message 'Fire Mission' 7

alerting all_team members to be ready. An example of the latter would be a metzage from the FDS to the FDO stating that "Charlie battery has jdst run out

of ammunition." The other communication dimensions remain the same.

In'!turni emergent situations were identified at each point of team member

interaction and possible reactions to contingencies were specified. The range

of possible solutions to contingent problems served as the basis for developing emergent team,fraining objectives as well as identifying critical training

nodes.

45

57
ca

Table 3. Example Summary Table of Team Characteristics for a

Fire Mission Processed in the Automatic Mode,

Member

Involvement

Task/Subtask

Team

Structure

lass of

Inter - ace

fi

(.1

14

Task Dimension

c a

1.0 Process Initial Fire Request

1.1 Receive Fire Request From FO

1.2 Prepare .114:RFAF Message

1.3 Take Computer Action

2.0 Process FR Message (RFAF,SUBS,FFE)

With Fire Commands

:.1 Receive FM Message

2.2 Review FM Message

2.3 Transmit Fire Commands

3,0 Process Warning Messages

3.1 Recognize Warning

' 3.2 'Determine Action to Clear Warning

3.3 Take Action to Clear Warning

4.0 Process Messages to Observer

4.1 Determine Content ,of Message

4,2 Transmit Message to,Observer

5.0 Process EOM and MFR 54 Receive EOM Data

5:2 Prepare EOM Message

5.3 Take Computer Action

5.4 Display MFR

5.5 Review MFR

5.6 Take Computer Action

6.0 Process Message Corrections

6.1 Review Message/Recognise-Error

6.2 Determine Action

6.3 Take Action

x

11=.W1...1MI gmim..m

x x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

_ _ _

59
Development of Team Training Objectives

The team training objectives were organized by task and subtask. Criterion

objectives reflect the condition and behaviors underlying the team achievement

of a task., Enabling objectives reflect the necessary subtask behaviors of

team members which, collectively, result in the accomplishment of the task.

. In deriving the enabling objectives, each subtask was examined in terms

of the team task dimensions. If the presence of a team task dimension within

a given subtask element was established, then an enabling objective was

developed to represent that dimension. Thus, each subtask element was reviewed

within the learning category/tdak dimension framework constructed during Task

1. Table 4 presents a sample of team training objectives.

,Scenario Development

The major objective LI creating the COLT2 scenarios was to develop a team

training vehicle rather than simply amuitiperson drill and practice sequence.

As a training vehicle,the scenario had to be capable of incorporating instructional"strategies reflecting the tasks and tactical situationtg, addressing

individual learner requirements, and providing for the computer,management of

all facets of the instruction including student responses. Thus, the scenarios

had to be structured to ensure flexibility at the decision points.for manipulating training resources in order to maximize performance and minimize training

time. With this objective stated, two basic assumptions were made:

1. Team training scenarios are task and environment specific in nature.

For weapon system training, the scenario must represent team member roles,

information flow, decision points, problem solving requirements, coordination

activities,,operational doctrine,, and tactical evolutions.

47

60
Table 4. xample of Fire Mission Team Objectives.

TEAM TASK

DIMENSION

CRITERION OBJECTIVES ENABLING OBJECTIVES

onfidence Team members of the Bn FDC will indicate

their trust in the ability of other members

and the TACFIRE computer to perform afire

mission in a timely and correct'manner as specified in technical manuala for TACFIRE.

For each of the tasks and subtask elements

identified in tables 3, 5,:and 7, the team

members involved will indicate their trust

in the other members and the TACFIRE com- puter to performin a timely and correct!.

manner as specified in technical manualsfor TACFIRE.

These objectives apply to tasks

1.0-6.0, including each subtask eleMeni

as applicable for both automatic and

manual modes. Conditions of the

objective include the member involvement) team structure, and class of.

interface defined on tables 3, 5; and

7.

Applies

to each

enabling

objective

isgressiveness Team members of the En FDC will indicate

willingness to initiate actions, communications, and procedures during a fire

mission when the timeliness and correct

performance. of the mission require it.

Initiative'will be indicated as; being

within the bounds of team member roles.

For 'each of the asks and subtask elements r

identified in tables 3, 5, and 7 the team

members involved will indicate willingness . to initiate actions, communications, and

procedures when the timeliness and correct

performance of the mission require /E.
2. The criticalfactors in a scenario-driven team training process

include perception and expectation about jobs, coordinated and compensating

task/team member interaction, and the priorities of mission events.

The emphases underlying both assumptions are twofold. First, there must

be adequate incorporation of team member interactions in the instructional

_____,,,strategIes=underlying-the---acenatios,---Secdirdi-the team member interactions

must be placed ina simulated tactical environment. It is believed that rich

combat representations built into the scenarios are critical to the involvement of the trainee.at more than a drill and practice level. The following

subsections on scenario sequencing and scenario structure will address the

issues in more detail.

Scenario Sequencing

In order to match the: entry level and project& ccumulative learning of

the subjects with the variety of team interactions present in a continuum of

tactical', combat situations, it was necessary to develop the scope and sequence

of.scenario presentations. In essence, this translated into, four levels of

training for the demonstration/evaluation. These levels were (1) individual

training, (2) beginning team training, (3) integrated team training, and (4)

. emergent team training. The scope and sequence reflected both the theoretical

underpinning as well as the implementation of the team ISD model, That is, it.

Was recognized in the literature that a certain level of individual competence

had to be attained before the students could effectively be trained as team

members. Secondly,; the team ISD model is in part based on the assertion that

both established and emergent situations which reflect the actuality of the

teamoperational situation. must be maintained in the training scenario. The

scope of each scenario within the training progression incorporatea.increasing

complexity in regard to team member roles, information flows, deci and

49

62
problem solving requirements; coordination activities and tactical evolutions.

The following paragraphs discuss each level of the scenario presentation.

Individual Training. As stated in the above paragraph, the project team

assumed that a minimum level. individual competence must be achieved before . -reatil-training-cAt-b-e' ffective-land-efficient. The first instructional sequence

was designed. to th- objective. The lesson included lecture/discussion=sessions

and-an individuall - oriented CAI scenario. The lecture/discussion aspect of

the instruction centered on teaching the basic operational doctrine, rules,

and guidelines to be followed by the students throughout the team instructional

sequences. Student handouts included basic definitions and explanations of

the operiptions in which they would be involved, maps and statements of the

b. rules with whiCh they would have to comply to correctly respond to various

learning events. This pre-CAI instructional event occupied approximately 20

minutes Of the demonstration/evaluation session. Upon completion of that

smpicln, the students were introduced to the first CAI lesson.' This lesson

Vvered the rules, regulations, and procedures for conducting a TACFIRE fire

mission. CAI instructional strategies included drill and practice-to criterion

levels, tutorials, individual feedback, and a debriefing session for those

subjects selected to function as a team.

Beginning -Team Training. The second sequence of scenarios comprised the

.beginning team lesson. This lesson introduced the subjects, for the first

time, to coordinated sequence drills. In addition, problem complexity routines

increased by number of missions, target spread, information flows (including

erroneous information) and team problem solving activities. The COLT2 strategies

for the beginning team lesson also included individual feedback as well as

teamrdebriefint Again, the beginning team training essentially was doctrine.

training'on TACFIRE operations, focusing on the established team roles.

50

63

0
Integrated Team Training. The third level of scenarios represented

integrated team training. The integrated team training scenarios were originally

designed to incorporate instructional strategies which related to coordination

and compensatory interactions. That is, the team members were to be presented

with multiple tasks which were, to be integrated through specific decision

--processing- -ohich-would-lea-d---to'-th-e- =allocation-of"--team resources. This ins tructional sequence was to represent the multiple mission and task operations

which in actuality characterize artillery operations. Thus, the team would

have to demonstrate both individual and team coordinated (compensatory)

behaviors throughout the lesson. The decisions base would be dynamic, primarily based on individual performances and mission-task priorities. The

operational conditions for the integrated team training scenario (e.g., equipment, personnel, logistics, etc.) were presented in a favorable tactical

evolution.

However, the difficulty of programming PLANIT to handle the complex

branching and communications required precluded the full implementation of

this scenario. In actuality,'the scenario was more individually oriented,

characterized by multiple task Presentations.

Emergent Team. Training. The final sequence of scenarios was for emergent

team training. These scenarios were designed to incorporate.all instructional

strategies previously employed--specifically emphasizing those of major com- plexity within the integrated team training scenarios. Further, the instructional strategies would incorporate operational fluctuations (positive and

negative) and combat catastrophes. Again, however, the development of the

scenarios was limited by the time frame for dealing with subjects and the

capability of PLANIT to handle the complex switching, branching, review and

communications required for intrateam manipulation of the tasks.

51
The actual instructional sequence prepared for the subjects included the

presentation of a series of four tactical situations in which decisions were

required regarding the assignment of member roles and the structuring of the

team. After the decision points were passed, a series of questions related to

--teara-member-artitudes-about the operation were asked of both team members.

Then the team members received an evaluation and assessment of the decision,

with hypothetical performance outcomes.

Scenario Structure

The scenario structure for each training level was similar. Basically,

each sequence started with a description of the tactical situation. This

included all relevant information necessary for'the FDC team to effectively

conduct a fire mission. Second, the tasks requiring student execution were

,presented. Third, there was a phaseout which presented the subjects with a

synopsis of the effects of the fire missions that they had conducted. Finally,

for each of the subject teams thke was a debriefing session. This session

includeda discussion of the individual performances throughout the fire

mission and an assessment of the overall team performance. In turn, subjects

were allowed to discuss their own role interactions and to discuss any team

problem solving strategies they may implement in future lessons.

PLANIT Implementation*

A primary objective bf this investigation was to assess the applicability.

and potential of the PLANIT system for COLT2. Under the aegis of ARI PLANIT

has been modified by Dr. Charles H. Frye of the Northwest Regional Educational

_-=

Laboratory to support team training. The team extension of PLANIT was based

*For the demons:ration, PLANIT was installed on-ARI's CDC 3300.. The installation

used 84K bytes of core memory. The remaining program was divided into 18 partitions; thus, very'heavy swapping of overlays resulted when using DIAL. CALC,

and the commonmatrix.

52,

:65
on a logical derivation of possible language requirements for teal training

without the benefit of an experience of actual implementation attempts. The

present study offered the first opportunity for determining the acvNuacy of

this initial PLANIT team training version.

The team training directives implemented in PLANIT and used in the lesson

..... .developmett of this study were: (1) a commori-lesson matrix that could be

defined; retrieved or updated (the FETCH and PUT directives, already a part of

PLANIT, are used to manipulate the coimon matrix), and (2) use of the DIAL

directive while in the CALC mode or as a CALC command in the lesson scenario.

Four team training CALconsiderations are tied to these directives. They are:

(1) storage and retthval of information related to scenario events, communications, learning events 202,nces, and student performance via the common data base, (2) initialization of lessons, (3) synchronization of team members

to scenario events, and (4) communications among 'team members. The remainder

of this subsection discusses each of these major considerations and how they

were implemented in the lessons via the PLANIT directives.

- Common Data Base. The common data base in PLANIT was adequate for

implementation of the instructional strategies; for the tracking of events,

event sequencing, and synchronization of subjects.

The use, of the common data base for these purposes involves. only a matter

of appropriate design of the matrix in PLANIT. However, if the team training

lessons of the future are to be implemented by Army instructional personnel

for example, then it may be desirable to provide commands with parameters to

set the values of a common data base indicating sequences of events, automatic

designation of terminal values, and synchronization requirements.

Initialization. The problem of initializing a common lesson base for

multiple students has been addressed in the team version of PLANIT. Frye

(1976) describes the procedures-required.
FRAME 1.00 {D}

G2. CRITERIA

C:SET MATRIX-EX-120} C:SET X {1 }= TERMINAL C:PUT X

F:@TYPE 'HI'TO CONNECT WITH THE OTHER PLAYER.

FRAME .2.00 {Q}

A HI

FRAME 3.00 {D}

G2. CRITERIA

C:FETCH X

IF X {1} EQ TERMINAL

F: NOT THERE YET. WAIT A MINUTE AND TRY AGAIN. B:2

ELSE C:SET HIMX {1} C:X {1 }TERMINAL C:X {2} =TIME C:PUT X

C:PRINT 'OK, YOU ARE LINKED WITH TERMINAL-';HIM ROUND{0}.

IF TERMINAL IS HIM C:SET MINE=3 C:SET HIS=4

ELSE C:SET MINE=4 C:SET HIS=3

In the above example, the two players will be connected to

the team scenario by both GETting the same lesson name.

Beginning with thhthird statement in.frame three; the logiE

is set up such that the most recently answering terminal

Will be identified by number'in the, first common entry, and

the time of the answer in the second entry. The item HIM.

will be the terminal number of the other player and can be

used in the DIAL command,

DIAL HIM YOU AND I ARE NOW TEAMED..

The third acid fourth entries of the common area are set up

for communicating code values, and.the items, MINE and HIS

are defined properly so that separate entries will be

assigned. MINE and HIS WoUld.be useii'frequentlY to subscript'

the. matrix X after a FETCH or betweeh a FETCH/PUT update

sequence.

The next example will perform the initial acquisition for

three team Members. This logic can be extended to as'many

members as desired. Having. acquired Allmembers,of the

team, abranch is made to another lesson where each team.

member will be in a different lesson. The common lesson

matrix will be valid for all three lessons. Each lesson

will then proceed according to the role of that particular

team member:

54
FRAME 1.00 {D.}

G2. CRITERIA

C:SET MATRIX{X,20}

IF LINK {10} NQ 0 C:PUT X CSLINK{10}=0

ELSE C:LINK{10}=1 C:FETCH X C:LINK{10}=0

IF X {1} NQ 0 FOR{I=113}

F:SORRY, ALL POSITIONS ARE TAKEN. ANOTHER TIME. C:FINISHED

ELSE F:@ARE YOU RED, YELLOW OR BLUE?

FRAME 2.00 {Q}

G3. ANSWERS.

} KEYWORD ON

A RED

B YELLOW

C BLUE

G4. ACTIONS

A C:SET COLOR =

8 C:SET COLOR=2

C C:SET COLOR=3

R:ANSWER ONE OF THE THREE OR TYPE"'FINISHED.'

FRAME 3.00 {D}

G2. CRITERIA

IF XfCOLOR1)NQ 0 F:SORRY, WE HAVE ONE OF THOSE ALREADY.

F:CHOOSE ANOTHER. B:2

ELSE C:FETCH X C:X{COLOR} =TERMINAL C:Xf19I=TERMINAL

C:X120I=TIME, C:PUT X B:5

FRAME 4.00 {Q}

G2. TEXT'

DON'T HAVE ALL THE PLAYERS YET. TYPE 'GO' AND I'LL

CHECK AGAIN.

G3. ANSWERS

A GO

FRAME 5.00 KmG2. CRITERIA

C:FETCH X

IF PROD X{I} FOR{I=1,3} EQ 0. B:4

ELSE F:OK, LET'S GO. BRED, YELLOW, BLUE: COLOR

55

68
1 In this example,, the first entry of common has the terminal

number of RED, the second has YELLOW, and the third has

BLUE. The 19th entry shows the number of the most recent

terminal to'answer and the 20th entry shows the time of the

answer.' Finally, a branch is made to one of the three

lessons., each of which presumably contains logic that pertains to a particular player.

Synchronization. During team training interactionst it is frequently

necessary to determine where each individual student is in the sequence, and,

.- depending on the instructional sequencing design, it may be desirable to stop

a student at some point while another team., member catches up or performs

another action which will influence or be dependent upon another team member.

Thus, two.important-aspects of synchronization are derived. First, it is

necessary to test for the occurrence of events or team member status in the

instructional sequence. Second, it is necessary at times to hold a team

4

membei in place. In both cases, student progress (events) must be tested in

circler to properly sequence member interactions. Several ways of testing for

events can be illustrated with examples from the lesson implemented for the

a'econstration and from examples extracted from Frye (1976).

Further, the initialization examples previously presented also showed

ins ances of synchronous operations since no player is allowed to proceed

u til all have signed into the system. Another example of synchronization,

1provided by Frye, follows. In this case no one is allowed to proceed beyond

frame 10 until all are together.

FRAME 8.00-01

G2. CRITERIA

C:FETCH X C:X{COLOR+10} =10 C:PUT X

F:THERE MAY BE A SHORT DELAY- UNTIL EVERYONE CATCHES UP.

56

69
FRAME 9.00 {D}

C:FETCH X

IFX {I} EQ 10 FOR {I = 11,13} R:11

FRAME 10.00 {Q}

G2. TEX1

TYPE 'GO'

G3. ANSWERS

A GO

64. ACTIONS

F:OK, WILL CHECK B:9

In the 'brassboard', students interactEl with the system and each other

to simulate the sequence of events comprising a fire mission. Frequently, the

FDO was required to take an action; the FDS evaluated th;lt action; the FDS

then was required to take an action himself. This required holding the FDS in

place until the FDO had taken an action and the FDS had received a communication

from the FDO stating what the action was

For example, a series of frames of the sort below wes presented. Each

required the above described sequence of responses by the FDO andFDS.

FIRE MISSION

RED THUNDER 13 THIS IS WILD HORSE

6 FIRE MISSION. INFANTRY PLATOON IN

THE OPEN, WILL ADJUST FIRE.

TGT.NO.fIS INFANTRY7.

TAKE ACTION , 1. PAGE 4. CORRECT

2. FIRE 5. PROBLEM

3. CLEAR

Each frame was seen by both team members. The FDO answered first, and his

action was communicated tc the FDS. However, his message could be transmitted

only after the FDS had received the complete display as shown. Furthermore,

the FDS could be allowed to respond only after receiving the FDO's message.

The lesson sequence to control this synchronization was as-follows:

57

70
FRAME 5.00 {D L'9EL=READY

GROUP 2

c.:FUCH ' C:X{1,111}=RESPONSE C:X{313,1} =X{31311} +1 C:PUT X

IF X{313,1} LS S {3,3,2} C:SYNC {X{313,1}

IF X{3.311} EQ X{3131F} .B:8

ELSE F.:It

FRAME 6.00 {Q}

GROUP 3

0 WAIT 5

A AZS

GROUP 4

-A F:STANDBY

FRAME 7.0U -CD,

GROUP 2

C:FETCH X 1 IF X{114,2} EQ 0 F:YOUR TEAMMATE IS GONE. B:4.5

IF X{313.1} GR X{313,2} F.I$ B:6

FRAME 8.00 ' "CANNED MESSAGE FRAME" to be oescribed in following subsection.

FRAME 8.10

GROUP 2

B:SYNC{X{31311}}

FRAME 1.00 {Q}

GROUP 2

FIRE MISSLJ

RED THUNDER 13 THIS IS WILD HORSE6

FIRE MISSION. INFANTRY PLATOON IN THE

OPEN, WILL ADJUST FIRE.

TGT. NO. IS INFANTRY 1.

TAKE ACTION

1. PAGE 4. CORRECT

2. FIRE 5. PROBLEM

3. CLEAR

GROUP. 3

I+1,

2 4 WITHIN a

GROUP 4

1 F: YOUR ANSWER IS RIGHT EVERYTIME

F: YOU RECEIVE THE FM NOTIFICATIM YOU 'PAGE'

F: TO CHECK FOR A WARNING. B:READY

2 F: THE CORRECT RESPONSE IS 'PAGE'. YOU

F: 1UST 'PAGE' THROUGH THE MESSAGE TO

F: CHECK roR A WARNING. B:READY

R: CHOOSE A NUMBER FROM THE LIST

58

'71

1_,
It-should-be-noted that in-this sequence (part of the FDO's lesson at the

beginning team level) a branch to the=frame labeled "READY" is4mide after a

legitimate response. READY is frame number 5.00. 'Its Major 'purpose is. to

increment a counter seOred'in the common matrix for tracking the FDO'S position

in the lesson and comparing it to the FDS' lesson position. Cell 3,3,1 in matrix

. . . .

. X'served this purpose for the FDO. Cell 3,3,2 was used for tracking the FDS,

and a similar frame sequence existed-in the FDS lesson. In frame 5.00, if the

FDO and FDS had been at the same point in the lesson, a branch to frame 8

would have been made to transmit a canned message. Frame'8.1 was then executed

to a branch tothe frame number. in an array "SYNC" designated by the value of,

3,3,1. If the value of 3,3,1 was less than 3,3,2, the FDS had already been

sent the message and a similar branch could be made through the array SYNC to

allow presentation of the next frame to the FDO. If neither of these two

conditions were true (3,3,1 was greater than 3,3,2) the FDS we- behind the FDO

and not ready to receive the message. In this case, frame 6.0 would be

executed to inform the FDO to standby-. Frames 6.00 and 7.00 form a standby

loop to hold the FDO until the FDS could get into proper lesson position. ti

Communications. Two forms of communicating between team members are available in the team version of PLANIT. The DIAL directive is-used for both

forts. First, team members may use DIAL to initiate, compose, and exchange

messages at the terminal. Second, messages can be wr!tten.into the lesson.

Having assigned terminal members to variable CALC.nates, targets of the

'canned' messages can be designated in the scenario. The recipient of the

message will

sender would

For the

(1) control,

see the sender's name as part of the message. However, the

not know that he is transmitting amessage'unless he is told.

COLT2 lessons, four aspects of communications were important:

(2) content. (3) timing; and (4) recording. Control relates to

59

72
which team members initiate messages and which receive messages. Content is

the subject of the message. Timing relates to when messages are sent.

Recording of messages relates to the storing of-the above three for evaluative

purposes: If the terminal oriented DIAL directive had been utilized, none of

these aspects world have to be controlled. For this initial investigation

into COL it was deb irable to have a capability for directing and storing

communications. There ore, the DIAL messages were written into the lessons. . 1 A series of five. messages representing the array of possible FDO responses

at a decision point were coded into the lesson. The message to be transmitted

to depended on the decision made by the FDO. An example of the message frame

follows:

FRAME 8.00 {P}

GROUP 2

B:M11M21M3,M4,M5;X{1,1,1}

M1:DIAL FDST I THINK 'PAGE' IS THE RIGHT ANSWER. B:TAIL

M2:DIAL FDST I THINK 'FIRE' IS THE RIGHT ANSWER. B:TAIL

M3:DIAL FDST I THINK 'CLEAR' IS THE RIGHT ANSWER. B:TAIL

M4:DIAL FDST I THINK 'CORRECT' IS THE RIGHT ANSWER. B:TAIL

M5: DIAL FDST I DO NOT KNOW RIGHT ACTION, YOU CHOOSE.

TAIL:

Prior to reaching this frame in the lesspn, the value of cell 1,1,1 in

the common matrix was set to a value determining which message (M1, M2, M3,

M4, MS) was to be sent to the FDS terminal (FDST) by the FDO. The event value

determining the message in-this case was the action, selected by number, to be

taken in the fire mission. X(1,1,1) was therefore set to the value of the

_ PLANIT priultiVe response. The conditional brar-L4 statement in line 1 Group

2, Frame 8, above therefore selects the message to be sent to the FDS appropriate to theFDO's action. This capability of PLA.taT to select the particular

message is pro .bly adequate for most purposes where the message sequences are

pre-prepared as part of the lesson data base.

60

'73
BRASSBOARD DEMONSTRATION/EVALUATION

The purpose of the brassboard demonstration/evaluation was twofold.

First, an assessment of the instructional strategies sampled in the scenario

was accomplished. The output of this aspect of the study is (1) areport of

the-findings, and (2) research recommenda*ions for instructional strategy,

scenario, and,job/task analysis issues which remain unaddressed. The second

function served by the "pilot study" was the assessment of the applicability

of the PLANIT language for team training. The output of this facet of the

study is a set of recommendations for PLANIT language extensions necessary for

a full team training capability. The remainder of this section will contain a

description of the brassboard demonstration /evaluation implementation procedures and the findings of the study. The following section provides a more

detailed discussion of the implications of the findings.

Subjects

The subjects were 40 Army enlisted men from commands in the Washington

area. The ranks of the subjects ranged from E-3 to E-7, with more than 75

percent of the subjects; being E-4's or E-5's. A variety of military occupational specialties (MOS) were represented. However, a majority of subject

MOS's were related to administrative and clerical jobs. Table 5 presents a

summary of other characteristics of the subjects.

61
Table 5. Summary of Subject Characteristics

Variable Mean S.D.

Age

041. 25.3 4.1

(-- Years in Service 5.3 4.2

Educational Level 13.0 (years) 1,4

GT 114.8 11.4

Design

The demonstration/evaluation was conducted in four seeps. During the

initial step,. subject biographical data was collected, and two individual

difference scales were administered. These scales were the

(Rotter, 1966) for assessing locusvof control and the A-Trait. -lectn of the

State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (Spielberger, Gorsuch and.lie, ID). After

completing,these scales, students were assigned to work thisb. tire Libsequent

instructional materials on either a team or an individualsle, 'ais assignment was conducted on a random basis. Additionally, team were assigned

roles; that is, they were selected to undergo thr instruction ether as a fire.

direction officer or as afire direction sergeant. Again, the assignment of

roles was conducted on a rand= basis.

"yep 2 involved presenting the subjects with prelimillary background

information regarding subsequent .tAsks that they would be performing. Primarly, this lcoon taus:: !: the subjects how toconduct the basic fire. mission..

The instruction was lecturetdiscusson with students having handouts and

exercises- to work through. Upon completion of this phase of Step 2, the

ubSects were introduced to their first computer-assisted instruction lessc.

The first lesson was in&-vidually based, with all subjects going through

62.

75
identical information sequences with no coordinated (team) al7.tivities required.

At the conclusion of this lesson, the subjects took a 15 itm test presented by

the computer.

After subjects had been familiarized with the procedufee for conducting a fire mission, the team began work on their first coordinatee instructional

task. The raSic team task requirements were identical for 911 teams and

consisted of sequences of increasingly complex fire mfesi. The sui,Jects

operating in an individual mode were /}resented with the'same materiJ4s that

were presented to the teams. However, subjects were not requi;:od tk., coordinate

their activities with another team member. There were 39 stud,:.::. *, 7:xecutions

(decisions) required in this lesson. At each execution point, subjects were

required to make a procedural response within a tactical fire mission context.

During the lesson individual feedback was.presented A. subjects. At the

conclusion, the teams were debriefed and allowed co d:,9,cuss role assignments,

,-and team interactions.

Step 3 focused on the integrated team lessons. As stated in the prior,

section, the integrated team materials were not-. presented to the subjects in

the manner in which originally designed becaus:: T.,t the software limitations.

Originally, the integrated team lesson was to confrott the team leader and the

other team member with a continuum of tactical role assignment decisions.

After each decision, to be made either individually by the team leader or in

concert with his fellow team member, specific tasks had to be performed by the

team members. At the conclusion of each set of tasks, a new tactical situation

would arise where multiple tasks again would have to be integrated and team

resources allocated. In actuality, the lessons did not include the decision

making properties. There-were a combination of tasks to be performed, but

events were sequenced by the lesson rather than the learner. The only difference

63
in strategies between the team and individual subjects was the fact that at

certain points throughout the instruction, the teams were coordinated and did

receive team feedback on performance.

, The last phase consisted of the emergent team lessons. T4e materials

were presented as described in the prior section. Primarily, they constituted

a series of tactical situations in which specific artillery fire mission

problems were presented. At each of these decision points, both the FDO and

FDS were allowed to respond as to what action they would take to resolve the

problem. In the team environment, however, the decision made by the FDO was

the one that counted. After each decision was made, both team and individu4

subjects were presented with a series of questions relating to their confidence

in the decision, role assignment, and projected team performance.

At all steps drill, problem Lomplexity in sequencing, and feedback strategies were similar. The teams, however, were working through coordinated

sequence drills; whereas, individuals were,not. Another major difference was

that team debriefings were more extensive, with team members being apprised of

each other's scores and having the opportunity to discuss future role assignments.

Measures

Basically, three categories of measures were collected: (1) entry

behaviors, (2) performance ratings, and (3) attitudes. Entry behaviors

included the variables of age, years in service, educational level, GT, military occupational speciality; rank, stress anxiety, and locus of control.

Locus of control was assessed by means of the Rotter I-E scale. Locus of

control is a theoretical construct that refers to the degree to which individuals

believe -that reinforcement is either directly contingent upon their own behaviors

64

71_
. , or. independent of them and attributable mostly tobelief is ascribed to people at the internal ead of the locus of control

continuum and indicated by low scores on the Rotter I-E scale. Individuals

with high scores are at the external end of the locus of control continuum.

There were two reasons for selecting locus of control as an individual

difference variable in the present research. First, the available evidence

indicates that locus of control is sufficie consistent and powerful in its

effects upon behavior to justify its use as a basis for selection of team

members. Second, although research findings regard,the influences of locus of

control on classroom behavior and achievement -

1 as equivocal, where significant

differences have been attained, higher achievement generally tends to be

positively correlatt.d to an internal orientation, particularly under learner

control methods. (Daniels and Stevens, 1976; Nord, Connelly and Daignault, 1974).

Considering that the instructional task investigated in this study is computer

based and has a potential for allowing students an extensive amount of individual

control, it was reasoned that locus of control could serve as a meaningful

predictor of task achievement.

The second individual difference scale employed in this study was the

trait anxiety scale developed by Spielberger. The state-trait anxiety theory

as formulated by Spielberger (1966) emphasizes the practical and theoretical

importance of differentiating between anxiety as a relatively stable, generalized

personality trait and as a situationally dependent state or condition that

varies in intensity over time. The subsequent development of the state-trait

inventory (Spielberger, et al., 1970) was intended to establish a means for

characterizing individuals in terms of both dimensions. These types of findings

have definite value from the standpoint of allowing one to forecast with

reasonable accuracy how students tend to react to stressful stimuli over time

in a variety of situations.

65

78
On the-basis=of=the,Trevious research,-the following judgments were made

concerning tae role of anxiety variables in the present investigation.

1. The available literature on anxiety provides a strong empirical and

theoretical rationale for using a trait anxiety.variable as a basis fb

dicting student performance under differing modes of instruction (e.g. am

vs. individual).

2. With regard to the use of trait anxiety as.a predictor variable, it

was assumed that some students would find the coordinated structural activities

significantly more stressful than would others. Anxiety theories suggest that.

the probable consequences of such reactions would be greater distractibility

during acquisition and lower performance on the final test. It was therefore

reasoned that anxiety variables would provide a useful basis for selecting and

refining instructional strategies, particularly given team and individual

instructional sequencing.

Performance Measures. Within each instructional lesson, performance

scores were collected. At the conclusion of the individual lesson, there was

a 15 item quiz. During the beginning team lesson, there were 39 decision

points with student response data being collected at each point. Student

performance on the integrated lesson was evaluated at decision points within

fire missions and by a second criterion quiz of 10 items. Finally, in the

emergent team lesson, there were four decision points about which student

responses were collected. Response time was kept, but it was more a measure

of machine response time than student reaction.

Attitude Measures. Attitude measures were collected only during the

integrated team lesson. These took the form of seven confidence and role

assignment r( ated items which were administered subsequent to each "tactical

_ _decision_being made.

66

79
Findings

Means and standard deviations for subject characteristics, individual

difference scales, and performance scores are presented in Table 6 by total

group, team FDO, team FDS, and the individual instruction subjects (IND).

Although the subjects were randomly assignee to groups there were significant

differences between groups in regard to some variables.' The FDO group had

approximately one-half year more of education (X = 13.31) than did the FDS

group (X = 12:75) and the IND group a = 12.75). The t value for both differences is 6.098,-p > .001. The GT score for the FDO group was significantly

greater (t = 6.936, p > .001) than the FDS GT, which in turn was significantly

higher (t = 8.113, p > .01) than the GT score for IND.

There were also significant differences between groups for the two

individual difference scales. The FDS T-anxiety rating was greater than both

the FDO (t = 15.856, p > .01) and the IND (t = 13.079, p > .01) groups. There

was no difference on the T-anxiety rating between FDO and IND subjects. The

Rotter results.were similar to the T-anxiety scores; that is, the FDS ratirtg

was significantly higher than the scores for FDO (t = 4.190, p > .01) and the

IND (t = 2.851, p > .01) groups. Thus, the.FDS group was characterized as

demonstrating a higher level of Trait anxiety and a greater tendency toward an

external locus of control.

On initial 'performance, a 15-item quiz concluding the individual CAL

lesson (see Ind. Score in lable 6), the FDO group scored significantly higher

than the FDS (t = 14.286, p .001) and the IND (t = 12.806, p > .01) groups.

Both PDS and IND groups ma.:e sfp,nificant gains in their scores on the beginning

team measures. During that lesstn, FDS subjects were coordinating their

responses with the FDO subjects. IND subjects received the same instructional

materials but were operating alone. In the integrated lesson, FDS and FDO

67

80
Table 6. Means and Standard Deviations for Independent Variables and Performance Scores ' X Total (W-40) -(S.D.) FDOX ' (N=16) (S.D.) FDSX (N=16) (S.D.) INDX (N=8) (S.D.) Years In Serv. 5.33 (4.19) 5.63, (4.52) 3.75 (3.28) 7.88 (6.21) Educ. Level 12.98 (1.39) 13.31 (1.35) 12.75 (1.34) 12.75 (1.63) GT 1141.77 (11.41) 117.93 (13.53) 114.58 (6.49) 109.12 (14.05) Anxiety 34.28 (6.73) 32.56 (6.34) .37.19 (6.45) 31.88 (6.74) Dotter 6.64 (4.44) 6.25 (5.13) 7.13 (3.96). 6.42 (4.12) Ind. Score 0.77 (0.18) 0.83 (0.14) 0.73 (0.17) 0.72 (0.20) Beg. Score 0.82 (0.10) 0.83 (0.10) 0.83 (0.07) 0.79 (0:13) Int. Score 0.76 (0.22) 0.78 (0.23) 0.71 (0.24) - 0.79 (0.15) Int-1 Score 0.72 (0.22) 0.77 (0.22) 0.66 (0.25) 0.73 (0.15) Int-2 Score 0.77 (0_21) 0.80 (0.22) 0.75 (0.24) 0.76 (0.14)
scores dropped while the IND scores were maintained at the same levelfas the

beginning team lesson scores. The only group to significantly increase its

score from the individual lesson to the integrated lesson was the IND (t,=

2.083, p > .05). In fact, both FDO and FDS scores dropped from the individual

lesson to the integrated lesson.

Figure 2'illustrates the performance of the groups. It is interesting

to note that the coordinated training.prebented to the team subjects in the

beginning lessons did not seem to'increase their individual skills substantially.

As,each set of lesson materials was gauged to be more difficult, it cannot be

stated absolutely that the team training had no effect on individual proficiency.

The ckmparison of FD and FDS performance with IND is dramatic, however. The

continuous individual training appears to lend itself to systematic performance

increments. On the other hand, coordinated behavior apparently leads to

better achievement on specific established tasks, but both FDO and FDS subjects

85

Fi

g 80 0

or.1

I 75

0

C/3 70

/

/

IND

/

os /

S

01- L

FDO

FDS

INDIVIDUAL BEGINNING

LESSON LESSON

Figure 2, Lesson Performance By Group

69

82

INTEGRATED

LESSON
demonstrated substantial performance decrements on subsequent 'individuallyoriented tasks. The findings, limited in their inferential power behause of

the small number of subjects and the anecdotal nature of the evaluation,

indicate that there are differences between the effectiveness of team and

individual instruction in regard to what types of behaviors are being learned.

In addition to performance scores, lesson completion times"were collected.

Table 7 presents the means of these times by group.

;Table 7/ Mean Times (minutes) For Lesson Completion

All Subjects. FDO FDS IND

Ind. Lesson -27.93 26.28 27.00

Beg. Lesson 54.81 54.81 24,.51 /

Int. Lesson 21.45 19.02 19.56

As can be-seen in Table 7, the only substantial difference among the groups

occurs in the beginning team lesson. During this lesson the FDO and FDS

subjects were working on coordinated events; the IND subjects were working in

an individual mode. The.magnitude of the differences between the team and

individual modes is in part due to current software limitations,of PLANIT.

In fact, there was an appred.able difference between mean completion times

depending on whether one team:or two teams were operating. The mean completion time for the' former situation was 44.46 (high = 49.29, low = 41.64);

for the latter it was 59.97 (high = 63.66, low = 54.03). In short, although

an increase in mean completion time was expected for the teams, the magnitude

1. of the reported difference is not due solely to the nature of_the coordinated

activity.

7083
Correlational Analysis. The correlation coefficients and significance

levels for the independent variables and performance scores are presented in

Table 8. .Five independent measures and three performance scores are represented

in the matrix.

Of the five independent variables, GT correlated more highly and more

consistently with task performance than did any of the other variables.

Rotter correlated significantly (r = .34, p = .016) with the individual

lesson score but the correlation coefficient diminished over the other two

lessons. The same was true of educational level. This variable had a

relatively high correlation with the individual lesson score (r = .43, p =

.003); then dropped appreciably in magnitude and had a direction change. As

was expected, anxiety negatively correlated with all task performance measures. In addition to product moment analysis, stepwise regressions were run

against the dependent variables of individual lesson score and beginning

lesson score (see Tables 9 and 10). The independent variables regressed

against individual lesson score were years in service, educational level, GT,

anxiety, and Rotter. The beginning lesson score regression also included the

individual lesson score as an independent variable.

As can be seen in Table 9, the multiple correlation-coefficients are reasonably substantial for 4.1 three groups. The order and magnitude of the

independent variables change across groups, however. For FDO and IND, Rotter

and GT account for the preponderance of the explained variance. For FDS, the

two variables contribute substantially less to the multiple R.

The regression against the beginning team score also resulted in substan

tially high multiple correlation coefficients. What is interesting, is the

:-omparison of the two regressions. As anticipated, the order and magnitude

ofthe independent variables for both IND regressions are similar. Rotter

71 84
Table 8, Correlation Coefficients and Significance Levels for

Independent Variables and Performance Scores*

006

,Educ.

Level

007 GT

008

Anxiety

009 Rotter

Scale

'010 Ind Score

012

Beg

Score

016 Int Score

,

\ 005 Years in Service

, -.16 (.156) -.17 (.167) -.12 (.231)

, , -,27.

(.045) -.04 (.403) .22 (.089) -.09 (.304

006 Educ, Level 1,000 .15 (.198) -.18 (.133) .28 (0.43) .43 (.003)' -.06 (.350) .07 (.324)

007 GT . 1.000

3 -,28 (.054). .31 (.036) .21 (.109) .42 (.006) .35 (.021)

008 Anxiety

1 1.000 -.35 (.014) -.21 (.095) -.16(.166) -.20 (.117)

009 Rotter

.34 (.016) ;16 (.159) .09 ( 306)

010 Ind. Score

., . 1i0 .28 (.039) .28 (.04)

. 012 Beg, Score

.

1.000 ,29 (.041)

*Figures in brackets' are levels of significance

85

c. 86
Table 9. Summary of Stepwise Regression,

Dependent Variable: Individual

Lesson Score

Variable Multiple R R2 R2. Change Simple R B Beta

Group: FDO

Rotter .50 .25 25 .50 .02 .06

GT .56 .31 6 .46 .01 .08

Education .58 .33 2 .03 -.53 -.33

Years in Service .59 .35 1 -.33 -.26 -.53

Anxiety .65 .43 8 -.39 -.17 -.50

Group: FDS

. Education- .68 .46 46' .68 1.26 .re. GT .70 .49 3 . .27 .08 .19

Rotter .70 .49 0 .07 -.04 -.06

Group: IND

Rotter .73 .53 53 -.73 .82 1.01

GT .83 - .6(.' 16 .36 .13 -.47

Years in"Servi.ce ,88 .77 8 .08 -.20 -.35

Anxiety ..91 .82 5 -.34 .14 .29

Education ::91 .83 0 .45 .16 .07

73

87

.

.
Table 10. Summary of Stepwise Regresson.

Dependent Variable: Beginning

Lesson Score

Variable Multiple R R

2 R2 Change Simple R Beta

Group: FDO

GT .56 .31 31 .12 ' .41

Education .61 .37 . 7 -.J.F -.96 -.32

Anxiety -. .67 .44 7 7.53 -.23 -.37

Ind. Score .68 .46 2 .18 .7.34 -.18

Rotter .68 .46 0 .22 16 .08

Group: FDS

GT .46 .21 21 .46 .20 .51'

Rotter .59' .35 14 -.29 7.'74 -.38

Education .66 .43 8 -.26 :7.95 -.54

Ind. Score .71 .51 8 .13 .36 .39

Anxiety .72 .52 1 .13 -.05 -.12

Group: IND

Rotter .58 .34 34 .58 .63 .45

Anxiety .60 .36 '3 -.20 .T3 .15

GT .61 .37 1 .12 .11 .22

Ind. ScOre -62. .39 2 .48 .57 .33

Education .63 .40 .18 7.41 -.11

74.

88
and GT consistently account fo5 the multiple R. The only difference in order

is the introduction of aftife4 as contributing more to the explained variance

than GT for the beginning team score. The magnitude of all independent

variables is less in the second regression. As stated earlier, the similarity

in the ordering of the independent variables was expected as IND subjects

were working in a similar mode during both lessons.

On the other hand, the FDO and FDS subjects were working in a coordinated

task environment during the beginning team lesson. As one cal see, in comparing the regressions for these groups the order and magnitude of the predictor

variables changes significantly from individual lesson to beginning lesson.

In fact, the order is nearly reversed. For example, the )riencat:on measure

*(Rotter) was ordered first for the FDO individual lesson scorn. For the FDO

beginning lesson score it was ordered last. The R2 contributi, chanted from

.25 to O. In additiOm, GT and Rotter accounted for only 3% of the R2 for

the FDS individual lesson score: -Yor the FDS beginning ;,.care, the con.:ribution

of these two. variables increased to 35%.

In short, there appears to be little stability among independent variables

for explaining variance in scores between individual and team contex,o. It

should be noted, however, that the analyses were based on the individual

characteristics of the 'team members. The composite of the teams Was not

identified and used as an independent variable. It may well be that by

analyzing combinations of member characteristics, more systematic exp'!anations

of task Performance could be derived.

0. Role Perception and Attitudinal Measures. Data collected during the

emergent team lesson included subject responses to four tactical scenario

situations. In each of the four cases, the FDO, FDS, and IND subjects were,

required to make a decision regarding how they would structure the team in

75 (,=7"

89
order tc perform the task involved in the scenario. In regard to'the IND

subjects, the decision-making process itself was artificial in that the

individual team member had neither worked in a team mode during any of the

previous lessons nor would be working with another individual during the

emery; at team lesson. After each decision was made, subjects were administered

seven items which related ,to their confidence in the decisions and their

percepti s of the roles of the team members.

1_ Table 11 presents the distribution of decision responses by FDO, FDS and

IND. In all cases, once the decision was made subjects received hypothetical

feedback reporting the efficacy of the decision that they had made. As can

be seen in Table 11, the three responses available to the subjects were (1)

to totally delegate at least one of the tasks to the FDS, (2) to delegate

tasks to the FDS but provide monitoring, and (3) not to delegate any tasks to

the FDS. In each case, there was a preferred response, an acceptable response

and a wrong response. The rating of the responses was based on the complexity

of the task situation and the criticality of the combat evolution.

The purpose of the lesson was to see how well the subjects, particularly

FDO, responded to emergent tactical situations. In prior lessons, the scenarios

had evolved, in essence, frame by frame with each combat situation building

from prior events. In the emergent team lesson, the subjects were presented

with a total picture and the parameters of particular combat situations.

Also, the lesson allowed the project team to investigate the impact of a

direct team feedback message. That is, in the past the team members were

able to follow the performance of each other in terms of their error rates

and time for responses as well as receiving team debriefings. In the emergent

CC

team lesson the feedback message only had to deal with a hypOthetical outcome

to a tactical decision. A thikd objective of the lesson was to collect data

76

90
Table 11. Distribution of Decision Responses

in Emergent Team Lesson

Delegate Del/Monitor Not Delegate

1st Decision

FDO 3* 6** 1 FDS 1* 8** 1

IND 1* 5** 0

2nd Decision

FDO 1** 6* 3

"FDS 1** 7* 2

IND 2** 2* 2

3rd Decision

FD0 4** 3* 3

FDS 3**, 5* '2 IND 2 * *. 1* 3

4th Decision

FDO 3** 5* 2

FDS 3** 3* 4

IND 5** 1

*Acceptable Response

**Preferred Response

77

91
from the individual team members in regards to their confidence in the

abilities of their teammates and regarding the perceptionof their roles

within the team context.

As can be seen in Table 11, the preferred response to the first decision

was to delegate responsibility and continue to monitor the performance of the

FDS. .The preponderance of all subject groups selected this response. For

the remainder of the decisions, the preferred response was to. totally delegate

at least some task. comprising team mission. The feedback messages .related to

each of the decision choices were as follows: (1) for the preferred response,

the.feedback message in essence stated that the team.had performed success-

. fully and achieved their mission; (2) for the acceptable response, the feedback message stated that the team was partially successful in achieving their

mission; and (3) for the wrong response, the team was told that it had failed

to achieve its mission. Each of the feedback messages were more elaborate,

and the feedback was constructive in,that it explained the basis for the -

decisions as well as the feedback message.- It is interesting to note in

.Table 11 that after the second decision when the delegate/ monitor response

was giving only a partially successful score, a number of the subjects began

to switch and search for the more appropriate response. However, except for

. the individual Subjects, there was a continuing dependence on the delegate/

mnitor response throughout each of the spenarios.

The responses to the seven Confidence and role perception items were on

a five point scale. Table 12 contains the resvonse means and standard

deviations for the confidence and role perception items. The seven items

were as follows:

78

92
Table 12. Means and Standard Deviations For Confidence

and Role Perception Item Responses.

Variable

Name

FDO

X (S.D.) X

FDS

(S.D.)

IND

X (S.D.)

CONFID-1 4.00 (.94) 4.20

e (..92) 3.75 ( .96)

CONFID-2 4.00- (.82) 3.50 (1.18 3.75 ( .96)

CONFID-3 4.20 (.79) 3.50 (1.35) 2.75 ( .96)

CONFID-4 3.80 (.79) 3.50 (1.08) 2.00 (0.00)

DISCUSS-1 .4.00 (.94) 4.10 (1.10) 4.25 ( .96)

FDOCON-1 3.70 (.68) 3.90 (1.29) 3.75 ( .96)

FDSCON-1 3.50 (.85) 3.80 (1.03) 4.25 ( .96)

COMPCON-1 4.50 (.707) 3.90 ( .99) 4.75 ( .50)

MISDEP-1 4.50 (.85) 4.20 (1.69) 3.00 (1.41)

FDO>FDS-1 3.00 (.82) 3.40 ( .70) 3.25 (1.26)

79

93

17
1. How confident are you in the FDO's decision? (CONFID-1,2,3,4)

2. Would you have preferred to discuss the decision with the FDO before

it was made?-.(DISCUSS-1)

3. Should the FDO conduct fire vissions' (FD060N-1)

4. Should the FDS conduct fire missions? (FDSCON-1)

5. Should the most competent team member conduct the fire missions? (COMPC

Who conducts the fire missions should be dependent upon the situation.

and the team mission. (MISDEP=1)

7. The FDO is better than the FDS at conducting fire missions. (FDO > FDSOverall, the responses led to few insights regarding individual behaviors

within the team context and perceptions of the roles'of the individuals. The

FDO subjects demonstrated a slightly greater confidence in the decisions that

they made than did the FDS subjects. Perhaps more important was that two

items which received high scores were 5 and 6. Thus, both team members

perceive that the structuring of the team should be based on both the competence

of the individual team members as well as the characteristics of the overall

team mission.

No measures were taken of the individual member's attitudes towards the

lesSons themselves: However, it should be noted that throughout the experimental sessions, subjects frequently commented on how interesting. the lessons

were. It was Also noted by the project team that during thedebriefing

sessions, subjects took the problem seriously and quickly began to talk and

behave towards one another as if they were woriing in an actual artillery

combat environment.. In short, the richness of the scenario seems to accomplish

its objective'of getting the subjects immersed in the training situation.

80

94
DISCUSSION

Major Team Issues

As posited in section two, there are three major team issues which

should be considered in the development of a program of team training or team

training research. These issues are team definition, conceptual team models,

and team structure. Clearly definition criteria for categorizing multiperson operations must be established. For the present study, the criteria

include (1) rigid structure, organization, and communication networks, (2)

anticipation of an individual's task participation, and (3) cooperation and

coordination: Thi. definition distinguished the team_from a small group and

froM individuals performing individual tasks in a group context.

The issue of conceptual team models is based on the situational context

in which team behaviors occur. Prior researchindicat&-'that the situational

context is a continuum stretching between end points which may be described

as established or emergent. Team operations, characteristically, cannot be

ascribed to any one point along this continuum. On the contrary, the situational context of team task performance will fluctuate all along the Continuum.

For trainineanalysis, it is important to identify the critical fluctuations

and to represent these in the team instructional strategies.

Team structure, serial or parallel, drives the types of team member

interaction required in the performance of team tasks. Thus, the identificatiOn of the form of the team structure at each task mode is a vital input to

the design' f training events and to the development of team instructional

strategies. Both serial and parallel structured events occur within the

situational continuum.

In summary, these issues point out that team operations are.comprised of

a number of dimensions: the defined interrelationship of the members, the

81

95
team mission and tasks to be performed, the structure of the team vis-a-vis

tasks, and environmental conditions. In the development of a training program,

a job/task and training analysis that will yield the required information

regafding each of these elements should be employed. In the design of a

research program, each of these considerations must be weighed against the

established purpose of the research. As can be seen, these major issues havg

driven the methodologies for achieving the stated project tasks.

A Conceptual Framework for COLT2 Instructional Strategies

The conceptual framework Is based on the definition of an instructional

strategy as the product of a series of decisions which lead to, the sequencing,

. structuring and specifying of learning events and activities. It was concluded

that the information. underlying these decisions is related to the characteristics of (1) the task to be learned, (-2) the learner, and (3) instructional

delivery system. In turn, team instructional strategies must account for the

variables representing each of these dimensions within a context typically

requiring multi - person interactions. That is, the coordinating and cooperative

behavior present in the job must also be present in, the' training.

F From the team task dimensions identified in the literature and through

interviews with team training instructors, three categories oeteam learning

were developed to serve as a link between team job/task analysis, team training objectives and team instructional strategies. The three learning categories

were knowledge of team roles, team attitudes, and team_communibations. Each

of the categories are discussed in greater detail' in section three. It

sh uld be noted, however, that these three learning categories were derived

ytically and.haVe not been empirically tested.

, . Learner characteristics and strategies which are described and discussed

in this report were limited to those related to individual behavior. 'Emphasis

82
was given to characteristics which impact on the ability of the student to

process information, communicate, make decisions and to solve problems in a coordinated task environment. In terms of individual learner strategies,

three categories were discussed in section three. The categories were made

up of comprehension, memory, and problem-solving strategies.

Both learner characteristics and strategies may be used as the basis for

COLT2 instructional strategies.in the form of preprogrammed decisions for

teaching. PreprogramMed decisions frequently are a function of projected

trait or entry attributes. To some extent, consideration of state characteristics such as the performance on the last task or the current state of

anxiety departs from the concept of entry behavior description because these

measures may be used as dynamic indicators of a learner's state. Learner

characteristics and strategies, however, to be relevant to COLT2 must allow

for analysis of learner characteristics which will be used in designing

instructional strategies and those which will be used in the instructional

manipulations in a real-time, dynamic, interactive mode.

The third dimension of the conceptual framework focused on the capability

of the instructional medium, CAI. COLT2 instructional strategies will reflect

hardware and software capabilities present in the selected CAI system and the

operating system available. In short, instructional strategies are delimited

by the medium through which the learning is to occur.

The conceptual framework served well as an organizer of the instructional

strategy data base. However, there are two deficiencies in the framework.

First, the data base does not encompass theoretical and empirical knowledge

related to small group behavior which may be applicable to team training.

instructional strategies. Most important among these would be the process

paradigms reflecting the different types of contextually related interpersonal

83

97 .
relationships. Identification of these processes may significantly contribute

to the development of evaluation paradigms as part of an instructional system

development model for team training. Secondly, while -the conceptual framework served well for organizing the data base, it lacked procedural guidelines

for translating the data into-actual instructional strategies for specific

TACFIRE team training problems.

Implementation of a Team ISD Model

Section four contains a description of the design and implementation of

the team ISD model for the purpose of the brassboard development. The major

componentsof the approach included job/task analysis, development of team

learning objectives, and scenario development inclusive of instructional

strategies.

The team ISD model employed in this project has notable strengths and,

weaknesses. Foremost among its strengths was the efficacy of implementing

the jab task and training analysis. The 'analysis methodology based primarily

on the work of Glanzer .(1961)-yielded the discrete tasks comprising the

'TACFIRE fire mission with both, situational context and team structure. dimensions identified.. The job/task.flowcharts developed from this analysis also

proved exceptionally efficient as vehicles for translating the job/task and

training analysis into training scenarios reflecting not only the task to be

performed but also the environmental conditions to be simulated.

The weaknesses of theteam ISD model were in two directly related areas.

First, a distinct deficiency of the model was revealed in the fOrmulation'of

team'learning objectives. The model'lacks the methodology for preparing

terminal and enabling objectives andanslyzing the objectives by learning

category. This deficiency is also related to the lack of evaluation procedures

84
in the model. More specifically, evaluation of the member acquisition of

team skills (i.e.; coordinating and cooperative behaviors) is not present.

In summary, the'iSD model offers a sound base for developing team

instructional strategies and team training. However, the model is not suf-

. ficiently detailed to lend itself as an operational or procedural, guide for

the general production of team training curricula.

PLANIT Implementation

The PLANIT implementation was described in terms of the team training

I

considerations of. (1) storage and retrieval of information related to scenario

events, communications," learning events sequences, and student performance . via the common data base, (2) initialization ' of lessons, (3) synchronization

of team members to scenario events, and (4) communications among team mem=

bers. Section four describes how these team CAI considerations were matched

with the PLANIT team training directives in the development of the team

training brassboard. The present discussion will emphasize the problems

encountered in the development of the brassboard and potential enhancements

of the PLANIT team training version. Among the proposed enhancements will be

some considerations for authoring capabilities.

The common data base implemented in PLANIT was adequate flprogramMing

the instructional strategies, tracking of. events, and synchronization of the

subjects to scenario events. The use of the common data base for these

purposes involved only a matter of appropriate design of the matrix in PLANIT.

/However, if team training lessons in the future are to be implemented by Army y

. . instructional personnel, then it may be desirable.to provide CCADIMarleA with

parameters to set the values of the common data base indicating sequences of

events, automatic designation of terminal values, and .synchronization require;-

ments. It is recognized that to make the matrix a primitive would consume

85

99
space and likely add unwanted constraints on author flexibility. However, if

the lesson can be designed and coded by an instructor, time savings and cost

effectiveness could be realized. One possibility, far example, might be that

the author could designate a directive HOLD with parameters indiCating the

frame labels on which.a team member might be held. A HOLD directive parameter

would also have t6 designate the other team members with which the holding

action would be compared. Thus, synchronization parameters could be established

in a preformed matrix with authoring directives for either sequencing events

or holding students.

The PLANIT system could automatically put the frame numbers of these

labels in the data base with the designated. terminal values-fdr determining

which program was operating. When a label was reached and a frame executes

the frame counter for comparison and branching (similar to the use of matrix

cell-X(3,3,1)) would be automatically implemented. In this way, the burden

of building speci,,fic synchronization techniques as well as the design\of the

common data ba-se would be taken off the shoulders of the author.

i In the lessons implemented Ebr the study., all content of the communications

was caiined. That is, The messages were preprogrammed as part of the lesson

.data base. To allow the student to make up his own message is also. possible

Within PLANIT via student-initiated DIAL directives. In this manner, the.

student controls the content.. "This. capability was not used in the lessons

developed because thereare,distinct implications for both instructional and

evaluation strategies.

For the purpose of the brissboard several instructional strategies for

teaching team communications were considered but not implemented because of

current PLANIT.restrictiona. For example, instead of. asking an FDO. subject

to.select the appropriate action.by number and sending the canned message to

86
his FDS partner, it was - allow a free interchange of DIAL messages

between the two. If such a sk. .were followed with rules defining the

FDO and. FDS roles, it might be m, beneficial for transfer to the actual

target task than the strategy employed. However, at present, there is no

capability to record or diagnose uch an interchange automatically.

,If messages could be storer-, d searched for key words or phrases, CAI

strategies could be employed to diagnose the state and content of communications.

This information would allow prompting,'interception of messages from one

member to another, or branching strategies. Without the capability to store

and diagnose the message, the interchange is not only freeform but so are

the instructional strategeies.

It is also desirable to have PLANIT authoring strategies. Such strategies

would have the purpose of providing a framework in which the logical and

empirical basis for7team training is associated with authoring' techniques.

En this way the instructional technology of team training can be taken into

account. The general design used in ledson building for this study was to

sequence lessons according to four levels: (1) individual, (2) beginning

:eam, (3) integrated, and (4) emergent team. These levels may be directly

:ied to the modes of the CAI team training-as each relates to the student

lharacteristics, theinatructional objectives, and the instructional strategies.

lait is, some.CAI modes may be more or less appropriate at each level of team

:raining. For example, using. the CAI modes listed byTliCice;(1968), one night find the match of CAI modes with lesson level as presented in Table 13.

'87 . 101
Table 13. Example of Match of Team Lesson Levels'

With CAI Modes

Lesson Level CAI Mode

1. Beginning Team Drill and Practice

Tutorial

Testing

2. Integrated Team Socratic Tutorial

Simulation

Testing

3. Emergent SimulatiOn

Game

Learner Contr6lled

Testing

The advantage of an author strategy can be illustrated by describing

current scenario implementations common to 'team training' for all branches

of the military. The scenarios characteristically begin with simple events

v with long lead times. As the student progresses through the scenario, events

increase in number and.difficulty. The instructional strategy usually i

. drill-andpractice and testing with task (mission) achievement being the only

measured outcome. Seldom are tutorial,. simulation, learner controlled, or

game strategies employed. If COLT2 is to be more than a drill and practice

experience, the training scenarios must be .rich with team instructional

strategies.

Brassboard Demonstration/Evaluation

As-described in the. preceding section, subjects for the biassboard

demonstration/evaluation were.40 Army enlisted men from commands in the

Washington. area. Eight of the:subjects trained on the brassboard in'an

-individual mOde; the'remaining 32 were placed in two-man teams. One team

member randomly was seleCted'to'serve as the FDO.. The other man was the Fps.

88

102
Drill, tutorial, problem complexity in sequencing, and individual

feedback strategies were the same for all subjects. The teams, however,

worked through the beginning team lesson and selected frames of the integrated

and emergent lessons in a coordinated mode. In addition, team debriefings at

the conclusion of the lessons were more extensive, with team members being

apprised of each other's performance and having the opportunity to discuss.

future role assignments.

A few minor problems were encountered in the evaluation'of subjects. It

. was not possible to acquire lesson times for the first eight subjects. Minor

modifications of PLANIT corrected this problem. Second, the responses made

by subjects were not recorded initially. The only record that wasstored was'

the correct response to the item and whether the subject was right or wrong.

This resulted in a problem in deriving performance scores as one response

choice was a query for information and should have been scored as a neutral

response.. Again, a minor modification .to PLANIT was required to correct the

problem.

The conclusions tO be drawn from the data collected during the demonstra-

- ,tionlevaluation are limited. This is due, for the most part, to the limited

number of subjects and-to the few problems encountered in the data collection

itself. However, comparisons of team and individual subject performance,

regression analyses of individual and team scores, and analysis of student

attitudes and role perceptions towards the instruction lend themselves to

some interesting observations.

A Critical question regarding team training is whether or not the types

of learning which occur in coordinated training differ from the learning that

takes place in individual training. Several outcomes of the evaluation

indicate that thisvery well may' be the case and may warrant subsequent

89

103
investigation. In the across-lesson performance of the groups, it should be

noted that the coordinated training received by FDO and FDS subjects did not

appear to substantially increase their individual skills. On the other hand,

the team performance on coordinated tasks was better than the IND subjects

who Ore working on the same tasks in an individual mode. In short, it

appears that team trained subjects'acquire skills other than task proficiency.

Moreover, those skills contribute to effective job performance.

A second indication that different, but critical, skills are being

learned in the team training environment is derived from stepwise regression

analyses of individUal'and beginning team lesson scores. There is, little

consistency among independent, variables for explaining variance in scores.

between individual and team contexts. On the other hand, across individual

scores, there is much greater stability in the explanation of variance.

Further, the correlation coefficient between lesson performance for IND

subjects was .48. The correlation coefficient between individual performance

and team performance for the-FDO subjects was'.18 and for FDS subjects, .13.

The differences are substantial.

. In regard to role perception and attitude, there also were someinterestini

obseivations. On all four confidence items, FDO and FDS subjects indicated

that they were.more confident of the decisions made than were IND subjects.

While it is difficult to explain the differences, it appears that the interactive, decision making training resulted in greater confidence in self and

other team members. One other point of difference between team and individual

,role perCeption relates to the perceived dependence of team structure on

mission. Team subjects perceived this dependence to be- significantly more

important than, did individual subjects. Thus, team_, training may contribute,
to .a large degree, to increased awareness of tactical environmental conditions

as well as self and other team member competence.

A final remark regarding attitudes is warranted. As stated earlier,

many of the subjects favorably commented as to their interest in the lessons.

The progressions or levels of training, with their increasing reliance on

tactical combat simulation and gaming, seem to stimulate subject motivation

and interest. This occurred in spite of the fact that the coordinated

lessons ran extremely slow, and subjects did have idle time between frames.

In summary, the results of the initial COLT2 brassboard-demonstration/

evaluation support the basic tenets underlying the methodology. Representing

the situational context of the job performance is critical to effective team

training. Analysis of team structure in the performance of jobs can yield

dimensions of team member interactions which may be critical to job/task

proficiency yet are distinct from individual proficiency skills. Finally,

these separate and distinct team dimensions can be successfully subsumed,

along with relevant individual training dimensions, under team instructional

strategies. Further research into each df the topics covered in the discussion

should lead to clarification of the relationships which exist among the

topics and contribute to a comprehensive team ISD model.

91

105
RECOMMENDATIONS

The following xecommendations are categorized as they relate to the

(1) development of a team ISD model, (2) enhancement of the team training

version of PLANIT, and (3) team training research requirements.

Recommendations for Developing A Team ISD Model

The implementation of the team ISD model revealed a number of strengths

and weaknesses. These were discussed in the previous section. Generally,

however, the model is insufficiently fleshed out to serve as a step-by-step

procedural guide to the development of team instruction. The following

paragraphs contain specific recommendations for addressing the weaknesses of

the model.

The conceptual framework for COLT2 instructional strategies, established

in this project, has two major deficiences. First, it does not incorporate

applicable knowledge related to small group behavior. SecOnd,..Thile the

framework serves well as a vehicle for organizing a team instructional

strategies data base,, it does not lend itself to the specification of actual

strategies.for a specific training problem. Recommendations are:

1. Applicable small group behavior knowledge should be incorporated

into the team instructional-strategies data base.

2. The potential for developing prOtedural algorithms which optimally

mix the training specifications, trainees, learning activities, and

instructional delivery Systems should be investigated.

Most important the model did.not yield adequate learning objectives

representing.team training requirements. Consequently, the model. does not

provide .adequate evaluation paradigms for assessment of team skills and

measurement of the objectives. That is, while it is possible within COLT2 to

92

106
evaluate individual and team achievement and the'procedures for doing so are relatively straightforward, the interactive processes are not assessed. In

view of this the following recommendations are offered:

3. Specific directions for Preparing team terminal and enabling learning

objectives should be developed. Included should be a methodology for

appropriately categorizing objectives by types of team learning to occur.

4. Process evaluation paradigms for assessing team interactive behaviors should be investigated in terms of their potential for,ppropriately being matched with specific team situationa.as defined"by team tasks, team structure, and environmental -conditions. To be applicable to COLT2, evaluation models'would have to be amenable to PLANIT pro- gramming.

Recommendations for PLANIT Enhancements

The operational requirements for a team version of the PLANIT CAI system

fell into four categories: -(1) a common data base to be used for program

control, event tracking, and individual/team record storage and analysis;

(2) initialization of common lessons; (3) synchronization; and .(4) communications. The following recommendations reflect this categorization.

5. The establishment of a common matrix as a primitive should be considered. Although such an action would constrain the implementa- tion of instructional strategies (i.e.,.reduce the flexibility of the author to manipulate program logic), there would be considerable gain in facilitation of authoring. 'Matrix paraineers could be set for preprogrammed analysis-of individual and.team responses in order to dynamically manipulate students and instruction. Predefined matrix parameters would be tied to the'following recommendations

regarding synchronization and communications.

. Team lessons require synchronization. Currently the required

coordination is available only via development of tailored program. logic. A synchronizing directive would reduce the current requiremertt that the author have extensive knowledge of PLANIT programming

techniques. . 7. Fred text or partial free text communications.which are terminal

initiated are a desirable feature of COLT2. However, the current

PLANIT team version does not have the capability to record and

analyze this type of message. This capability is reqUired if

student performance analysis and problem diagnosis are to be incor- porated in team instructional strategies.

93

107:
8. Minor modifications in message characteristics are being addressed.

Foremost among them are message identification, message length, and

queuing considerations. Dr. Charles Frye is presently working on some of these problems.

9. Authoring strategies for COLT2 should be developed. Such strategies

would direct and teach the instructor-author to create instructional

strategies which optimally configure student interactions, learning

events, and CAI modes available in PLANIT.

Recommendation for Future COLT2Aesearch

,Given the positive findings of the present study, continued testing of

COLT2 instructional strategies so that their full potential and applicability

can be realized is recommended. Specifically:

10; COLT2 research focusing on the relationships between team personnel

composites, performance, and interactions should continue. The

proposed research would require anextensive experimental effort in

order to establish a data base of discriminant, team characteristics.

Thecritical factor then would be to define the relationships of

between.team characteristics and differential instructional treatments.

11. In order to fully assess the impact of team training, process

evaluation models that track team member interaction and identify

non-task proficiency skills should be investigated. Thust types of

team interactions and 'team skill' acquisition could be related to

task achievement within environmental and team structure contexts.

12. Further research on the effectiveness of presenting team training

by levels related to tactical complexity and'evolutions is, certainly

required'given the promising trends found in the present study. In.,

addition, such an Investigation should focus on determining if

learning stabilizes across mixes of individual and team instruction.

Positive findings would significantly impact on both computer-based '

and noncomputer-baded team training.
REFERENCES

Alexander, L.T., & Cooperband, A. S. System training and research in team

behavior (Tech Memo: Di-2581). Santa Monica, California: System Development Corporation, August 1965.

Atkinson, R. C & Shiffrin, R. M. Human memory: A proposed system and its

control processes. In K. W. Spence and J. P. Spence (Eds.), The

Psychology of Learning Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory,

Volume 2. New York: Academic Press, 1968.

Bartlett, F. Thinking: An experimental and social study. London: Allen

and Unwin, 1958.

Boguslaw, R., & Porter, E. H. Team functions and training. In R. M. Gagne

(Ed.), Psychological principles in system development., New York: , Holt,

Rinehart and Winston, 1962.

Briggs, G. E., & Sohnston, W. A. Team training (Final. Report: NAVTRADEVCEN

1327-4). Orlando, Florida: Naval Training Device Center, February

1967.

Caldwell, U. R., Schroder, D. B., Michael, W. B., & Meyers,C. E. Structure

of intellect measures and other tests as predictors of success in tenthgrade geometry. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1970, 30,

437-441.

Cofer, C. N., Bruce,D. R., & Reicher, G. M. Clustering in free recall as a

functiOn of certaimmethodolOgical var'ations. Journal of Experimental

Psychology, 1966, 71., 858-866.. - Daniels, R. L. & Stevens, J. P. The interaction between the internalexternallocus of control and two methods of college instruction.

American Educational Research JoUrnal, 1976, 13, 103-113.

Dansereau, D. F., Actkinson, T. A., Long, G. L. & McDonald, B. Learning

strategies: a review and synthesis of the current literature. AFHRLTR-74-70, Contract F41609f73-C-0013, Lowry AFB, Colorado, 1974.

DiVesta,-F. J. A theory of instructional strategy. In F. DiVesta, N. Sanders,

C. Schultz, and P. Weener, Instructional strategies: A model and its

application. Advanced Research Projects Agency Annual Report (Order No.

1269), July 1971.

Dunham, J. L., Guilford, J. & Hoepfner, R. Multivariate approaches to

discovering the intellectual components. of concept learning. Psychological

Review, 1968, 75, 206-221.

Faust, G. W. Team training and ISD. Paper presented at. the First International

Learning Technology Congress and Exposition on Applied Learning Technology

for Human Regources Development, Washington, D. C., July 1976.

95

109
Feather,.N. T. Acceptance and,rejection of arguments in relation to attitude,

strength, critical ability, and tolerance of inconsistency... Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1964; 69, 127-136.

Federman, P.. and Siegel, A.. I. Communications as'a measurable index of team

behavior (Technical Report: NAVTRADEVCEN 1537-1). Orlando, Florida:

Naval Training Device Center, October 1965.

Frye, C. H. The Feasibility of Adding Graphics and Team Training Support to

PLANIT. Final Report. _Argy Research.. Institute Technical.Report, in

preparation, 1976.

Glanzer; M. Experimental study of team training and team functioning. In

R. Glaser (Ed.) Training Research and Education. Pittsburgh,. PA: University of Pittsburgh, 1961.

Cropper, G. P. Instructional strategies. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Educationa] Technology Publications, 1974.

-Guilford, J. P., Hoepfner, R., & Petersen, H. Prediction of achievement in

.ninth-grade mathematics from measures of aptitude factors. Educational ar

Psychological Measurement, 1965, 25, 659-682.

Guilford, J. P. & Hoepfner', R. The analysis of intelligence. New York:

:McGraw-Hill, 1971.

Hall, E. R. & Rizzo, W. A. An assessment of U.S. Navy tactical team training:, focus on the trained man (TAEG Report No. 18). Orlando, Florida:

Training Analysis and Evaluation Group, March 1975.

Hansen, D. N. Current research development in computer assisted instruction

(Tech Memo No. 17) Computer-Assisted Instruction Center, Florida,State

University, 1970.

.Hansen, D. N. & Measurement techniques fox individualized instruction in GAI (Tech Memo No. 35). Computer-Assisted InStruction, . Center, Florida State University, 1971. , Hartnett, R. T. Learning style preferences among college students. College Entrance Examination Board Research and Development Reports, RB-73714,

1973.

Hickey, A. E. (Ed.). Computer-assisted instruction: A survey of the literature (3rd ed.). Newburyport, Massachusetts: Entelek, Inc., 1968.

Hoyt, W. G., Butler, A.' K., & Leung, P. W. Utilization of tactical.computers for training: Final. Report. TM-5544/003/00, Santa Monidai.CA.i May 1976.

Johnston, W. A. Transfer,of team glans as a function of type of training.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 1966, 50 (2), 102 -108.

96

110
Judd, W. A., O'Neil, H. F.,'Jr., & Spelt, P. F. Individual differences and

learner control I: Program development and investigation of control

over mnemonics. in computer - assisted instruction (Final Report', AFHRL-TR73-3, Contract No. F41609-73-C-0032).--Cbmputer-Assisted Instruction

Laboratory, University of Texas at Austin, 1974.

Kanarick, A. F., Alden, D. G., & Daniels, R. W. Decision making and team

training in complex tactical training systems of the future. In V. Amico,

J. Wootton & J. Regan (Eds.) NTDC 25th Anniversary Commemorative Technical

Journal. Orlando, Florida: Naval Training Device Center,-1972.

Kennedy, R. S. The relationship of field independence, extroversion and

neuroticism to success in naval aviation training, (Appendix A), Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Rochester, 1972.

Klaus, D. J., and Glaser, R. Intreasing team proficiency through:training: 1.

A program of research (Technical Report AIR 264-60-TR-137). American

Institutes for Research, DeceMber 1960.

Klaus,. IL J. & Glaser, R. 'Increasing team:proficiency through training. 8.. Final Summary Report (Contract.Nonr-2551(00), NR-1547-079). Washington,

C: Office of Naval Research, Psychological Services Division

Personnel and Training Branch,. 19'68.

No- :d, W. R., Connelly, F. and Daignault, G. Locus of control and aptitude

test scores as predictors of academic achieVement. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 1974,, 66, 956-961.

.River,, Development and.assessment of an adaptive strategy utilizing

regiession analysis techniques for the presentation of instruction via

(computer (Tech ReportNo. 27). ComputerAssisted InstrUction Center, . - Florida State University,-August 1972.

Rodgers,-T. S. CAI and the teaching of economics. In New Developments in

the Teaching of Economics, L.Lumeder, Edit-or, Editor, Prentice-Hall,

1967.

Rokeach, M. The open and closed mind. New York: Basic Books, 1960.

Rotter, J. B. Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of

reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 190, 80 (Whole no. 609).

Schroder, H., Driver, M., & Steufert, S. Human information processing.'

Rinehart and Winstonork, 1967.

Sieber, J. E. & Lanzetta, J.-T. Some determinants of individual differences

in predecision information processing behavior. Journal of Personality,

1966, 4, 561-671.

Spielberger, C. D. Anxiety and behavior. New York: Academic Press, 1966.
Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L., & Lushene, R. E., Manual for the stateanxiety inventory. ,Palo Alto, Calif.: Consulting Psychologist Press,

1970.

Stalurow, L. Some factors in the design of systems for computer-assisted

instruction. In R. C. Atkinson & H. A. Wilson (Eds.), Computer-Assisted

instruction: A book of readings. New York: Academic Press, 1969.

Suppes, P. Computer technology and the, future of education. In R. C. Atkinson

& H. A. Wilson, (Eds.), Computer - assisted instruction: A bookof readings.

New York: Academic Press, 1969.

Suppes, P., Jerman, M., and Brian, D. Computer-assisted instruction: Stanford's

1965-66 arithmetic program. New York: Academic Press, 1968. . Suppes, P., Fletcher, J. D., & Zanotti, M. Models of individual trajectories

in computer-assisted instruction for deaf students (Tech Report No. 214).

Institute for Mathematical Studies in the Social Sciences, Stanford

University, October, 1973a.

Suppes, P., Fletcher, J. D., & Zanotti, M. Perfotmance models of American

Indian students on computer-assisted instructioncin elementary mathematics

(Tech Report No. 217). Institute-for Mathematical Studies in the Social

Sciences, Stanford.University, October, 1973b.

nWagner, H., Hibbits, N., Rosenblatt, R. & Schtilz, R. Team training and

evaluation strategies: A state-of-art review (SR-ED-87-11, Contract No.

MOA 903-76-C-0210). Alexandria, Virginia: Human Resources Research

Organization, 1976:

Williges, R. C., Johnston, W. A.' & Briggs, G. F. Role (If verb'al communication

in teamwork. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1966, so '(6), 473-478.

Ae - Witkin, H. A., Lewis, H. B., Hertzman, M., Machover, K., Meissner, P. B., &

Wapner, S. Personality through perception. NewYork: Harper, 1954.

Zinn, Karl. CoMputer technology for teaching and research on instruction.

Review of Educational:Research, Vol. XXXVII, No. 5, Dec. 1967.

98

112