2021
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.553015
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Analysis of Communication, Team Situational Awareness, and Feedback in a Three-Person Intelligent Team Tutoring System

Abstract: This research assessed how the performance and team skills of three-person teams working with an Intelligent Team Tutoring System (ITTS) on a virtual military surveillance task were affected by feedback privacy, participant role, task experience, prior team experience, and teammate familiarity. Previous work in Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITSs) has focused on outcomes for task skill training for individual learners. As research extends into intelligent tutoring for teams, both task skills and team skills are… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 61 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Two effects within two studies produced residuals exceeding three standard deviations (Andres, 2013; Burke, 2000); their removal reduced the overall effect of interventions on SMM by 0.04 ( g = .57, SE = .09, 95% CI [.38, .75]). Eight effects within five studies had a Cook’s distance over three times the mean (Andres, 2012, 2013; Burke, 2000; Crespin, 1996; Dalenberg et al, 2009; Ouverson, 2019); exclusion of these effects resulted in a reduction in the overall pooled effect by 0.12 ( g = .49, SE = .08, 95% CI [.32, .65]). Collectively, these exploratory analyses indicated that the influence of outliers or influential studies was small-to-moderate in nature, though the overall conclusion regarding the effectiveness of interventions remained the same.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Two effects within two studies produced residuals exceeding three standard deviations (Andres, 2013; Burke, 2000); their removal reduced the overall effect of interventions on SMM by 0.04 ( g = .57, SE = .09, 95% CI [.38, .75]). Eight effects within five studies had a Cook’s distance over three times the mean (Andres, 2012, 2013; Burke, 2000; Crespin, 1996; Dalenberg et al, 2009; Ouverson, 2019); exclusion of these effects resulted in a reduction in the overall pooled effect by 0.12 ( g = .49, SE = .08, 95% CI [.32, .65]). Collectively, these exploratory analyses indicated that the influence of outliers or influential studies was small-to-moderate in nature, though the overall conclusion regarding the effectiveness of interventions remained the same.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%