Scenario-Based Training: Scenario Complexity

Abstract

This paper presents and extends the definition of scenario complexity in support of the Next-generation Expeditionary Warfare Intelligent Training (NEW-IT) project. First, key concepts are defined with a focus on two specific characteristics: task complexity (Wood, 1986) and task framework (Campbell, 1988). The authors then propose the inclusion of cognitive task elements to the traditional task complexity formulation as an integral extension when designing scenarios for higher-order thinking skills. In addition, the authors introduce the variable of cognitive context moderators to the developing equation. Demonstration of the proposed formulation is then presented with three examples of the instantiation. Finally, operationalization and future direction for scenario-based training are discussed.From Alexander the Great's drill-and-practice to Zulu song and battle-dance, methods and techniques have differed but all successful armies train their personnel with one identical objective: to succeed in theater. Recent innovations in computer programming and imaging now enable training in a simulation-based environment, yet there remains a tendency to approach this training via the usual instructional method: massed, one-size-fits-all training focused on procedural tasks. However, demands placed on the current warfighter require much more. Success in theater today requires individual warfighters of varying degrees of experience and knowledge to collaborate as a team and, in addition to procedural tasks, solve problems and make rapid strategic judgments. These new requirements necessitate an addition to the mass training of tasks to also include individually adapted training of higherorder thinking skills.Scenario-based training (SBT) can support today's enhanced training needs, but until recently, SBT had rarely been used for adaptive (i.e., personalized) training. Moving SBT towards efficient, effective adaptive training requires several issues be addressed. The primary consideration is of course linking the content of training scenarios to the instructional needs of trainees. However, an equally important but less obvious issue involves optimizing the level of difficulty associated with a scenario; a scenario that is either too difficult or too easy will inhibit knowledge acquisition and negatively affect motivation. Therefore, generating a scenario that is "just right" is imperative, and it is in answer to this challenge that this paper outlines an approach to operationalize scenario complexity. SCENARIO COMPLEXITYTo be clear, scenario complexity is distinctly different from scenario difficulty in that difficulty is a subjective term. For example, a scenario that is perceived as "hard" by a novice may be perceived as "easy" by an expert, and if asked to describe the difficulty of the scenario their responses would vary accordingly. However, this information is un-actionable for a computational system because the lay-definition of difficulty, which is contextually subjective and ultimately abstract, is not interpreta...

Collective orientation and its implications for coordination and team performance in interdependent work contexts

“…The people involved do not necessarily receive direct feedback on their actions, so that they have to wait and see, anticipate future conditions and take them into account in their further actions. They pursue different and possibly competing goals simultaneously (Dunne et al, 2010). These multiple facets of complex tasks place high information processing and behavioral demands on team members (Chen et al, 2001).…”

21st International Symposium on Aviation Psychology

“…A priority for the aviation industry is training flightcrews on procedures, with an emphasis on those pertaining to corrective actions in response to non-routine and emergency situations on the flight deck (Human Factors & Aviation Safety, 2019). Training of procedures requires both the conveying of knowledge (declarative and procedural) and the practice of skills (Matton et al, 2018), and it is traditionally provided through either live training or high-fidelity simulation (Dunne et al, 2010). However, organizations increasingly use E&DL to satisfy learning needs (Martins, 2019), and this shift has only accelerated recently.…”

Flexibility under complexity

“…Nevertheless, they are required to anticipate future states, which they have to consider during their planned actions. Furthermore, teams are obliged to reach multiple and sometimes conflicting goals simultaneously (see Dunne et al, 2010;Funke, 2001;Kluge, 2008;Rahmandad et al, 2009;Sterman, 1994).…”