The need to develop more effective feedback has become a growing concern in training. Feedback should be designed to provide meaningful information in order to help them improve their performance. On the other hand, the feedback should be designed not to increase the learners’ mental workload even while they maximize the benefits of using such feedback during training. Recently, Kim  developed the metacognitive monitoring feedback method. This methodology was tested in a computer-based training environment. The authors’ results showed that metacognitive monitoring feedback significantly improved participants’ performance during two days of a training session. However, the previous study did not investigate the impact of metacognitive monitoring feedback on participants’ mental workload and situational awareness. Hence, in this study, we investigated those needs and found a negative relationship between situational awareness and workload when the trainees observed the metacognitive monitoring feedback.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Kim, J.H.: The effect of metacognitive monitoring feedback on performance in a computer-based training simulation. Appl. Ergon. 67, 193–202 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norman, D.A.: The ‘problem’ with automation: inappropriate feedback and interaction, not ‘over-automation’. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B Biol. Sci. 327(1241), 585–593 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Endsley, M.R.: Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Hum. Factors: J. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. 37(1), 32–64 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thiruvengada, H., Rothrock, L.: Time windows-based team performance measures: a framework to measure team performance in dynamic environments. Cogn. Technol. Work 9(2), 99–108 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, J.H.: Developing a Metacognitive Training Framework in Complex Dynamic Systems Using a Self-regulated Fuzzy Index (2013)Google Scholar
Nygren, T.E.: Psychometric properties of subjective workload measurement techniques: implications for their use in the assessment of perceived mental workload. Hum. Factors: J. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. 33(1), 17–33 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hancock, P., Williams, G., Manning, C.: Influence of task demand characteristics on workload and performance. Int. J. Aviat. Psychol. 5(1), 63–86 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, T.O., Narens, L.: Metamemory: a theoretical framework and new findings. Psychol. Learn. Motiv. 26, 125–141 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar