Human Performance Models for Training Design

  • C. M. Knerr
  • P. J. Sticha
  • H. R. Blacksten

Abstract

Mathematical modeling and simulation offer potential methods for analyzing skills and tasks, and for deriving training design guidance. Existing methods provide guidance for academic and technical skills, but not for the complex perceptual-motor skills required for complex military missions. Improvement of task analysis is a critical goal because task analysis is the foundation of training design and the military needs cost-effective training.

Keywords

Task Analysis Training Strategy Attention Mechanism Skill Type Training Design 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Knerr, C.M., Morrison, J.E., Mumaw, R.J., Sticha, P.J., Blacksten, H.R., Harris, C., & Lahey, G. (1987). Analysis and design of part-task training for aircrew skills (Final Report 87–2 ). Alexandria, VA: Human Resources Research Organization.Google Scholar
  2. Knerr, C.M., Morrison, J.E., Mumaw, R.J., Stein, D.J., Sticha, P.J., Hoffman, R.G., Suede, D.M., & Holding, D.H. (1986). Simulation-based research in part-task training, (AFHRL-TR-86–12, AD-B167 293).Google Scholar
  3. Williams AFB, AZ: Operations Training Division, Air Force Human Resources Laboratory.Google Scholar
  4. Knerr, C.S., Harris, J.M., O’Brien, B.K., Sticha, P.J., & Goldberg, S.L. (1984). Armor procedural skills: Learning and retention (Technical Report 621). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute. (ADA153227)Google Scholar
  5. Aerospace and Electronics Conference, NAECON (pp. 849–852). New York: Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers.Google Scholar
  6. Knerr, C.M., & Sticha, P.J. (1985, Jan). Models of learning and performance of armor skills. Proceedings of the symposium on the military value and cost-effectiveness of training (pp. 491–512 ). Brussels: NATO Defense Research Group Panel on the Defense Applications of Operational Research.Google Scholar
  7. Micro Analysis and Design (1985). MicroSAINT User’s Guide. Boulder, CO: Author.Google Scholar
  8. Sticha, P.J. (1982). Review of analytical models of procedural learning and performance (Report No. DDI/PR 82–14–334). McLean, VA: Decisions and Designs, Inc.Google Scholar
  9. Sticha, P.J., Edwards, T.D., & Patterson, J.F. (1984). An analytic model of learning and performance of armor procedures (ARI Research Note 84–12 ). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for Behavioral and Social Sciences.Google Scholar
  10. Sticha, P.J., & Knerr, C.M. (1984). Task-element and individual differences in procedural learning and retention: A model-based analysis (Research Note 84–1). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute. (ADA136789)Google Scholar
  11. Sticha, P.J., Knerr, C.M., & Goldberg, S.L. (1984). Application of simulation and modeling to Army training management. Proceedings of the 28th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors Society (pp. 1023–1027 ). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society.Google Scholar
  12. Wortman, D.B., Duket, S.D., Seifert, D.J., Hann, R.L., & Chubb, G.P. (1978). Simulation using SAINT: A user-oriented instruction manual (Report No. AMRL-TR-77–61). Wright-Patterson Air Force Base: U.S. Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. M. Knerr
    • 1
  • P. J. Sticha
    • 1
  • H. R. Blacksten
    • 1
  1. 1.Human Resources Research OrganizationAlexandriaUSA

Personalised recommendations