Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Problem Solving in the Security Context

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Instructional Design Principles for High-Stakes Problem-Solving Environments

Abstract

Cognitive load theory (Chap. 2 of this book) and related theories provide general principles of instructional design (Chap. 11 of this book) that are applicable to a wide variety of learning contexts. However, each context is unique, and learning has to be contextualised by taking into consideration the characteristics of that particular context. Without a clear understanding of the demands and requirements and the cognitive processes involved in functioning effectively and efficiently in a particular context, instructional design can be counterproductive. This is especially true where ineffective instruction may lead to catastrophic consequences. Core characteristics of high-stakes contexts are high risk, high impact decision making and – in not so few cases – constraining factors such as limited logistic or financial resources and other organisational issues. High-stakes environments inevitably include security contexts such as the police force, the military, border security, counter terrorism, emergence medicine and the like. This chapter discusses the security context, more specifically the police and military force context, and how experienced problem-solvers and experts in such a context make decisions and what implications of that decision making for instruction.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Ando, S., Kida, N., & Oda, S. (2002). Practice effects on reaction time for peripheral and central visual fields. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 95, 747–751. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.2002.95.3.747

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boulton, L., & Cole, J. (2016). Adaptive flexibility: Examining the role of expertise in the decision making of firearms officers during armed confrontation. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 10, 291–308. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555343416646684

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bratton-Jeffery, M., & Jeffery, A. (2012). Instructional design opportunities in military education and training environment. In R. Reiser & J. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional deign and technology (pp. 187–196). Boston: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crego, J., & Harris, C. (2002). Training decision-making by team based simulation. In R. Flin & K. Arbuthnot (Eds.), Incident command: Tales from the hot seat (pp. 266–267). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Endsley, M. R., & Jones, W. M. (1997). Situation awareness, information dominance, and information warfare (AL/CF-TR-1997-0156). Wright-Patterson AFB, OH: United States Air Force Armstrong Laboratory.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flin, R., Pender, Z., Wujec, L., Grant, V., & Stewart, E. (2007). Police officers’ assessment of operational situations. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 30, 310–323. https://doi.org/10.1108/13639510710753289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gagne, R. (1987). Instructional technology foundations. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagne, R., & Driscoll, M. (1988). Essentials of learning for instruction (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, R., & Chi, M. T. H. (1988). Overview. In M. T. H. Chi, R. Glaser, & M. J. Farr (Eds.), The nature of expertise (pp. xv–xxviii). Hillsdale, MI: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grier, R. (2012). Military cognitive readiness at the operational and strategic levels: A theoretical model for measurement development. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 6(4), 358–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555343412444606

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harenčárová, H. (2017). Managing uncertainty in paramedics’ decision making. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 11, 42–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555343416674814

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kane, R. J. (2000). Police responses to restraining orders in domestic violence incidents: Identifying the custody-threshold thesis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 27, 561–580. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854800027005002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kavanagh, E. L. (2006). A cognitive model of firearms policing. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 21, 25–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02855682

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, G. (2008). Naturalistic decision making. Human Factors, 50, 456–460. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872008X288385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, G. (2009). Streetlights and shadows: Searching for the keys to adaptive decision making. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, G., Calderwood, R., & Clinton-Cirocco, A. (2010). Rapid decision making on the ground: The original study plus a postscript. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 4, 186–209. https://doi.org/10.1518/155534310X12844000801203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, G. A., & Hoffman, R. R. (1993). Seeing the invisible: Perceptual/cognitive aspects of expertise. In M. Rabinowitz (Ed.), Cognitive science foundations of instruction (pp. 203–226). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kozlowski, S. W. J., & DeShon, R. P. (2004). A psychological fidelity approach to simulation-based training: Theory, research, and principles. In E. Salas, L. R. Elliott, S. G. Schflett, & M. D. Coovert (Eds.), Scaled worlds: Development, validation, and applications (pp. 75–99). Burlington, VT: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krulak, C. C. (1999). The strategic corporal: Leadership in the three block war. Marine Corps Gazette, 83, 18–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipshitz, R., & Shaul, O. B. (1997). Schemata and mental models in recognition-primed decision making. In C. E. Zsambok & G. Klein (Eds.), Expertise: Research and applications. Naturalistic decision making (pp. 293–303). Hillsdale, MI: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mercier, E. M., & Higgins, S. E. (2013). Collaborative learning with multi-touch technology: Developing adaptive expertise. Learning and Instruction, 25, 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.10.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, M. D. (1994). Instructional design theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reigeluth, C. (1992). Elaborating the elaboration theory. Educational Technology Research & Development, 40, 80–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02296844

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seiler, S., Fischer, A., & Voegtli, S. (2011). Developing moral decision making competence: A quasi-experimental intervention study in the Swiss Armed Forces. Ethics & Behavior, 21, 452–470. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2011.622177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sohn, Y. W., & Doane, S. M. (2004). Memory processes of flight situation awareness: Interactive working memory capacity, long-term working memory, and expertise. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 46, 461–475. https://doi.org/10.1518/hfes.46.3.461.50392

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Trujillo, M., & Ross, S. (2008). Police response to domestic violence: Making decisions about risk and risk management. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 454–473. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260507312943

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verschaffel, L., Luwel, K., Torbeyns, J., & Van Dooren, W. (2009). Conceptualizing, investigating, and enhancing adaptive expertise in elementary mathematics education. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 24, 335–359. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03174765

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, J. J., & Westall, D. (2003). SWAT and non-SWAT police officers and the use of force. Journal of Criminal Justice, 31, 469–474. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0047-2352(03)00051-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Western Sydney University, Penrith, NSW, Australia

    Chwee Beng Lee

  2. Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands

    Jimmie Leppink

Authors
  1. Chwee Beng Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jimmie Leppink
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Lee, C.B., Leppink, J. (2019). Problem Solving in the Security Context. In: Instructional Design Principles for High-Stakes Problem-Solving Environments. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-2808-4_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-2808-4_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-13-2807-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-13-2808-4

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation