Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Improving Human Performance in Dynamic Tasks pp 9–27Cite as

SDILEs in Service of Dynamic Decision Making

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 433 Accesses

Part of the book series: SpringerBriefs in Complexity ((BRIEFSCOMPLEXITY))

Abstract

As the objective of a SDILE is to improve people’s decision making and learning in dynamic tasks, its design should incorporate the mechanisms to support people’s learning. Researchers in the SD community have identified three such mechanisms to be an essential part of a SDILE: (i) HCI design principles, (ii) cognitive apprenticeship theory and Gagné’s nine instructional events, and (iii) structured debriefing. We provide an overview and elaborate on the implementation of these learning inducing elements of any SDILE with the example of our developed and validated SDILE, SIADH-ILE. Also, to better assess the efficacy of SDILEs and to fully capture the decision makers’ performance in dynamic tasks, we present a five-dimensional evaluative model. Based on this newly developed evaluative model, we advance five assertions pertaining to the efficacy of debriefing-based SDILEs.

This is a preview of subscription content, 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
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight 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

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Users and learners are used intermittently throughout this book.

References

  • Abdel-Hamid, T., Sengupta, K., & Swett, C. (1999). The impact of goals on software project management: An experimental investigation. MIS Quarterly, 23(4), 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakken, B. E. (1993). Learning and transfer of understanding in dynamic decision environments. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT, Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berry, D. C. (1991). The role of action in implicit learning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 43A, 881–906.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blazer, W. K., Doherty, M. E., & O’Connor, R. (1989). Effects of cognitive feedback on performance. Psychological Bulletin, 106(3), 410–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brehmer, B. (1990). Strategies in real-time dynamic decision making. In R. M. Hogarth (Ed.), Insights in decision making (pp. 262–279). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Briggs, P. (1990). Do they know what they are doing? An evaluation of word-processor user’s implicit and explicit task-relevant knowledge, and its role in self-directed learning. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 32, 385–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, I. (2008). Improving time-critical decision making in life-threatening situations: Observations and insights. Decision Analysis, 5(2), 100–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crookall, D., Oxfored, R., & Saunders, D. (1987). Towards a reconceptualization of simulation: From representation to reality. Simulation & Gaming, 17(4), 141–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, A. (1991). Cognitive apprenticeship and instructional technology. In L. Idol & B. F. Jones (Eds.), Educational values and cognitive instruction: Implications for reform (pp. 121–138). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc..

    Google Scholar 

  • Conant, R., & Ashby, W. (1970). Every good regulator of a system must be a model of the system. International Journal of System Science, 1, 89–97.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Cox, R. J. (1992). Exploratory learning from computer-based systems. In S. Dijkstra, H. P. M. Krammer, & J. J. G. van Merrienboer (Eds.), Instructional models in computer-based learning environments (pp. 405–419). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Davidsen, P. I., & Spector, J. M. (1997). Cognitive complexity in system dynamics based learning environments. International system dynamics conference, Istanbul, Turkey: Bogazici University Printing Office, 757–760.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dreifuerst, K. T. (2009). The essentials of debriefing in simulation learning: A concept analysis. Nursing Education Perspectives, 30(2), 109–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fanning, M., & Gaba, M. (2007). The role of debriefing in simulation-based learning. Simulation in Healthcare, 2(2), 115–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faria, A. J. (1998). Business simulation games: Current usage levels—An update. Simulation and Gaming, 29, 295–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, H., & Gonzalez, C. (2016). Making sense of dynamic systems: How our understanding of stocks and flows depends on a global perspective. Cognitive Science, 40(2), 496–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forrester, J. W. (1961). Industrial dynamics. Cambridge, MA: Productivity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagné, R. M. (1985). The conditions of learning and theory of instruction. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagné, R. M., Briggs, L. J., & Wager, W. W. (1992). Principles of instructional design (4th ed.). Forth Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glöckner, A., & Betsch, T. (2008). Multiple-reason decision making based on automatic processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 1055–1075.

    Google Scholar 

  • Größler, A., Rouwette, E., & Vennix, J. (2016). Non-conscious vs. deliberate dynamic decision-making—A pilot experiment. Systems, 4(13), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems4010013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogarth, R. M., & Makridakis, M. (1981). Beyond discrete biases: Functional and dysfunctional aspects of judgmental heuristics. Psychological Bulletin, 9(2), 197–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howie, E., Sy, S., Ford, L., & Vicente, K. J. (2000). Human-computer interface design can reduce misperceptions of feedback. System Dynamics Review, 16(3), 151–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Isaacs, W., & Senge, P. (1994). Overcoming limits to learning in computer-based learning environments. In J. Morecroft & J. Sterman (Eds.), Modeling for learning organizations (pp. 267–287). Portland, OR: Productivity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J., & Pavlov, O. (2017). Game-based structural debriefing: A design tool for systems thinking curriculum. SSRN Electron J. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3218674.

  • Klabbers, G. (2000). Gaming & simulation: Principles of a science of design. Simulation and Gaming, 34(4), 569–591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleinmuntz, D. (1985). Cognitive heuristics and feedback in a dynamic decision environment. Management Science, 31, 680–701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kottermann, E., Davis, D., & Remus, E. (1995). Computer-assisted decision making: Performance, beliefs, and illusion of control. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 57, 26–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kwakkel, J. H., & Pruyt, E. (2013). Explanatory modeling and analysis and approach for model-based foresight under deep uncertainty. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80(3), 419–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lakeh, B., & Ghaffarzadegan, N. (2015). Does analytical thinking improve understanding of accumulation? System Dynamics Review, 31(1–2), 46–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lane, M., & Tang, Z. (2000). Effectiveness of simulation training on transfer of statistical concepts. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 22(4), 383–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langley, P. A., & Morecroft, J. D. W. (1995). Learning from microworld environments: A summary of the research issues. In G. P. Richardson & J. D. Sterman (Eds.), System dynamics ‘96 (pp. 213–231). Cambridge, MA: System Dynamics Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, L. C. (1992). Debriefing: Towards a systematic assessment of theory and practice. Simulation and Gaming, 23(2), 145–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, W., Dale, K., Fraccastoro, K., & Moss, G. (2011). Improving transfer of learning: Relationship to methods of using business simulation. Simulation and Gaming, 42(1), 64–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moxnes, E. (2004). Misperceptions of basic dynamics: The case of renewable resource management. System Dynamics Review, 20, 139–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NTSA. (2011). President’s notes. Training Industry News, 23(4), 2–2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pavlov, O., Saeed, K., & Robinson, L. (2015). Improving instructional simulation with structural debriefing. Simulation and Gaming, 46(3–4), 383–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters, V. A. M., & Vissers, G. A. N. (2004). A simple classification model for debriefing simulation games. Simulation & Gaming, 35(1), 70–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plate, R. (2010). Assessing individuals’ understanding of nonlinear causal structures in complex systems. System Dynamics Review, 28(1), 19–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qudrat-Ullah, H. (2007). Debriefing can reduce misperceptions of feedback hypothesis: An empirical study. Simulations and Gaming, 38(3), 382–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qudrat-Ullah, H. (2010). Perceptions of the effectiveness of system dynamics-based interactive learning environments: An empirical study. Computers and Education, 55, 1277–1286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qudrat-Ullah, H. (2014). Yes we can: Improving performance in dynamic tasks. Decision Support Systems, 61, 23–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rouwette, A., Großler, A., & Vennix, M. (2004). Exploring influencing factors on rationality: A literature review of dynamic decision-making studies in system dynamics. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 21, 351–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sengupta, K., & Abdel-Hamid, T. (1993). Alternative concepts of feedback in dynamic decision environments: An experimental investigation. Management Science, 39, 411–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Söllner, A., Brödery, A., & Hilbig, E. (2013). Deliberation versus automaticity in decision making: Which presentation format features facilitate automatic decision making? Judgment and Decision making, 8(3), 278–298.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spector, J. M. (2000). System dynamics and interactive learning environments: Lessons learned and implications for the future. Simulation and Gaming, 31(4), 528–535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sterman, J. D. (1989). Modeling managerial behavior: Misperceptions of feedback in a dynamic decision making experiment. Management Science, 35, 321–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sterman, J. D. (1994). Learning in and about complex systems. System Dynamics Review, 10, 291–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sterman, J. D. (2000). Business dynamics: Systems thinking and modeling for a complex world. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sterman, J. D., & Booth Sweeney, L. (2007). Understanding public complacency about climate change: Adults’ mental models of climate change violate conservation of matter. Climatic Change, 80(3–4), 213–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg, R. J. (1995). Expertise in complex problem solving: A comparison of alternative conceptions. In P. Frensch & J. Funke (Eds.), Complex problem solving: The European perspective (pp. 3–25). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg, R. J., & Horvath, J. A. (1995). A prototype view of expert teaching. Educational Researcher, 24(6), 9–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tamara, E. F., Alec, M. B., & Judith, D. S. (2013). The use of technology by nonformal environmental educators. The Journal of Environmental Education, 44(1), 16–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tannenbaum, S. I., & Cerasoli, C. P. (2013). Do team and individual debrief enhance performance? A meta-analysis. Human Factors, 55(1), 231–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thatcher, C., & Robinson, J. (1985). An introduction to games and simulations in education. Simulations. Hants: Solent.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thiagarajan, S. (1992). Using games for debriefing. Simulation & Gaming, 23(2), 161–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yi, S., & Davis, F. (2001). Improving computer training effectiveness for decision technologies: Behavior modeling and retention enhancement. Decision Sciences, 32(3), 521–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Administrative Studies, York University, Toronto, Canada

    Hassan Qudrat-Ullah

Authors
  1. Hassan Qudrat-Ullah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Qudrat-Ullah, H. (2020). SDILEs in Service of Dynamic Decision Making. In: Improving Human Performance in Dynamic Tasks. SpringerBriefs in Complexity. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28166-3_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation