Advertisement

The Quality of Training Effectiveness Assessment (QTEA) Tool Applied to the Naval Aviation Training Context

  • Tom Schnell
  • Rich Cornwall
  • Melissa Walwanis
  • Jeff Grubb
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5638)

Abstract

Today, flight trainers use objective measures of task performance and additional estimated, subjective data to assess the cognitive workload and situation awareness of trainees. This data is very useful in training assessment but trainees can succeed at performing a task purely by accident (referred to as “miserable success”). Additionally the trainee can be in a less than optimal for learning cognitive state when the instructor operator applies brute force training tasks and methods with little regard to the learning curve which can result in the training being too easy or, more often, too difficult, thereby inducing negative learning. In order to provide the instructor with additional quantitative data on student performance, we have designed the Quality of Training Effectiveness Assessment (QTEA) concept. QTEA is conceived as a system that allows the trainer to assess a student in real-time using sensors that can quantify the cognitive and physiological workload.

Keywords

Neurocognitive measures operator state characterization flight training 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Eitelman, S.M., Wheeler-Atkinson, B.F., Walwanis-Nelson, M., Stitso, M.E.: Enhancing the Common Distributed Mission Training Station Through Augmented Cognition Technology. In: Proceedings of the Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation & Education Conference, I/ITSEC (2006) (Conference Theme: Training the 21st Century Joint Force)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schnell, T., Keller, M., Macuda, T.: Application of the Cognitive Avionics Tool Set (CATS) in airborne operator state classification. In: Augmented Cognition International Conference, Baltimore, MD (October 2007a)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schnell, T., Keller, M., Macuda, T.: Pilot state classification and mitigation in a fixed and rotary wing platform. In: Aerospace Medical Association (ASMA) annual conference, New Orleans, LA (April 2007b)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Schnell, T., Macuda, T., Keller, M.: Operator state classification with the cognitive avionics tool set. In: Schmorrow, D., Stanney, K. (eds.) Augmented Cognition: A practitioner’s guide (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schnell, T., Macuda, T., Poolman, P.: Toward the cognitive cockpit: Flight test platforms and methods for monitoring pilot mental state. In: Augmented Cognition International Conference, San Francisco, CA (October 2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Roscoe, A.H.: Assessing Pilot Workload in Flight. Flight Test Techniques. In: Proceedings of NATO Advisory Group for Aerospace Research and Development (AGARD), Neuilly Sur Seine, France (1984)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tom Schnell
    • 1
  • Rich Cornwall
    • 2
  • Melissa Walwanis
    • 3
  • Jeff Grubb
    • 4
  1. 1.Operator Performance Laboratory (OPL), 3131 Seamans CenterUniversity of IowaIowa CityUSA
  2. 2.BMH-OperationAlion Science and TechnologyNorfolkUSA
  3. 3.Naval Air Warfare Center, Training Systems Division, AIR -4651, Training & Human Performance R&D BranchOrlandoUSA
  4. 4.Naval Aerospace Medical InstitutePensacolaUSA

Personalised recommendations