Advertisement

Translating Learning Theories into Physiological Hypotheses

  • Jennifer J. Vogel-Walcutt
  • Denise Nicholson
  • Clint Bowers
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5638)

Abstract

The battlefield has become an increasingly more complicated setting in which to operate. Additional stressors, complexity, and novel situations have challenged not only those in the field, but consequently also those in training. More information must be imparted to the trainees, yet more time is not available. Thus, in this paper, we consider one way to optimize the delivery and acquisition of knowledge that can be meaningfully applied to the field setting. We hypothesize that for learning efficiency to be maximized, we need to keep learners in a constant state of engagement and absorption. As such, we consider neuro-physiological hypotheses that can help prescribe mitigation strategies to reduce the impact of sub-optimal learning.

Keywords

Learning efficiency Augmented cognition Adaptive training 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Anderson: Student engagement and dropout: An investigation with students who have mild disabilities. Dissertation, University of Minnesota (2004) Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Belton, T., Priyadharshini, E.: Boredom and schooling: A cross-disciplinary exploration. Cambridge J. of Ed. 37(4), 579–595 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berka, C., Levendowski, D., Cvetinovic, M., Petrovic, M., Davis, G., Lumicao, M., Zivkovic, V., Popovic, M., Olmstead, R.: Real-time Analysis of EEG Indices of Alertness, Cognition, and Memory with a Wireless EEG Headset. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 17(2), 151–170 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boles, D.B., Bursk, J.H., Phillips, J.B., Perdelwitz, J.R.: Predicting dual-task performance with the Multiple Resources Questionnaire (MRQ). Human Factors 49(1), 32–45 (2007)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chen, A.: Perception of boredom: Students’ resistance to a secondary physical education curriculum. Research in Middle Level Education Quarterly 21(2), 1–20 (1998)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Clark, R.C., Nguyen, F., Sweller, J.: Efficiency in learning: Evidence-based guidelines to manage cognitive load. Pfeiffer, San Francisco (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Eysenck, M.W.: Arousal, learning, and memory. Psych. Bul. 83(3), 389–404 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fisher, C.: Boredom at work: A neglected concept. Human Relations 46(3), 395–417 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hart, S.G., Staveland, L.E.: Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. In: Hancock, P.A., Meshkati, N. (eds.) Human Mental Workload, pp. 239–250. North Holland Press, Amsterdam (1988)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kahneman, D.: Attention and effort. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1973)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kopp, T.: Designing boredom out of instruction. Perf. & Instr. 21(4), 23–27 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mayer, R.E. (ed.): The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. Cambridge University Press, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Paas, F., Tuovinen, J.E., Tabbers, H., Van Gerven, P.W.M.: Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Ed. Psyc. 38(1), 63–71 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Paas, F.G.W.C.: Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in Statistics: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology 84(4), 429–434 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pekrun, R., Elliot, A.J., Maier, M.A.: Achievement goals and discrete achievement emotions: A theoretical model and prospective test. J. of Ed. Psych. 98(3), 583–597 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Perkins, R.E.: The nature and origins of boredom. Dissertation (1981)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Puntambekar, S., Hübscher, R.: Tools for scaffolding students in a complex environment: What have we gained and what have we missed? Educational Psychologist 40(1), 1–12 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rude, R.: Isn’t that interesting! Ed. Week 20(43), 47–49 (2001)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schatz, S., Bowers, C.A., Nicholson, D.: Arousability and learning: Arousability may moderate workload and anxiety during high-simulation instruction. To be submitted to Learning and Individual Differences (2009) (Manuscript in preparation)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schwartz: Individual differences in cognition: Some relationships between personality and memory. J. of Res. In Personality 9(3), 217 (1975)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schweinle, A., Meyer, D.K., Turner, J.C.: Striking the right balance: Students’ motivation and affect in elementary mathematics. The J. of Ed. Res. 99(5), 271–293 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shernoff, D.J., Csikszentmihalyi, M., Schneider, B., Shernoff, E.S.: Student engagement in high school classrooms form the perspective of flow theory. School Psych. Quart. 18(2), 158–176 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Steidl, S., Mohi-Uddin, S., Anderson, A.K.: Effects of emotional arousal on multiple memory systems: Evidence from declarative and procedural learning. Learning and Mem. 13, 650–658 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    St. John, M., Kobus, D., Morrison, J.G., Schmorrow, D.: Overview of the DARPA augmented cognition technical integration experiment. Int. J. of Human-Computer Interaction 17(2), 131–149 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sweller, J.: Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science 12, 257–285 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tsang, P., Wilson, G.F.: Mental workload. In: Salvendy, G. (ed.) Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics, pp. 417–489. John Wiley & Sons, Inc, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Vartak, A.A., Fidopiastis, C.M., Nicholson, D.M., Wafsy, M.B., Schmorrow, D.D.: Cognitive state estimation for adaptive leaning systems using wearable physiological sensors. In: The proceedings of Biosignals 2008, Funchal-Madeira, Portugal, January 28-31 (2008)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Vartak, A., Fidopiastis, C., Nicholson, D., Mikhael, W.: Estimation of arousal using decomposed skin conductance features. In: Biomedical Sciences Instrumentation (2009) (accepted for publication)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Vogel-Walcutt, J.J., Schatz, S., Bowers, C., Gebrim, J.B., Sciarini, L.W., Nicholson, D.: Augmented cognition and training in the laboratory: DVTE system validation. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting Proceedings 52(3), 187–191(5) (2008)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Vogel-Walcutt, J.J., Bowers, C.A., Marino-Carper, T., Nicholson, D.: Increasing Learning efficiency in military learning: More than just working memory (2009) (manuscript in preparation)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Watt, D.: Fighting more than fires: Boredom-proneness, workload stress, and under-employment among urban firefighters. DAI: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering US: Univ Microfilms International 63(5-B), 2637 (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jennifer J. Vogel-Walcutt
    • 1
  • Denise Nicholson
    • 1
  • Clint Bowers
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute for Simulation and TrainingUniveristy of Central FloridaOrlandoUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniveristy of Central FloridaOrlandoUSA

Personalised recommendations