ED 241 798

AliTHORTITLE

INSTITUTION

PUB DATE' ."NOTE -

PUB-TYPE

ERRS PRICE"DESCRIPTORS.

IDENTIFIERS

DOCUMENT RESbME

-CE 038 661

Morrison, John E.; Goldberg, Stephen L.A Cognitive Analysis of Armor Procedural TaskII/milling. Technical Report 605..

.

Army Research Inst. for the Behavioral and SocialSciences, Alexandria, Va.Mar 82'28pe; Preparjad at ARI Field Unit, Fort Knox, KY.ReportsResearch/Technical (143)

MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.*Job Ski 1s ;, Job Training; *Lea slily; LearningProcesseWMamofy; *Military Tr:tnang; *Recall(Psychology); Retention (Psycho gy); *Skill jDevelopment; VertiCakOrganazationArmy

. ABSTRACTTraditional an rformance-oriented 4pproaches to

,procedural.training *ere compared, and the deficiencies wereide4tified. A cognitive interpretation of*procedurallearning wasadvanced, and training implications were considered. Representativearmor 'procedures. were analyzed to derive the underlying memorystructures required for recall. Findings indicated that memory forarmor procedural tasks can be represented as hierarchical structuresof task goals, that the hierarchical structures have implications for'procedural training, and that futther research should be430dressed toverification ofthe structures using actual soldier performance.Training applications of the memory structures that were suggestedincluded a "part-tisk" training that allows soldiers toorganize procedural elements into appropriate subgoal units andbraining of.s.oldiers,to associate subgoal names with the appropriatesubprocedures. (HierarChical structures for armor tasks are -

appended.) (YLB)

-

,

;4

V

1

t

******************i************************************************ **** Reproductions supplied by EDRS Ore the best that can be made

from the original document.***********************************************************************

.

. ._

, C.-E,

I

Technical Report 605...0

IP 441. i

r .1.61 , 4 ---,.

,CV . . A COGNITIVE ANALY$1S ,Or '44-

CZ ARIA PROCEDLOAL TASK TRAININGIQ ., .

.

ad

-...,. ,e

1111 ,-

John. E. Morrison and Stephqn LiGoldberg- .

I

)

rARt FIELD UNIT AT FORT. KNOX, KENTUCKY

, . #

.1.

b

t

(MEI. ....,

U.1. Army A

\ .

t

I

. U.S. DEPARTMENT OFEDUCATION

. NATIONAL iftsrnisTE OF EOUCAT1ON40 CATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION

ErENTER (ERIC'

Tim document toe been reproduced As

reoseued horn est paean or orgarmoosnaioneunp 4

`7, Moor doom Iwo boo nods 10 novtomiduOrgo Oualitt .

Pain of woo or oonom mad o Mrs door-' meat do acd memo* gromor official Mgpositron or pokey

.. .

Research Institute fpr the Betiavforal d SoCial,Sciinces... ..... .. ,

-.Mardt11(82

'1.

..

. :.. "% rs.' .

--ATTriC Wid-E-DT ROMIG Taddid: distribtir tioR unlimited.

...

, .. 4..

le tI ; d e . tr"r

; .2. -er. .6 1,c ." .

. .. , t1

0. -1 ± '. . ,

. i. ( 1.111k,iP%

4

or

1

4

A

I.

WI

.1.

. . I

.

5

.

4. ,

E

.U.'S. MY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

FOR T E BEHAVIORA.L:AND SOCIAL SCIENCES-

1. .... A Field C\ erating Agency under the Jurisdiction of the

. :

. - Deputy Ch f Of Staff for Ftersonnel

a

.

JOSEPH ZEIDNER

Technical Diiector

t

L. NEALE COSBY N..-Colonel, INCommander

Technically teviewed.by:

Douglas J. BobkoRobert A. Evans

1

fLw

J

ha.

4

,. .

. NOTICES,-.

. . .DISTRIBUTION: Primary

.

distribution of this report has been made by AR1.a

Please address correspondence concerning distribution of reports to: U.S.

Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and 'Social Sciences, ATTN:

PERI-TST. 5001 Eisenhower Avenue, AlewandrIa. Virginia 22333., .

FINAL DISPOSITION: This reporlt may be destroyed when It is no Irger

N ndeded. Please do not return h1 to the U.S. Army Research Institute for- .

the 'Behavioral and Social Science4 '''I- >

,

,

NOTE: The findi.ngs In thisreport arenot to be construed as an official.

:, Depaftment of the Army POSIt1011,,peieSS so designateo Iy other authorized.., - V .

documents.t .

i

c

c

(

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF TritS PAGE Moos Petra kayoed)

" " REeORT.DOCUMENTA;110 N PAGE,--

READ INSTRUCTION'S=rrr

. BEFORE COMPLETING FORM1. REPORT NUMBER

Technical'Report 605.-

2, GOVT ACCESSiON NO. 5. RECrPiENTs CATALOG NtrimeR

.

4. TIT c. (and Subritle) .. ..

...

A COGNITIVE ANALYSIS OF ARMOR .

PROCEDURAL TASK TRAINING ....

. -.. , ., .,

S TYPE OF REPORT 413ERiO0 COVERED

Technical Report;

S. RERFOR141pG ORG. REPORT NUMBER

. 0.T. A1.17140R(A) . - 4 'John E. Morrison and ,

Stephen L: Goldberg' (ARI)- .

. .., _ . . 1

8. 'CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(.)

. . -

--.

... ,

9. PER, RMING ORGANIZATION 4:me ANO Ao6aess .

U.S. my lesearchInstitute foi the Eehavloraland ocial.Scien.Ces, 5001 Eisenhower Avenue,Alexandria, VA 22333

.1

.

10. 'PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT. TASKAREA a WORK UNIT NUMBERS

. ..

2(1263743A794

11. CON TROLL1NG,OFFiCE NAME ANO AOORiES ,

,,-,U.S.,Army Research Institute for the Behavioral.and Social Sbiences, 5001'Eisenhower'AvepueAlexandria, VA 22333 . .

.

12. REPORT DATE . r).`March 1982

.

.

17. NU\ASER cIF PAGES . .

4. .

14, tAIDNITORtNG AGENCY NAME O AOORESSat dittormw from Calotroilioll Pities)

4-- . .

-...., ,

' .. .

IS. SEC ITT CLASS. (of IN. Poyort)

.Unlaasified .

124. OECLASSIFICATION/DOWNGRkOtN0*cm EouLE --

16. OISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of dair ReirG1

.

Approved of public release; distribution unliinited,.

. /.

. .. .

.

. ..

. .. ..

,... r. ....-1"

. . .

.

.

. , .. .

.

17. OiSTRIBUTION STATEMENT (4 rho abarsoil entered in /neck 20. 14dIllotent it Report) ' .. ,... . . . .

.

. . .« 0 .

. .. . % . . . ,,.

111. SUPPLEMENTARY marts 1

. , .. .

ot ,. 'r,. .

.

19, KEY WOROS (Calibres. on Ferree We' it riscoyeary end ideality by block nurnbas).

Armor. 4emory Radio Dati... 'Memory

Army 'Maiming i Retention. (Psychology)I.

Learning- f .. giichiaeguns

it

..

., ....

20. ABSTRACT: (Cast firm. we rov*ei AMA It socesserY sad AlsnUty by block nrirstre) - ... .

' Traditional and performance-oriented approaches to procedural trainingoere com-;pared, and their ,deficiencies were moped. A cpgnitve interpretation of proce-'ducal learning was advanced and.training implications were discussed. Repre7semtaifie,armor procedures were analyied to derive he underlying, memory strife'',

tures Tequired-for recall. Specific training applicaEiods of the memory -struc-tures were also afscuAsed. ,

. 7..

) 4 .,

. . I ',,

,

..- .

. ..

DO' 006114.

DO 1473 EDIT104 or I Nov es is ossot_esEI JAM 73

*

,

UCLASSIFIED ' '0.

' SECURITY CLASS1PICATIONOW THIS POSE (When Date froliarird). 1.i:

Sr -

a

r

C

Technical Report 605

r-:

.

A COGNITIVE ANALYSIS 0.F___.

ARMOR PpOCEDURAL TASK TRAINING'

a

,john E. Morrison and Stephen L. Goldberg

Submitted by- Donald F. Haggard. Chief

ARI FIELD UNIT AT FORT KNOX. KENTUeKY

it Fr

Approved by:Harold. F. O'Neil. Jr., Director

A

e

TRAINING RESEARCH LABORATORY

U.S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTPFUTE FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

5001 Eisenhower' Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 223334

Army Protect Number20283 4 3"A

Office, Deputy thief of Staff for PersonnelDepartment of the Army

March 1982

Appicoved foe public Mesa; dieteibution unlimited.

Education and TralsIng

-,.;

f

.

.P.

.

e#

..

.. .

4

Ant Research Reports and Technical Ret)Orts, are intended for sponsors of..R&D-tasks 'and for other research and military agencies. Any firidings ready ..

.for impltmentktion At the time of publication are presented in the last part .of the Brief: Upon completion of a major phase of the task, formal recom-

..

'4

mendations for official action "normally are conveyed to appropriate militaryagencies by briefing oreDisposition Form:

:. 1

ilit ' IA

fi

1

f

N. i

r. .f.1

e' 6.

:

.

. . P

>.

bIP.A. I,

4

r

.

...-

. , .

. t../. 4

....- #.

. .

,

,

I

0

e

.

a

1

.

.

., .

e .4 . ..

e

4-

.

.

i

.

)

1

s

1

.,

Y

4

1 .

1

1

I

.

.

. ,4t4 1

st 0

.1.f

0

$6

,. . ,

iv

,

(

fl

.FOREWORD. Iff J' '

',

..

The Fort Knox Field Unit has a long history of 'applying behavioral .re- -'

search methods to problems n armor skill performance, As apart of this ef-

rM)fort, the Weapcin System T ning Teat is charged with research and developmentof methods for training a or tasks.

Because of,. the importance of procedural skills to the operation an4, main-. tenance of armor systems, procedural training methods must be scrutinized to

ensure that soldiers are getting'the bestinstruction available. The authorsof the present research compared the traditional lecture and current perfoimande-oriented approaches and concluded that both approaches had weaknesses. Theythen examined current cognitive conceptions. of procedural learning and derivedtraining strategies that address these weaknesses. To il/UStrate thg cogni.ivi concepts, they analyzed some reptesentative armor procedures and derivedsome training principles from the analyses.-

This research lb of interest to those training researchers and developerswho are exploring alternative training methods. Although the example, tasks'

are armor procedures', the concepts should, apply t45 training"avother types ofprocedures as well. ,

.

1

t.

aI

.1

a

. I

42,

T nical Director

*WM

I I

4

t

.

lfs

%A4COGNtTIVE ANALYSIS OP ARMOR PIOODURAL TASK TRAINING.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY-

Requirement: ..

f ar

f

0

Both tratitiOnal lecture and performance - oriented approaches td proce-dural training are deficient in some respects. 'gurrant cognitive theories of

learning and memory should be used. to develop altirnative strategies tor, train-ing procedures. " '

-

\

,

Procedure:

. s'

,Representative armor procedures wleanalyzed for'the memory structureunderlying procedural task performance. Three assumptions about "learning and,emory guided the analyies: (41) Memory for a procedure is organized,around$k goals,.(b) the organizatiab is hierarchical in form, and (c) each hier-'

ar hical node is limited to no!more thanigive'subordinate branches.

Findings:

4.. ..

1. Memory, for armor procedural tasks can be.represented as hierarchicalstructures of task goals. . _

2. The hierarchical st,ructures have for procedural training.

3. Further research should be addressed to verifying, the structuresSag actual soldier performance.

SAilizatfonof Findings:

.:The pidsenrz:esearch shquld be of interest to those:training reseirchevaand evelopers 1410 'SA exploring alternative training methods. In addition to

pro ding a model of procedOral-memory, the task goal structures are also po-te6t Fraining aide.

.

c

J. .. 8Vii- t,

. I

fa-

O

A C9GNITIVEWLYSIS O4ARHOR PROCEDURAL TASK

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION . 6

traditional and PerforMhnce-Oriented ApproachesA Cognitive Interpretation of Procedural Learning

'ANALYSES

TasksProcedureAnalysis of Clear the M2.40. . . .

DISCUSSION . . 4

. ,

.

Training ImplicationsResearch Extensions . . . . 6

. . e.

REFERENCES

APPENDIX: HIERARCHICAL STRUCTURES FOR AMR _TASKS

1

,

.

:.

4

Page

1

.1

2

-3

3

5;

5

7

7

8.

a

9

Al

.46.

4... 1 1:2

. .

LAST OF FIGURES. . *'

Figure 1. Ill aerarchiCal goal structure for hypothetical procedure\_ 4

, / . 4.

.

2. Hierarchical-goal structure for C111110140M240 6

A71. Hierarchical...goal structure for Load the M240 A-2 ''6 ,

ivt

a

A-2. Hierarchidal goal structure for Immediate Action on the M240. A-3.

.

ii i'-3: Hierarchthal goal stiuctureefor Disassemble thd M240 . . A4-

16.

A-4. Hierirchiatl goal structure fqr Assemble/FunctionsCheck the M240

A-5. Hierprchical *cal structure forperate tite'AN/VRC-64 .

. -

.

4

4

. 9"

. A-6

V

A COGNITIVE ANAL1StS OF ARMOR PROCEDURAL TASK TRAINING 4

A

' IbTRO4UCTION

Traditional and Performance-00ented Approaches

Prior to the early 19tos, procedural training in the military foilowedthe traditional academic model,qf instruction. That is, instruction consistedmostly of formal lectures on general theoretical principles of equipment oper-ation. Supporters of the traditional approach maintained. that the theoreticalbackground deepened the novice soldier's Understanding of .the task and theequipment. However, there were several serious problems with applying thisapproach in the context of entry-level military training. In particular, thesoldier did not always understand the abstract theoretical concepts. Also,tviners often failed to relate the theory to appropriate entry -level jobs or;asks. The'lecture format itself wa$ an impediment to learning in thtt it en-couraged passive listening.ehther than the active practice required to attaintask skill.

As a reaction to the deficiencies of the traditional approach, the.Armydeveloped and implemented a different method of instruction called,"pexformance-orignted" training (FM 21-6). This approach is based on a thorough job andtask analysis that identifies job tasks, conditions under which the tasks areperformed, training requirements, and on-the-job standards of acceptable per-formance. Instructionis then designed to impart only those task knowledgesand skills necessary for the soldier's assigned job. Most impottanf7-theperformance-oriented format is devoted to short demonstrations and hands-on.'practice, rather than lectures. to train a solDier in a procedural task, theperformance-oriented instructor starts by demonstrating the steps involved in

thetask. Most of the training time is then devoted to practice on the oper-ational equippent. During this' phase, the soldier repeatedly executes the task

until he or she meets task standards. Verbal explanations are mostly limitedt6 the mechanics of task performance (the "hows"), with litq.e or no dimegiven to explain ti# meaningful task goals (the "why"). According to theperformance-orienad approach, then, practice can becharacterAzed as a roteprocess that does AnOnvolve conceptual task knowledge.

IThe.perfdrmance-oriented, emphasis on practice .is congruent with the corn-

" monly held assumption that learning requires repeated exposures to the task

to be learned. One.uay in whiCh researchers have analyzed the effect of repe-tition, is. to examine learner processes that occur during practice. A general

*finding is that tong-term retention is associated with semantic (i.e., conceti-valor meaningful) coding of the task to be learned (e.g., Bjork, 1975; Craik& Lockhgrt, 1972; Melton & Martin, 1972). In order to remember a task, learn-

. erAmpustabstradt out and interrelate its meaningful aspects. The rDte qual-ityNf practice inthe performance-oriented approach places the burden of.semantic task coding,on the learher. ,Given the varied aptitudes and back-grounds of 'soldiers, we would. expect the' effectiveness of learner coding to

range from.appropriate to inappropriate. To ensure sustainment of propedurafskillg, trainers should provide a reasonable tiding scheme'rathes than rely onsoldiers'llearning strategies.

,

'4

A

r.10

,Skill silseainment is an increasidgly impOrtant Arty training issue. One

of, the central problems-is that mildieis have relatively few opportunities to. RKactice their job skills. Civilian workers (e.g.i assembly-line workers) re-:peat their job tasks over and over, resulting in increases in task skill overtime. In contrast, soldiers--particularly those in the combat arms--practicetheir job skills only during infiGquenniy had field exercises or actual com-'bat, Research has shown that procedural skill performance rapidly declineswithout intervening practice (e.g., Shields, Goldberg, & Dressel, 1979i Osborn,Campbeill, & Harris, 1979). Gillen the Army's limited resources to provideregular - practice,. the effectiveness of initial training' becomes that much morecritical.'. Training developersMusttdesign instructional strategies to prolongskill sustainmenttbver periods of no practice.

_ .

To summarize, we have compare4 traditional and performance-oriented pro-cedural training and found problems with both approaches. lone traditionallecture method was too theoretical, without enough emphasis on. performance.Performance-oriented tiaining,'in Contrast, was 'conceptually barren, to thepossible detriment of cask retention. A, better approachpes between theietwo extremes. That is, procedural training should be both conceptual andperformance oriented. r

4

A Cognitive Interpretation of Procedural Learning *ti A

Over the past'30 years, significant progress has been made in definingand identifying the cognitive structured and processes that underlie humanlearbing and memory. In this section, ye describe some of these,theoretical,concepts that are specifically related to procedural skill acquisition andsustainment.1 t.

One of the maxims of cognitive,p4chology is that human beings are limite0information processors. For-instance,.resefrch indicates'thtc,our immediate

. memory for sequence is limited to 4 ± 1 items (Johdson,. 1970). Given this

constraint, how do people remember long procedures? In a pioneering paper,Miller (1956) suggested that we can overcome the limitations of immediate mem-ory by recoding items to be learned intt larger units, or "chunks." Each chunk

can be represented by a "single code,. threby effectively reducing the memoryload. Even larger obunks can be formed by combining first-order chunks into .

higher-otder units (handler, 1,967). However,,because of the,limitsof immedi-ate memory, each chunk can consist of no more than five subordinate unite, be .

1they single 'items or lower-order chunks. This hierarchical organization ofmemory codes not only pro4ides an economical scheme for storing items in mem:ork,but also represents a "plan" for retrieving the information, at recall(kill.er,Tialanter, & Pribram, 1960).

.

Often-tited evidence for the chunking protess is the strong ondency oflearners to cluster categorically related items during free recall of verballisti (e.g., Itousfield, 1953). The clusters reflect the learners' use of

, semantic relations between items to organize their memory for the list. Wesuggest that soldiers similarly organite their memory for armor procedures

, .

r2 11..4

AP

I

correspondsaround the task goal and subgoals.1

'thus, the task goal structure correspondsto the.semantic relations in verb41 lists. The hierarchicalgoal structurefor a hypothetical procedure is shown in Figure 1. At 04 top of the figureis the overall task goal. Below that are two levels' orstAbgoal organization .

.

that are distinguished by the terms "strategies" and "tactics" (Miller et al.,1960). Strategies refer to high-order nodes oriented toward generaor%ab-

.stract subgoals, whereas tactics are lvw-order subgoals related to immediateand specifit task objectives.' At the lowest leyel are the individual task , 1M1

elementi that comprise the procedure.

/, .

'There is evidence that knowledge of task structure enhances both verbal(Bower, Clark, Lesgold; & Winienz, 1969) and motor (Diewart & Stelmach, 1978)retention. reAipmably awareness of the task structure aids the learner inorganizing d,cdding.inpue in a reasonable and efficient manner, Thus, thehierarchical structure of task goals' not only provides a'model of procedural -

memory organization, but also providet a potential aid for promoting.sustainment. However, this generalization is based on re*arch using artifi-cial laboratory'tafks.with experimenter-imposed structure. 4.40 structure ofa real-world 'praitedure, in contrast, is intrinsic to the logical and mechanical.constraints of the task. The next section presents a method for deriving thegoal structures of actual procedures'using-armor tasks as examples.

Tasks

f. ' ANALYSES A

%

'1

,

it.

o

Procedural/ tasks were defined as those accomplished by a series ofNatebsusually pefformed ina fixed sequence. Of present interest were tasks thatsoldiers typically perform from memory, i.e.,without benefit of, job aids.

Using these criteria, `two subject areas were chosen from the'Armor One StationUnit Training (OSUT) Program of Instruction: the M240 oriaxial machirfeiun.and $the AN/Vg tactical PM radio. Specific task descriptions follow. Li.

, ='ti

a. Clear the M240. The object of clearing is to unloadhe weapon andplace the boltin its forward (safe)' position. '

. .

J .. .

.

lb. Load the M240. The purpose is to insert ammunition into the weapon,.

,in order to fire it.of

c. ,Immediate Action'on the M240. Immediate action is the loader's re-

. sponse to announcements of seoppagein firin, caused by some weapon malfunctiod.

d. Disassemble the M240. The object `his ask is to field'strip theIg riskweapon for periodic maintenancli 4# ..il/

-.

1Tn

: ii,e. . .

e 461 orientation of our ptoposed model of procedural, learning has much incommon with Newell and Sibon's.(197iYapproach to problem soling. Indeed,

..... Voss (19.79Y,and others have recognized that learnihgand metpory tasks require,problem-solvipg skills. Still others (e.g., Abelson, 1981,) have argued thatgoal hierarchies ardi*uhdamental knowledge structures applicable to a variety.0

of toghitive procesAaa. ,

.7 7,.

..

A %A

123

a

des

rEGIES 7

ICS Subgoal11

10.

TASK GOAL

Subgoal1

.6

Subgoal.2'at

. .

.4. 10...4; '

.; , o.

.T

'ENTS 11.1 112 121 122 123 211 2 2 . 221' 2

.

ire L,, 4.3xitatical goat structure for a hypothetical procedgreg: t-- .' r '

K"- '1 ,

,.4

*9

. .0 ,. l'-VN V r

. ,. .. 4 .

4,t . C.

1

' :0"

4- r

.. 0\

.

N ..

.,.

..

. .

,.

.

,. ,

0

e. Assemble/Functions Check the M240. .For this task, the soldier reassem-bles the fielcketiipped weapon, then checks the operation of:the weapon to de-

.*termine Wit is.Pyoperly, assembled.' . . %

. 4.

f. Operate the AN/VRC-t4. The goal of this task is to ready the tank1 intercom and radio - transmitter for operation.

1Procedure

The first step in the analytic process was to identify the task elementsof each procedure. Task elements were defined as the temporally.discrete andreliably observable behaviors required for the proper execution of procedures.The primary sources of task information were technical manuals for the AN/VRC-64 (TM 11-5820-498-12) And the M240 (TM 93005-3i3-10). Additiorial task in-formation was obtained from the Soldier's Manual fort

0Armoi Crewman (FM 17-.

, 19E1/2) and bbservations of soldiers in Armor SOT. 4,

, .:.

Consistent with our model of procedural rning and memory, three, ruleswere followed for deriving the task structure: (a) The organization must bestrictly hierarchical with no overlapping relations or cross - classifications,(b) each, hierarchical 'node and its subordinate branches must relate to somemeaningful objective, (c)' each node can consist of no more than five branches.

$/ A. o

The generarforma or the task hierarchies ,bras a four-level ptructure as

illustrated:in Figure . Constructio0rof hierarchies was accomplished by acombination of "top own" and "bottoisiWanalyses. Frani the top, the overall

task goal was segmented into intermediate strategic subgoals. From the bottom,task elements were grouped into meaningful pactical subgoals. The strategicand tactical subgoals were their related to one another, the result usually' re-quiring vDdifiFations to the initial top-down and bottom-up analyses. .Also,because of the limitations to the number of branches peg node, some lagertasks required an additional level of tactice subgoals. Every hierarchical'

node was labeled, with a verb or verb phrase descriptive. of the subgoal..'

functions.'" .

.,:,

The derivation of the hierarchical structure for Clear the M240 (Figure 2)isdescribed in detail below to illustrate the analytic process. The.jaer-archical structures of ehe remainingtasks`are presented.in,phe*Appendix.

Analysislgf Clear' the M240 .-

Analysls showed that the overall goal of Clear thee M240 was to put theweapon into,a state that prevents accidental discharge. The overall goal wassimply represented by the term ','CLEAR" in 'Figure 2. The overall task goal was

then parsed intb two strategic subgoals "Unload" and "Return." The objectof,the Unload subgoal was to remove all lbarces of ammunition from the weapon.The purpose of the Return subgoal was to restore the weapon to a safe state

1.,

after unloading.

. .* From the'bottom bf the figure, pairs of elements were joined because of afew mechanical constraints of the M240. One of tilt constraints was that the

\ 145

4P

I

STRATEGIES.

i

,-,

TACTICS

t

.4

It

charge

4

' Unload

a

a

removeawn°

), .CLEAR

feedtray chamber

check if pull/ ock place open 'remove ra se ,, retrieveELEMENTS weapon bolt to weapon cover ammo , feed chambered

inFIRE rear in SAFE .. belt% tray- round

. 4 -- .

11 13AL4. Hierarchical goal ltructure for.Clear the 0240..

e . 15-. , , ... . ,

Z

.

Return

closecover

re easebolt

%place ' pull

weapon trigger

in FIRE -ride/bolt ..

*,

4

.

.1

0

o ,m

N'4:;10.41 .4. 9. .I .

' i ...

V ' . '

safety must be 'in FIRE in:o0e.r to mov e the bolt torward pr backyard. Thus,

.ae'adements "check if in FIRE" -4% "pull-bolt to rear" were joined-as the '

'10,"4charge" tactical subgoal, and "place in .SAFE" + :'pull trigger" became the''.''release bolt"'subgoa14. Similarly, , "Open °Over" was connected to "remove ammo'

e' l.

,,,belt".becausirthe ammo-.belt was .located under the cover. The next two ele-.mente, "raise feed tray" -a "remove chambered rounds,"-aere.joined because the

.

. firing chamber was accessed by lifting the -feed tray:,--

.WhiXe artedking.to connect tactical and strategic subgoals, it becamedale that the four elements from "place weapon in SAFE" to "remove chamberedrout cii" were all directly elated to removing ammunition, However, the act

,of charging the weapon was indirectly related to removing ammunition by vir-. tue of5the.fact that it was necessary to put the bolt in the rear position to

get.at the firing chamber. Thus, another tactical subgoal ("remove ammo"). was fermed"Separateiy from the charge subgoal. Both Were related to.ehe.

superordpate Unloadrsubgoil. For the Second subgoal, the element "closecover" acid the subgoal "release bolt" were both connected to Return becapse

1 they both related to restoring the weapon to its initial state.

'DISCUSSION

. .

The hierarchies obtained through analysis appear to be valid repres4nta-tions of task goal structures. More important than their face validity, how-.ever, is their relevance to training practices and their heuristic value tofprtheripsearch. Somepossible applications ,of the structures are discussedbelow.ifu

Training Implications

A These analyses i4entified useful task information that might help thesoldier learn and remember a procednre: Eden though these knowledges areconceptual in nature, we are,not advocating a return to the traditional pas-

.sive lectu4e dPproach to convey them. Active practice must be a central fearture

of procedural training approach. What we are suggesting is thatinstruction be designed.to encourage appropriate memory organization withina perfoip!ance context. *

One ,possible approach can be termed a "parr-task" training ptrategy.'According to this technique, instructors demonstrate the procedures of thestrategic subgoala separately, providing a short explanation of each subgoalobjoctAye. Soldiers then'practice each subproceaure separately before atteipt-_inethe procedute as a whole. Part-task training should assure that soldiersorganize procedural eltateOtsinto appropriate subgoal units._ Also, the infor-matioi about subgoal objectives should help the soldiers...interrelate the vari-.ous task.gdals.

.

AnOther approach, *hich,Could be used in conjunction with the part-task.

sttategy, is en train.soldiers to associate adhgoal names with the appropriatesubprosednres. Than.the names can se?ve as pnemonic aids for recalling the

procedural elements: For instance, the 20 elements of the Immediate Actiontask wou ld be cued by the names for the five strategic subgoallq Fire, Clear,-

11, .a16

. ,

t .Iri.7- .

.

Hand Cycle, aeload, and Fire. Similar mnemonic techniques have already been ..

incorporated-into Armor tzairiing. For example, cavalrylscoula are taught theacronym SALUTE for remerhering thd,information that should be given in a spotreport; Sizes Activity, Location, Unit, Time,. and Eckuipment.' However, thereis an important difference in the twosapproachea to mnemonics:- the immediateaction cues are related to task goal structure, whereas the s' of report acronymis essentialli*irrelevant to task content. $hea (1977) demonsttated that task -relevant verbal, labels were more effective ineionic ai4s.thaelirreleyant labels.Thus,. we'expest the subgoal names to be more effective mnemonic4ids than task-.irrelevant acronyms. ,

. 4 ,Research Extensions

According to the presen methods of analysis, the analyst derives taskstructuxe_psing, his or her own knowledge of task goals and a few rules'of cog-nitive processing....Resnlck (1976) argues'that such rational task analyses canprovide good preliminary representations of task requirements. Nevertheless,there were some probletos with the rational approach presented here. The cog-nitive rules were so general that the analysis depended largely on the analyst'sbubjective'iuterp.retation of task goals. Moreover,feven with more objectivetechniques,,the task structure derived by an analysis is not necessarily the 4same as the structure actually used by the soldier to remember the procedure.In order .to find out how learners accomplish tasks, Resnick suggested that em-'4

. Dirical analyses.of performance be used to follow up rational analyses.

o

A potential.empirical technique for determining task structure has beenoutlined by Friendly (1979). His called proximity analysis, is basedon the assumption that items that e)grouped together in memory tend to be

clustered together at recall. Thus, the pattern of response proximities re--veals the organization of memory. The analysis is a two -step process thatstarts with obtaining estimates of temporal or ordinal proximity on an item-by-item basis.. The proximities are then subjected to a numerical clusteranalysis to determine the hierarchical structure. The product of the analysisis a graphical reprIsentation of memory structure. Although proximity analysisilas'been applied to free recall of verbal lists, there U.no reason why it can-not be applied Co verbal recall of a procedure. Results from such an objective .

empirical analysis may lead to modifications of our initial conceptions of task- 'structure to more closely match the organization actually used by the performer.

8

I

( .

Ow

: : ' . .I. 4

0 ' ..: 4

REFERENCES es ...

-%I 1 .. .. ..

. . -

Y4 i. .

. Abelson, R. P..6981).. Ps)tchologicR1 status orthe script concept. 'American'Psychologist, 36, 715-729.

Vork, R. A.11975).processor. In& D. B..Ponirence Erlbaum.

.0.

Short -tert storage: The ordered output of aF. Restle, R. M. Shigfrin, N..J.VCastellani H.(Eds.), Cognitive 'theory (Vol. 1). Hillsdale.,

(1953).,ranged associates.

0

centralR._Lindman,NJ: Law-

The dccurrence of clustering the iecall'oCrandomlyJournal of Geberal Psychology, 49; 229-240.

Bower, G. H., Clark, M. C., t.esgold, A. M., & Winzenz., D'; (1969). Hierarcbicalretrieval schemes in recall of categorized word, Journal of VerbalLearning and Verbal Behavior,-8, 323-343..

Craik, F. & Lockhart, R. S:for memory research. Journal71-684.

Diewart; G. L., & Stelmach, G. E.learning. In G. E. Stelmachtrol and learning. New York:

Friendly, M? (1979). Methods for finding graphic'r predeatations of associd-.tive memory structures. In C. Puf(Ed.) mo dr anization andstructure. New York:- Academic Press.

(1972). Levels oriocessing: A frameworkof Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11,

(1978). P4cepival organization in motor(Ed.), Infdrual.cm processing jin motor con-Acactemia Pies = .

Johnson, N. F. (1970). The role of chunking and organization in the processof recall. In G. H. Boiter,(Ed.), The-psychology of learning and memory(Vol. 4). New York: ACidemic Press.

Handler, G. (1967). Organization and memory. In K. W. Spence & J. T. Spence(Eds.), The,psycholosy of learning and memory (Vol. 1). New York: Aca-demic Press.

Melton, A. W., E.-Martin E. (1972). Coding processes in human memory. Washing-.

ton, DC: Winston. .

. .

Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two. Psycho-logical Review, 63,. 81-97.

Miller, G. A., Galaater, E., & PAbram, K. H. (1960). Plane and the structureof.behavior. New York: Henry Holt.

Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs,NJ: Prentice-Hall.

0.

Osborn, W. C4, Campbell, C. H., &arris, J. H. (1979, December). The reten-"Lion of tank crewman skills. ARI Research Report No. 1234. (AD AD86 399)

.%

.":

.

\

RIsnick, L. B. (1976). Taskanalyifs in instructional desigp: 'Sonii cases

from mathematics. In D. Klihr (Ed.), Cognition and instruction. Hills-dale, 1J: Lawrence ErlImum.

' ;

..

Shea, J. B.' (1977)i Effects of labeling on motor short-term memory.. Journal, :

of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory; 3', 92-99.. ',....

. .,

O

J. L., Goldberg, 8. L., & Dressel, J. B. (1979, September). Reten- f

won of basic soldiering skills. ARI Research Repbrt No. 1225. (AD A075 412).

, .

Voss, J. F. (1979). Organization, structurej and memory: Three perspectiv$.. In C. R. Puff (Ed.), Memory organization and structure. New York:. -Aca-

demic Presi..

.

J-

' '*0

t

.t, 10

v

l

I

I

APPiNpIX

ilIERARCHICAL STRtidtURES F,OR ARMOR TASKS

STRATEG ES

TACTICScharge

the k ifELDIENTS weapon Pull/Jock place

bolt toin weaponn FIRE

rear in SAFE

.

Unload

lb

LOAD

o

I

open

cover,.

raisefeed

tray

Insert Anne

remove lower .' placechambered feed UM bel t

rounds tray, on tray

Figure A-1. Ilierare)iical goal structure for load-the 14240.

t 4

2.1

closecover

I

4

a.

*MOILS,

P*

co

TACTICS

4

ELEMENTS

d IMMEDIATE

AURA01-

.4

t

00

/ -

-0

4

r

4

/

Attemptto Fire

Unload

I

we t ,place'fife weaponsecs in,

-FIRE

dc

Ili

Cycleinsert Attempt.Awmo to Fire'

r

.1

.

11 el...

'-bolt

/.

1

release k

;

;

I1

A

I( Gt 11

.

\

\

. . , .

is 1

1 1

pull/ a ce watt pull/ plagt raise r re raise re place pull putt/ place, lower place close place announcelock' "up' five tuck weapon cover ammo feed chambered .weapon trigger/ lock weapon 'Iced moo belt cover weapon ."up'

bolt to secs bolt to In belt tray. rounds. In ride bolt 6o tray on, tray in.rear. . rear SAFE " FIRE bolt toar SAFE FIRE

, a

Figure A-2. Hierarchical goat' structprefor

22

4

ate Action on the M240.

LS

/

R

4

-

239'

. 4

STRATEGIES ,"' RemoveBarrel'.

.11

TACTICS'

pisAssemeE

s

.

loc Ong

ILEMEiTS,bated/

barrelrelease

,

. ,

out , 11 t r000e*ba eT s out Piing rodbuffer and. spring

elk

'Remove-

Interlot Parts

re vabolt assembly .

4

.

1

'"

4i

.-Remove' - . 4

Exterior Parts

remove

cover assembly

ra se sire re ve . closecover out bolt

assembly"..+trigger. '. coversassembly

Figure AV3. Hierarchio0 ipal'strueCure for Disassembie the M240.

4:

24

--r-.." 11 ' S.

-

.)

.

4;

, 0

"4

I

'

pull oatcover pin $

ev /4

V.

C

vet

d.

STRATEGIES

TACTICS

ASSEMBLE

1

ReplaceExterior Parts

ELEMENTS replace.replace slide raise

-------- cover ii trigger charger. cover

feed assembly handletray in piece

Replaceinterior Parts

replace

bolt assembly

p

extend sl de replace

bolt bolt in driving rod

asseitly receiver ii spring

AttachBarrel

. a.

Orr

FUNCTION C4(CK

Charge

Fire onSAfE

S.

. .

fire enFIRE

14f i

1

1

ins all replace place pull /lock pl ce pull pl ce pu

buffer barrel weapon bolt to weapon trigger weapon trigger/

in mat in SAFE in FIRE bide bolt

FIRE

Figure A-4. Hierarchical, goal, structure fd'Assemble/gunctions Chock the H240.

2510.

AIR

J

a. .

26

1

9.

s

I

top

STRATEGIES

TACTICS

.

4.

-e.;

;

.

1.1

IO

s,

A "

OPERATE RAOIO .

4.

Operate

VIC -1

connectaudio

accessories

OttIt

ELEMENTS he weton

27

_

/

t)

connectcord

ust helmet coaAect connect

Mike switch bail-out audioto'center connectors cables

adjust' sd 3control NONITERbox vol switch,

on all

'

operateaudio frequency

amplifibr

1

4 iIf ..-;.

s t , set . S T ... ' sw tch

RADIO TRAM INT NAIP 'TONER CKT

, on '...: ACCENT PWR 11KR on ON

.'COR°+ CREit's on ON on NOM. .

Figure A -5. .literarchital goal strp6ture for Operate the

.

$

,./,

. ,

.

AN/VROf-64:.. ..,. t.,.

0

t yfp V 4)'S4 IN

4ZA/ A t*

OperateVRC -64

O

oiler to

receiver transmitter

t)

ti 4

MR OR/ set Ad ust Se set

SPKR OFF' FUNCTION At OANIL ROI' switch on. VOL .seleOpAr'

it

setuC

PI

6. -

, Y -O;0 ;..