This article presents the design and evaluation of visualization concepts supporting After Action Review (AAR) in simulator mission training of fast-jet fighter pilots. The visualization concepts were designed based on three key characteristics of representations: re-representation, graphical constraining, and computational offloading. The visualization concepts represent combined parameters of missile launch and threat range, the former meant to elicit discussions about the prerequisites for launching missiles, and the latter to present details of what threats a certain aircraft is facing at a specific moment. The visualization concepts were designed to: 1) perceptually and cognitively offload mental workload from participants in support of determining relevant situations to discuss; 2) re-represent parameters in a format that facilitates reading-off of crucial information; and 3) graphically constrain plausible interpretations. Through a series of workshop iterations, two visualization concepts were developed and evaluated with 11 pilots and instructors. All pilots were unanimous in their opinion that the visualization concepts should be implemented as part of the AAR. Offloading, in terms of finding interesting events in the dynamic and unique training sessions, was the most important guiding concept, while re-representation and graphical constraining enabled a more structured and grounded collaboration during the AAR.
McLeanGMTLambethSMavinT.The use of simulation in ab initio pilot training. Int J Aviat Psychol2016; 26: 36–45.
2.
OrasanuJConnellyT. The reinvention of decision making. In KleinGAOrasanuJCalderwoodRZsambokCE (eds) Decision making in action. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation, 1993, pp. 3–20.
3.
LineberryMWalwanisMReniJ.Comparative research on training simulators in emergency medicine: A methodological review. Comp Res Method Rev2013; 8: 253–261.
4.
CookDAHatalaRBrydgesRet al. Technology-enhanced simulation for health professions education. JAMA2011; 306: 978–88.
5.
IssenbergSBMcgaghieWCPetrusaERet al. Features and uses of high-fidelity medical simulations that lead to effective training: A BEME systematic review. Med Teach2005; 27: 10–28.
6.
BellHHWaagWL.Evaluating the effectiveness of flight simulators for training combat skills: A review. Int J Aviat Psychol1998; 8: 223–242.
7.
AchtertEKriegelHPReichertLet al. Visual evaluation of outlier detection models. In: KitagawaHIshikawaYLiQWatanabeC (eds) Database systems for advanced applications. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer, 2010, pp. 396–399.
8.
SteadmanRHCoatesWCHuangYMet al. Simulation-based training is superior to problem-based learning for the acquisition of critical assessment and management skills. Crit Care Med2006; 34; 151–157.
9.
MolesworthBWigginsMWO’HareD.Improving pilots’ risk assessment skills in low-flying operations: The role of feedback and experience. Accid Anal Prev2006; 38: 954–960.
10.
JohnsonCGonzalesA.Automated after action review: State-of-the-art review and trends. JDMS2008; 5:107–120.
11.
FernlundHGonzalezAJEkbladJet al. Trainee evaluation through after-action review by comparison. JDMS2009; 6: 135–150.
12.
RankinAWoltjerRFieldJ.Sensemaking following surprise in the cockpit - A re-framing problem. Cogn Technol Work2016; 18: 623–642.
13.
ChaiklinSLaveJ (eds) Understanding Practice: Perspectives on Activity and Context (Learning in Doing: Social, Cognitive and Computational Perspectives). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
14.
KressGSelanderS.Multimodal design, learning and cultures of recognitions. Internet Higher Ed2012; 15: 265–268.
15.
KarlgrenKRambergR.Collaborative interaction design: Running into gaps of framing problems and the use of design patterns. CoDesign2012; 8: 231–246.
16.
KarlgrenKRambergRArtmanH.Designing interaction – How do interaction design students address aspects of interaction?Int J Technol Design Edu2015; 25: 439–459.
17.
RambergRArtmanHKarlgrenK.Designing learning opportunities in interaction design: Interactionaries as a means to study and teach student design processes. J Design Learn2013; 6: 30–56.
18.
KnutssonORambergR. A pattern approach to the design of technology mediated collaborative learning in primary schools. In: JahnkeICerratto-PargmanT (eds) Changing teaching and learning practices in schools with tablet-mediated collaborative learning (#TMCL15), CSCL, Gothenburg, 2015, pp. 6–9.
19.
BertinJ. Semiology of graphics: Diagrams, networks, maps. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1983.
20.
ShneidermanB. The eyes have it: A task by data type taxonomy for information visualizations. In: Spencer SippleR (ed) Proceedings of the IEEE symposium on visual languages, Boulder, CO, 3–6 September 1996, pp. 336–343. Washington: IEEE Computer Society Press, 1996.
21.
ScaifeMRogersY.External cognition: how do graphical representations work?Int J Hum Comput Stud1996; 45: 185–213.
22.
ZhangJNormanDA.Representations in distributed cognitive tasks. Cogn Sci1994; 18: 87–122.
BorgvallJCastorMO’ConnellS. Enhanced scenario visualization for simulation-based training. In: Proceedings of international symposium of aviation psychology, Dayton, OH, 2–5 May 2011, pp. 203–209, pp. 3–5. 2011. Dayton, OH: Wright State University.
25.
BarabSSquireK.Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground, J Learn Sci2004; 13: 1–14.
26.
KölschM.A snapshot of the modeling and simulation community and education. JDMS2010; 8: 2017–2224.
27.
StevensJKincaidPSottilareR.Visual modality research in virtual and mixed reality simulation. JDMS2015; 12: 519–537.
28.
ter VehnP. Visualization for simulation-based training. MSc Thesis, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden, 2016.
29.
PerssonT.Using visualization to support identification and assessment of threat of nearby adversaries. MSc Thesis, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden, 2016.
30.
BirkmireB.Weapon engagement zone maximum launch range approximation using a multilayer perceptron. MScE Thesis, Wright State University, USA, 2011.
31.
JarmarkB.A missile duel between two aircraft. J Guid Control Dyn1985; 8: 508–513.
32.
SmithREDikeBARavichandranBet al. Discovering novel fighter combat maneuvers in simulation: Simulating test pilot creativity. In: BentleyPJCorneDW (eds) Creative evolutionary systems. San Diego, CA: Academic press, 2001, pp. 467–486.
33.
AteşoğluÖ. High angle of attack maneuvering and stabilization control of aircraft. PhD thesis, Middle East Technical University, Turkey, 2007.
34.
EndsleyM.Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Hum Factors1995; 37: 32–65.
35.
ErlandssonTNiklassonL. Threat assessment for missions in hostile territory – From the aircraft perspective. In: 16th International Conference on Information Fusion Istanbul, Turkey, 9-12 July 2013, pp. 1856–1862. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
36.
ArtmanH.Team situation assessment and information distribution. Ergonomics2000; 43: 1111–1128.
37.
AnzaiY.Learning and use of representations for physics expertise. In EricssonKASmithJ (eds) Towards a general theory of expertise. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991, pp. 64–92.
