Accelerating Team Development: Unobtrusive Assessments of Team Readiness Presented by Arwen DeCostanza, Ph.D. U.S. Army Research Institute On behalf of.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
How Leadership for Technology Is Distributed Among Leaders, Followers, and The Situation -Sara Dexter University of Virginia.
Advertisements

Evaluating the Tikkun Middot Project Tobin Belzer PhD October 28, 2013.
Exercise Science Chapter 19:Motor Learning and Skill Acquisition
Purpose of Instruction
Gradual Release of Responsibility & Feedback
Learning Objectives, Performance Tasks and Rubrics: Demonstrating Understanding and Defining What Good Is Brenda Lyseng Minnesota State Colleges.
Quality Matters TM : Introduction to QM and to the Rubric The Quality Matters™ Rubric 2008 – 2010 Edition Updated July 08.
A Module of Purdue University’s LeadingEdge Program
© 2012 Aptima, Inc. The Science of Game-based Training Effectiveness 29 March 2012 Krista Langkamer Ratwani Kara L. Orvis.
Team Training Dr. Steve Training & Development INP6325 * Adapted from Salas & Canon-Bowers.
Chapter 6 Groups and Teams. Copyright © 2006 by Thomson Delmar Learning. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 2 Purpose and Overview Purpose –To understand effective.
Gary D. Borich Effective Teaching Methods 6th Edition
Working with your Head to build an effective Leadership team.
A Tale of Two Cities: Comprehensive Assessment of College Student Readiness Paul Gore, Ph.D. University of Utah
Best Practices IIEngineering Engineering Education1 use active learning.
TEAM DEVELOPMENT AMY FJELD HRM B-02 BUILDING EFFECTIVE TEAMS INSTRUCTOR: JAMIE BOYD.
Team Leadership Chapter 12.
Teams: Processes and Communication
Introduction: The Nature of Leadership
Marjorie Hall Haley, PhD - GMU Chapter 5 Interactive Listening and Reading.
Michelle Forman & Richard F. Elmore SERP Institute / HGSE
Quality Matters and Online Courses in Sakai Brian Dashew, Instructional Designer, Marist College Dr. Reba-Anna Lee, Assistant Director for Academic Technology.
COPYRIGHT WESTED, 2010 Calipers II: Using Simulations to Assess Complex Science Learning Diagnostic Assessments Panel DRK-12 PI Meeting - Dec 1–3, 2010.
Team Launch Introduction. Real projects are large and complex, and most software is created by teams Merely throwing people together does not result in.
New England Regional Colloquium Series “Systems of State Support” B. Keith Speers January 24, 2007.
Strengthening Service Quality © The Quality Service Review Institute, a Division of the Child Welfare Policy & Practice Group, 2014.
Learner-Ready Teachers  More specifically, learner-ready teachers have deep knowledge of their content and how to teach it;  they understand the differing.
AugusBoth checks were cut the was cut on1/16 and the other one for was cut yesterday, both went out yesterday Marybeth Tahar Interaction.
Missouri Integrated Model Mid-Year Meeting – January 14, 2009 Topical Discussion: Teams and Teaming Dr. Doug HatridgeDonna Alexander School Resource SpecialistReading.
Learners’ Attitudes and Perceptions of Online Instruction Presented by: Dr. Karen S. Ivers Dr. JoAnn Carter-Wells Dr. Joyce Lee California State University.
Where We’re Headed A Strategic Update. Who We Are 50 years serving Flagler County 850 member companies strong Largest member organization in county 2.
Copyright © 2015 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.
Human Services Integration Building More Effective Responses to Peoples’ Needs.
Military Psychology: Teams and Teamwork Dr. Steven J. Kass.
Review of Cognitive Metrics for C2 Mandy Natter Jennifer Ockerman, PhD Leigh Baumgart.
SponsorProblem AssessRisk SolutionStrategy Measures of Merit (MoM) Human & OrganisationalIssues Scenarios Methods & Tools Data Products
Baker ONR/NETC July 03 v.4  2003 Regents of the University of California ONR/NETC Planning Meeting 18 July, 2003 UCLA/CRESST, Los Angeles, CA ONR Advanced.
MGT 1102 Fall 2001 Course Overview Gregory Gull, Ph.D. Office: Bartley 2008 Phone:
SponsorProblem AssessRisk SolutionStrategy Measures of Merit (MoM) Human & OrganisationalIssues Scenarios Methods & Tools Data Products
In the Science and Practice of Standard Setting, Where is the Science? Barbara S. Plake, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Emeritus.
State University of New York An Emerging Model for Online Learning MERLOT International Conference – August A Systemic Approach to Online Learning.
©Thompson Educational Publishing, Inc All material is copyright protected. It is illegal to copy any of this material. This material may be used.
4-1 Understanding the Basic Team Processes Chapter 4.
Dr. Shane Renwick, DVM, MSc, A/Director, Animal Health Science Division, Canadian Food Inspection Agency CAHLN, UCVM June 8, 2010 Foresight for Canadian.
Assessing Information Literacy with SAILS Juliet Rumble Reference & Instruction Librarian Auburn University.
Improvement Leaders Collaboratives Residential Module Effective teams.
1 Power to the Edge Agility Focus and Convergence Adapting C2 to the 21 st Century presented to the Focus, Agility and Convergence Team Inaugural Meeting.
Managing Groups and Teams
AIM: K–8 Science Iris Weiss Eric Banilower Horizon Research, Inc.
U.S. Army Research Institute How to Train Deployed Soldiers: New Advances in Interactive Multimedia Instruction Mr. Scott Shadrick Dr. James Lussier ARI.
Chapter 13: Managing Groups and Teams Learning Objectives
Network Development Summer Academy Goethe Institut : Day Two Process Facilitation and Documentation: Dr. Marcus Hildebrandt.
Groups Dynamics and Teams Development. Groups, Teams and Organizational Effectiveness Group –Two or more people who interact with each other to accomplish.
McGraw-Hill/Irwin© 2005 The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved Chapter8 Groups Behavior and Teamwork.
Capacity Development Results Framework A strategic and results-oriented approach to learning for capacity development.
1 Oregon Standards Evaluation Project, Contract Amendment Phase: Summary of Preliminary Findings Dr. Stanley Rabinowitz WestEd December 6, 2007.
Group Dynamics. TYPES OF GROUPS AND TEAMS A group is a collection of people who interact with each other, are working toward some common purpose, and.
Collaboration through Networking 1 StateNets Mission Provide a national forum for collaboration To jointly address future challenges To share strategies.
Springfield Public Schools SEEDS: Collecting Evidence for Educators Winter 2013.
Developing your Team Generating Hypotheses for the Team Assignment.
HPHC - PERFORMANCE TESTING Dec 15, 2015 Natarajan Mahalingam.
Building High-Performance Organizations V-1 Ver 3.6/18/2016 MODULE V: LEADERSHIPFORM BUILDING HIGH-PERFORMANCE ORGANIZATIONS IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY.
OD Presentation Understanding OD Interventions
McGraw-Hill/Irwin Copyright © 2013 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. Teams: Processes and Communication Chapter 12.
Development of the Construct & Questionnaire Randy Garrison & Zehra Akyol April
Knowing What Students Know Ganesh Padmanabhan 2/19/2004.
CS10K Information Architecture Task Force Meeting January 11, 2016.
Chapter 9 Psychology Applied to Work® Teams and Teamwork.
McGraw-Hill/Irwin Copyright © 2009 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Understanding the Basic Team Processes
Presentation transcript:

Accelerating Team Development: Unobtrusive Assessments of Team Readiness Presented by Arwen DeCostanza, Ph.D. U.S. Army Research Institute On behalf of Zachary Horn, Ph.D. Aptima 20 May 2014

2 Overview Unobtrusive assessment of team-level cognitive readiness Think Tank: Team readiness assessment environment –Feedback for team leaders to accelerate readiness Key Aptima Projects: ADS FORCE – PHASE II SBIR (Contract W911QX-12-C-0026, ARL/OSD) ACCRUE - PHASE IIE SBIR (Contract W91CRB-11-C-0068, DARPA/ARI) THINK ATO-R (Contract W91WAW-09-C-0058, ARI)

3 Team States  Cognitive Readiness Cognitive States: Shared Mental Models Shared Situation Awareness Team Transactive Memory Strategic Consensus Team Cognitive Capacity/Load Team Engagement Affective States: Team Cohesion Team Trust Team Efficacy Team Learning Preparedness Readiness Climate Team Drive Team Expertise Team Emotion Cognitive States: Shared Mental Models Shared Situation Awareness Team Transactive Memory Strategic Consensus Team Cognitive Capacity/Load Team Engagement Affective States: Team Cohesion Team Trust Team Efficacy Team Learning Preparedness Readiness Climate Team Drive Team Expertise Team Emotion ADS FORCE Phase I ( ): Model of Team Cognitive Readiness

4 Unobtrusive Measurement of Team States

5 Unobtrusive Assessment Overview

6 Unobtrusive Measurement Strategy RADSM: Rational Approach to Designing Systems-based Measures Orvis, Duchon, & DeCostanza (2013) Shared Situation Awareness Example Item 1: The degree of messages a person is receiving which reference the systems they are using for information sharing Shared Situation Awareness Example Item 2: The degree to which individuals within a team are sending and receiving dissimilar information 6

7 Team Readiness Assessment Environment ADS FORCE II PI: Zachary Horn, Aptima TPOC: Dan Cassenti, ARL HRED

8 What happens in the “Think Tank”? Interact with avatars in an online meeting –Team meetings (planning, briefs, etc.) –Course lessons/discussions –Scenario-based discussions Automated Measures of Team States Aptima’s ACCRUE measurement suite **Generalizable across domains, content –Tracks voice/chat: content, length, etc. –Identifies social network & team patterns –Measures states with latest team science Result: Team Profile Empirical metrics of team readiness –Results for each team state –Readiness for different tasks/workflows –Tips for developing key team states Think Tank: Team Assessment Environment

9 Goal: Help the team leader infer levels of readiness from team state scores –Cohesion (Affective): Task Cohesion: Member Contribution, Task Focus, etc. Social Cohesion: Support, Friendship, etc. –Trust (Affective): Trust in team’s ability, integrity, and benevolence –Shared Understanding (Cognitive): Shared Mental Models: Understanding of mission goals, status, etc. Shared Situational Awareness: Understanding of environment Team Transactive Memory: Understanding of team roles Question: Given scores on cohesion, trust, and shared understanding, how ready is the team for different levels of interdependence (workflow categories; Tesluk et al., 1997)? –Pooled (“Individual”): Summing individual efforts –Sequential (“Hand-off”): Passing from one to another –Reciprocal (“Back-and-forth”): Team members get multiple iterations –Intensive (“Together”): Collaborating on a joint decision Inferring Readiness from Team States

10 Consulted the team literature to identify criticality of Cohesion, Trust, and Shared Understanding for each workflow: Instructions to Leaders: 1.Decide which workflow(s) represents anticipated team tasks (performance episodes) 2.Identify the most critical team states for each workflow 3.Verify/improve readiness given scores on those critical team states Team State Criticality for Workflows

© 2013 Aptima, Inc. 11

© 2013 Aptima, Inc. 12

13 Summer 2014: Validate preliminary unobtrusive measures –Goal: Construct validation via project team meetings (naturalistic) –Convergent Validity: compare with self-report measures of same constructs Fall 2014 to Fall 2015: –Test the extensibility of these team state measures in live exercises –Configure for different indicators (e.g., VoIP, text chat, sociometers) –Use theory (top-down) and data (bottom-up) to refine strategies for measurement, aggregation, and inferences of readiness Next Steps