'DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 198 245 CE 026 254 AUTHOR Levine, Jerrold M. TITLE Trainability of Abilities. Final Report, Mach 15, 1977-March 15, 1980. INSTITUTION .Advanced Research Resources Organization, fethesda, Md. 't SPONS AGENCY Office of Naval Research, Arlington,Va. ersonnel 0 and Training Research Programs Office. YEPORT NO -ARRO-3010-FR PUB DATE 'Jun 80 CONTRACT N00014-77-C-0268 NOTE 52p.: For related documents see ED 150 428,ED 167 840; and ED 183 954: EDRS PRICE MF01/PC03 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *Ability; Educational 'Research: Feasibility Studies: Higher Education: Perceptual Development; Performance: *Performance Factors; *Sensory Training; Spatial Ability; *ransfer of Training; Visualization; Visual Perception ABSTRACT / A program investigated the" feasibility of-training selpOied abilitiesso a.s to facilitate transfer among tasks requiring these abilitiesand thus reduce training time andincrease personnel flexibility. An extensive review of relevantliterature was a first stew in this investigation. Undergraduate college studentswere used as subjects in an initial and a followup-study, both of which used experimentalC7and control groups anda pretest/posttest experimental design. -The first experiment examinedthe abiki-tie-S Of spatial scanning and flexibility of closure both for increase`in the abilities-as a result of training an4 for transfer, oftraining .to a criteria task-requiring those abilities. Spatialscanning ability imprOed, flexibility of closure did not, andno transfer of training occurred. The second experiment attempted to/traina single ability--spatial. visualization--for transfer to twodifferent criterion tasks. No improvementin spatial visualization could'be inferred as a result of training, andno transfer' of training occurred. Results suggested that (1) lengthand_type of training may he critical factors,(2) some abilities may be more,. amenable to training than others, and (3)alternative training strategies should he considered. (YLB)
*********************************************************4************ * Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best thatcan be made * ,-4 from the original document. * 4********************************************************************** ARRO-3010-FR
/TRAINABILITYOF ABILITIES
Jerrold M. Levine
FINAL REPORT
Prepared under Contract to the Personnel and Training Research Prograls Psychological Sciences Division Office of NaVal Rdtearch Department of thejlavy.
Contract No. N00014-77-C-0268 NR No. 154-400
Approved for public release; distribution unlimited. Reproduction in whole or in part is permitted for ,any purpose of the United States Government.
ADVANCED RESEARCH RESOURCES ORGANIZATION
June 1980 U S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. EDUCATION & WELFARE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF 0 EDUCATION THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRO- DUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGIN- ATING IT POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONS C1 STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRE- SENT OF F ICiAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION POSITION OR POLICY 0 SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (When Data Entered READ INSTRUCTIONS REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE BEFORE COMPLETING'FORM 1. REPORT NUMBER 2. GOVT ACCESSION NO.3.RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER
,..-, / 5. TYPEaOF REPORT & P RIOD COVERED 4.TITLE (and Sabi ltla) . . Final Report . . . . 15 Mar 77 -v15 Mar 80 Trainability of Abilities 6. PERFORMING Oft'G.' REPORT NUMBER., ARRO-30144R 7. AUTHOR(A) a.CONTRACT/OR GRANT NUMBER(*)
. N00014-77-C-0268 Jerrold M. Levine "..
, . 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT, TASK 9.PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS AREA b WORK UNIT NUMBERS Advanced Research Resources Organization 61153N, RR042-06 4330 East -West. Highway, Suite 900 RR042-06-01,'NR 154-400 Washington, D.C. 20014 11. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS 12. REPORT DATE Personnel and Training Research Programs June 1980 'Office of Naval Research (Code 458) 13. NUMBER OF PAGES Arlington, Virginia 22217 34 15. SECURITY CLASS..(ol this report) 14. MONITORING AGENCY NAME6ADDRESS(il dilterent from Controlling Office) . . . Unclassified!------,/
. 15a. DECLASSIFICATION/DOWNGRADING ,,,, SCHEDULE ) 16. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of this Report)
. -.. Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.
17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the abstract entered In Block 20, if different from Report)
t. .
18. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
. . ,
c
19. KEY WORDS (Continue on reverse aid. if necessary and Idcrottly by block number) Training:- Spatial Visualization Transfer. of 'Training Ability. Training Abilities Electronic Trouble-shooting Spatial SCanning Flexibility of Cloture ,..
20. ABSTRACT (Continuo an rovers. aide If nocodraory era Identify by block nuomborr) The feasibility of training'selected abilities so as to facilitate transfer amon tasks requiring .these abilities and therefore.reduce training time and increase personnel flexibility was inve,,:tigated. Undergraduate college students partici- pated in several studie< of from one to five days duration. Experimental sub- jects received extensive practice with feedback provided.on a set of tasksknown to require the ability of being trained. Control subjects received no practice. All subjects were tested on transfer tasks which were dissimilar to thetraining tasks but"which had earlier been demonstrated to require for successfultask DD 1;ORM /473 E0111010 OF 1 NOV 65 IS OBSOLETE SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (When DateBettered) C.;
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE(IThers Data Entered)
Continued from Block 20 -- Abstract
performance the abilities being trained. Results indicated that training sig- nificantly enhanced one of -three of the abilities. as measured by a standard ability test administered-before and after training. There was no evidence that performance on the transfer tasks was affected significantly as a result of training'(i.e., there was no transfer of training).
O
O
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE(Then Data Entered) ABSTRACT
The feasibility of training selectedabilities so as to facilitate
transfer among tasks requiring these abilities andthdrebycedUce
. training time and increase personnelflexibility was inestigated.-
A review of the literature relevant'to abilititraining and nonspecific
transfer produced mixed support for abilitytraining, and only indirect
support for nonspecific transfer. An experiment was conducted toAtrain
the abilities of flexibility of closureand spatial scanning for trans-
fer to an electronic trouble-shootingtask. While the spatial scanning
ability improved with training, flexibilityfclosure did not, and
no transfer of training occurred. A second experiment attempted to
train a:single visualizatibn--for transfer totwo
different criterion- tasks. No improvement in spatial visualizaion o 'as a result of training could be inferred, andno transfer of training / - occurred. The /implications of these resultsare discussed in terms .of
alternative tr,aining strategies which mightincrease the li elihood of successful/ability training and transfer.
y INTRODUCTION
Personnel training requirements inthe Navy have alteredcon-
siderably in recentyears, due to the impact of a number of variables.
IncreAsed automation in man-machinesystems has reduCed the number of personnel manning the systems,but ehhanCed the responsibilitYof thoS6 personnel. Fewer billets, smallercrew sizes, and the increasedcam-
plexity of Navy .tasks have allaffected the demands placedon a training program. Simultaneously training costshave increased reducing the
cost-effectiveness of direct trainingfor.each of the varied and complex skills reqUired of the-personnel. What.may be needed is trainingfo-
cuSed on general abilityrequirements of the jobs. O Such .a program would increase personnel flextbility since the trained ability wouldapply to .a number of skills and tasks.
The identification of general humanabilities accounting for indi- vidual differences in cognitive, perceptual, and motor performancehas
beeh the subject of extensiveresearch (cf.. Fleishman, 1964, 1972;
French, Eckstrom, & Price,1963; Guilford, 1967): As a result of
these efforts, abilities havebeen'tonceptualized as broad capacities. underlying performance on a variety of human tasks (Fleishman,1967,
1972). Typically, abilities are identified throughcorrelational studies of human performance, in which the fact of individual differencesis
exploited to gain insightS' aboutcommon processes required to perform
different groups of tasks. This is contrasted with skills,which define
//levelsof proficiency ina particular task. Clearly, if training a,
general ability increased thelevel of skill on several tasks, //// then ability training would providean extremely cost-effective alternative
to specific skill training.
The initial difficulty is to determine whetheror not it is pos- . sible to modify or increase the level ofa given ability possessed by
an individual. In the traditidnal conceptualization, abilitiesare
considered to be the product of early letrning andgenetic,fattors
( (Ferguson, 1956; Gagne & Fleishman, 1959).and the ability remains
relatively stable and unchanging in the adult (Fleishman,1972). There 0 is some evidence, howeVer, to indicate thatabilities can be modified
through appropriate experience even in adOlt :life. For example,
Brinkmann.(1966) Provided extensiye training inthe behaviors thought
to-be involved in spatial visualization ability (i.e. discrimiiiation, recognition, organization, and orientation). He found that the trained group improved their performance on -a spatial relations criteriontest to a significant degree, while an untrained control.group did not. improve.
The potential gains in terms of personnelflexibility and reduced training cost mandate exploratory Investigationof the feasibility of ability training. As a first step.in this investigation,an extensive review of the releYant,literaturewasconduCted (Hogan,1978). This \ / review provided' the bases for-:!an initial experimental investigation, in which the abilities of spatial scanning andflexibility of closure were systematically examined, both for increases inthe abilities as a result of training, and for transfer of training toa criterion task requiring
O those abilities (Levine, Brahlek, Eisneri,& Fleishman, 1979).\ .A
0 follow-up to this study employeda refined design to investigate the
potential for training, spatial visualization ability and obtainingtrans - fer to multiple Criteri6 tasks (Levine, Schulman, Brahlek,&Fleishman, 1980). Each' ofthese three activitiesin the investigation.of ability training is\summarized below, followedby conclusions and implications drawn from the investigations.\:
O
3 0 \BACKGROUND
The research relevant to training and transfer ofabilities can be
considered in three major groupings: early laboratory research of
direct relevance; later, more sophisticatedlaboratory research of less
import; and applied research. Each of these research areas provides
us with clues renarding the potential trai1ibility of abilities. 0 Early Research
One of the first attempts to trainan ability was conducted by
William James (1890). He tried to improve a subject'smemory ability
by training them to memorize the poetry ofone author, and transferring
them to memorization of a different authdr'sverse. James obtained no
positive transfer, and indeed his failure touse a training control ,
would have rendered the results difficult to evaluatein any case.
Several later attempts were apparentlymore successful, however.
Sleight (1911) reported work by Ebert and Meumann whichemployed a variety of training materials and criteria, trainedover a nine-month period, and,employed pretest controls. Their results showed a general improvement in memory ability overall and iodtcated that theamount Of improvement was generally proportional to the degree of similarity' between training task-and criterion test., Others,(Winch, 1S10)ob- tained similar results, but methodological problems suchas inequaiity of pre- and posttest conditions continued to plague theresearch.
Similar research interest carriedover to the potential for train- ing learning. Some speculation concerning the existence ofa "g" or general factor in intelligence sparked considerable research. The
4 conclusion of much of this researchvas similar to that based on the
memory training research, however; little acceptable evidencefor a
general factor, and considerable evidenceto suggest that similarity
between training and criterion was the primedeterminant of transfer.
The conclusion that specificitywas an accurate assumption reduced
. interest in nonspecific transfer. The-early research warned of some
of the methodological pitfalls in assessingnonspecific transfer, and
hinted at.the importance of varied trainingprograms and the crucial
role of the nature of the criterion task indetermining transfer. How-
ever, little scientifically acceptable support for nonspecific transfer
was produced by this research.
Later Research
Although interest in nonspecific transferper se waned as a result
of the conclusion of specificity, later learningresearch produced
results relevant to nonspecific transfer. Two areas in particular are
of relevance: warmup effects and learning to learn. Warmup refers.to
the fact that neutral activity prior to criterionperformance results
in better performance, while learningto learn refers to the acquisition
of learning skills or sets through unrelatedpractice.
Warmup is a special case of nonspecific transfer,since the.warml
up activity IS neutral with respect to both the training and the
criterion materials. Evidence suggests that the amount'ofwarmup ac-
tivity and its temporal contiguity to the criteriontest are both pop-'
tively related to amount of transfer. The result was originally assiumed
to be due to ectivation of postural and orientationsets which facilitated:,:
5 criterion performance. More recent investigations have,attributed
warmup to the preparation of performance supportsysterip such as at-
tention and expectancy, thus facilitatingperformance. In either case,
the temporal relationship is critical,and warmup effects will tend to
dissipate qu-Ickly.
Learning to learn effects,on the other hand, tend to be more-endur-
ing. Learning to learn occurs when trainingon a task unrelated to, the
criterion results in improved performance.The implication is that sub-
jects do not acquire skills directlyrelated to criterion performance,
instead they acquire strategiesor learning skills useful in solving
even unrelated problems. The potential relevance to ability training
As clear.
Learning to learn phenomenaare not the only instance in which.
acquisition of a general strategyappears to play a role in facilitating
positive transfer. Edmonds and Evans (1966) demonstratedthat training
. in a visual pattern recognition taskfacilitated transfer to a memory
Teproduction task, if the visual patternscontained some redundancy. No
transfer occurred when random visualpatterns were used in training.
The strategy employed, to perceive andremember redundant patterns ap-
peared to be helpful, therefore, in theperformance of the memory re-
production task.
In summary, while little research has beenconducted to examine
.specific'ally the conditions of nonspecifictransfer, some support for
nonspecific transfer may be inferred froma variety of phenomena. These
include warmup and learning to learn,as well as the general phenomenon--
6 of developing a steategy'in one-learningsituation which facilitates performance in another.
Applied Research
It might be expected that thepotential for nonspecific transfer
of training would have been thoroughlyexamined by applied researchers,
ince its potential value is clear. Here, too, however, much of the
\ ,..- evtdence about nonspecific transfer -...... , is inferential in nature. For.
example, when simulation devicesare employed in training, it is assumed
that higher fidelity (i.e.,greater specificity) will result Ingreater
transfer to on-the-job performance. Contradictory evidence exists, how-
ever.Voss (1969) showed that pilot trainingwith a physically similar
device produced no better transfer thantraining in reduced conditions.
It has been suggested Nneaton, Rose,Fingerman, Korotkin, & Holding,
1974) that transfercan be obtained from training in devices lacking
in physical similarity, if there issufficient task fidelity.
Educational researchers have attemptedto train general abilities
such as originality and creativity,as well as cognitive abilities.
For example, Maltzman (19E0) revieweda programmatic attempt at origi-
nality training. Typically, subjects were trained:to producedifferent
reSponseS to the same stimulus word. Facilitation of originality
.occurred as a result at this training, andpersiSted for as long as two
days. Similarly, some success has been obtainedin training creativity
(Parnes T972). Attempts to train cognitive abilities inpre-
'school children have been made, butare impossible to evaluate due to
inadequate experimental control. Indeed, this criticismapplied to much of the educational research , on ability training.-
7 No direct support of scientific adequacyappears to exist for the
notion of nonspecific transfer. There are, however, tantalizing hints
---suggesting that such transfer is possible. Phenomena such as warmup
and leaining_to learn may be considered specialinstances of nonspecific
transfer. Moreover, training may result in the development ofa meditating
0 strategy which proves useful in a variety of unrelated tasks. Suggestions/7\
ol/positive transfer from general simulation devicesalso question the
need for specificity in training, and evidencefavoring general ability
. training may -be-inferred cautiously from educationalresearch. It is
clear that to understand transfer, taskrequirements_and_learner strate-
1
gies, must be considered, as wellas learner abilities. Moreover, it
appears that task characteristict are more important than training
materials perse\infacilitating transfer, and variabilityof training
within a class of response types increases the likelihoodof transfer.
Such evidence supports'. and encouragesa systematic attempt at general
Ability training.I
1 STUDY I
Based-on the review of the literatureon nonspecific transfer, a
careful study of the feasjbilityof training selected/,abilities for
transfer to Navy tasks "'was undertaken. /,
The abilities selected for trainingwere: (1) flexibility of closure,
defined as the abijityl,to identifyor detect a knoWn pattern which is
hidden-in background material, and (2) spatialscanning,defined as speed
in exploring visually a wideor complicated visual field to detector
identify objects. The Kit-of Factor-Referenced CognitiveTests provides
the "Hidden Patterns Test" for,flexibilityof closure, and "Choosinga
Path" for spatial scanning,as tests of the level of these abilities.
Severallc-riteria were used for the selectionof training materials.
They needed to be diverse and varied,allowing the subject to develop appropriate strategies in a variety ofcontexts. They had to be diffi- cult enough to challenge subjectsso that- learning could take place. They had to be as dissimilaras possible from the criterion task, while stiff requiring the same abilities,so that nonspecific transfer might be evaluated. Finally, they had to be easy tos administer andprovide built- , in feedback. The training paradigm consisted ofstructuredpractice with nine self-administered pencil andpaper tests selected on the above. criteria. Six of these tasks involved flexibilityof closure; the other three involved spatial scanning. The nine tasks constituting the/train-. ing program are listed below:
9 Task 1-- "Hidden Figures" (flexibility of closure)
Subjects were presented with a series of fivegeometric
figures anda. complex design in which one of the figures
was embedded. The task was to visually search thedesign
and ideniify which figurewas contained within it, at the
same time outlining the embedded figure.
Task 2 "Copying" (flexibility of closure)
In this task subjects copieda series of asymmetrical line
drawings, composed of connecting linesegments, onto grids
formed of dots. Subjects' drawings had to -be in theexact
proportions and positionsas the originals.
Task 3 -- "Puzzles" (spatial scanning)
Subjects were to solve line diagram puzzlesby tracing over
all the lines of the diagram witha continuous line (i.e.; without tracing any: linetwice).
Task 4 -- "Hidden Letters" (flexibility of closure)
This task required subjects to searchfor capital letters outlined in dots and surrounded by randomdot patterns.
Task 5 "Inspection" (flexibility of closure)
Subjects visually searched graphic designsfor irregular lines, i.e., lines with breaks.
Task 6 7.- "Embedded Figures" (flexibilityof closure)
The task was to locate a particularfigure which could be hidden within any of four patterns.
10 Task 7 -- "Map Planning" (spatial scanning)
. The task was to identify theshortest route between two
locations on a schematizedmap.
o>Task.8-- "Mazes" (spatial scanning)
The task was to solvea series of mazes by tracinga path
from the starting point to thegoal.
Task 9 -- "Altair Designs" (flexibilityof closure) Subjects were presented with computer-generated graphics .
and were to locate specificdesigns hidden within the overall designs.
The criterion or transfer task was an electronic troubleshootingtask.
It consisted of a series of problemsin which subjectswere required to
locate malfunctions, in diagramsof electric circuits. A digital logic
circuit was employed, in whichone faulty wire was identified. The subject's task was to find that wire by inserting a hypotheticalprobe (a "light' bulb"),at various locations (sockets) and depressingthe ap-
propriate switches to turn the lighton. If the light wenton, that.part of the circuit was not faulty and the subject had to check the restof the circuits. If it failed to go on, additionaltests:were required in that part of the circuit. Each test ideally divided the numberof'po-
tential break locations in half (seeFigure 1). Four separate configura-
tions with three levels of difficultyfor each configurationwere employed.
This task- -had previously beenshown to load heavilyon the abilities of flexibility of_closure and spatialscanning (Rose, Fingerman, Wheaton, Eisner, &kramer,1974).
11 3 -OR I BO
Figure 1. Example 'of troubleshooting problem at simplest level of problemdifficulty. (Circles A-P represent light sockets--i.e., locations where subjectcan place 6 probe. Numbered stars are potential breakpoints.) Experimental Design and Procedures
A number of methodological issues had tobe considered when de-
signing this study. It was,/bf course, necessary to providea ccmpari-
. / son between an experimenttl group receiving ability trainingtnd a
control group receiving none. Moreover, a pretest / posttest designwas
-necessary to assess transfer from training to the criteriontask. How-
ever, since the pretest itself might serveas a form of practice, addi-
tional groups of subjects who receivedno pretest were required so that
any effect could be unambiguously attributed to the trainingregimen..
These considerations led to a design employingfive groups of sub-
jects: Er who received the following sequence--pretest,ability
test, training, ability test, and posttest. E2 received the same se-
quence without to pretest. . The-C,' control group was identical to E 1 1 except no abilitY-tests,or training were administered,and C2 was identical to E 2except without ability tests or ability training. A
final control group, C3, received only the abilitytests, spaced by a
0 period equivalent to the.training period. This control group received
no pre- or posttest andno training. Table 1provides a graphic repre-
sentation of this design. The design allowed the two key questions to
be addressed; i.e., were the abilities trained,and di'd transfer occur?
Within this design, subjects were randomly assignedto one of the i five groups and paricipated in one experimental sessionper day, for up to five days. O the first day, the pretest on the troubleshooting' task was introduced and administered. Days two, three, and four consti-2. toted the training phase of the study, ina single five-hour session each
13 TABLE 1
Experimental Design
O
Day 1 Days 2-4 Day $ Group Pretest Tr\ ain PoSttest n
A Tl T2 A (15)
A (10)
T B T A 1 2
X A '(10)
C 3 T1 X T2 (10)
X = No Activity
A = Criterion Task
B = Training Tasks
= Test of Abilities
14 day. The training was preceded and followed by/theability tests. On
the fifth day, the posttest on the troubleshootingtask was administered."
This test consisted of 18 problems varyingin form and difficulty, and
/ different from the problems presentedon the pretest. This procedure
., . wasmodified as necessary to fit the designrequirements for each group:
r.
Results, and Conclusions . \ . /' Analyseswere condUcted on the ability tentscores and the troubile-
. , sliboting test. The four perfOrmancemeasures collectedon the trouble- / Shooting task were: .(1) accuracy, (2).flumber.oftests to solution, (3.)
\ time to solution, and(4/2 number of erroneoustests.
The analyses of the ability test i nvolved comparison of the trained
groups (E1 and ) to he aptpropriat control (C3) to evaluate changein,,. \ \ .ability as a(fNn tion of `training. For the spatial scanning test, both
E and'E \\\ 1 2 ignificant\improvement, while C.,'rshowedno improvement, .5 , indicating that the . spatial sCanning.ability.had.beensuccessfully trained.
On the flekibilityo closUre test, El andE9.again improved significantly, but so did C3, so the ange in ability could not be unambiguOusly attri- buted to training. ,,
- 1 To evaluate transfer,.a, mixed design analysisof variance was con-
,: ducted:'on troubleshootingscores, using groups as a between-subjects variable, and trial blocks and problemdifficulty as within-subjects,. variables. Time to solution was the onlymeasure of troubleshooting per- formance which differentiatedamong groups. The analysis indicated that there was no difference between trained anduntrained groups (i.e., El and E equaled C and C). Rather, the presence of the pretest affected 2 1 2
15 posttest performance (.e., El and C1 were faster than E2 and C2).
addition, groups interacted with problemdifficulty, such that El was
faster than E.2 at all levels of difficulty,whereas C1 was faster than' C 2only on the most difficult problems. These results lend no support
to the hypothesis that ability training Will-transfer to a dissimilar criterion task.
In an effort to discern whether the impactof triThirn-g--..itoon trpris-fer is a, function of initial abilitylevel,, an analysis of covariancewas carried out with initial pretestscores as the covariate for groups E 1 and C 1. No significant differences emerged. Since training might be effective only for subjects startingout with a low level of the abilities being trained, an analysis of covariancewas carried out using only the five highest scoring and five lowestscoring subjects for each ability test. Again, no significant differenceswere obtained. Overall, transfer ranged from -3.4%to 14..3% on the different measures, andno evidence supported the suggestion of enhanced transferas a function of training.
,) Several conclusions may be drawn froM thisstudy. 'The training regi- men did improve spatial scanning 'scores, and whilewe cannot conclude that training improved flexibility ofclosure, it is possible. This'is so, due to the nature of the ability tests employed. The Hidden Patterns
Test, though a valid and reliablemeasureof flexibility of closure,was so simple that there were few wrong answers..-. The simplicity'of this test suggets that training might well have'beeneffettive, but the test was simply not sensitive enough to detectthe improvement. Still the results for training abilitiesare relatively encouraging.
16 This is even more\encouraging when the numberof potentially important\ variablel-regarding the trainingregimen are considered: Three five-hour \ sessions of masked,self-paced practice with feedbakwere employed in the ,
\ present study. Mçreextensive or distributed practi,e might wellincrease ability improvement as a 'result of training,though these alternatives were not logistical .y feasible in the current study. Similarly, it was decided to use tasks requiring the ability inquestion as training ma- terials; it might be that a trainingprogram developed a ound the specific 1 \ 1:lehaviorsrequired in the Criterion tak would bemore ef ,ective.
\ \, There is less encouragement rigarding he possibility\fnonspecific transfer from ability training. None of the analyses performed offers support for such transfer. This is conf1usin , since at leastone ability-- spatial scanning--was, successfully trained.,One posslble. explanation
I \ lies in the ability structure required to per rm' the criterion task; al- though the abilities trained in 'this tasIaccout forL the largest single portion of variance in the troubleshootin'ytask, pver 70% ofIthe variance
\ in performance is still unaccounted for (cf.Rose,---\et.al., 1974).
Overall, these results 'suggested furtherinvestlgationrefined somewhat
! by the findings of this initial study.
17. STUDY II
The results of an initial attempt to trainthe abilities of flexi-
bility of closure and spatial:scanningfor transfer toan electronic
troubleshooting task were Mixed, butprovided modest encouragement. Some
evidence for trainability of abilitieshad been produced, and although
this training did not transferto the criterion task,a more "sensitive" criterion task or tasks might easily demonstrate such transfer(cf.,
Levine, BrahTek, Eisner, & Fleishman,1979). A second study was therefore
conducted, employing essentially thesame methodology as the first, but
modified to take advantage of theknowledge acquired in the firststudy.
For this study, the ability of spatialvisualization was chosenas the subject for training. Spatial visualization requiresrepresentation
of visual,stimuli 1n-short-termmemory, and requires that, inaddition,
'the representation be restructuredinto components for manipulationand
comparison. It is thus d-ktinct from spatial ori tation,.which requires
only a transformation of the representedstimulus configuration.
A principal difference in this investigationwas that two transfer
tasks were chosen, so that the effect ofdifferent lei/els of involvement
of the ability in the criterion tasks couldbe examined, and the-issue of
generalizability of transfer could be addressed. The transfer tasks were:
(1) Assembly, obtained from the FlanaganAptitude Classification Tests.
In this task, subjectsare given a diagram of an array of machinery-type
parts,, labeled to indicate how they fit together,and are required to
visualize the assembled product and selectit from five presented alterna-
tives; and (2) Designs, civeloped for thisstudy by ARRO staff. In'this
18
C") task, subjects are presented with a,4 x 4 matrix of red and whitesquares and triangles, and are required to reproduce the ':-flipped" (i.e.,turned `end over end) version of each design. An independent analysis ofthe
contribution of seven perceptual ,abilitietto performance on this task
indicated substantial contributionby spatial visualization,a lesser contribution by perceptual speed, and no other significantlyinvolved abilities.
The ability test chosen for this study was the "SurfaceDevelopment" test from the Kit Of Factor-Referenced Cognitive Tests. This test is speeded, with scores adjusted forguessing. In addition, the task is difficult enough to hopeto avoid the_problems evident withthe ability test for flexibilitylof closure inthe previous study.
The training materials consisted ofnine tasks involving spatial visualization:
to Task 1-- "Copying"
In this task subjects copieda series of asymmetrical line
drawings onto graphpaper grids. Subjects' drawings had to
be in the exact proportions andpositions as the originals.
el' Task 2 -- "Paperwork"
For each item, successive drawingsillustrated two or three
*folds made in a square sheetof paper. The final drawing
of the folded paper showed wherea hole'was punched in it.
_ The subject drew Ilbles ina blank *square to represent where
, the punched holes would be when the paperwas unfolded.
19 'Subjects were provided withpaper and hole punches with
which they were to check theiranswers. fp Task 3-- "Puzzles"
This task consisted of fourdifferent problems, each with
its own instructions and eachrequiring a different type of
solution. In general, the problems requiredsubjects to
mentally rearrange objects intodifferent patternsor to
mentally rotate two-dimensionaldrawings in order to arrive at a solution.
- Problem No.1 was a figure made up of eight squares. The task was to fill the squares/with the numbersone through eight so that no two consecutive numbers wereadjacent
horizontally, vertically,or diagonally.
- Problem No. 2 was a schematic representationof a plot
of land containing 12 houses. Subjects were to divide
it into six plots of thesame size and shape, and each
containing to 416uses, by drawingonly four lines.
- Problem No. 3 presented subjects,witha drawing of four
pieces of chain, each containingthree links. The task
was to make a closed loop by openingand re-attaching only three links.
- In Problem No. 4, subjects were shown threetwo-dimen-
sional sketches of rectangularsolids composed of cubes.
They were to imagine that'a holehad been drilled
20 / diag7hally fromone corner to another and thenwere to
indicate which cubes the drill passedthrough.,.
1-sk 4 -- "Formboard"
In this task, subjects viewedpictureskof geometric shapes which had been cut into pieces,and were to imagine how the pieces would fjt together to formthe original shaper. Each problem contained two figures--one representingthe original shape, and. the other, the shapeafter ithad been cut. Sub- jects were instructed to carefullystudy the outline'shape and the pieces, then mentallyrotate and reposition the pieces within the outline untilthey could determine how the pieces fit together.
Task 5 -- "Pattern Orientation"
Subjects located a given patternof circles within a large circle which (the pattern) had beenrotated from its origi- nal position.'t Subjects then'determined which of several points' within the large circle hadthe same spatial rela- tionship to the patternas a particular point did to the original unrotated pattern.
Task r6 "Upside Down Copying"
This-"task was similar to Task1, except that subjectswere to copy patterns as they wouldappear if turned upside down.
21 A, Task 7.-- "Stick Problems"
Groups of "sticks" were laid out to formpatterns comprised
of squares (pictorial representation). In-part I of this
task, subjectswere to remove a specified number of sticks
in such a manner thata specified number of squaresre-
mained. In part II, subjectswere instructed to move a
certain number of sticks intonew positions so that a / certain number of squares resulted.
Task 8 -- ",Thinking in Three' Dimensions" ,! = Dimension, shape, and surface andinterior colors ofgeo- metric solids were described to subjects. Various.cutting Ji
manipulations were then, described,and subjects were to f answer questions about the number and colorsof the re- suiting pieces.
1) Task '9 -- "On the Square" A This task required.subjectsto determine how abstractgeo- metric shapes could be dissected and then reassembled to '1
form squares. Subjects were presented witha series of
paper shapes, each of which was constructed frompieces of
, , a square. The task was to cut each Shape into 'asfew \
pieces as necessary, then reassemblethe pieces intoa
square. The resUlting pieces would forma\square only
if the shape had_been-cut ina certain pattern.
22 Design and Procedure
The design of this study employedessentially the same logic as
the first. An experimental group (E1) receiveda pretest on .the cri-
terion task, a pre - training ability test,training, a post-training
ability test, and finally the post-trainingcriterion task. The effect
of-training on criterion performancewas assessed by comparison -with
a control group (C1) which received only the pretestand posttest on
the criterion task; The effect of pretesting in biasingposttest per-
formance on the criterionwas controlled by the presence of a second
experimental group (E2) whichWas identicalto E1, except no pretest
on the criterion task was given. Finally, the effectz'of trainingon
ability level was assessed by comparingthe experimental groups to a
second controlgroup (C2) which received only the ability tests, with
mo, training or criterion task testing.
Some differeiices between this study and theinitial one are ap-
parent, however. In the present study, only .a single abilitywas
tnenerhrlicrthe practice ismore extensive than for either ability in
the initial study. Two criterion tasks were employed, allowingquestionS----
of the generalizability of transfer to beaddressed. The design al-
lowed for a substantial increase in the numberof subjects per group.
Finally, a second transfer posttestwas administered to some Members of
Groups E1 and Cl, nearly three months afterthe training period.
. This addition allowed the examination oflong-term impact of training
on performance. The design for this study ,is depicted in Table2.
023 2 ci TABLE 2
Experimental Design
Day 1 Days 2-4 Day 5 Day. 85* Group Pretests Train Posttests Posttests-
. 20- ,T1 B -T2 A A
1 l 20 A X A A
E ) 20 X T B T2 2 1
C 20 2
a.
X = No Activity
A= Transfer Tasks (Designs and Assembly)
B = Training Tasks
T = Test of Ability
* = Only 9 of 20 subjects in E and C1 returned for testing: 1
24 \ The procedure for this study was also similarto that\ of the initial ,study, with some modifications., Since two criterion taskswere employed, . \ ,
\ , , \ the pre- and post-training test sessions were slightly longerand re-
quired that the order in whichthe criterion taskswere given be counter- \balanced across groups. The nine training taskswere administered three
A . r'xiay, with \ no repetitions, and only a single abilitytest was admin- iste ed before and after training. Because of this, the trainingsessions
\ were somewhat shorter.
\ \ i',
\ . / \Subjects in group El participatedin groups of five. .\ On Day 1 they \\ received\the two criterion/ task pretests in counterbalanced order. On \-\ °\\ . Day 2 they received the abilitytest, followed by self-paced training ,\ \ on Tasks,1-3. 1 On Day 3 they, received trainingon Tasks t-6, and on Day 4 trainin on Tasks 7-9, followed by the abilitytest again\ On Day 5 and . 1 \ on Day 85 they received the two criterion tasks in counterbalancedorder. \GroupE2 followed a similar prOcedure, except the Day I pretestana the
..Day85poSttest.GroupcIreceived theDay 1pretest, Day 5 posttest, and/
Day 85 posttest, and GroupC2 received only the Day 2and 'Day 4 a ility tests.
Results and Conclusions.
In order to determine whether spatial visualization'improved ith training, changes in ability test scores for Groups El and E2wer com- pared to those of the untrained_control Group C2. All grouOSSho edsome improvement in scores, butnone of the improvements were statistically significant.
25 For both transfer tasks, time to solutionwas the-only reliable per-
formance measure. For the Assembly task,a groups x order x trial blocks
analysis of variance carried outon the experimental groups revealedno
significant group main effects, and onlya s'ignificant groups x blocks
interaction indicating that Group E2took longer than El to solveproblems 7, in the final block. No other effect of_the preteston transfer was ap- , parent. In order to assess whether traininghad any effect on transfer,
an analysis of covariance was carried outon Groups E1 C1, using pre- / ' / test scores as-the covariate. No group effects were apparent in this
analysis. Similarly, no group differences inlong-term retention between Groups El and C1 were revealed.
-A parallel set of analyseswas carried out on the Designs test. The
analysis of variance concerned thevariables of groups, order, trial
blocks, and problem difficulty. The only group effect toemerge in this
analysis was the group x diffiCultyinteraction, indicating that GroupE2,' \ / withno pretest experience wjih the Designs ask, took longer to solve
more difficult problems. Both the covariance analysisand the retention
analysis revealpd no significantgroup differences.
This study provided no evidence that spatialvisualization could be
trained. However, previous attempts at training spatialvisualization
had met with at least mixedsuccess (Brinkmann, 1966), so it may be
important to examine different trainingmethods. Similarly, no evidence
for transfer of training emerged, witheither criterion task, in spite of
the fact that spatial visualizationwas nearly the only ability required
to perform the tasks. Many alternative strategies exist whichmight
26 W potentially succeed in training an ability and transferring toa dissimilar, criterion task, but practical limitations precluded investigationof all alternatives. The amount and type of training needed\toimprove spatial visualization isan empirical issue which has not yet ben addressed.
C
27 11, CONCLUSIONS
In this project we were concerned with initialevaluation of the
potential for training general human abilitiesto transfer to a variety
-of Navy-type tasks. A literature review concluded thatno direct
evidence existed regarding the potentialfor ability training, but
that indirect evidence from nonspeCific transferresearch provided
some, albeit mixed, support for the possibility. An experiment was
conducted to train the abilities of spatialscanning and flexibility
of closure for transfer,to an electronic troubleshootingtask. Only
the spatial scanning ability improved through training,a1nd no transfer
to the troubleshooting task occurred. A second study trined a single
. ( ability--spatial visualization-=for transfer, totwo crilerion tasks.
In this study there was no evidence. for ability improvementand no transfer of training.
It appear S that the critical issue.is ability trayin for trans-
fer cannot be evaluated until trainingcan be shown to be effective. z The current project successfully trainedone Of the three abilities
attempted, which suggests that it is: in fact, possible'. The' number
of factors affecting-training effectiveness is large,however. For
example, the current study used 12-15 hours of practice, \4-5hours \ per day on three consecutive days. It may well be that 3 er practice,
or more distributed practice, would have resulted in greater improve- ment. Such variations were not feasible within thescope of the
current projdct.
28 \ \
Secondly, the type of trainingmay be critical. The current project
employed structured practice with tasksknown to require the ability
in question. While this is a feasible approach, itseems pbssible that
subjects are unfocused and havean inadequate concept of their learning
goal. Si/nce the training tasks typically require 1 more than just the
ability in question for perforMance,this form of trainingmay become too diffuse to be effective.
Another question raised by the currentresults is the possibility
that some abilities are simply,pore amenable to training,than others.
Since spatial scanning was trained, it is prematUre-tbconclude that
abilityctraining perse is impossible. Rather it becomes a question
of examining several abilities for trainability.'In addition, several
variations of training programs should-beemployed; since it seems
reasonable to suggest that different trainingreaimens may be more
,effective with different abilities. While-results of the current'
projectshowed no differences in trainabilityas a result of the
initial ability level of the-subject, thenature of the ability itself
may cause it to interact differently with differenttraining programs.
One potentially_important...sour_ce_o_f_alternattVe.training strategies comes, from current cognitive psychological research, which hastended to,break'down abilities into the componentinformation processing operations needed forperformance. For example, Just and Carpenter
(1976) recorded eye movements during'performance of a spatial visuali,-- zation task, and were able to discern threeprocesses occurring in this task. They labeled these processes "search," "transform,"and
29 o
. "confirm." ..These processes can be supported both by theeye movement
data and through independent reaction -time data
It seems possible that training aimed at improvingthe applica- tion of these component processes mightvery well result in improved overall ability level as well as,transfer toa criterion task. Indeed,
Brinkmann's (1966) relatively successfulattempt to train spatial abilities focused on components such as orientation, discrimination, etc\ This does notsolve'all the difficulties, however. Specifying the\appropriatecomponents for training and an appropriate training regimen are 'still necessary. While the current project provides some answers, many questions remain to be dealt withbefore the question of the potential for training. general human abilitiesmay be satisfactorily answered. REFERENCES
Brinkmann, E.H. Programmed instruction a a technique for improving
spatial visualization. Journal of Applied PsycholoTi,'.1966, 50(2), 179-184.
Edmonds, E. M. & Evans, S. H. Schema le rning without a prototype.
:Psychonomic Science, 1966, 5, 247-248.
Ferguson, G. A. On transfer and the abilities ofman. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 1956, 10, 121-131.
Fleishman, E. A. The structure and measurement of physicalfitness.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1964.
Fleishman, E. A. Performance assessment basedon an empirically
derived task taxonomy. Human Factors, 1967, 9, 349-366.
Fleishman, E. A. On the relation between abilities, learningand
human performance. American Psychologist, 1972, 27,1017-1032. A .1k French, Eckstrom, R. B., & Price, L. A. Manual for kit of
reference tests for cognitive factors. Princeton, New Jersey: 3
Educational Testing;Service, June 1963.
Gagne, R. M. & Fleishman, E. A. Psychology and human performance:
An introduction to psychology. New.York, N.Y.: Henry Holt, 1959. duilfued, J.P. The 'nature of human intelligence. New York, N.Y.: McGraw-Hill, 1967.
Hogan, J. C. Trainability' of abilities': A review of non-specific
transfer issues relevant to abflity.training. (ARRO Technical
Report R78-1): Washington, D.C.: Advanced Research Resources
Organization, January 1978.
31 James, W. Principles of psychology: I. New York, N.Y.: Holt, 1890.
Just, M. A. & Carpenter, P. A. Eye fixations and cognitive processes.
Cognitive Psychology, 1976, 8, 441-480.
Levine, J. M., Brahlek,.R. E., Eisner, E. J., & Fleishman,E.A.
Trainability of abilities: Training and transfer of abilities
related to electronic fault-finding. (ARRO Technical Report 3010/
R.79 -2). Washington, D.C.-( Advanced Research Resources Organization,
March 1979.
Levine, J. M., Schulman, D., Brahlek,,R. E, & Fleishman,E. A.
Trainability of abilities: Training and transfer of spatial
visualization. (ARRO Technical Report.3010/R80-3). Washington,
D.C.: Advanced Research.Resources Organization, April 14/80.
Maltzffian, I. On the training of originality. Psychological Review, 1960, 67, 229-242.
Parnes, S.J. & NollerR. B. Applied creativity: The creative studies
project: II. Results of the two-year program:Journal of
Creative Behavior, 1972, 6, 164-186. .
Rose, A. M.% Fingerman, P. W., Wheaton, G. R., Eisner, E., &Kramer, G.. Methods for predicting job lability TIatEr11-,IILLLL-ILLLLX.
requirements as a function of changes in the characteristicsof
an electronic fault-finding task. Washington, D.C.: American
Institutes,for Research, Technical Report R74-6, August 1974.
Sleight, W. G. Memory and formal training. British Journal of
Psychology, 1911, 4, 386-457.
Voss, H. A. Fidelity of simulation and pilot performance. Technical
Report NAVTRADEVCEN P-1300-46, Life Sciences, Inc., 1969.
32 x_1 Wheaton, G. R., Rose, A. M.,Fingerman, P. W., Korbtkin, A.L., &
Holding,' D. H. Evaluationof the effectiveness oftraining
devices: I. Literature review and preliminarymodel. Technical Report. Contract DAHC 19-73-0049, Army ResearchInstitute, 1974. Winch; C. H. The transfer of improvement inmemory in: school children.
British Journal of Psychology,1910, 3, 386-405.
33 DISTRIBUTION LIST
NAVY
1 Dr. Larry Dean, LT, MSC, USN 1 LT Steven D. Harris, MSC, USN Psychology Department Code 6021 Naval Submarine Medical Research Lab Naval Air Development Center Naval Submarine ,Base Warminster, Pennsylvania 18974 Groton, CT 06340
1 Dr. Patrick R. Harrison 1 Dr.-Richard Eister Psychology Course Director Department of Administrative Sciences Leadership & Law Dept. (7b) Naval Postgradtate School Div. of Professional Development / Monterey, CA 93940 U.S. Naval Academy Annapolis, MD 21402 f.
Dr. Pat Federico
Navy Personnel R&D Center 1 -CDR0Charles W. Hutchins San Diego, CA 92152 Naval Air Systems Command Hq AIR-340F Navy Department Washington, DC 20361
Mr. Paul Foley Navy Personnel R&D Center San Diego, CA, 92152 CDR Robert S. Kennedy Head, Human Performance Sciences Naval Aerospace Medical Research Lab Box 29407 New Orleans, LA 70189 1 Dr. John Ford Navy Personnel R&D Center San Diego, CA 92152
1 Dr. Norman 'J. Kerr Chief of Naval Technical Training Naval Air Station Memphis (75) Dr. Richard Gibson Millington, TN 38054 -Bureau of Medicine and Surgery, Code 3C13 Navy Department Washington, DC 20372 1 Dr. William L. Maloy Naval Medical R&D Command Principal Civilian Advisor for Code 44 Education and Training National Naval Medical tenter Naval Training Command, Code 00A Bethesda, MD, 20014 Pensacola, FL 32508
1 Ted M. I. Yellen Dr, Kneale Marshall Technical Information Off ice Scientific Advisor to DCNO(MPT) Code 201 OPO1T Navy Personnel R&D Center Washington, 4,,./N1370 San Diego; CA .92152.
CAPT Richard L. Martin, USN Library, Code P201L Prospective Commanding Officer Navy Personnel-R&D Center USS Carl. Vinson (CVN-70) San Diego, CA 92152 Newport News Shipbuilding Drydock CO. \\ Newport News, VA 23607
Technical Director Navy'Personnel,R&D Center San Diego, CA \92152 -1 Dr.\William Montague Navy4ersonnel R&D Center .San Diegd-,--CA 92152
6 Commanding Officer. Naval Research Caboratory Code 2627 Commanding Officer Washington, DC 20390 U.S. Naval Amphibious School Coronado,. CA 92155
C
1 ,Psychologist ONR Branch Office 1 Library Bldg; 114, Section D Naval Health Research Center 666 Summer Street P. O. Box 85122 Boston, MA02210 San Diego, CA. 92138 ikr
Psychologist LT\FrankC. Petho, MSC,_11SN (Ph.D) ONR Branch Office Code L51 536 S. Clark Street Naiil Aerospace Medical ResearchLab ,Chicago IL 60605 Pensacola, FL 32508
1 Office of Naval Research Roger W. Remington, Ph.D Code 441 Code L52 800 N. Quincy Street NAMRL Arlington, VA 22217 Pensacola, FL32508
Personnel & Training Research Programs 1 Dr. Bernard Rimland (03B) (Code 458) Navy Personnel R&D Center Office of Naval Research San Diego, CA92152 Arlington, VA 22217
1 Dr. Worth Scanland 1 Psychologist Chief of Naval Education andTraining ONR Branch Office Code N-5 1030 East Green Street NAS, Pensacola, FL 32508 Pasadena, CA 91101
1 Dr. Robert G. Smith 1 Office of the Chief of Naval Operations Office of Chief of Naval Ope\Irations \ Research Development & Studies Branch OP-987H (0P-115) Washington, DC20350 Washington, DC 20350
1 Dr. Alfred F. Smode Captain Donald F. Parker,'USN Training Analysis & Evaluation Group Commanding Officer (TAEG) Navy Personnel R&D Center Dept. of the Navy Sa6 Diego, CA 921.52 Orlando, FL32813 !\, 1 Dr. Richard Sorensen 1 Dr. Robert Wisher Navy Personnel R&D Center Code 309 San, Diego, CA 92152 Navy Personnel R&D Center San Diego, CA 92152
1 W. Gary Thomson Naval Ocean Systems Center Dr. Martin F. Wiskoff Code 7132 Navy Personnel R&D Center San Diego, CA 92152 San Diego,.CA 92152
ARMY
1 Technical. Director 1 Dr. Milton S. Katz U.S. Army Research Institute for the Training Technical 'Area Behavioral..anthSoci,a1 Sciences U.S. Army Research Institute 5001 Eisenhower,Aventie 5001 Eisenhower Avenue Alexandria,-VA 22333 Alexandria, VA 22333
HQ USAREUE & 7th Army 1 Director ODCSOPS U.S. Army Human Engineering Labs USAAREUE Director of GED \ Attn: DRXHE-DB APO New York 09403 Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005
1 Dr. Ralph Dusek Dr. Harold F. O'Neil, -Jr." U.S. Army Research Institute' Attn: OERI-OK 5001 Eisenhower Avenue Army Rese.t Institute Alexandria, VA 22333 5001 Eise hower Avenue. Alexandria, VA 22333
1. Dr. Michael Kaplan
U.S. Army Research Institute 1 Dr. Robert Sasmor 5001 Eisenhower Avenue U.S. Army Research Institute for the Alexandria,-,VA22333 Behavioral and-Social Sciences 5001 Eis...;dlower A\Tnue, Alexandria, VA 22333 ,\\ Commandant Dr. Joseph.W0d; U.S.NArmy Institute of Administration U.S. Army/lZeseai-ch Institute Attn: -Tr-. Sherrill 5001 EisenhoweriAvenue. Ft Benjamin Harrison, IN 46256 Alexandria, VA 7 22333
1 Dr. Frederick Steinheiser U.S. Army Research Institute 5001 Eisenhower Avenue Alexandria, VA 22333
AIR FORCE
Air Force Human Resources Lab 1 Dr. Genevieve Haddad AFHRL/MPD Program- Manager Brooks AFB, TX. 78235 Life Sciences Directorate AFOSR Boiling AB, DC20332
1 U.S. Air Force Office of Scientific Research
Life Sciences Directorate, NL 1 Dr. Ronald G. Hughes Bolling Air Force Base AFHRL/OTR Washington, DC 20332 Williams AFB, AZ 85224
1 Air University Library 1 Research and Measurement Division AUL/LSE 76/443 . Research Branch,.AFMPC/MPCYPR Maxwell AFB, AL 36112 Randolph AFB, TX78148
1 Dr. Earl A. Alluisi 1 Dr. Marty Rockway (AFHRL/TT) HQ, AFHRL (AFSC) Lowry AFB Brooks AFB, TX 78235 Colorado 80230 \'
Dr. Frank Schufletowski Jack A. Thorpe, Maj., USAF U.S. Air Force Naval War College ATC/XPTD Providence, RI 02846 Randolph AFB, TX 78148
2 3700 TCHTW/TTGH Stop 32 Sheppard AFB, TX 76311
MARINES
H. William-Greenup Special Assistantfor.Marine Education Advisor (E031) Corps Matters Education:Center, MCDEC Code 100M Quantico, VA 22134 Office of Naval Research 800 N. Quincy St. Arlington, VA 22217
1 Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps Code MPI-20 Washington, DC 20380 Dr. A. L. Slafkosky Scientific Advisor (Code RD-1) HQ U.S. Marine Corps Washington, DC 20380
OTHER DOD
12 Defense Technical Information Center. Military Assistant for Training and Cameron Station, Bldg 5 Personnel- Technology Alexandria, VA 22314 Office of the Under Secretary of -Attn: TC Defense for Research & Engineering Room 3D129, The Pentagon Washington, DC 20301
1 Dr: Dexter Fletcher Advanced Research Projects Agency 1400 Wilson Blvd. Arlington, VA 22209
J CIVIL GOVERNMENT
Dr. Susan Chipman 1 Personnel R&D Center Learning and Development Office of Personnel Management National InStitute of Education 1.900 E Street NW 1200 19th Street NW Washington, DC 20415 Washington, DC ::0208
Dr. H. Wallace Sinaiko Dr. Joseph I. Lipson Program Director SEDR W-638 Manpower Research and Advisory National Science Foundation Services, ° Washington, DC 20550 Smithsonian Institution 801 North Pitt Street Alexandria, VA 22314
William J. McLaurin Rm. 301, Internal Revenue Service
2221. Jefferson Davis Highway 1 Dr. Frank Withrow Arlington, VA22202 U.S. Office of Education 400 Mdryland Ave. SW Was,hington, DC 20202
Dr. Andrew'R. Molnar Science Education Dev. and Research
National Science Foundation 1 Dr. Joseph L. Young, Director Washington, DC 20550 Memory & Cognitive Processes National Science Foundation Washington, DC 20550
NON GOVERNMENT_
\Dr.--dohnR. Anderson 1 Dr. John Annett Department of Psychology Department of Psychology Carnegie Mellon University. University of Warwick Pittsburgh, PA15213 Coventry CV4 7A1.1-\ England 1 Dr. Michael Atwood Dr. 1Lyle Bourne Science Applications Institute Department of Psychology 40 Denver Tech. Center West University of Colorado 7935 E. Prentice Avenue Boulder, CO80309 Englewood, CO80110
/ 1 Dr. Robert Brennan Psychological Research Unit American College jesting Programs Department of Defense (Army Office) P. O. Box-168 Campbell Park Offices Iowa City, IA .52240 Canberra ACT 2600 Australia
Dr. C. Victor Bunderson Wicat, Inc.
1 , Dr. Alan Baddeleyc . University Plaia, Suite 10' Medical Research Council 1160 S. State Street Applied Psychology Unit Orem, UT 84057 15 Chaucer Road Cambridge CB2 2EF England
1 Dr. John B. Carroll Psychometric Lab; University of North Carolina 1 .:Dr, Patricia Baggett Davie Hall 013AI Department of Psychology Chapel Hill, NC 27514 University of Denver University Park Denver, CO 80208
1 Dr. William Chase Department of Psychology Carnegie Mellon ;University 1 Dr. Jackson Beatty Pittsburgh, PA 15213 Department of Psychology University of California Los Angeles, CA 90024.
Dr. Norman Cliff Department of Psychology 1 Dr. Nicholas A. Bond O. University of Southern California Departmentpof Psychology University Park .Sacramento State College Los Angeles; CA 90007, 600 Jay Street Sacramento, CA95819 Dr. Lynn A. Cooper 1 Dr. Richard L. Ferguson Department of PSychology The American College Testing Program Uris Hall P. O. Box 168 Cornell University Iowa City, IA52240 Ithaca, NY 14850
I
Dr. John R. Frederiksen Dr. Meredith P. Crawford Bolt Beranek & Newman American Psychological Association 50 Moulton Street 1200 17th Street, N.W. CambridgeMA 02138 Washington D.C. 20036
1 Dr. Alinda Friedman br. Kenneth B. Cross Department of Psychology Anacapa Sciences, Inc. University of Alberta P. O. Drawer Q Edmonton, Alberta Santa Barbara, CA93102 Canada T6G 2E9 O
1 Dr. Marvin D. Dunnette 1 Dr. R. Edward Ge/selman N492,,Elliott Hall Department ofsychology Department of Psychology University of California University of Minnesota LosAngele CA90024 Minneapolis,-MN 55455
1 Dr.- Robert-Glaser LCo1. J. C. Eggenberger LRDC Directorate of Personnel Applied Rsrch. University of,Pittsburgh' 'National Defence HQ 3939 O'Hara Street / 101 Colonel By Drive- Pittsburgh,/PA 15213 Ottawa, Canada K1A OK2
1 Dr. Marvin D. Glock 1 ERIC Facility- Acquisitions 217 Stone Hall 4833 Rugby Avenue Cornell University Bethesda, Ma. 20014 Ithaca, NY 14853 Dr. Daniel Gopher 1 Ms. Glenda Greenwald, Ed. - Industrial & Management Engineering "Human. Intelligence Newsletter" Technion-Israel Institute of Technology P. O. Box 1163 Haifa Birmingham, MI '48012 ISRAEL
1 Dr. Lloyd Humphreys 1 Dr. James G. Greeno Department of Psychology LRDC University of Illinois __University of Pittsburgh Champaign, IL61820 3939 O'Hara Street Pittsburgh, PA15213
1 Library HumRRO/Western Divisiom Dr. Harold Hawkins 27857 Berwick Drive Department of)Psychology. Carmel, CA 93921 University of Oregon Eugene, OR 97403
Dr. Earl Hunt Department of Psychology 1 Dr. Barbara Hayes7Roth University of Washington The Rand CorporatiOn Seattle, WA98105 1700 Main Street Santa Monica, CA90406
1 Dr. Douglas H. Jones Room T-255 1 Dr. Frederick Hayes-Roth Educational Testing Service The Rand Corporation Princeton, NJ 08450 1700 Main Street Santa Monica, CA 90406
3 Journal Supplement,Abstract Service American Psychological Association 1 Dr. James R. Hoffman 1200 17th Street, N.W. Department of Psychology Washington, D.C. 20036 University of Delaware Newark, DE 19711
O /' Dr. Wilson A. Judd 1 Dr. Charles Lewis McDonnell-Douglas Astronautics Co. - Faculteit Sociale Wetenschappen St. Louis Rijksuniversiteit Groningen P. O. Bdx 30204 Oude Boteringestraat Lowry AFBCO 80230 Groningen , NETHERLANDS
1 Dr. Steven W. Keele'
Department of Psychology 1 Dr. Robert R. Mackie University of Oregon Human FaCtors Research, Inc. Eugene, OR 97403. 5775 Dawson Avenue Goleta', CA 93017
1 br. Mazie Knerr Litton-Mellonics 1 Dr. Allen Munro Box 1286 Behavioral Technology Laboratories Springfield, VA 22151 1845 Elena Ave., Fourth Floor Redondoeeach, CA 90277
Dr: Stephen Kosslyn
Harvard University 1 Dr. Donald A. Norman Department of Psychology Department of Psydhology, C-009 33 Kirkland Street Univ. of California, San Diego Cambridge, MA02138 La Jolla, CA 9209
L Dr. Alan Lesgold Dr. Melvin R. Novick Learning R & D Center 356 Lindquist Center for Measuremerk University of. Pittsburgh University of Iowa Pittsburgh, PA 15260 Iowa City, IA 52242
- 1 Dr. Michael Levine Dr. Jesse Orlansky Dept. of Educational Psychology Institute for Defense Analyses 210 Education Bldg. 400 Army Navy Drive University of Illinois Arlington, VA--22202 Champaign, IL,61801 Dr. James A. Paulson 1 Dr. Mark D. Reckase Portland State University Educational Psychology Dept. P. O. Box 751 University of .Missouri-Columbia Portland, OR 97207 4 Hill Hall , Columbia, MO
Mr. Luigi Petrullo 2431 N. Edgewood Street 1 Dr. Andrew M. RdSe Arlington VA 22207 American Institutes for \Research 1055 Thom Jefferson St., NW Washingtom, DC 20007
Dr. Martha Poison Department of Psychology University 'of Colorado 1 Dr.\ErnstZ. Rothkopf Boulder, CO 80309 Bell\Laboratories 600 MOuntain Avenue MurraY\Hill, NJ 07974
1 Dr. Peter Poison Department of Psyhology University of Colorado 1 Prof. FuTiko Samejima Boulder, CO 80309 .Departme4t of Psychology Universi of Tennessee KnoxvilleTN 37916
1 Dr. Diane M. Ramsey-Klee R-K Research & System Design 3947 Ridgemont Drive 1 Dr. Irwin. Sarason Malibu, CA 90265 Department of PsyChology University of Washington Seattle, WA 98195
1 Minrat M. L. Rauch P II 4 Bundesministerium Der Verteidigung Dr. Walter Schneider Postfach 1328 Department of Psychology D-53 Bonn 1, University of Illinois GERMANY Champaign, IL 61820 . Dr. Robert J. Seidel 1 Dr. David Stone Instructional Technology Group. ED 236 HumRRO SUNY, Albany 300 N:=Washindton St. Albany, -NY 12222 Alexandria, VA 22314
1 Dr. Patrick SupVes 1 Committee on Cognitive Research Institute for Mathematical Studies c/o Dr. Lonnie R. Sherrod in the Social Sciences Social Science Research Countil Stanford University 605 Third Avenue Stanford, CA94305 New York,'NY 10016
1 Dr. Kikumi Tatsuoka 1 Dr. Richard Snow Computer Based Education Research School of Education Laboratory Stanford University 252 Engineering Research Laboratory Stanford, CA 94305 University of Illinois Urbana,, IL 61801
Dr. Kathryn T. Spoehr
Department of Psychology 1 Dr. Perry Thorndyke Brown University The Rand Corporation, Providence, RI 02912 1700 Main Street Santa Monica, CA90406
Dr. Robert Sternberg
Department of Psychology 1 Dr. Douglas Towne Yale University'. Univ. of-Southern California Box 11A, Yale Station Behavioral Technology Labs .New Haven,CT 06520 1845 S. Elena Ave. Redondo Beach, CA 90277
Dr. Albert Stevens
Bolt Beranek & Newman, Inc. 1 Dr. J. Uhlaner 50 Moulton Street Perceptronics, Inc. Cambridge, MA02138 6271 Variel Avenue Woodland Hills, CA 91364 Dr. Benton J. Underwood Dr.. Keith T. Wescourt Department of Psychology Information Sciences Dept. Northwestern University The Rand Corporation Evanston, IL 60201 1700 Main Street Santa Monica, CA 90406
1 . Dr. Willard S. Vaughan, Jr. Oceanautics, Inc. 1 'Dr. Susan E. Whitely 422 Sixth .Street Psychology Department Annapolis, MD 21403 University of Kansas Lawrence, KS 66044
1 Dr. Thomas Wallsten Psychometric Laboratory- l' Dr. Christopher Wickens Davie Hall 013A Department of Psychology Univ. of North Carolina University of Illinois Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Champaign, IL 61820 \
1 , Dr. Phyllis Weaver \ 1 Dr. Arthur J. Woodward Graduate School of Education Department of Psychology Harvard-University \ University of California\ 200 Larsen Hall, Appian Way Los Angeles, CA 90024 Cambridge, MA 02138
Dr. David J. Weiss N660 Elliott Hall University of Minnesota 75 E. RiCier Road Minneapolis, MN 55455
Dr. Gershon Weltman Perceptronics, Inc. 6271 Variel Ave. Woodland Hills, CA91367