Helsdingen, A. S., & Van den Bosch, K. (2009). Learning to make sense. Paper presented at the Cognitive Systems with Interactive sensors conference in Paris. November, 16-18, 2009, Paris, France.Sensemaking is the process of understanding situations of high complexity or uncertainty in order to make decisions. Individuals and teams that are good at sensemaking tend to collect and critically evaluate the available evidence, seek for consistency, and test assumptions underlying assessments. Furthermore, their experience allows them to have a high appreciation for how the context affects the problem. In this paper we will (1) present observations on successful and failing sensemaking in first responder teams, (2) discuss the development of sensemaking competency, and (3) present an approach for training the knowledge and skills that are critical for sensemaking

Helsdingen, Anne

Van den Bosch, Karel

English

DSpace at Open Universiteit Nederland

Learning to make sense

Sensemaking is the process of understanding situations of high complexity or uncertainty in order to make decisions. Individuals and teams that are good at sensemaking tend to collect and critically evaluate the available evidence, seek for consistency, and test assumptions underlying assessments. Furthermore, their experience allows them to have a high appreciation for how the context affects the problem. In this paper we will (1) present observations on successful and failing sensemaking in first responder teams, (2) discuss the development of sensemaking competency, and (3) present an approach for training the knowledge and skills that are critical for sensemaking

Open University of the Netherlands Research Portal

Helsdingen, A. S., & Van den Bosch, K. (2009, november). Learning to make sense. Presented at the Cognitive systems with Interactive Sensors conference. November, 16-18, 2009, Paris, France.Sensemaking is the process of understanding situations of high complexity or uncertainty in order to make decisions. Individuals and teams that are good at sensemaking tend to collect and critically evaluate the available evidence, seek for consistency, and test assumptions underlying assessments. Furthermore, their experience allows them to have a high appreciation for how the context affects the problem. In this paper we will (1) present observations on successful and failing sensemaking in first responder teams, (2) discuss the development of sensemaking competency, and (3) present an approach for training the knowledge and skills that are critical for sensemaking

Learning to make sense 
Anne Helsdingen, CELSTEC, Open University of the Netherlands 
Karel van den Bosch, TNO Defence, Safety & Security  
Miragacle 
Analysis 
•  Identification Criteria indicate: 
-  an unidentified aircraft approaching fast and low has hostile intentions 
•  Rules of Engagement allowed to engage aircraft with hostile intentions 
•  Commanding officer knew about: 
-  Training site of coalition forces 
-  Colalition forces using Mirages 
-  Typical enemy behaviour would not be approaching with “Bells and 
Whistles” 
 How context and history influence our 
assessment 
 How context and history influence our 
assessment 
 How context and history influence our 
assessment 
What can we learn from experts? 
•  With respect to knowledge: 
–  Experts have large collections of 
schemas, enabling them to recognise 
a great number of situations as familiar. 
•  With respect to strategies: 
When faced with complex and unfamiliar problem: 
–  Collect and critically evaluate available evidence 
–  Seek for consistency and test assumptions 
–  Engage in mental simulation (to predict likely course of events and to 
evaluate plans) 
•  Make sense of a situation by integrating knowledge, assumptions 
and evidence in a comprehensive, plausible, and  
 consistent story.  
Training Sensemaking Skills 
Training in sensemaking needs to address two main components: 
(a) expansion and refinement of representative schemas 
(b) practice in handling complex problems, facilitating reflective and 
metacognitive processing 
(a) expansion and refinement of schemas 
Build-up of mental schemas require: 
•  intensive, deliberate and reflective study over time 
•  studying cases from different angles, acknowledging the relevance of 
cues and their contingencies, thus achieving a deep(er) understanding 
•  Initially, augmented cueing may be helpful 
Augmented cueing 
•  Extra (augmented), if: 
–  Selection of relevant cues is difficult 
–  Relationship between action & result is not 
immediately clear 
–  Long time interval between actions and 
feedback 
•  Effective for initial learning 
•  Risk of dependency! 
(b) reflective and metacognitive processing 
•  Practical training needs to emphasize concurrent processes: 
•   What you do 
–  Information collection and selection, procedures, actions, etc 
•  How you do it 
–  Being aware of ones approach, monitoring and guarding that 
approach and adjust – if necessary 
(b) value of metacognition 
It helps sensemaking 
•  What additional information do I need? 
•  Which adjustements do I need to make 
to my story? 
•  What uncertainties do I have to accept? 
•  What contingency plans can I make? 
•  When do I have to reject my current 
story in favour of an alternative story? 
Conclusion & Recommendations 
•  Sensemaking requires: 
–  Elaborate knowledge representations 
–  Meta cognitive strategies 
•  Integrated Training Program to realize this: 
–  Scenario based training with, e.g.,: 
•   augmented cues  
•  practice variability  
•  delayed feedback  
–  Reflection & Metacognition by e.g.,: 
•  Critical thinking training, 
•  Devils advocate 
•  Self explanation 


https://research.ou.nl/files/987658/learning%20to%20make%20sense.pdf

Learning to make sense

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

DSpace at Open Universiteit Nederland

Open University of the Netherlands Research Portal

DSpace at Open Universiteit Nederland

Open University of the Netherlands Research Portal