4.5 Article

From Teams to Teamness: Future Directions in the Science of Team Cognition

期刊

HUMAN FACTORS
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/00187208231162449

关键词

teamwork; team cognition; human-machine teaming; unobtrusive measurement; team dynamics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article reviews the current state-of-the-art in team cognition research, highlighting the limitations of existing theories, laboratory paradigms, and measures in light of the increasing complexities of modern teams and the study of team cognition. It proposes future research directions for expanding the conceptualization of teams and team cognition, including examining dimensions of teamness, incorporating nonhuman teammates in laboratory paradigms, and advancing unobtrusive, real-time, and automatic measures of team cognition.
Objective We review the current state-of-the-art in team cognition research, but more importantly describe the limitations of existing theories, laboratory paradigms, and measures considering the increasing complexities of modern teams and the study of team cognition. Background Research on, and applications of, team cognition has led to theories, data, and measures over the last several decades. Method This article is based on research questions generated in a spring 2022 seminar on team cognition at Arizona State University led by the first author. Results Future research directions are proposed for extending the conceptualization of teams and team cognition by examining dimensions of teamness; extending laboratory paradigms to attain more realistic teaming, including nonhuman teammates; and advancing measures of team cognition in a direction such that data can be collected unobtrusively, in real time, and automatically. Conclusion The future of team cognition is one of the new discoveries, new research paradigms, and new measures. Application Extending the concepts of teams and team cognition can also extend the potential applications of these concepts.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据