Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques

Social Network Analysis

Social Psychology of Organizations

人教版高中英语新课程教材中,语言运用（Using Language）是每个单元必不可少的部分,提供了围绕单元中心话题的听、说、读、写的综合性练习,是单元中心话题的延续和升华.如何设计Using Language部分的教学,使自己的教学模式既不落俗套,又能真正体现新课程标准所倡导的教学理念,正是广大一线英语教师一直努力探索的问题.

打磨Using Language,倡导新理念

which is used to describe a third component of thinking processes, particularly preverbal, and it denotes the concept that the world is activated by some generalized "energy" that links together causally all objects and events ; it is presumably revealed by a person's lack of curiosity about causal connections, as though they were self-evident. Aside from the rather frequent use of such key words, having strong connotations for this reviewer far away from what the author is aiming to denote, the book is written in a lucid and stimulating style that makes reading it an invigorating intellectual exercise. It is a book that is likely to have somewhat limited attraction to the full-time clinician, especially one treating adult patients. And child psychiatrists and psychologists, if reasonably well read, will most likely be familiar with the majority of references from which this author has synthesized his material. On the other hand, the scholarly and refreshing con¬ ceptual approaches of the author will appeal to psychologists, philosophers, linguists, and psychiatrists with a research bent and anyone else who wants to be provoked to do some thinking on the problems of language, language development, and the psychology of cognition. Louis A. GOTTSCHALK, M.D. Plans and the Structure of Behavior. By George A Miller, Eugene gALANTER, and Karl H. Pribram. Price, $5.00. Pp. 226. Henry Holt & Co., Inc., New York 17, 1960. This is an important book for psychiatrists and behavioral scientists, since it presents a clear, concise study of the application of cybernetics, information and computer theory to the problem of analyzing behavior. The authors have been actively engaged in behavioral research in different areas\p=m-\Millerin information and communication, Galanter in experimental psychology, and Pribram in neurophysiology. The book resulted from a series of discussions which they engaged in during a year they spent together at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, Palo Alto, Calif. Their original intent was to write a diary, as it were, of the development of their ideas and, fortunately, enough of this remains to make the book clear, easy to read, and interesting. It is also fortunate, however, that in the final writing a variety of studies comparing the "behavior" of computing machines with human "cognitive behavior" have been reviewed and summarized. The result is one of the best presentations of the present status of the brain-computer problem. The authors, however, do not discuss certain aspects of this problem, such as the difference between the brain and its vast number of parallel channels, but few operations, and the modern high-speed computer with its few channels and vast numbers of operations. This omission is consistent with their interest, since it would introduce the question of mechanisms rather than the problem of the structure of behavior as it is observed in everyday life in the clinic and in experiments on learning, conditioning, etc. Similarly, they do not discuss the qualitative differences between mechanisms of memory in the computer and those in the brain. In the former, a "memory"\p=m-\ i.e., stored information\p=m-\isidentified, metaphorically speaking, by an address, whereas no such mechanism is known in the brain (personal communication, Dr. Julian Bigelow). With few exceptions, however, the data, concepts, and theories presented are handled with elegant precision, as illustrated by the discussion of Sherrington's concepts of the "Reflex" and the "Synapse," Kurt Lewin's ideas of "tension states," and the numerous references to the work of Newell, Shaw, and Simon on computers and logic. There are, nevertheless, areas with

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1057%2Fjors.1968.86.pdf

Plans and the Structure of Behavior

Understanding pilots’ cognitive processes for making in-flight decisions under stress

In September 2007 EASA (European Aviation Safety Agency) implemented a new airworthiness rule (CS 25.1302) that mandates for the error tolerant design of flight deck equipment on all new large commercial aircraft. The stimulus for the rule was the 1996 FAA Human Factors Team Report on the Interfaces between Flightcrews and Modern Flight Deck Systems, which was commissioned as a result of several accidents occurring to new (at the time) technology airliners. This report made many criticisms of the flight deck interfaces and design processes, including a lack of human factors expertise on design teams and too much emphasis being placed on the physical ergonomics of the pilot’s workplace and not on the cognitive ergonomics. This paper provides a very brief overview of the concept of design-induced error and the background to the rule, before providing a brief summary of the acceptable means of compliance with the regulation and providing a brief critique of the criteria of the related measurement instruments and methods available.

Human factors for flight deck certification: Issues in compliance with the new European aviation safety agency certification specification 25.1302

Student Performance Modelling Using Grounded Theory Techniques

This paper outlines the usage of a Work Domain Analysis (WDA) for the assessment of operational information requirements for pilots during Airport Collaborative Decision Making (A-CDM). A-CDM presents unique challenges for decision support during dispatch of aircraft and passengers. Decisions by participating airport partners require an understanding of own capabilities as well as the capabilities of participating actors like pilots, air traffic controllers, or other actors involved. While some situations can be pre-planned, decision makers during turn-round operation will always be faced with unanticipated situations resulting from unknown variables in the environment or technological capabilities. Work Domain Analysis (WDA) is a technique which allows to model systems by using event-independent representations that can be used to cope with such unanticipated situations. However, to confirm that this technique can be applied usefully, an early validation is required to ascertain that the WDA is relevant to the problem context. This paper presents an approach for confirming a WDA by using pilots as subject matter experts (SMEs) during aircraft turn-round. Firstly, pilots' operational information requirements were identified via an Abstraction-Decomposition Space (ADS) of the A-CDM system developed by the analysis. Then, pilots were asked via a survey to report about events where problems with operational information sharing were encountered during turn-round. Finally, these events experienced by the pilots were mapped through the pilots' information requirements derived from the ADS. The results reveal that pilots' information requirements are not entirely satisfied by current approach to A-CDM and provide confirmation for the usefulness of the WDA to the proposed application as a technique for an A-CDM interface design cycle (A). For the covering abstract of the conference see ITRD E217872.

Applying work domain analysis to study airport collaborative decision making design

INTRODUCTION: Accidents caused by spinning from low turns continue to kill glider pilots despite the introduction of specific exercises aimed at increasing pilot awareness and recognition of this issue. METHOD: In-cockpit video cameras were used to analyze flying accuracy and log the areas of visual interest of 36 qualified glider pilots performing final turns in a training glider. RESULTS: Pilots were found to divide their attention between four areas of interest: the view directly ahead; the landing area (right); the airspeed indicator; and an area between the direct ahead view and the landing area. The mean fixation rate was 85 shifts per minute. Significant correlations were found between over-use of rudder and a lack of attention to the view ahead, as well as between the overall fixation rate and poorer coordination in the turn. DISCUSSION: The results provide some evidence that a relationship exists between pilots' visual management and making turns in a potentially dangerous manner. Pilots who monitor the view ahead for reasonable periods during the final turn while not allowing their scan to become over-busy are those who are most likely to prevent a potential spin. Language: en

Don Harris

Papers

Understanding pilots’ cognitive processes for making in-flight decisions under stress

Human factors for flight deck certification: Issues in compliance with the new European aviation safety agency certification specification 25.1302

Student Performance Modelling Using Grounded Theory Techniques

Applying work domain analysis to study airport collaborative decision making design

Looking for an accident: glider pilots' visual management and potentially dangerous final turns