Abstract
In aviation training, there is a need to reduce the large cost and time barriers for pilots to reach proficiency. Adaptive training (AT) is one training methodology that can potentially accomplish these goals, having shown to improve learning gains, learner experience, and training speed in military, classroom, and general learning domains (Flegal et al., 2019; Vykopal et al., 2022; Warner et al., 2020). AT is designed to accommodate learner differences using a three-step Observe-Assess-Respond model (Campbell, 2014), wherein training delivery is adjusted based on various assessments of learner strengths and weaknesses (Fraulini et al., 2024). Whereas the effectiveness of different response adaptations, such as adaptive difficulty, have been studied with varying results, the assessment techniques on which these response adaptations are based, such as trainee performance and/or individual differences, is scarcely researched. Further, there is currently no research to date examining it in a simulated flight training context. Previous findings by the authors suggest that adapting difficulty based on performance and/or state for simulated flight applications can help moderate trainee mental effort as they accomplish the same training performance outcomes as the traditional training methodology; however, study limitations such as limited sample size, a larger-than-anticipated experience base, and ceiling effects appear to have prevented this from translating into significant differences in learning gains (Swords et al., in press). Using a larger sample, more restricted experience level, and more difficult assessments, this experiment re-evaluated the use of adaptive difficulty based on performance, and adapting difficulty based on performance and individual difference ratings of mental effort, compared to a non-adaptive control, in a simulated flight training task. This paper will present the methods and results, and discuss the theoretical, practical implications for aviation training in both civilian and military contexts.