, . . .5. 5.3.2.9; .3 .. .. _ ‘ _ V ,. .. . .1 . . a1; . a . . ‘ n v. H... . . . ‘ - , p I. 1 ,u . . . . . . ,‘ . . , .. r , . , . . . . . .. H . , . . r . . . . . n, .‘ r m. . I r . - w I m .. . u 1 . v . w .. , g , . n n . . w . . ......Lx.,...:.:... '1 o V . n. 1 . x. . 1 u , . . . . . up .V . . _ 250H17Vl7 ‘ // / UBRARY lill/limits???lame '~ lllllll” l » Will Mid-too» st. .i I} l 7 4494 l University ll/[l HH 9 This is to certify that the thesis entitled AN ASSESSMENT OF BATTLEFIELD HAP EFFECTIVENESS presented by Joseph Francis Fontanella, Jr. has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Master of Arts degree in Geography Major professor Richard E. Groop, Ph.D. Date 4 M3L1989 0-7639 MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. k DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DU MSU Is An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution ll 18838833.? 0! BATTLEFIELD HIP EFFECTIVEIESS BY Joseph Francis Fontanella, Jr. A THESIS Sub-itted to lichiqan State University in partial fulfillnent of the requirements for the degree of EASTER OF ARTS Depart-ant of Geography 1989 scttgts ABSTRACT Al ASSESSIEIT 0F BATTLEFIELD HAP EFFECTIVEIESS BY Joseph Francis Fontanella, Jr. Battlefield map effectiveness was investigated in a perception experiment with three variables: method of symbol explanation, method of terrain representation, and military experience or interest. Maps of two hypothetical battles were used in the experiment and were preceded by either a "natural" legend or conventional legend. Subjects viewed one map of each battle; battles were alternately configured with different methods of terrain representation. Experience and interest was determined by questionnaire. Test responses were examined to determine the influence of each variable on map effectiveness. The results suggest that: (a) the "natural" legend promotes understanding of battlefield map symbols in certain map reading tasks and is at least as effective as the conventional legend in others: (b) the interpretive method of terrain representation facilitates performance of military terrain analysis tasks; and (c) military experience and interest facilitates performance in tasks requiring symbol identification or overall integration of map information. Copyright by JOSEPH FRANCIS FONTANELLA. JR. 1989 To my family who have always encouraged and inspired me ii ACIIOILEDGEIEITS I would like to express my appreciation to those persons who assisted me in the completion of this study. I am truly grateful to my advisor, Professor Richard E. Groop, for his advice, assistance and encouragement; I also wish to thank Professor Harold A. Winters for his additional ideas, expert editing of the final draft, and personal, professional and academic guidance. I am indebted to Professor Judy M. Olson, and to Ms. Ellen White and Mr. Ronald Tiefenbach of the Michigan State University Center for Cartographic Research and Spatial Analysis, who selflessly provided their time and invaluable assistance in map design and production. Special thanks are due Colonel Russell Fuhrman and Lieutenant Colonels Jerry V. Samples and John Paul Kuspa; through their example, these officers encouraged me to further my education and seek a faculty nomination to the 0.5. Military Academy. I am also grateful to those soldiers who participated in the experiment: the 17th Engineer Battalion (Combat), Fort Hood, Texas: the 119th Field Artillery Battalion, Michigan National Guard: the 4th Battalion, 20th Field Artillery, U.S. Army Reserve; and the Spartan Battalion, Michigan State University Reserve Officer's Training Corp. Finally, I thank my loving wife Sharon and daughter Anne: they have never failed to inspire me and I could not have done this without them. iii TABLE OF COITEITS LIST OF TABLES ..................................................... vi LIST OF FIGURES .................................................... ix CHAPTER I: HAPPIIG BATTLE SITUATIOHS ............................... 1 Introduction ..................................... ° ............ 1 The Nature and Purpose of Battlefield Mapping ................ 2 Understanding Battlefield Map Symbols ........................ 7 Terrain as a Category of Thematic Information ................ 13 Map Use Experience ........................................... 20 Problem and Hypotheses. ..... . ................................ 21 CHAPTER II: RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS ............................ 23 Introduction ................................................. 23 Test Structure ............................................... 23 Design of the Test Instruments ............................... 27 Test Administration .......................................... 43 CHAPTER III: DATA AIALYSIS AND RESULTS ............................. 46 Introduction ................................................. 46 Effects on Symbol Understanding and Overall Integration of Map Information ................. 46 Combined Effects on Overall Test Performance ................. 47 Individual Effects on Performance of Specific Hap Reading Tasks... ............................. 52 Effects on Communication Failure ............................. 55 Effects of Experience and Interest on Test Performance ....... 57 iv CEAPTER IV: SUHEARY AND CONCLUSIONS ............................ . . . . Summary of the Research ...................................... Conclusions .................................................. Recommendations for Further Study ............................ APPENDICES APPENDIX A: Questionnaire .................................... APPENDIX B: Answer Sheet ..................................... APPENDIX C: Consent Form.. ................................... APPENDIX D: Script for Test Administration ................... APPENDIX E: Statistical and Numeric Summaries ................ LIST 0! REFERENCES ................................................. 66 66 68 7O 72 74 75 76 79 91 Table 1. LIST OF TABLES Page Summary of Map-Reading Tasks. Source: Christopher Board, "Map Reading Tasks Appropriate in Experimental Studies in Cartographic Communication," The canadian Cartographer, Vol. 15, No. 1, p. 6. ..................... 7 Relationships between the Military Aspects of Terrain, Elements of Terrain Information, and possible Terrain Analysis Products. Source: U.S. Department of the Army, Field Manual 5-105, Topographic Operations. (Govern- ment Printing Office: washington, D.C.,l987), p. 1-4. ... 19 . Test Sample Composition by Participating Organization. Organization, test site and number and grade composition of participants are shown. ........ 44 . Group Composition by Grade. Number of subjects in each grade category are shown by group. .............. 45 Effects of Legend Type on Subjects' Ability to Construct a Military Unit Symbol. Mean percentage of correct responses by military unit symbol component are compared. ........ ......................... 48 Effects of Legend Type on Subjects' Ability to Match Symbols to Associated Descriptions. Moan percentage of correct responses by map reading task category are compared. ............. ... ............. 48 Effects of Varying Legend Type and Method of Terrain Representation on Test Performance in Parts II and III. Mean percentage of correct responses are compared by test part and group. .......... 50 “Correlation Between Test Performance on Part I (Military Symbol Identification) and Test Performance on Parts II and III. Spearnan's Rank Order Correlation coefficient (r) is used. ......... 51 Questionnaire Responses. Percent of subjects selecting particular responses are shown unless otherwise indicated. ............. .. ..................... 59 vi 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Correlations Between: Test Performance on Parts I, II and III; and Interest and Experience Variables. Spearman's Rank Order Correlation Coefficient (r) is used; the test statistic is a One-Tail Student's T at a=.05. ... ............ ........ ............ 62 Test Sample Homogeneity. Ekperience and interest variables are compared by group; the test statistic is the One-Hay'Analysis of variance (ANOKA) rarest at a=.05. Mean values are shown. ........ 62 Effect of Experience and Interest Variables on Test Performance. Significant results and test statistics are shown by major task categories for each variable. .......... ........ .................... 64 Effects of Varying Method of Terrain Representation. while Natural Legend Type is held Constant. Mean percentage of correct responses are compared. ........... 79 Effects of Varying Method of Terrain Representation while Conventional Legend Type is held Constant. Mean percentage of correct responses are compared. ...... 80 Effects of Varying Legend Type while Non-Interpreted Terrain Information is held Constant. Mean percentage of correct responses are compared. ........... 81 .Effects of Varying Legend Type while Interpreted Terrain Information is held Constant. Mean percentage of correct test responses are compared. ...... 82 Effects of Varying Both Legend Type and Method of Terrain Representation. Mean percentage of correct responses are compared. .............. . .......... 83 Communication Failure Ratios. Ratios are compared by group; the test statistic is the One-Pay Analysis of variance (ANOVA) F-Test at a=.05. ........... 85 Effects of Varying Legend Type and Method of Terrain Representation on Test Subject Uncertainty. Mean percentage of total "cannot Tell" responses are compared by test part and group. ..... . ........ . ........ 86 Effect of the Number of Task-Related Duty Positions held on Test Performance. Test performance is compared between groups of varied duty positions; the test statistic is the One-Hay Analysis of variance (ANOVA) at a=.05. Mean percentage of correct test responses are shown. .. ..................... 87 'vii 21. Effect of Proclaimed Level of Familiarity on Test Performance. Test performance is compared between groups of varied familiarity levels; the test statistic is the One-way Analysis of variance (ANOVA) at a=.05. Mean percentage of correct test responses are shown. ....................... 88 22. Effects of Formal Education in Military History or Military Geography on Test Performance. Mean percentage of correct test responses are compared between groups; the test statistic is the One- Tail Student's T Test at a=.05. ...... ....... . ........... 89 23. Effect of Proclaimed Level of Interest on Test Performance. Tast performance is compared between groups of varied interest levels; the test statistic is the One-Hay.Analysis of variance (ANOVA) at a=.05. Mean percentage of correct test responses are shown. ....................... 9O viii LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. An example of a small scale place-name map. Source: Robert P. Jordan, The Civil war. (National Geographic Society: Washington, D.C., 1969). ....... ...... .............................. 4 2. An example of a small scale place-name and line map. Source: Simon Goodenough, War Maps. (St. Martin's Press: New York, 1982). .................. 4 3. An example of a large scale battlefield map. Source: Thomas E. Griess, campaign Atlas to the American Civil var. (Avery Publishing Group, Inc: Uayne, 1986). .. ................................... 5 4. Components of a standard military unit symbol. Source: Field Manual 5-34,Ehgineer Field Data. (Government Printing Office: Vashington, D.C., 1987). p. 10-26. ....................................... 10 5. Conventional battlefield map legend. Source Vincent J. Esposito, Ed., The vest Point Atlas of American vars. (Frederick J. Praeger Press: New York, 1959). ................................ 12 6. Conventional battlefield map legend. Source: David Chandler, Ed., Atlas of Military Strategy. (arms and Armor Press: London, 1980). ........ 12 7. An example of a natural legend format. Source: A.A. DeLucia and.D.v. Eiller, "Natural Legend design for Thematic Maps," The Carto- graphic Journal, Vol. 19, No. 1, p. 47. ................ 14 8. An example of a battlefield map with hachures used to represent landforms. Source: Thomas E. Griess, Ed., Atlas of the Second world var - Asia and the Pacific. (Avery Publishing Group, Inc: Wayne, 1985). ........... ..... ........ ............. 16 9. An example of a battlefield map with contours used to represent the terrain. Source: Thomas Yoseloff, Pub., The Official Atlas of the Civil var. (Thomas Yoseloff, Inc: New York, 1958). ........... 17 ix 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. An example of the use of layer tinting in terrain representation. Source: Vincent J. Esposito, Ed., The vest Point Atlas of American vars. (Frederick J. Praeger Press: New York, 1959). ......... A procedure for map evaluation in terms of user requirements. Source: C. Board, "Map Reading Tasks Appropriate in Experimental Studies in Cartographic Communication," The Canadian Cartographer, Vol. 15, No. l, p. 4. ................... Schematic of a three variable, four part experiment designed to investigate the effectiveness of battlefield maps. .................... Conventional legend configuration of Part I (Reduced from the original 8.5" by 14" format). ....... Natural legend configuration of Part I (Reduced from the original 8.5" by 14" format). ....... Instructions, narrative, and questions used in the non-interpreted terrain version of Part II (Reduced from the original 8.5" by 14" format). ....... Non-interpreted terrain configuration of test maps used in Part II (Reduced from the original 8.5" by 14" format). ....... Instructions, narrative, and questions used in the interpreted terrain version of Part II (Reduced from the original 8.5" by 14" format). ....... Interpreted terrain configuration of test maps used in Part II (Reduced from the original 8.5" by 14" format). ....... Instructions, narrative, and questions used in the non-interpreted terrain version of Part III (Reduced from the original 8.5" by 14" format). ....... Non-interpreted terrain configuration of test maps used in Part III (Reduced from the original 8.5" by 14" format). ....... Instructions, narrative, and questions used in the interpreted terrain version of Part III (Reduced from the original 8.5" by 14" format). ....... Interpreted terrain configuration of test maps used in Part III . 18 . 24 . 37 . 39 (Reduced from the original 8.5" by 14" format). ........ 4O 23. A typical testing environment. Soldiers of the 4th Battalion, 20th Field Artillery (U.S. Army Reserve) participate in the experiment. ................ 44 24. A graphic summary of the results by category of map reading task for each configuration of legend type and method of terrain representation. The height of each bar represents the mean percentage of correct responses. ........... ......... ... 53 25. A graphic summary of communication failure ratios by map reading task for each configuration of legend type and method of terrain representation. The height of each bar represents the communication failure ratio. ........................................ , 56 .xi CHAPTER I EAPPIIC BATTLE SITUATIOIS Introduction Battlefield maps portray the spatial relationships between opposing military forces through the course of battle and are a primary tool in the study of current military geography. The spatial study of battles undoubtedly has both utilitarian and educational value for the professional soldier and military scholar. Knowledge of military history and military geography aids in developing and applying useful ideas, theories and interpretations of the practice of the military profession (Jessup and Coakley, 1982). Battlefield maps describe both current and past events that may be of common interest to society in general. In such circumstances maps should be understandable regardless of soldierly or scholarly experience; effective maps may overcome a lack of experience and promote better understanding. As such, a cartographic (study that evaluates the communication effectiveness of battlefield maps is worthy. This research is an empirical examination of three variables potentially contributing to the effectiveness of battlefield maps in the study of military geography. The variables are: symbol explanation and type of legend, interpreted terrain as a separate category of thematic information, and the experience and interest of the map user. The purpose is to provide cartographers with a set of design principles for mapping battle in an historic and geographic context. The Nature and Purpose of Battlefield Mapping The issue of battlefield map effectiveness is actually one of cartographic communication. A number of early studies (Kolacny, 1969; and Ratajski, 1973) identified critical elements in the communication process: the cartographer and the map user, the medium of communication (the map), and the cartographer's and user's knowledge and experience. The idea of improving communication has since become one of the organizing themes of the profession, providing cartographers with a basis for developing hypotheses and research methods and for evaluating results (Morrison, 1984). The communication effectiveness of battlefield maps has largely been ignored. Petchenik (1978) attributed the lack of research in historical battlefield mapping to: (l) the deviation of historical military mapping from the mainstream of cartographic activity, (2) the peripheral nature of military history to American historical thought and writing, combined with (3) the subordination of maps to development of text in military works, and (4) the lack of professional cartographic input into the design and production of battlefield maps. She suggested that battlefield map ineffectiveness is caused by a low regard for maps as data and for the meaning of maps, or by the failed communication of information to the map user. Petchenik’s analysis provoked several relevant questions: how are battlefield maps categorized, what are their purposes, and what can they communicate to the student of military geography? Historical battle maps can be categorized by scale and purpose, as "thematic" or "reference" maps, or by the operations that can be 3 performed on them. Petchenik (1978) developed a typology by scale and purpose for twentieth century military maps. The first type, small scale place-name maps, are simple reference maps that show the locations associated with military activity described in an accompanying text (Figure 1). The second type, small to medium scale place-name and line maps, are purported to show troop movements between locations over a period of time (Figure 2). The third type, the large scale battlefield map, shows the disposition of military forces throughout the course of a single battle (Figure 3). This third type, described by Petchenik as the type "that everyone expects to see and that hardly anyone understands," is the most common and is the focus of this study. Maps may also be categorized as either "thematic" or "reference," with battlefield maps perhaps more closely representing the former. Dent (1985) argued that the single graphic theme of a thematic map distinguishes it from a reference map. Battlefield maps illustrate the distribution of military units through the course of a battle and have a single theme. However, the distribution of military activity on a battlefield map is strongly related to the physical and cultural landscape represented by the base map; as such, battlefield maps also exhibit the qualities of reference maps. Petchenik (1979) suggested that map classification should depend on the operations that can be performed on it. She argued that reference maps require the map reader to learn where things are, whereas thematic maps cause the reader to understand distributions. Battlefield maps provide an inventory of the unique characteristics of military forces as associated with particular places and they also illustrate the distribution of those forces over time. ‘ a, 35:15 'Tfififiis’ * .21 't’i§%%£ . .4 .... . ,1 .. - ...) l . . ___,. . 1 . Figure 1. h eruple of a null scale place-nee up. Source: Robert P. Jordan, The Civil hr. (laticnel Geographic Society: lnhington, D.C., 1969) Time 2. 1| eruple of a tall scale place-nae ind line up. Source: filon Gooderouqt, ler lope. (st. Martin's Press: In York, 1912) Figure 1. In eraaple of a large scale battlefield lap. Source: Thales I. Griess, Caspaign Atlas to the leerican Civil Dar. (Avery Publishing Group, Inc: Iayne, 1986) Just as a map may be classified by the operations that may be performed on it, so may its effectiveness be defined in relation to its intended use (MacEachren, 1982). What is the purpose of military historical geography, and what is its relationship to battlefield mapping? Peltier (1961) described military geography as a ”borderline science between military science and scientific geography," arguing that military science is operational and therefore cannot be strictly objective. He suggested that solutions to military problems could be accommodated through an application of systematic geographic principles and knowledge; one such systematic approach is historical. History and geography are interdependent and distributions are the result of 6 historical processes (Thompson, 1962). Thompson suggested that in relation to the systematic sciences, history provides an orientation in time, whereas geography provides one in space. The interests of the military historian and the military geographer are therefore compatible. yet discrete. The chronology, significance and outcome of events is of key importance to the military historian; these are of no less concern to the military geographer. The military geographer is concerned not only with relating the questions of "what, why, and when" to historical events, but also with gaining a spatial understanding of those events and applying it to military operations: much of that spatial understanding is gained through map analysis. The tasks which can be performed on a battlefield map determine the manner in which the map aids the study of military historical geography. Three potential categories of map reading tasks may be performed on maps: navigation, measurement, and visualization (Board. 1978). A summary of map reading tasks by category is in Table 1. It is possible that any or all of the tasks could be executed in the study of military geography. However, there should be a practical limit to any research problem, since "valid experimental conclusions can only be obtained by asking questions and by testing hypotheses which are based upon the ways in which readers use maps" (Board, 1978). Which tasks are therefore most appropriate for a cartographic communication experiment designed to assess battlefield map effectiveness? Navigation is seldom used for battlefield maps in a military historical context, whereas measurement and visualization tasks are most likely to be performed. Measurement requires the map reader obtain and possibly compare some 7’ Table 1. Suasary of lap-leading Tasks. Source: Christopher Board, 'Map Reading Tasks Appropriate in Experinental Studies in Cartographic Conunnication,‘ The Canadian Cartographer, Vol. 15, Ho. 1, p. 6 NAVIGATIOI HEASURIIBIT VISUALIZATIOI Search Search Search Identify and locate Identify Identify own position on nap Orient nap Count Describe Search for optieue route Coapare Conpare/recoqnize Search for landnarks Contrast Contrast en route Recognize landnarks Bstinate Discriminate/Distinguish en route Search for destination Interpolate Delinit Identify destination Measure Verify Verify Generalize Prefer/like precise cartographic information. Visualization requires the reader obtain an overall view of the geographical landscape and is basic to explaining distribution patterns (Board, 1978). Understanding Battlefield Map Symbols Map symbols generally provide information regarding the location, type, quantity and quality of objects or occurrences in space. The effectiveness of a map is therefore largely dependent on the user's understanding of the symbols. Much of the cartographic literature concerned with symbol understanding has either recommended specific forms or developed rules for devising or proving new sets (Hopkin and Taylor, 1979). However, it is not the intent of this study to develop new symbols for battlefield maps, nor to evaluate the effectiveness of 8 those currently used. Rather, the purpose is to identify the characteristics of battlefield map symbols and, based on these characteristics, understand how they may be effectively learned. Cartographic literature (DeLucia and Miller, 1982) suggests that understanding of battlefield map symbols will be enhanced with a "natural" legend accompanied by an explanation of battlefield map construction, rather than a conventional legend. A "natural" legend format depicts the map symbols in a context more closely resembling their actual situations within the body of a map, whereas a conventional legend catalogues them. This suggestion is based on the premise that standard battlefield map symbols are too complex and varied to be understood solely through inference typically required by conventional legend types. Battlefield map symbols often follow a conventional standard. Hopkin and Taylor (1979) argued that the association of specific meanings with specific symbols is fundamental to all effective means of graphic communication and can be accomplished through standardization. It is therefore not surprising that the need to derive and adopt standard symbols has been the focus of a number of cartographic studies (Ratajski, 1971; Board, 1973: Robinson, 1973; Morrison, 1974 and 1984). It is generally accepted that reference maps lend themselves more easily to the adoption of standard symbols than do most thematic maps; the effectiveness of certain symbols on thematic maps varies and is dependent on the specific information depicted (Hopkin and Taylor. 1979). Although battlefield maps may be categorized as a type of thematic map, their symbols lend themselves to standardization better than do others. 9 Thematic information on military operations maps and overlays is portrayed with standard symbols (Field Manual 101-5-1, 1985). Standardization provides military commanders and planners with a common graphic means of depicting operational intentions, thereby reducing the possibility of confusion or misinterpretation between users. Battlefield map symbols are similar in character to those found on standard military operational maps and appear to have evolved from them. .Evidence of this evolution is found in several historical battle atlases (Esposito, 1959: Chandler, 1980; Goodenough, 1982). It is possible that techniques used to learn standard military map symbols may be applied to battlefield mapping. Unlike those found on many thematic maps, standard battlefield map symbols are both qualitative and quantitative; they not only portray the quantities and characteristics of various military units, but also portray the activities of these units, control measures, and other tactical information of interest. Hopkin and Taylor (1979) argued that cartographic researchers have been preoccupied with the psychophysical scaling of quantitative map symbols. 'As a result, the understanding of symbols which are both qualitative and quantitative has not been wholly addressed in the cartographic literature. Standard battlefield symbols are abstract, complex, and varied. Abstract symbols require sophistication of the user and must be accompanied by a detailed legend (Dent, 1985): the complexity of battlefield map symbols compounds the legend's requirement for detail. As evidence of this complexity, a diagram illustrating the components of a typical military unit symbol is shown in Figure 4. Although it might 10 SIZE or own smear um: 1 HIGH" tenuous . or couuwo . 5"” / surname or a UN” DISIGNAIION-—O Q 0 Section \ susw matter can uwus» . .. PM I 000 0' aeaucw Dun / ' Detachment «(UICIIONAU SVIBOl OI ABBRIVIAIIOI 01M!IDEIIIHINGIMOIIAHOI SUCH AS ' Company. 0' UN” "Pt 0' WUPON OR VEHICl‘S ORGANIC (0 “u", "a” TM! UN” 0R 0W" IMORIAIIOI COIIRI ' OUTING )0 HS IDENIIIV II Battalion or Squadron [IAIN t S III Group. lamest. or Equivalent lSl mroou counau zo eamuomurcumnm " 3"st 75m mraum ll Dmsnon m Corps am New O ‘ ' 20 some couraav e 2 [ I 1 3‘ 7‘ 2m rectum earuuoe Figure 4. Components of a standard ailitary unit syabol. Source: Field Manual 5-34,!bgineer Field Data. (Governuent Printing Office: lashington, D.C., 1987), p. 10-26. be argued that the complexity of the symbols is justified by their utility, there is no empirical evidence to either dispute or support that claim. Nevertheless, the issue is not the utility of complex symbols, but rather the effect of complexity on learning. Several authors have determined that complex and numerous symbol sets are difficult to learn (Harrison, 1959; Williams and Falzon, 1963: Easterby, 1963; Van Roy and Morrison, 1973). The complex idea represented by a symbol must be expressed in words (Blaut, 1954), and the application of Blaut's notion usually occurs in the form of a legend. According to DeLucia and Biller (1982), the legend of a thematic map is crucial to map understanding because the map user "depends upon it to decode and comprehend the symbols used." With battle atlases, a legend is typically found in the introductory pages of the atlas, although supplemental legends may accompany individual maps. 11 Several typical battlefield map legends are shown in Figures 5 and 6. These legends do not depict all of the symbols found in their respective atlases: a single battlefield map symbol is a compound structure and may be constructed from several others. Therefore, it is difficult for a map user to learn all possible combinations and impractical for all of those combinations to appear in any legend. As such, two "cardinal rules" (Robinson, Morrison and Sale, et al., 1984) are violated: "no symbol that is not self-explanatory should be used on a map unless it is explained in a legend" and: "any symbol explained should appear in the legend exactly as it appears on the map." A conventional approach to legend design may be inappropriate for battlefield maps. Perhaps instead of illustrating possible symbol combinations, the legend might illustrate the procedure for constructing map symbols from several basic ones. Once familiar with the construction technique, the map user may be able to dissect and understand any battlefield map symbol (Field Manuals 101-5-1, 1985, and 21-30, 1970). Similarly, instead of cataloging symbols, the legend could show the context in which they are used. Rarely does an adequate explanation of symbol construction or illustration of symbol usage accompany battle maps or atlases. Apparently, the map reader is expected to infer the meaning of combinations not illustrated in the legend. The lay user is likely to encounter difficulty in understanding the significance of even the basic symbols, one of Petchenik's (1978) major criticisms of most battle maps. An alternative to the conventional legend is a "natural" legend combined with an illustrated description of symbol construction. DeLucia and Miller (1982) determined that map performance efficiency and ('omguny or "qu I Battalion or squadron II Snail Infantry detachment a 2d Rem-ear. Vlfw state ItoopefiZ Va Isl Drvrsroa. molar troops a; CheaIAIIII's infantry diviseon of Polk'a corps Williams Infamy dam of SIocunr's XII Corps Troops on the march Troops In poeuron Troops In hrvouac or reserve Held works Strong prepared poulm Figure 5. Conventional battlefield sap legend. EEEOIIE IA“ menu. Infantry B Cavalry 2 m C'W‘Wmflfl‘fm ..eOa.. ‘ Mull“! El “ AmIIer-y u. pouuon on All “sunfi-“ee—uml nan Trains g ficm- (POLK) Ewan...» (XII) WJWIII‘W Chm Sheila's V Corp flsruaxr Sruarv'e cavalry corps Jackson's Infantry rive-on. le- urur corn-landed by Windu Gerrard's cavalry drweaaon. rah out cornrnanded by Croaton attached éGamtd (+Croeton) Anny commanded by Meade HEADS Quorum r-m-ouI on. smears; err-hau- C::‘;a c---—s (I “ I \._1 U-“ I... 2"UVC: Source Vincent J. Esposito, Troops desplacrn; and mum .u-O’ amusement Troops In moon under attack & Routeolrnatch oo-oo-co-no Bourulary between onto _.u\a_.___.__ own—our For: 1:! SWAMP ‘05-'75.“- of American vars. (Frederick J. Praeger Press: New York. 1959) Keyto Synonls m. use mae- aeluh IN- " I.” ”Mgr—umvdwnwa ®®®s tantamou- A-u-e To-ae W In... leg-«verve Aurora.- Sod-elem Hone-var uarMo'oMO ID ID IE] IE} IE] IE] we Carver-on mum-e Cum. Co. au- '0‘! darn-6M 'Mevormonvaedemw mar-Marathon» MI~W o'er-N “elem e.—r~~'e A A A I 4' 1 U a- uro-e . Q C a a an Are-II" mow-u Baggage "M Ponvoon V-a-n Cane Hm ¢~ ‘rvvl «new In wean-re Sue. "as Beam Me ARM". Add III. ii a ‘-"-.‘ mun-Ia 'FWIW Dundee has” Wharton-rte ' 8 ¢ — - - as.“ wan-er 'eeegraan Canal Coop Deva m“ ®»© b (> ...... .... M'aave :::> Interior and Exterior lines of Communications .... We! cum-afl: a I (ever- La a a love-Ia! w Lave a! emu- I I I I I I I I... Shaun‘s-napalm“- e NWMIOMWWIN'” cumin-ol- e NmmuMqu'o-eeww warden-mm mmmrmrrardtmm Wearmamuwlhflumhn“ q p Ihaeanmnubuee-n-Ifiadvnmmmu rev-e ‘ mulemmvmmm-ndm-aem vanes-one Seam - ae Mae“ .0 Dwell-e —- or mm carved-pure we Duane-aromas.- oleaunon-ve as Strum-unapdmw. a Nwmrammdmunm a "camouflage-nauseous Ed., The Rest Point Atlas Figure 6. Conventional battlefield nap legend. Source: David Chandler, Ed., Atlas of’fiilitary Strategy. (ares and Iran: Press: London, 1980) 13 understanding is improved using a natural, rather than a conventional legend. An example of a natural legend is shown in Figure 7. The legend could be complemented by an illustrated description; the descriptive approach has been used to summarize the principles of military map interpretation (McGrath, 1975) and to teach military map reading, navigation and graphic representation (U.S. Army Infantry School Student Handbooks 7-6 and 21-21, 1985: and Command and General Staff College, 1985). The illustrated description graphically depicts the construction, use and meaning of battlefield map symbols and their components. Theoretically, the combination of an illustrated description of symbol construction with a natural legend would not only provide more information to the map user, but would provide the information in a context that facilitates better understanding of battlefield maps. Terrain as a Category of Thematic Information Terrain can be defined as the surface of the earth with all its natural and artificial features, and an understanding of the effects of terrain on past military operations is of paramount importance to the student of military geography (Thompson, 1962). Therefore, an effective thematic battlefield map should do more than represent the physical aspects of terrain; it should present an analysis of the military aspects of terrain and their effects on battle. Thematic battlefield maps often portray only the physical aspects of terrain and ignore the military aspects. Contemporary military doctrine (Field Manuals 21-32,1979; 34-1, 1984: and 101-5-1, 1985) considers five military aspects of terrain: (l) observation and fields of fire: (2) cover and concealment; (3) obstacles: (4) key terrain; l4 ‘ 1' "’ " ‘E .— COLD OCCURRENCES IN IDAHO »fhv-'-. ‘ ‘ ’ ..fl ) 1978 I a, ‘ jBOUNDAl . , f ‘o ‘ ' ' ‘ . - ‘ _ by . :1:- I ’ ; MaryP.Caston and BillBomidIsen , ,.l {...-1. ._ _',3_ _ u 1:!” 1‘ o a ‘ e s to se as ea- l CONN! , ‘s: e a re a as as...— a . 1° , s...- ‘6? ° ‘ ~~umml~y I ...- .. ‘ ““E "I he...“ tre-arneeuere-eeueenomudeee—ueee-e-ao-e-a ‘ 70 f; 0' “mummmmmnm #:.:.k_ r --‘S‘ “4‘ {£;:‘ : ”L .' '. ’;' w 39-h .3 I u. I“ fi~ , a roam“ . Iii--. N3 . " 0 ,.,~ '5 ' , ‘ . . I ‘37,: I ..‘ .' Ga“.'gfls mm‘isiipff‘; :QJ.‘ £6".- ‘ «1‘ I a hie-sees- . - ‘. J ..... ..J_ \W ' . ’0 I .\ a ' 34° / e l . h. Is‘J a . . . . _“ w- 1"“ -, , amewm “i in snoswone fag; .,. _ . l A 5.x e ( _ A __ ' M . ~~) o . . , ._ .- If; . f; i " J ' ’ Luann-naeue—e-e-I—a (MW “(30’3"‘1. - - “EL-3‘ :::._..--:::::.-:...'--- ‘fi- .dfii. \ ‘ e/' "flv -—-A——- "" I-*..m.—I-.~‘ . _ ._.___= .. of.” 9...: I r '\ M‘“ K “ ..._._——*~- lozu—OQ ‘ _~~e~—ar~m-On ‘ ) ' __._ figure 1. lo exaunle of a natural legend fornat. Source: A.A. DeLucia and M. Billet, 'Hatural Legend design for Theuatic Naps} fire Cartographic Journal, Vol. 19, lo. 1, p. 4‘). 15 (5) avenues of approach. The cartographic methods of portraying terrain are varied (Robinson, Morrison and Sale, et al.,l984), and several of these methods have been applied to battlefield maps (Figures 8 through 10). Although the maps in Figures 8 through 10 differ in method of terrain portrayal, they all portray the physical, rather than the military, aspects of the terrain. Thematic maps consist of at least two elements, a geographic or base map, and one or more thematic overlays. The purpose of the geographic base is to provide locational information relevant to the thematic information, and it has been argued that it should include only the amount of information necessary to convey the map's message (Dent, 1972). On battlefield maps, the terrain is often depicted as only geographic base information, and not as a category of thematic information. Miller and Voskuil (1964) argued that thematic maps should present not only facts, but the results of analysis and synthesis. What was the significance of a particular hilltop, ridge or valley? Which rivers acted as obstacles? Why did a force fail to engage the enemy from a particular position? Battlefield maps that represent only the physical aspects of the terrain cannot, by themselves, answer these questions. With maps of this type, the map user's understanding of the relationship between the military aspects of terrain and the outcome of battle becomes dependent on either written description or inference based on a prior knowledge of tactics. An alternative to portraying only the physical aspects of terrain is to interpret certain military aspects of terrain, and present them as an additional category of thematic information. 16 Attack on Bloody Ridge. ~ l2-l4 September I942 1 ~ — III saunas Figure I. la Luteile offs battlefield nan sitl hachures used to represent landforms. Source: Tho-as I. Griess, ld., ltlas of the Second Iorld Dar - Asia and the Pacific. (Avery Publishing Group, Inc: laxne, 1985) The military has applied thematic mapping techniques in the preparation of terrain analysis products for operational laps (Leestaa, 1967; Field Manual 21-33, 1978; Howard, 1980; Field Hanual 34-1, 1984) and it is possible that this approach may be applied to historical battlefield maps. It has long been recognized that graphics are basic to many aspects of military intelligence and operations planning (Field Manual 5-105, 1987), and multiple terrain factor overlays, the products of terrain analysis, are often used in the planning process. These products are either overprinted on topographic map sheets of varying scale, or are reproduced as transparent overlays. The relationship between the military aspects of terrain and the elements of terrain information are shown in Table 2, as are potential military terrain analysis products. 17 figure 9. Ir eranple of a battlefield lap lith contours need to represent the terrain. Source: Thoaae Yoseloff, Pub., The Official ltlae of the civil lat. (Thales Yoseloff, Inc: lea York, 1958) The military's operational approach can be adapted to produce a thematic terrain overlay for a battlefield map. Design of such a thematic overlay would require sufficient generalization to avoid overwhelming the user with every nuance of the military aspects of terrain. Unlike its operational counterpart, a terrain overlay for a battlefield map is not a planning tool, but is meant to convey the relative importance of terrain through the course of battle. The influence of certain military aspects of terrain on the outcome of an historic battle is known, and it is only those aspects that the cartographer need depict. Several cartographic principles must be applied in the design of a thematic terrain overlay for a battlefield map. Regardless of whether 18 .' ' " .3 " -' column 1» ‘: 0/? m \" ,’ Kma- J A P A xv ‘v ’1’; .1 L; l‘ ') SEA Illa/r OPERATIONS IN KOREA TER RAIN In“ or In." figure 10. la eralple of the use of layer tinting in terrain representation. Source: Vincent J. Esposito, Ed., fie lest Point Atlas of Alerican hrs. (frederick J. Praeger Press: lea York, 1959) 119 nahle f. Ielntienshins hutseen the Iilitlr! Illvcts ef‘ferrais. Ilenents of Terrain lsfornntien. and possible terrain Isnlysis frndncts. Source: U.S. hepartsent of the hrny. field lanual 5-105, topographic aperations. (Governnent trinting Office: lashington, n.c..19s1). p. l-d. lilitary Aspects [sales of terrain of Terrain (scorn) Ilenents of Terrain lsfernntien Inalysis Products onservationl 'Vegetation (sunset and sister). 'lorirontal lise-of-sight fields of fire *furface configuration. ‘Iattlefield euvironnostal effects on the terrain. turban areas. for direct-fire coupons and radar. 'Inplacenent suitability and perfornsnce ratings for ground surveillance. Cover and *Vegetatios (sensor and sister). 'Cover potential free concealnest 'Surface configuration. direct and indirect fire tabstacles (nicro relief). (good/fairlpoor). 'Iattlefield enviroenestal 'Coscealnent potential effects on terrain. free horizontal and *lrhan areas. vertical observations. Obstacles 'Vegetation (sensor and sister). 'hocaties of existing 'Surface configuration. natural and nus-nade 'nrainuge characteristics. obstacles. *latural and nun-nude obstacles. Olohility potential on 'hlcro relief. the battlefield. 'Surface saterials (vet and dry). 'drhas areas. fey terrain 'drhas areas. *hocation of hey terrain 'lines of connnnicetion. features, both natural 1|Surface configuration. and nan-nade. *Draisage characteristics. hvesues of *Vegetation (sensor and sister). eldentification of areas approach turban areas. share novenent of *Surface configuration. 'Snrface naterials (vet and dry). *hruinage characteristics. 'tines of consunicetion. friendly and essay forces say occur. 'Speed prediction. throp roses. “landing roses. 'landing teaches. 'lap-of-the-farth navigation. 20 the overlay is a transparent flap or printed on the map itself, it must be designed as part of the map, not as an addition to it. It is commonly accepted that a range of visual importance must be established on a map (Robinson, Morrison and Sale, et al., 1984). Dent (1972) argued that on a thematic map, distributions should be assigned an order in the visual hierarchy. The base map should be at the lowest visual plane in the hierarchy and the less important distribution (the military aspects of terrain) should appear as an intermediate level in the order between the primary distribution (military units and movement) and the geographic base. Finally, as with the geographic base, only the information necessary to convey the terrain‘s significance should appear on the thematic overlay. Hap User Experience A third element in battlefield map learning is user experience since most cartographers agree that greater experience results in increased map effectiveness. Experience could include map reading ability, military background, or visual-spatial abilities. whatever the source of familiarity, user experience could influence battlefield map effectiveness. Underwood (1981) investigated the relationship between geographic training and map reading ability. She concluded that experience provides "cues" for successful interpretation and may compensate for a lack of visual-spatial ability. Therefore, the factor of experience may be most important in understanding and overcoming complex visual displays. Olson (1975) cited a number of cartographic studies that concluded that experience does not necessarily result in less user error. She suggested that some of the abilities necessary for effective map reading are perceptual and may not be acquired solely 21 through geographic or related training. However, experience may overcome deficient perceptual skills. Map user skills may be increased by providing inexperienced users with an improved legend type and description of symbol construction. Similarly, deficient perceptual skills may be accommodated by interpreting the military aspects of terrain through the addition of a category of thematic information. This theory is an extension of Olson's (1975) conclusion that map design modification and experience are complementary factors in improving map communication. Problem and Hypotheses This study examines the contribution of three variables to the effectiveness of battlefield maps in the study of military historical geography: (1) symbol explanation and type of legend: (2) terrain as a category of interpreted thematic information: and (3) experience and interest of the subject. Psychophysical testing techniques are employed to measure and evaluate communication effectiveness. Specifically, this study focuses on the following research questions: 1. How do map users effectively learn battlefield map symbols? Can knowledge of battlefield map symbols be effectively gained through use of a conventional legend or through a natural legend? Should symbol construction be explained by an illustrated description? 2. How do battlefield maps most effectively communicate information about the battle setting? Is terrain effectively portrayed as geographic base map information or should the interpreted military aspects of terrain be represented as an additional category of thematic information? 22 3. What is the relationship between the prior military experience or interest of the map user and battlefield map effectiveness? Is performance of battlefield map reading tasks dependent on map user experience or interest, and if so, which tasks? Are any combination of battlefield map variables independent of experience or interest? A review of the cartographic literature suggests that the research questions may be addressed through the testing of the following hypotheses: 1. The understanding of battlefield map symbols will be significantly greater among subjects viewing a natural legend accompanied by an illustration of battlefield symbol construction than among subjects using a conventional legend without an accompanying illustration. 2. The understanding of the military aspects of terrain and their impact on battle will be significantly greater with battle maps having additional interpreted terrain information, than with maps without such information. 3. There will be a significant positive relationship between task- related military experience and interest of map users and information gained from a battlefield map. Few cartographic assessments of battlefield mapping exist. This research will provide a better understanding of the relationship between accuracy of battlefield map interpretation and the variables under investigation. Results of this study may be applied to the design of battlefield maps and atlases as well as the organization of military texts and manuals. CIIPTII II IIIIIICI IIIIOI Ill [31.0.8 Introduction There are few empirical battlefield map effectiveness studies which are suitable design models for this research, although numerous precedents in psychophysical testing procedures have been established. Board (1978) argued that all cartographic evaluation requires an empirical approach and suggested four points to be considered in developing tests of map effectiveness: (1) What type of map? (2) What is the intended audience? (3) Under what conditions will it be used? (4) What map reading tasks are appropriate to the stated purpose? Several cartographers have argued that the fourth consideration has not been sufficiently addressed in many psychophysical studies. lcCleary (1975) stated that testing should approximate a real map using environment with consideration given to the map's purpose. Board (1978) contended that experimentation using inappropriate tasks makes little contribution to evaluating map effectiveness and improving map design. He developed a - model for evaluating map effectiveness in terms of user requirements; this model is shown in figure 11. The design and implementation of this research was guided by board's procedure. Test Structure The test structure and composition of the sample population were 'guided by the research hypotheses. lxamination of the first hypothesis required a measurement and comparison of map use accuracy between 23 244 HUD, ODMIC‘L INMANM If ”or is mowers! mlonvveman to be and toe I ”or sources at geographical mlmnon ’ Are none 30".”. for "0de “ mess ? i aw (veer/n now a r l) for Mona U040! Meet ”Of m a the men wear condmons m node», u," ' mil the m a! ramp 4’ mended? 0. a", , ere summonses 2 MI 0' CONDWIONI FOI I» new e» mom a "" °' "' Mm opersnonel wesnons should be sued? WWII. “MINOR. We perfumes means an 0e used) Mas: methods 0! cream. mm" to be used) has methods of analysis so so used? figure 11. l procedure for nap evaluation in terns of user requirenents. Source: C. Board, "Map Reading Tasks Appropriate in Experinental Studies in Cartographic Connunication,’ The Canadian Cartographer, Vol. 15, ((o. l, p. 4. 25 subjects viewing a conventional battlefield map legend and those viewing a natural legend accompanied by an illustration of symbol construction. Similarly, testing of the second hypothesis required a measurement and comparison of responses between subjects viewing battle maps with interpreted terrain information, and those viewing maps lacking interpreted terrain information. Examination of the third hypothesis required a test sample population with a wide range of quantifiable experience and interest. In consideration of these requirements, a three variable, four part experiment was designed to investigate the effectiveness of battlefield maps in the study of military historical geography. The test structure is shown in Figure 12. Each test subject was provided an 8.5" x 14" test booklet, a consent form, an answer sheet, and a questionnaire. Subjects were divided into groups numbered one through four, and worked with one of four possible test configurations. Part I, entitled "Battlefield Map Symbols" required that subjects study a battlefield map legend, construct a five component military unit symbol, and then match ten map symbols found on a battlefield map with their associated descriptions. There were two configurations of Part I: groups 1 and 2 were provided a conventional legend, whereas groups 3 and 4 were provided a natural legend accompanied by an illustration of military unit symbol construction. The requirements for symbol construction and matching were identical for both configurations. Parts II and III of the test each required that subjects study a battle. The narrative of each battle was accompanied by a series of maps which were alternately configured with or without interpreted terrain information. There were four configurations of Parts II and III 26 new PM" con-emu mus-mans M Lewis on. u | m w Lnomxwvn onwrau mule-e H W w W MIT: 7"" ‘ W (Our-I'll . w 7"“ ‘ w (cue-Illn- I mun-d Fin I Em ole-ammo raven onse— m arm-uses ?" onus-m .... w m l ..... W1 W2 GKJUPS We mu M W) m Mzw‘w 7"“ ‘w W.w Y“ .WW ‘ E T“ w w M T“ M. w w u Mn Wu l I ..... GHOUPi onoupa GROUPS GHOUPe III" M N eeeeeeee figure 12. Schenatic of a three variable, four part erperineut designed to investigate the effectiveness of battlefield naps. (two battles x two forms of terrain depiction) and each group was exposed to two configurations. Subjects were required to study each series of battle maps and accompanying narrative, and then respond to fifteen test questions. Test questions were identical for each battle, regardless of configuration. The final part of the test was a questionnaire designed to assess each subject's level of military experience, familiarity with battlefield maps and symbols, and interest in military history or military geography. The questionnaire also solicited each subject's preferences, as well as their opinion regarding the content, quality and administration of the test. 27 Design of the Test Instruments To make the evaluation of map effectiveness directly applicable to cartographic design problems involving battle portrayal, actual battles were used to construct the test maps for Parts 11 and 111. Two battles were chosen from the 1973 Arab-Israeli War: the lgyptian attack and subsequent Israeli counterattach across the Suez Canal, and the Israeli defense of the Golan Ieights. The battles were chosen because: (1) It was believed that the test subjects could better relate their experience to contemporary battles, thereby stimulating interest: the selected battles could be represented at a relatively large scale and modern equipment and tactics were employed throughout their duration. (2) The! represented two levels of tactical complexity, making it possible to evaluate each test variable in these terms: complexity was included because of its possible adverse impact on effectiveness (lonmonier, 197d: Jenks, 1975: laclachren, 1982). (3) They occurred in distinct phases which could be represented in a sequential series of maps. (4) The effects of terrain significantly affected their outcome. Each of the battles in Parts 11 and III was presented as a sequential series of maps, with each map representing a portion of the battle through time, rather than as a single map. This decision was based on the accepted theory that a sequential and partitioned presentation of information will complement both user learning strategies and perceptual abilities (bartram, 1918: Shimron, 1978: Thorndyhe, 1980: Griffin, 1983: lastman, 1985; Tontanella, 1988). The data for the test maps in Parts 11 and III were compiled from several 28 sources (nersog, 1915: lshel, 1978: nadir. et.al, 1978: O'Ballance. 1978: that, 1985). Several measures were taken to eliminate the possibility that a subject's familiarity with either battle might influence experimental results. The area represented was mapped with an unconventional orientation and several of the easily identifiable terrain features were relocated or distorted. Place names, dates, and the names and unit designations of the participants were changed. The battles were renamed using real but little-known places in Africa and Asia. The two map configurations for each battle were identical, except for the addition or absence of the interpreted terrain information. battlefield map symbols and colors for opposing forces and for terrain information were selected from those standard on military operations maps (U.S. Dept. of the Army field nanual 101-5-1, 1985) and were similar in form and scale for all parts of the test. A shaded relief method was used to represent topography on all maps and was chosen for its ease of construction, suitability for quality reproduction, and aesthetic appearance. following established cartographic principles (Dent, 1972: Board, 1918), a visual hierarchy from the highest order (the distribution of military forces) through intermediate (the interpreted terrain information) to the lowest (the geographic base maps) was established by varying the color saturation and intensity for the opposing force symbols versus the terrain symbols. and by rendering the base map in a subdued grey tone. The maps in each series were numbered sequentially and labeled with dates corresponding to the phase of the battle. and a legend was provided below the maps. Test map 29 configurations for Part II are found in figures 16 and 18. whereas test maps for Part III are found in figures 20 and 22. The graphic design considerations used for Part I were identical to those used to display the two battles in Parts II and III. The natural legend base map found in the second configuration, and the test map found in both configurations, were made to resemble the maps found in subsequent parts. Symbols found in both legend configurations were identical in type, form, color and scale. The conventional legend used in the first configuration was modeled after the legend found in The Dust Point Atlas of American Wars (1959). The illustration of symbol construction found in the second configuration was modeled after a similar illustration appearing in Operational Turns and symbols (Dept. of the Army field Hanual 101-3-1, 1985). Unlike Parts II and III, test questions for Part I appeared on the same page as the graphics. The two configurations of Part I are in figures 13 and id. Battles in Parts II and III were each described by a short narrative. This measure was taken not only to create a test environment which simulated the study of military historical geography, but also because cartographic literature suggests that it may not be possible to design battlefield maps that are completely self-explanatory (Petchenik, 1977). These narratives were each designed as ”propositional" text that refers the reader to locations and distributions on the map. It has been shown that propositional information in text contributes to the understanding of spatial relationships (Petchenik, 1977: Shimron, 1978: Perrig and Kintsch, 1985). The narratives were divided into distinct parts, each part corresponding and referring to one of the maps in each sequential 30 .223“ .2 3 k.“ 253: .5 at BEBE H an: ac 83852.3”. 2%: :33528 .3 2qu !.}”33 viii-Ills!!! In" Isa-ma"!!! III-BI Illa , eel-Ii.” 4 < d ..4 l; 94 ‘18 i! .d {El-hi! I: l I | lie-Iain- “ M legal. axle-BI... . m :- Ila-.0 II! willie-15 ...-:0! 155...!!! ilk-lilac i la... III-sings... ..nfl- Seeds-“183.1". [lei-I lice-Is tie-fl iii-.1”: efl. III-flail. [...-all all. I!!! allege. allielplalama .... < lei antics-I'm use!!! FLU Ila — .l ...-a I .8 a»!!! E g I in m {loll-i B ...-.1 ll: . .Iei dial-III... E if." Q Is! _ . iii 8 pl! m i . film-i sol-315a. 1.5mm... 39.152.55.3- igibuhseEB-afimrinzii .. 23.5.3351 in giliafliisiggfig 99999 3.8 l‘gziiglnihoé Ming-533......“ 11:1..r, ieliEsmBimuiiletissB-J! filial-E3]...- 111114 Signing-E .2 ... IL . .cnmanivu.ideuse.au§lu§ii ; malls-... .gols.‘ "ally an] . . 1 1 J. r .1 E 11 9.: I I 13:35.81eselp . in. iliiigdg nails-ligllaiiggs-s 32 series. The narrative, test instructions and test questions were all located on the page facing the nap. and the test subjects were able to study all three without turning the page. The narratives. test questions, and instructions for Parts II and III are found facing their associated battlefield maps in figures 15 and 17. and figures 19 and 21. respectively. Test questions used in Part I, ”Battlefield Hap Symbols,” were designed to measure the effectiveness of legend type on symbol understanding. Part In, "Unit Symbol Construction." required subjects to identify and graphically describe the components of a military unit symbol. The unit symbol in question did not appear in any of the examples of symbol combinations, thus requiring the subject to synthesize information gained from the legend. for Part ID, ”Hatching,” three categories of questions were formulated. The first set of questions required subjects to identify symbol types and functions. In order to not restrict performance evaluation to simple identification tasks, the other categories of questions were designed to assess overall integration of map information gained by viewing a particular legend type. The second category of questions required subjects to associate a unit synbol with an operational symbol: e.g.. to associate a unit with its activity. The final category of questions required subjects to visualize complex relationships between several map elements: e.g., between several units. or between several units and the terrain. In order to build subject confidence, questions were arranged in a hierarchy of difficulty. Part II, ”The hrrakeen Crossing,” and Part III, ”The Defense of the hogone Plateau,” sinulated an environment for the study of military 33 .02... ... ... ...... 2...... .0 a... 030.: H. .... .o 00.0... 0...... ca.....0.=.-=o= on. a. can: unamumoau can ....000000 .mao..000.m=H .m. 0.00.: .3380 .00. 0...: 0. 3.00:. o... 00.02 ..." 00.3. 03... .2000 0:. 0000.0. 0.00.0300 000950000. >0 .5 000000»: 000: >300 0.03 00.0000. .000: 00.00.0200 :00: 0:. 0.0.. 3000.00.20... 000.003 0. 0.0.0000 300.030. >.:o 0: 0.00.... 55¢ 000 000.2 .0300... .0300 .0 0000.0 :0... 0:. .0 000000000 0...... >000... 0. ....— .. 00:. 30.. ...—a 2.. 8.0.8. 02.0 ...... ... 002.0050 003300.00 0.0.0065... 0.0... .008 0:. .o .000 0000.. 00300 000 .003 00.0.0: 00> .3 #0033030...333302.302000230390558 9.00000 .0 .000. 0. 00300.5 00.: 00:3 .0 >00 0:. 000:0000: 000.22 0:. 000.800 0:05. 0: .0— ... 008. :00. 00 003.00. 0.000. >0.. 0.0:. 00.00.0000 0000.000 0:. .0... >.0....:0 e .. $02.85.. .003... 00.00 0.0.. 2.8.301 50:3... 0... 008.... 00300 0... 003...? .0. An.“ 0008. .003 0:. 00000.0 >00. 00 000.. :0. 0.000022 0:. 00.00.20 302.00.: 050...... 0:00 . I 4?- 0001. 0.00.000 0.00.0003 0 00 o. .0000 0:. 00.00.0000 .0000 0.020.000.00 0:. 000000 .00.... , 00.0, .... 0.00.00.00.00 0:. >0 0030.0 5030 003 .0000 000.0: 00h .0— ... 003. 0000 .0020... .0 .00.... ..0000 .00.m.:00.00 0:. 00:0: :02). .0008. 000.22 0:. .0: 000 .5000. 03000000.. 0:. 00... .. .0 ..n 000.. 2.... 55:0 0:. .o .00... 0.000. 000.50 0:. >0 0000. 0:. 0. 00.00.00. 00... 0: .0020... 000 :0 00.60.. 00.00 0: .0 ..0 00:. .28 .... 9.08.... o. 8.... ...... .... 9.. S .00... ..- o. 9.8:. o. 08.2 a... 0.0.5. ... .... 00:. .050 05 038.0 .. a 80...... 99.05. 0000...... 82.0.... ...-023.00 2.. 8 .02.. .0030 0... .000... .0 .3 ...-a. ....Z 0..... 00.020300 00.00 0:. >000: .0 0000000 0:. 00:0: 00: 00.0.0.0 .0000 0.00.50: 000.00.000 0. >0 .0 .0.— 0003. 000.0... 000 .0 >00 0:. 00.08020. 0.00. 300.2000 «0 >0 000 03.02000 2 :0 00.320 .0000 .00.... 0:. 0000. 0095.000 0. 00 .0000 0:. 000.0 00... 90000.0 005.000 5060.000 0..... 9.0.... 0..-303.00 9.00:... 0:. 2.02.20.00.00 8.9.6 ....0 .0 00050.0 .0 ..u 00.: 83.0 .38 9.0 8.30.. 0... 08... :8 2.38.. 8.20.8 02.0.02: .52 ... 00.0.0300 0.: .n ..u 008. 00000.... >005... 00.0000 000 5.00.0. 00:00:00... 00.0.0 .0 00.0.0000 00.0.0.0 0.0: .0. ... 001. 20.0.0 .950 0 ...... .00... 30.020300 0... o. 0830... 2.09.22 0:» .— 0030000 00.0.25 0:.. "000.3000 00.02.00: 0:. 000 0. 32:00.00 05.00000 0 .0003 00.0.5200 .0 300.5030 0:. 00.00 .0000 000.0... 000 .0 >00 0:. 000 00.00000 30.0.9000 >E.( 0:0 00:. 0:0. 00.52000 - :0 000.0 .00. 00:. 0. I! .0 0:00.000 0.0.. .00.... 009.00: 0:. 00.0 2 0.0000 0.00. 0.00.00.00.00 0:. .3000 0:. .0 ..00: .000 0:. 00 00.0. 0.0:. :0... :..>> 0...: .2000 0:. .o 000: 0:. .0 «000.000 >038 o. .00 00:00. 0:... 00:20.00. .30. 00.3.0.6 >300 0.9.00. 009.23 0:. ..0000 0:. 03.00 0000 00.000300 0.0. 000 .0000 0:. 00.0.00 «00.0.20 00:. 0000:. 00.0.0: 000 00.00 000 0000 000.060. 50:50 .02 .< 0:. ..0050.000.00 €03.00 0:0 ..00:0 00 3.0.0000 0:00.00 22 .2... .3520; a 0..: .00..» 00.0020 0:. 00.032 000.5: 0:0 000.030 022.200 00:. 0.0.. 30.05.... 00.00 000 00.0.0... 00:00:05 :00: 0:. 0.0.. 0.00:... 00.0000. 00 0:05 0:00:22 0:. 00 20.0000.» 00 0.0: 000.0000 00:000. 20.... 0...... .50. 0:. .0 00.0.0... 0:. :000.:. 0:0 .00.: .0... 500009.: 0000000.... 00.10:: 0:. 000.500 .. ...0 000000000 >030... 003 00... ..0000 0:. 30.00 00500 0000:: 0.0005. >00 00.0.. .00.. 300.00 .02 .< 0:. 03.0 0. 00.00.00... 0.0032033 00. 00 0000000 >..>00: 00.000: 0000:: 0.5020 0:80.000 t 00 .000... 0:. 000.0 00.5 0:30.05 0.0.000 0. 0:0 .00: 50.0.5200 0:. 0000.0 3.50000. 0. 0..: 00.3000 .30.... 0.: o. 0.6:. 0.0.: 0...: 00.00E 20:82.0 100:0 9:.— .0000:: 0.00.00 >: 300.... 030.2006 0 0200.0 .5 .0030. 0: 0.000 300.0300 00.00:: >000: 00.0.... :000.:. 600.00 0 00 0000 0. 00:0 :0 0. 00000.00 .00.».00030 0:. 0. .060 ..000. 0 00:0. 00: 000002000000. :00..0:< 0.0:... .E>0:0.. 0...... .o 0.. 0:. .0 :00: 0.50000 .060 0 0. 00000000 00.0.0.0 0...: 03.00300 0. .0 00.0.0... 0:. 00 no... .20. .3829... .0 ...: 50:0 205000.00 0:. 00.00.00 >300 000.0000 00.3.0.2 0:. £09.30 00,300.00 00:. 00.0.0.0. 000 000.0: 0. 00... 000.00 0:30: .0300 .00.. 0:. 0000. o. .00.... 00.0.50 00 0.. 0.000 0.0000. 00:0. 0.00.00.00.00 0:. 0000.20.00 .0 :6. 0:. 00 00.00 .0 0000.30 00.3.0.3 0:. 000000000 000 00.090 .0 00000 9.0000 0.000.000; 3.0300000: .0 00:3 0 00.000... 000.0. 30.00.0200 .300 02:. 0.0: 0:. 5000020.— . .0000 3:30.. .0 .00... 0000.30 02000.00 >30: 00.30.00 o. 000.0. 0.00. 0009.22 0:. 0:0 00...... 400:0 2: .0000 3:200 .0 .000 05>. 0.000. 0303000.. 0:. 00020 .0000 0: p 03:000.... 0.0.0.0033 0... 00 ..o. 0. 30.000 00 0. 52.20.0000 00.00.0300 0 00.0000. 00.0.0... 000 .0030 ...: .0000 «00.0.20 00.0000 0000.0. 00040.3 0 00.0.00. 00.33.0- 0:... 0.0205300 00.00000 0:. >0 00.3.0.5 >205: 0.0.... 0:00.000 000:. ”000.0000 000:0... >009. 00.200. >300: .0 00:0... 0 .0 00.0.0000 .0000 0:. 000.0 00000.00 00030.2 00.0.0302 0000005 0:. 00000:. 0.00. 0 0.0000 0. 000 0000000.... 0 0.0000 0. ..0000 0:. 000.0 000.0. 000.00: .0200 o. 00... 300000000 00.900030 0:. .0 02.00.00 0:... ..0:00 000.0: 0... .0 9030.0 000000 00.0030 0 00.0000. 00.0.2 000 000 .0. 50.200200 0:. .o 00033.0 .— .000. 3003.000 0 :o 030: 00>. .< 2... ...--.. .3538 3 0..... 00.00.20 :00..0..< 0: h ”03.0002 00:000.. 0:. 0:0 .000. 0:. 00 00.0...- 00 00000. .0 00.000030 0... .000. 000: 0:. .00.. 00:00:30. 0.... 00.0. o. 0.0 00> 6.0.0000 : 4000.0 0. 0.00:. 3.00.05. 00:00:20. 0.000. 300.2000 00.0000 .00 0000 0000 00.00. 0:. 0o 00:. 05 .00. 0.0: .>.00.0.0000 .0000 .0060... 50> ...00. 0.00:0 00> :00. .000. .0 00.. a. 0.00.220 0 .0500; ..0. 80:00 00> .. .00... .0300 .0o> :0 0000000. 30> .000. 0.00:» 00> 00.0. .o 00.. 0.. 0.00.0.0.» :000 350:... 00:50.00 00:. 0:0 00:000.. 0:. 0:0 00.: 0:. >003 o. 0.0 00> 06.0: 00.0.. 0.0 00.00 0.0. o. 00.0.0000 0.000.220 000...... 2:00 .0020: 0 0000000 02.000: 00.30.00.300 0.. 000 0000 00.00. 0:. 00 00.: 0:" "000.83.00- 00.mmo.0 009.82 0...? ... 000 34 0..... ... 0. .... 0.0.... .0 .2. .80.: H. .... u. .0.- ..l .3. 0.. ESE—3.... :2... ......Eo.:-__o- .3 90.3. .23.... ...... ...... .... than... ...... Ea... ESE... : t... ... 8:... 32.... 8.8333 ...: ... ...... 23.3.... ...... 5.32.2. 23.25“... .... 2:3. 35 ...—38.... «no. 9.5 c. 89...... o: 9.6: ..n 933. nix .3300 I: 530.... ...-35:3 95.3.50an >0 .5 933.93 no.5: >33 on 930.: 3:2 9.3 43.2 32.931.33.10 .3 9.8.9 :9... a... .o 5:358 a ...: >33... ... .m— ... ...... 3a.. 3.3 .... 3.23. oz... .3... ... cw finch £23.: 2:. .0— .: ..-a..1.a...3 a... ... .3.” 3.... 2.. o... ...—o m... ... 5.6. o... ...8 95.33:. L. ...1 4 . 4.3. . V...) q n- .2163: 9!... an ‘33.. $5.... >2. ES: nooaoficoo 3093.2 2.. .05 29...... a. ... .4 .. . u .. .... a: . - : - 4 4 .343 1.2.3352 .2 4......" . .. .4.!.-..= .3; .932. 0.3.33 33.9.3.9: - 3 o. .33 35 93.3.2.8 .3)... c 4 .. : ... ...— .— 33:. one: .4235 .o :3... .625 3.3.9533. on. 32.3. 5.5.1.3.... coax-.2 o... .9. v:- ....¢..o_ 3.533.... 2.. on... = .- .n 9:. ...... .35.... III. u, ...-33- A >13“ Illa 0am .§.I: .53.! AU 2 .- .n 933. .38 o... 9.....306 o. .9... ....3. ..o. u... ..o 32.3 5 o. 9.3%.. o. 98.... an... .335. H .... 3.3. 3.8 2. 938... .. a 81...... 932.. 3.83... 323.8. ...-3.53.3 2. ..o :2: 9.8.3... 3... .235 .— a. .. ...-... ....i 9.... J .IflECEIWfl— >@ .n ....n u [.32. 5.3.3... can. .0 >30 1.. 9:33.32. 3.3... .3Ew.aom «N >9 u..- coast-Sow .— .5 9.3305 3.3 #3.... .5 .36 Section 2 ..o .33 3:. 9:0.- uufi 9530... 93.3.93 .3335} ....é. 9.53.. «...-.3330 9.332.... .5 33.32.233.33 30.23... 9.5 .3 «......Eu 6 ..u .....a. 399.... 33.. n . . . . ..u an}. 32.9.... >55... 953.... v:- 5.5.... 33:35.02... .63..- 3 9.3.2.0... 83.5 a ...: .N .2 93!. again .9...- o ......- 43... ...-.nESEn .5 a. 039.83. 9.33.3.3 2:. .— 9532“. 338.23 2.... "9.2.3030 3.5.59. 3:. 9.3 a. .3253? o... 333 n 2933 32253.5 .... 39:5...69 a... 39.3 .393 cogs... to... .0 >5 0... 9... 9225:: 23.3.3600 >E.< 9.... .555}. ..c 33.3 .3. a... . .. 3.35.: 3.0: 2.3.2525 a... .33 a... .o 5.3 fins 3.... ca 8.3. 3.3.... :9... .....s «...: 5.00m. a... .0 snag a... .u 15...»)... .L 3.... . 1. 3.5 c . ... :5: 2.5.3.: ... V J 1 . {Sn chin-v ul. . . Au .1 c: «39— .Nnép ..onanum ”n an: 3.5 9:33... a... 3.325. 3.3.33»: 0:3 ”5:309 3233.3. :3... :5: “935...; :oEw ...... zaEEI 253.532 5.0: on. E9. ... X ...... 3:. .a w..::.aE o... .339... 3:3 Em... .3:— .....o:mzo.5 c3203.... iii? 3:. 9395.... .. 3 033999... 1.33:5 m1! 2.... .mceu w... .3on 02.3”...» @395 m u..1c1.>mu ME: .5: 39:50 .mm< .< a... c . ..acni ..353.amm C :0 .3... 5:: _n c 4... .3»; 3.... o. 3.6... ...uE n ...: “Exam... .3233.» .35.... 9.... 839:0 a .023W >9 .823 £203.52... 3.» . _o a: o... ... 5!... 2.393 .509 m o. 03.5.63 :99)... $5 ..onESfi w. .o 9:63.... 35 :0 .32 .9—6— .BEo—Qom ”N as! gun—.3 Ea.m.:03.am 3... 3.3.3 >323 2.05.36 .39....3 3:. .232... 2.3.3.3 no... 35...... 3.5 :39... 3 2.... 93:59 meg: 331. .2; on. guns. 3 5...... ..n ... <55 . 53:2... .... .E. A a . ...u. .4. V .4 .- 3 . I A . i r «3.22.! . . . . . a .3... ...... 63¢ 3.33.9 .3 =2... n....9..3m 3233.3... >33: 53...: o. 63.0. 3.2. 5.08.3.2 o... O... 0...... .32.- uch .000: ...—23.... 3 .30 95>. 53.... 333.39.... a... 33:...“ .623 2.... 33:390.... 3.3.2533 a... ..3 =3. 2 .95..- ..a 5 5243.330... 33.33.9503 a 1 Sim n...n.n..=..u3_nm 9.5.9:... 3:. >2 3.3.3.... >...w.39 3.3... 9.9.539 own... .3932. 92.an >....o... . . . .‘ . .1 : a 12:... . ..-. i. an... .oucmEEoo .33....5339 3:. .3 32.93.03 3.: .3330. 5.23. a... .o .9539w :33: 3:93 3 v2.50... no.5? 25 0:3 .2 32253.30 3:. .o 2.05.)... : .39. £60.98 9 .3 230: 9: .< 2..— .o; 5.53%.... u. 32. 9539.0 cause; of. 83.2.52 E95933 .335 .23..- 50> ...a... 3.65 33> co... .332 .o 33.. a. 3.0622: n .0...ch =0. Epin— 30> = 5!.» it»... uni. 5:3...» 05.50.39 :05 can 0.52.3. 0:. 95 an... 35 >3; 0. 3.3 30> 36.3 3...... Sn 2:3 2... 2 9552.2. L . A D 95395 59.22 0.; u: can. 36 42:3 .2 .3 ..m u 2.53.3 ufi =5 33%.“: = fi: a" can. a.- uuuu we SSS—63:8 flats 8:332: .3 use; In!!! luxll lull cal-Isis! all” [Ind-I. ill-J. m Fla-Ila... .l t... q. Eula-Innis llllll alt-slug; I “n ...-pl!!! ill... I I8 ...................... Iii-II! III III! Ill-Iii! m an! I '6 O gin-iii; II \} 233:5! ‘ll 4|. iii-sill! @ IE. ll:- \ i Ni. . 2 m. , . :. .,..H..l. n ,\.\ “\fl/ ¢/\\9 82 .25 2.3.38...» x, . a .. x 82 .2... 84.818 ... 1 ® / _ 9.3.20 59.22 1:. , 5 9.3.20 cog 2:. \ .—.--.1 A V v /\./°. 93 .«u... 83.8“} 9.820 $935 1: .7223 .2 .3 .m. a .123... 2: EC $233 37 :H :2 u. 8.22 32.3 8.833....8 2: 5 8.2. 2523.6 3:. 232.2 .9532.th .2 2.3: 4388‘ u..- 0.8- :_ I‘m-E O: 01-: ..n 613. Size n .53: 3 5...... on. 2:. 5.... 35.2.. a... ... 5!... n . fit] I. .- .m— .- a C v1 .1. ..I! .l ...u — ...-3. 330.3 :d 95.6 1935253 .5563. on. 2 .9. a... 42.0.? «A. 05.3. .3... 32.33 3...... .5 o. :3 >3. «.3 no.0 .50 9.. So 6...“.— 05 3 15.50 I ... 5:. 53> .2. 05 ...: o. a... 3.920 5. 32.33 .5 .0 2.5930 .23.. c< ,n— .3 53¢ a... 2.3233... ... v22... .. 1 . 1. . - ... . 1» .... .2 ...! 2.6.500 £530.33 20! o... >32. 8h .5 5 a... 31:33..» a ....w 022.5 30.0.... 32.35 0. = .u. — 1.3. .32.. .95. ... a. 90:3 2.30. an... 58.2 05 .. 1 . 1 ... Saul. 5 1.5.3... : .3 .2".— 33: 5!... a... .o :o__u~=a.:.E:.anu 9.. 3220.6. oz. 0. 2.0 £10. a. 35:32 on! 3.25... 1:003 05 ca .5536... a... .0 5:: .a .3 3:. 53.20 So 30:33 05.62.. a... .o c I . ..n 3.2,. .3535 .... 32.35 1 in... u... 05...: . . 1 2:. .h .1.“ 1.1.1 .62.. .5 2.5.55 2 60.00 gill .... 8 .5...- .. C d = 9:. A v =— .3. — 2...! 319.». 5.950 I... ..o ...-89.0... . 3.9.30 W... 3:93 2 >0 2.” A“.— .9... .253. : .58.... _. 22 u... 58 5:338 .22 .2 .... 85.... 3.9... .95.. 5a.. 2:. .n .2 may: n-uao.5 >555 22:28.: a... .95. .o .. p . 1 . 1i... 1 c 1 . .. 21.2.. Saw .u A- max. 32:... 2.003 0.: 902.33 3.2:... 330.5 >52... 32:5..qu 5:503. a!» .— 32.... 2.003 2.: .0 3.330 "2.2325 .35.. .3235... 350:0 .5 a. 1 1 . v}. D . 1 i I. 1.. .5._:E . 9.0305... 2.5563. 2.. a. .32. 33.....9; a :59: o. .3. 5ch a: was acnoar 5:03. a. 5 20:95.35 .5 can... 0. :0... c. c. :53 a... c. 52.... c. 355.... .33. *3 2:3 .2: k 522. 1.: .35.; t :0 mmui :aQEuU o. 3.353.. 3.9.... Go a... :35. 3:6.“ 9.. 30:53 .3533 9.2%... .a €295.30913m :99)... m ..uch .....au as. ... ...... .3533... 5:2 9:503... .11.: 1 1 L. . 5.39.... a. 1.2.: .< 5.: .2... .39... a ...: .32 .2 2:33». a. can... on 9:0... 562.. $59.. .oBE.a:::“. bus: ... 33...... 32.3.0 :5 a... 5. a. a; in”: ....3w on. S «:33 a. 9.6.2 3.0.5::— uaa. oz. 333 9.- 3......on .323 2 mu; .mch 1 c 1. .1 an .13: 1 1 1 . . . 1 1 .... .35 co gun—.2083“. 5.563. a _o c9392.... ... 03:99.. 320. moaacmawm 05 n- 23:39. .238 36300 ... .36. 5.56: 5.6. 32:58 2... .33 an: as. E... 938 2.353.250. 53:50 $9.38 $22. 52...... .....o «E 2:. .... an . .1 1.. «3.0. .5... 2.0.523 2 SEE»... 32:33: 0513 no; 021. 2:1. 0:600: 2c... u&>.30.1.n:o:< a .5 32 ....m .392 .u an: 01...... 320.1 m :o .....x .2 ...—Eu. 2 3:5... c5563. 4. >a_.a> .3 9.: .3325 0.13:. 31.22325 >2: mm 322 .mwcaoum 33.....30 a... 0319c :aN 0.: 95.. E... «E 85......3 ...w c c. _ 1 x a 1 1 1 .. .39.; as c. w I V1 : ._ t t: . A . C 1 :5“ . . 393...; __ :5 3.3.3.6 an! 310.5 m ._:.=0 . . .553 2: 5 En— . .550 0.5 5.0: cc. 5 5: a .35 6.5004 :5 a...;u:uuo “.33.... 5.5.63. 0.... on... .3: 5.32.39 1 .2 2: ca :53. 3:..r33 - A A 39:55.... A w:ou:....__A:E_m 5.11.1.5 ....n . . u .....d ...: 5.5 3.6.5 1 : 1 1. k c 1 1 . 1 Eu... 9; 521 occoi a... c. 5.2... 3.0 as. £9.02. 9.23:3 $.52 2.0336 3232 5.5.. .2.» .39.qu .3522... .3945 a. 205.23 wife. .2 uu=ao an... 03:23.5 2:. 3.0.2.. 9300. we: 9.0.» 29:33 c9553. :0 12:5 :5 9.5.3... «8.2 3639mm .5? 3:93 o .5 2:0: 8.. _< S... .3 .392 a a... 3.2.3 «some; 2: .0 8:22... 2: "oz—2.52 .3535: .5 a... .n.E 2: .3 5.65 a. «8.2 ..o 5:32...» 2: $3.. :3 .5 ES. 5:258... 35 ...... .2 ... 2; .2232. = ...... .3: 5.930. .35 5.3!.- .ao.> .25.. 1.55 .6» co... .3... .o 2:. u. Ease—...: . 55.2.; a... .05.: .6» =. in... 09'. .... .523 :95 YB, 25...... cc. 9.. no... .5 5:3 2 2a 30> 30.3 35.. 2. 2:3 9.: o. 9......25M nap—0:03:06— 1 D .522; Some; 9: .0 omen—mo "=— tan. book! Malt. no man:- In In 0 I'll figure 20. Ion-interpreted terrain configuration of test up: used in Part III (Reduced fro. the original 1.5' by 14' forlat). 39 ... .... ... 8...... £2... 3.880.... .2028 .2 .. .1 2:32.. ...: ...... 000%.... .... ... 3.... 2.3.3.... ...; 03.2.2. 2.2....th .... 3...... ......000 .00. 0.... c. 8...... 0: 0...: ..n 003. 003.20 a ...:at .0 9...... 0:. 0.... .00... 00:00.0 a... ... 0...... >9. mm ......o 1 )1. 30>; at... .1 .3 1 u n ... ...— ...u — .003. 300:.1 :0 0550 ..u.....0.caou c350... 2.. 0. .0: 0:. ..a:0:< 00 0550 10.1,. 33.0... .....c. 05 0. >20 >3. «1! «0.0 .55 0:. :5 0...... 0:. .0 .0550. .— .2 0.1. >0...> .01.. 0:. 3.3 0. «.3 Exes 5. 30:33 0:. .0 02.00.00 .....0. :< .n— ..n ...-3. .... .:0Eoo.0:- :0 02...... .. . 1 c .. .... 111.... ... ...... 020.300 5:30.33 .10., 0c. >0...> .0 .. 2.. c. .2. 22:00.93 rim 022:0 30.9.0 30:3... n ..— .5513... .3. ...-... .0...- 50... ... 0. 0...... >300. ...: ......0. 0:. .. .. i. 1 ...... . 1 .1 5.00. 0. 2060... 5.503. ......c. .0— ..n.. 00.1. 5...: 0:. .0 :9..~__..:0E:.0500 0:. 305.000. 05 0. 2.0 .03. 0. 00.9.30. 0.! 0.0...0 2.000.. 0:. :0 .5526... 05 .0 5:... 1o .2 no... 00355 5... 00050.0 0:30.... 0:. .0 . 11 . c .1 .- ...n 0.1. 5.220 .... 32.003 05 co 40.... a... 00:00 4:... :0. 0.00.00 00.8.0.0 5.0: 0:. ... 0:003 no... 00... 2: n ..n 0.3. .3... 2.. 2.5.03 0. a 0.... mile... . 1 2 . ... I 1 1 1 a. ...n — 0.0.3. 000...... ...QEQU 2.. :0 5.00000... - 00.00000 01.: .0093 0. >0 0:. 11. 1 1 r .1 .. . .3.— aaagagf. 1 1 1 11.1.2.5 .n .— 0...... 30.0.5 >..:..c. .1 ...-35. n a... .o 5.0 .u .— ....I. .02.... .0000. 0:. 00.0390 >__.__.:. 0.0.0.... >..:..:. 033350... 00:50... 0!.— .— OflNEflcuoE “a 84>... .6 . l ...! 1 0.0.0:. 0:000. 0.... .0 02.0.00 "30:02.0 .0200 3:32:25 .....95 0:. 0. 301:». 5:05... 22.50... 0:. 0. 30.... 3.9.603 . E39: 0. ..n. 50:0. 0: a.) 2.0.: ..m:0=< a. >m 51.00.5100... 0:. :09! 0. ..0:0 :0 :. 5:00 0... ... .00... c. 00:05... .00... >00 0E3 ...: 1. 31...... 3.1 A 1!: 1 1 . — ..1nzo..< N. :0 0.1.0.: ..00500 0. 0.0::00: :0.m_>_0. 5m 0:. 00.0.0. >30; 0:. «00:10.. 0.2.00.6 0:203. .0 $0. 0:. .000. .3 005.20 a 3:01. .0300 0:. 5 >35.» 0:005 0.69 3.920 30:00.“. .... 0:. 000.350. 0000. 05.030... 10.... c.5003. 0... 020...... 00.0.. .3093 N— :0 2.5: 8N— .< 30— .OT: .0:m:< "a an: .....x .2 0.0.0000. 0. 00.5 00 0.30.: .060... .050... .0.0E.0:::u .00.... 5 005.30 33.3m ...0 0:. .... 0. an! .003. .503 0... :. .:a:.< 0. 00.0.0. 20:00:. 0.0. 05 0:50“ 0:. 3.02.300 .00... 0. an! .15.... 000i ...QE..U 0. 0.0.30... 0. .... a. 5:0 :0... 0:. .00.. m 20.220 ...0 :05 :0 ...u...0.0.::00 c.6003. . .0 00:35.3. S 0003000. 30.0. 3.3.0.0 .... a. 2.0.0400 .0030 00.0030 0. 30.0. 00.000... 5.... 30:00.0 0:... .0... 00.. 0:. :5. 0.000 “30.002250. .3250 0.0.0000 0.0.00 .>.0._:0. E00 0:. 0.5 1.50 . Ar nook: :0... 2.0.5300 0. 00.050... 2......qu 0.... w. 00.. 0:. 0.... 9:000.— 053 n00.321..m3:a:< a >m wom— .:1a —0:u:< .N Am: 00.... .253. m :0 _ .2 chm». 0. .060... c.5305. < >0_.0> .3. 0... 5330.... 00100..» E05333» >0... m. 30.0. 30:00.0 005.700 0.... 000.... ...N 0:. 9.0.. ...... w... 0009.500 ...w ....5:0:.:. 1 c C. . 11 . AL 1. c 1 30:10... 05 .33. 0:. c. 00:90. : ._ 5 1:1 .00... . 000:2... .. :5 00.32.30 an; 00.0.5 m 3:5 m.00E.1.c 00.2.2.3“)... 3:300 2020.. 5000.. 5:01» 05:23.... 0..:EO 0:... :00: 0:. :. EH 01.15 0:000. 0:. 0:30:30 ”00.0.5 c.6003. 0;. 0:» .000 00.3.5300 x .2 0:. :0 =03... GEE—82:2 r. r 0.: :33 030002.1325 . .11... a: .. 1:... n... i»: 333:: . é... ...... 5.0.12: .0)... 00:0... 0:. 0. ...!00 Sum 0... .3002. 0.0.1....ch 030:. 303.20 0203. :02.» .0... 03:21.0 0.530... 5.05 0. 20.0.. .1, 0.955. .0. 00:3 :20 03:33 05 0.0.0... 00000.. 0:. 000.. 39.500 :052001 :0 .00... c. 02.05... 30.0. unocamnm .53 3:92 a :0 0.00: 8: _< >00. .00 .0093 up 003 3.0.0.0 00000.. 0... .0 3:200 0..... "02.2.02 29.6.03- 3»... .25:- .00> .....E 400:0 00> :0... .0»... .0 0:.. a. 30:3...“ . 550:: ..0. .0003 00> .. :51.» 05.50.00 :05 0:. 2......0 05 0:. .....E 0:. >02. 0. 0... 1:0) H.200 00.9.1 2.10....0 5:. o. 05:.an "0:23....2: 1 A v 0.2.... 0:000. 0:. .0 02.0.00 u... :0... 40 ...-... ... .. .... 2...... 2.. .2. 2...... S. .... .. ......- unl .8. .o 83......3. 5...... 3.8.3.... .2 «...... E}_ I II. _. {SI-DI! 00 iii-Iii 1 1.. i 1'1. f; I- .II 1|::| 111...!» Iii-ll; 3 3 ...-III 0W. file: I. Inc I II. ...-a 11:11:... 1.111-] ICC-II... All All 1.2.0.1.!!! VHA 21].. I III. . . ... . ll an. Hamlin-D u LON IV— : Askew Vuuuunhud... ...—a. 0n flan.— nflawuuuflv 6E! .0P41. . HE .7. an... ~l=wthD I... thh hhbaflOl» nhnlfl .lcouuufluuudfi .flfl UHSUmD . 41 historical geography. Test questions for these parts were designed to evaluate the subjects' coeprehension of the relative position, novenent and conbat power of the battle participants, the sequence and inportance of battlefield events. and the inpact of terrain on the outcone of battle. he in Part 1, questions were arranged in a hierarchy of difficulty, but were of the ”true-false" variety. In order to discourage subjects fron guessing. a "cannot answer" option was provided. Six categories of test questions were fornulated for Parts I! and III. Confronted with an actual study scenario. it was expected that the legend viewed in Part I would influence the subjects' test perforeance. In order to assess the iapact of legend type on subject coeprehension. the first three categories of questions were identical to those used in Part I. The last three categories of questions were designed to assess the subjects' understanding of the inpact of terrain on the outcoee of battle. An understanding of three ailitary aspects of terrain were evaluated. The first category asked subjects to identify obstacles to unit eovesent. the second category required that subjects identify engagesent areas. and the third category required that subjects locate key terrain features and likely unit objectives. Iritten instructions for each part were designed to elininate as eany aisinterpretations and inconplete responses by test subjects as possible. Instructions for those configurations lacking interpreted terrain infornation differed slightly fro- the others: for these 'configurations, subjects were instructed to base their terrain analysis 42 on the topography and disposition of forces as shown on the base nap, as well as the narrative. Part IV of the test was a questionnaire designed to assess the subjects' expertise and interest in battlefield napping and in the study of nilitary historical geography. Subjects were asked to identify recent duty positions requiring fasiliarity with nilitary synbols, graphics. and operational terns. Subjects were also asked to rate their faeiliarity with nilitary synbols. their interest in the subject latter. and the usefulness of naps in the study of nilitary history or ailitary geography. Subjects were asked for their opinion regarding the content, quality and adeinistration of the test. The questionnaire is shown in Appendix A. forty test booklets. ten per configuration, were produced in the Hichigan State University Center for Cartographic Research and Spatial Analysis. Consent forss. answer sheets and questionnaires were inserted into the coepleted test booklets prior to distribution to test subjects. The answer sheet and consent fore used in the test are in lppendices_3 and C, respectively. A snall prelininary test with six subjects was conducted to detersine whether the experinent was reasonable in terns of difficulty, and to detersine the tine necessary to coeplete each test part. It was found that subjects had little difficulty in understanding the instructions, and that approxinately 12 to 15 sinutes were required to conplete each part, I through 111. rive ninutes were required to conplete the questionnaire. Pre-test subjects were slightly confused by the require-ants for Part IL, ”Unit Synbol Construction,” and advised that a basic synbol ”box" he added to the answer sheet for this section. 43 Test Idlinistration In order to assure a wide range of task-related experience. subjects were drawn fron the Regular Aray, the U.S. Rrey Reserve. the nichigan Arey National Guard. and the nichigan State University Reserve Officer's Training Corps. The test sanple conposition by participating organization is shown in Table 3. The test was adninistered at various unit locations to 186 soldiers and cadets. The conduct of the test was under nornal viewing conditions in large unit classrooas, where subjects had rooe to spread out the test naterials. A typical testing environnent is shown in Figure 23. In order to assure an equal distribution of ranks along the test groups, booklets were first distributed to officers and cadets, then to non-coeeissioned officers. and lastly, to other enlisted personnel. The group coeposition by grade is in Table 4. The test was adninistered using a prepared script (Appendix D) and adninistrative assistance was provided by each unit. A brief oral introduction was given to the subjects before distributing the test booklets. The introduction included a short description of battlefield naps and their uses and an explanation of the purpose of the experinent. Fifteen ainutes were allotted to couplets each part of the test, and the elapsed tine was provided at five ainute intervals; a two ninute warning was also provided. Test subjects were not allowed to work on any part of the test other than the one directed, although they were allowed to exasine the legend in Part I while working on Parts II or III. Consent for-s were collected prior to testing in order to naintain anonynity of the test subjects: all other test naterials were collected upon 44 Table 3. Test Souls Ooqositias by Rarticipatias Organization. Organization, tart site as! subs: and grade coaposr'tioa of participuts are "on. 17th Miles! “I II-Jfll 119th Field BI ROTC I. (Clint) Field miller! ”tiller! II. m II. Consent Regular In: US Ira) Reserve liciigu my my ROTC latioaal Gaard Test Site Rt. Rood, Tl Lansing, II Lansing, III III! Cams Roeatios Participants: Conissioned 6 5 I 0 Officers Ios-Coasissiooed 13 11 12 0 Officers lllisted Personal ll 51 11 O ROTC Cadets o l 1 20 TOTAL 52 16 ll 20 \\ III M Ill Illi III , . ‘A_, @ time 23. A typical testing esvirosssst. Soldiers of the it] lattalion, 20th field lrtillery (0.8. in: Reserve) participate in the esperiaeat. 45 Table l. Gross (oceanic Iy Grade. loafer of eabjeefs is each mndrouummyameshmodygnnw. Sung! Eula! Gang: Gang! Crab Cam In“) (ad)! In!!! (all!) gained Officers: field Grade Officers 0 O l O Muhr-aumn1 Coupes: Grade Officers 3 4 3 I lad first. - captaia Wait-ed Officers: Seaior ICOs 1 l 1 l Snyuuflflutcmus- Inunn'flumuut Jesior ICOs 11 9 9 9 largaart - staff fargaaat Ilistad nun-.1: 26 23 24 '23 Irirate - Specialist llffhins: 5 5 1 1 thumnu'-&numn coepletion of the test. Color deficient subjects were asked to identify the-selves prior to testing and were released fros participation. Upon conpletion of the experinent, tests with incoeplete responses, and those in which the instructions were not followed. were discarded. line tests were eliainated. resulting in a total sasple of 117 subjects. CIIPTII III Ilfl IIILYIII Ill III'LTI Introduction Quantitative aeasures were used to exanine the influence of three variables on battlefield sap effectiveness. The eethod of terrain representation and nethod of synbol explanation and legend type are addressed in relation to: (1) their effects on synbol understanding and overall integration of nap infornatiou. (2) their coebined effects on overall test performance. (3) their individual effects on perfornance of specific nap reading tasks, and (4) their effects on coeeunication failure. The latter part of this chapter addresses the effects of experience and interest on test perforsance. lffects on Sylbol understanding and Overall Integration of lip Information The first objective of this study was to deteraine the extent to which battlefield nap effectiveness is influenced by the fore of sylbol explanation: coeeunication effectiveness was hypothesized to be greatest aaongst subjects viewing a natural legend and illustration of synbol construction. The central tendency of the responses for synbol construction and aatching tasks in Part I, "battlefield nap Synbols," was detersined and the aean percentage of correct responses for groups viewing each of the legend types in Part I was coepared. The Student's 'T Test was used to detersine whether a significant difference in lean values existed. 46 47 Table 5 shows the results for the synbol construction section of Part 1. Natural legend groups achieved greatest accuracy when asked to construct a ailitary unit synbol. yielding scores significantly higher than the conventional legend groups. Results were sinilar for the latching portion of Part I (Table 6). Rs expected, the natural legend groups scored significantly higher than did conventional legend groups in the sinple synbol identification category. The natural legend groups also scored higher in both categories requiring overall integration of nap infornation. The category requiring the visualization of conplex relationships between nap elenents yielded statistically significant results: despite the statistical insignificance of the results in the second category, the directionality of the results still suggests the possibility that associations between unit and operational synbols is inproved when a natural legend is viewed. The results froa Part I alone strongly suggest that nap syebol understanding is iaproved when a natural legend and illustration of synbol construction is used. Colbined Iffects on Overall Test Perforlance A second objective of this study was to deternine the extent to which effectiveness is governed by the eethod of terrain representation. Coleunication effectiveness was hypothesized to be greatest along subjects viewing naps in which the ailitary aspects of terrain were interpreted and presented as an additional category of thesatic inforeation. Only the last three categories of questions asked in Parts II and III were directed towards an understanding of the effects of terrain on the outcone of battle: the first three categories were directed towards syebol understanding and overall integration of nap 48 Tahle S. Rffeets of legasd Type ea Sebjeets' llility to Custraet a Iilitary leit Spiel. teas percentage of correct reepoues by ailitary asi t eydol coapoaeet are cornered. Sylol muff-a1 legal! lateral ugesd ltadsat's f Canest ferceat Correct Rare-t Correct ‘ Sipificast at or.” hit lesigntiu 65.92 ”J" 2.852 3 hit the 35.2! 55." Li25 ‘ light Idol's 45.“ 61.23 2.351 ' Ii! Role 77.33 90.“ 2.412 ‘ hit Skill 22." “.3 1.262 ' Overall “.53 ".2! LIST ‘ Table e. new of Legend Type or Mjects' Utility to latch new to Rsseciated Descriptions. lees percestage of correct respoases by say readiag tau category are covered. caution! sages! lateral byes! Category] Retreat fereast ftadsst's T Oasstios Correct Correct ‘ ligafl'icut at «.05 Category 1: Identify Syabol 12.1t l6.” 3.560 I Type R fraction Category II: Identify Unit “.58 11.9! 1.546 I! sit] lctivity Category III: finalize Conler if.“ 15.“ 2.116 ' Relatioaslips Part II Overall “.9. 22.52 2.“! 0 49 inforsation and were identical to those in Part I. The overall results fron Parts II and III can therefore be interpreted as the conbined effects of legend type and nethod of terrain representation on battlefield sap understanding. Evaluation of the influence of each variable on sap effectiveness was again acconplished through a statistical conparison of seen percentage of correct responses (Table 7). Groups with varied legend types and sisilar aethods of terrain representation were conpared first; for the sisple battlefield sap display in Part II, groups using the natural legend scored significantly higher than those using the conventional legend. latural legend groups also scored higher with the cosplex nap display in Part III, but the differences were not statistically significant. The next cosparison was between groups with varied nethods of terrain representation and sisilar legend types. It was found that in each case, groups viewing the interpreted terrain representation scored significantly higher than those viewing the non-interpreted terrain representation. by cosparing the renaining configurations of legend types and sethods of terrain representation, it was found that the interpretive sethod of terrain representation yielded higher scores in nearly all cases. regardless of the type of legend viewed. Statistically significant differences occurred only with the cosbination of natural legend type and interpreted terrain representation. In order to gain an understanding of how legend type relates to subsequent battlefield sap effectiveness in a sinulated study environnent, perforsance on Part I was correlated with perfornance on 50 Tile 1. Rffeets of Varying Legend Type and lethod of Terrain Representation on Test Terformee in Tarts 11 and III. lean percentage of correct responses ere coapared by test part and groan. Results of Varying legend 9999 Iile fitted of Tennis Representation in Ield Constant Creeps Test Student's T Canared Tart. Type of legend / has! a! Terrain Representatia 9 :ignificant at «.95 1 vs. 3 Part II Conventional/Interpreted en. lateral/In terpreted 2.992 9 91.99 21.19 2 vs. 9 Part 11 Conventional/Ion-Interpreted n. lateral/lon-Interpreted 3.299 9 52.59 93.99 2 vs. 9 Tart Ill Conventional/Interpreted n. lateral/Interpreted 1.992 IS 59.99 93.59 1 vs. 3 Tart Ill Coneentionai/lon-Interyretad rn. Iatrral/loa-Interpreted 9.539 IS 52.59 53.99 Resnlts of Varying letned of Terrain Representation n11. Type of legend in Ield Constut Creeps Test Student's T Canned fart btbad at Terrain mutton I The aliens! 9 Significlt at «.99 2 vs. 1 Part 11 lon-Interpreted/Conmtional n. Interpreted/Conventional 2.299 9 52.59 91.99 9 vs. 3 Port 11 lon-Interpreted/latsral n. Interpreted/lateral 2.399 9 93.99 21.19 1 vs. 2 fart Ill lon-Interpreted/Conrentioaai n. Interpreted/Conventional 1.991 9 52.59 59.99 3 vs. 9 Part III lon-Interpreted/lataral n. Interpreted/lateral 3.399 9 53.99 93.59 IesnltseraryingIetlTypeofRegudasd Ietnedofferraislapresontatian Gun. Test ftndlt's T Cans-e9 Tart Type a! legend] htbed of Terrain fermentation 9 lignifieant at v.95 2 vs. 3 Part 11 Conventional/Ion-Interpreted n. lateral/Interpreted 9.599 9 52.59 21.19 9 vs. 1 Part 11 Iatnral/lon-Interpreted n. Conventional/Interpreted 9.999 ll 93.99 91.99 1 vs. 9 Tart III Conrentional/lon-Interpreted an. lateral/Interpreted 3.919 9 52.59 93.59 3 vs. 2 Part In lateral/lon-Interyreted n. Conventional/Interpreted 1.552 IS 53.99 59.99 51 Table 9. Correlation Intense Test Rerfornenee on Tart 1 (Iilitary Tyiol ldontificatiui and Test forfonsnce a Parts 11 ad m. :pearnnn '1 Rent Order Correlation Coefficient (r) in need. Tart 1 dtldsnt's T r 9 daiticast at an.” Part II 9.515 19.212 9 Pitt 111 9.159 9.992 9 farts II 5 111 9.525 19.519 9 W \ subsequent parts of the test. Table 8 shows the results of these correlations: statistically significant positive correlations suggest that subsequent nap effectiveness is strongly related to synbol understanding gained fros the legend viewed. This initial analysis indicates that when a battlefield nap user is confronted with a conbination of tasks requiring synbol identification. integration of nap infornation, and an understanding of the effects of terrain on the outcone of battle, then overall nap effectiveness is influenced by both legend type and nethod of terrain representation. The findings specifically indicate that battlefield nap effectiveness is significantly inproved by the interpretive nethod of - terrain representation and that the natural legend type significantly inproves battlefield nap understanding only in sinple nap displays. finally, battlefield nap effectiveness is nost isproved when the natural legend type is used in conjunction with the interpretive nethod of terrain representation. 52 Individual lffects on Perforsance of Specific lap Reading Tasks lean correct responses were calculated by task category and statistically conpared for each possible configuration of legend type and nethod of terrain representation. Figure 29 is a graphic sunnary of the results by each category of nap reading task and for each 4 configuration; detailed statistical sunnaries are found in Tables 13 through 17. Appendix I. f The interpretive nethod of terrain representation significantly inproves perfornance in nest terrain analysis tasks without significantly degrading sysbol understanding or overall integration of nap infornation (Tables 13 and 19). In nearly all of the sysbol understanding and integration of nap infornation categories. the differences between group neans were statistically insignificant. Furthernore, the directionality of the responses did not consistently favor any one nethod of terrain representation. These results suggest that any increased nap conplexity created by the addition of a separate category of terrain infornation does not significantly affect sysbol understanding or overall integration of nap infornation. Rs expected, the interpreted terrain nethod was neat effective in perforning nilitary terrain analysis tasks: nearly all terrain analysis tasks yielded statistically significant results in favor of the interpretive nethod of terrain representation. The results for each of the sysbol understanding! integration of nap inforsation categories suggests that the extent to which the natural legend type isproves understanding is highly varied (Tables 15 and 16). The natural legend did not yield significantly higher scores in any of 53 1OO 90 ,9 80 .2 ’1’ . :-:; a 70 W I‘: 3::‘a 1% :3: :35. g 60 23:3 55;; § :52} 22" e. ’84 ..' O '.'. L) 50 1:1: 3 . . “I. a» 40 a C U S :3:: 2522 3: 5 30 :ng :-:; 8 :-:- i=5: ':3: &’ " 3.3. t 20 m '9" O) 2.2. E '0 :35 'e'e f" :31 ‘9" .:.: ESE: ... ‘ s q 's' 0 . . Category I Category ll Calogory III I Category IV Category VI Symbo: UUOGISfandlng/ Y. Mmrary renal" Analys:s fasns Integration of Map Into/matron «aces Results from Part ll: The Arrakeen Crossing (Simple Map Senesr '00 90 an (I, Q) U) S 'u . n V) as ’1’ 32 c: 60 555; .5 :15 3’ $5: 5 50 25:: Q 32:. B 5252 do 40 :55 °’ 3:1: 53 3:3: 5 30 5255 9 5:; 09 2:2. °~ 20 5;;- C :15 8 $5 3 '0 3552 0 :1 .1: :-: :5: ;.: .3 .;. ,4. :93 039090 ' Category ll Category III Category Iv Category V Category VI Symbol Understandmg/ Integrarron of Map Information Tasks “WW 79"5'" Analysis Tasks Results from Part Ill: The Defense of the Logone Plateau (Complex Map Serves; .‘Conventlonal Legend/Interpreted Terrarn E3 Conventional Legend/Non-lnterpreted Terrain D Natural Legend/Interpreted Terrain Natural Legend/Non-lnterpreted figure 29. 1 graphic sensory of the results by category of nap reading task for each configuration of legend type and nethod of terrain representation. The height of each bar represents the neon percentage of correct responses. 59 the sysbol identification tasks (category I) and, when paired with the interpreted terrain representation, failed to yield significant results in the sinple sap series (Table 16). An explanation for this particular result is that the interpreted terrain infornation reduces effectiveness in these categories by contributing "noise" to the sap. Theoretically, the additional noise would adversely affect both conventional legend and natural legend groups; however, it was found that the conventional legend groups scored slightly higher when configured with the interpreted terrain representation. Another possibility is that the interpreted terrain nethod say have slightly inproved perfornance in integration of nap infornation tasks in a nanner sinilar to the natural legend, hence the inproved perfornance of the conventional legend groups. The natural legend type appears to sonewhat inprove subjects' ability to perforn sone nilitary terrain analysis tasks. nowever, the inconsistency of the results across sinilar task categories and different levels of nap conplexity suggest that the overall effectiveness of legend type on terrain interpretation is negligible. 1 conparison between what say be tersed the ”worst case" and ”best case” configurations (between conbinations of conventional legend/non- interpreted terrain representation and natural legend/interpreted terrain representation) yielded fewer insignificant results across all categories than any conparison thus for (Table 17). These results suggest once again that overall battlefield nap effectiveness is nost inproved by a conbination of a natural legend and interpreted terrain representation. By conparing configurations of conventional legend/interpreted terrain representation and natural legend/non- 55 interpreted terrain representation, the broad categories in which each variable is nost effective is clarified: the natural legend yielded higher scores in nearly all sysbol understanding and integration tasks, whereas the interpretive terrain nethod yielded higher scores in all nilitary terrain analysis tasks (Table 17). lffects on Connnnication Failure naps can fail to connunicate infornation in several ways; they can fail to present infornation in a nanner accessible to the reader (non- connunication), they can relay incorrect infornation to the reader (sis- connunication), or can be nisinterpeted by the reader. An analysis by task category was perforned in an effort to seasure connunication failure. Connunication failure ratios were calculated by dividing the percent selection of ”cannot answer" responses (a neasure of uncertainty, and by extension, of non-cossunication) by the percent of total incorrect responses (a neasure of failure). The ratios indicate the extent to which connunication failure due to non-cosnunication occurred. Figure 25 is a graphic susnary of the results; detailed statistical sunnaries are found in Tables 18 and 19, Appendix I. Several trends are apparent in Figure 25. First, consunication ratios are fairly low throughout nost categories. Assuning that the percent selection of ”cannot answer” responses is a reliable seasure of subject uncertainty, then the najority of lost effectiveness is attributable either to nis-cosnunication or nisinterpretation of infornation, and not to non-connunication. There is no consistent pattern of relationships established by legend type alone. However, in the sysbol understanding and integration tasks, there appears to be greater uncertainty anong the conventional legend/non-interpreted Communication F allure R8005 Ln 0 Category I Category II Category III Category IV Category VI Symbol Understanarng/ Mmta Terram Anal srs Tasks Integration of Map Information Tasks ry Y Results from Part II: The Arrakeen Crossing (Simple Map Series) ‘00 Commumcanon F allure Ratlos .-: Q :~: 3:3: .:~ 5;: Category | Category II Category III Category Iv Category V Category VI Symbol Understandlng/ T rr n A Integration of Map Information Tasks Mrlrlary e a! nalySIs T65“ Results from Part III: The Defense of the Logone Plateau (Complex Map Series) I Conventional Legend/lnterpreted Terrain E3 Conventional Legend/Non-lnterpreted Terrain E] Natural Legend/Interpreted Terram Natural Legend/Non-Interpreted figure 25. 1 graphic sunnary of connunication failure ratios by nap reading task for each configuration of legend type and nethod of terrain representation. The Night of each bar represents the connunicatz'on failure ratio. 57 terrain groups than along the natural legend/non-interpreted terrain groups: this trend reverses itself in the terrain interpretation tasks. As expected. non-coaaunication is nost evident in nilitary terrain analysis tasks, especially asong the non-interpreted terrain configurations. A statistical conparison of overall test subject uncertainty by groups of varied configurations yielded several significant results (Table 19): (1) the natural legend type had lower values than the conventional legend type only when both were coebined with the non- interpreted fore of terrain representation, and (2) in all other coeparisons. the interpretive terrain nethod had lower values, regardless of legend type or degree of aap conplexity. further-ore. differences were aost profound between configurations coabining the natural legend with the interpreted terrain representation and those coebining the conventional legend and non-interpreted terrain representation. These results are consistent with earlier analyses and further suggest that not only does the interpretive nethod of terrain representation significantly iaprove perfornance in terrain analysis tasks. it does so by significantly increasing the aeount of infornation obtainable free the sap. lffects of taperience and Interest on Test Perforaaace 1 final objective of this study was to detereine the extent to which battlefield sap effectiveness is influenced by the prior nilitary .experience or interest of the subject. It was hypothesized that effectiveness would be directly related to experience and interest. 58 Experience and interest were deternined by questionnaire. the results of which are shown in Table 9. The questionnaire not only solicited infornation which could be used to assess the subjects' experience and interest. but also sought the subjects' nap preferences, as well as their opinions regarding the content, quality and adninistration of the experieent. The eajority of the test sanple cane froe the reserve coaponents, whereas less than one- third case free the regular arey. rew subjects (25.4%) rated theaselves as unfaniliar with nilitary synbols, graphics, or operational terns, yet nost (Gd.dt) had not held a duty position requiring this faniliarity. A soeewhat disturbing result is that less than one-quarter of the subjects had been encouraged to study nilitary history or nilitary geography as part of their professional developnent. Although the eajority of subjects (89.8t) indicated sone level of interest in nilitary history or nilitary geography, only 11.3t had taken part in a course as part of their nilitary or civilian education. lost subjects felt that naps were necessary in understanding nilitary history or nilitary geography. and the eajority preferred the naps with the interpreted terrain infornation. when confronted with naps lacking interpreted terrain infornation. only 25.4t relied on their experience or training to perforn nilitary analysis tasks. Subjects were asked to rate the legend used in terns of its helpfulness in learning battlefield nap synbols. The natural legend was rated slightly eore helpful in learning battlefield nap synbols than was the conventional legend. lost subjects found the narrative helpful in answering the questions, and found the test interesting. Subjects' consents nost relevant to this study are shown in Table 9. Table !. guestieunaire leap-nus. Percent of subjects selecting particular responses are sheen unless etiernise indies ted. nilitary Cement: 29.3t tegalar hruy 15.8t latioaal Guard llichignnl dl.lt d: hrny Reserve 13.6t deserve Officer's Training Corps lash/Grade (finder of subjects by rank): 96 Junior lulisted Personnel 3d Cadets llrirnte through ipeciniistl (Iranians through seniors) d2 lon-Couaissioned Officers 15 Coauissioued Officers (Sergeant through tester fergennt (M lieutenant through Celene! I luaber of duty positions held requiring faniliarity uith nilitary eyuhols. graphics and operational terns. dd.dt an positions l.5t fee positions 20.3t One position 6.8t Three positions lilitary tyubol Inniliurity Mt Inpart It." Iaailiar 2d." foneuhat innilier 25." llnfuailiar lucouraged to study nilitary history/nilitary geography for professional deuelopaeat? 21..“ Yes 'll.5t lo Partipated in nilitary history/nilitary geography coarse 11.” Yes it.“ In interest in nilitary history/nilitary geography int Very interested ll.1t foueuhat interested lth Interested 10.” little interest/lo opinion lsefulaess of naps in understanding nilitary historylnilitary geography it.” leeessary 13.1t Useful ld.'lt Very useful. 5.“ 8oneuhat useful but not necessary l.‘lt Useless lifectiueaess of legend in learning battlefield asp synbols fetal Conventional lateral Angie Legend Greys Legend Gram it.” do.” 55.1t Very helpful if.” 25.“ 13.5t helpful 19." 20.5t 19.2: doneuhat helpful 10.3 11.” Mt Confusing 2.“ 2.3t Lit Very confusing. i i. (it) Table 9 (Continued). Questionnaire Iespaases. Terrain analysis strategy for naps uithout interpreted terrain infornation 33.” failed on the sap 21.5t Ieleid on the narrative 25.4t failed on prior experience and training Il.dt Ouassed 6.8t Did not ansnar Treferrad nup fora. 62.2t laps uith interpreted terrain infornation 9.6t laps uithout interpreted terrain infornation zen kuunennnydhuhe d.dt Uoth uare equally ineffective Iffectiveness of narrative 11.5t Very helpful ll.lt helpful 33.!t lelpful lU.Tt Unnecessary Opinions of the test .nifficuigy Interest 1gp Cogprennnsion 31.Ut Difficult 52.Ut interesting 1T.It I understood the naps. Mt Tasy Ht Ioring it.“ The nape uere confusing. narrative cggpreheusion Tine diiotted it.6t I understood the narrative. 22.0U Sufficient tine use provided. munumMRmummm amammmmuummmm. Additional consents: t The test stinulated interest in nilitary history/geography. U The subjects uould have patterned hatter uith prior training. . t The use of notional lforaignl nanea nude the test difficult. t The test illustrated a useful any to teach nap synbols. t Inparience use needed in order to perforn sell. The legend lceaventiouall could he inproved. 61 five variables were likely to be indicative of task-related experience or interest as applied to this study: (1) length of nilitary service. (2) recent duty positions requiring faniliarity with nilitary syebols. graphics. and operational terns. (3) subjects' assesseent of personal level of faniliarity with nilitary synbols. graphics, and operational terns. (4) subjects' assessaent of personal level of interest in nilitary history or nilitary geography, and (5) foreal % 4e education in nilitary history or nilitary geography. In order to assess the relationship between experience or interest and battlefield nap effectiveness, each of the variables were assigned either ratio-interval (actual years of service. duty positions. or nilitary history/nilitary geography courses) or ordinal values (a ranking of low to high faniliarity or interest). Subsequently, each variable was correlated with test perfornance on each part of the test (Table 10). The results suggest that of the five experience or interest variables, only length of nilitary service is not directly related to battlefield nap effectiveness. Results could be biased by an unequal distribution of experience or interest variables anong groups of varied nap configurations. Steps were taken during test adninistration to insure an approxisate equal distribution of ranks throughout all groups; although this procedure say have increased the probability of an equal distribution of experience and interest, it did not guarantee it. An analysis of variance (AIOVI) ‘was conducted to inspect for possible bias (Table 11). The between group variation for each of the experience or interest variables vas found to be insignificantly different, suggesting that differences existing between groups are due to reasons other than experience or 62 Table 10. Carrelati-u Iatueen: Test Terfar-ca . Tarts I. 11 Id III: and Interest and laperieuce Variables. spearsnn 's rant W Correlation Coefficient Ir) is used; the test statistic is s ae-Taii Itndent's T at ".05. m1. Tart I Tart II Tart II! Total Iilitlty Tervica I80.010 "0.015 ”0.099 "0.005 1.0.132 $0.212 181.315 ll T-0.595 I0 It! Punitim T80.325 r-O.119 t'0.191 r80.325 130.505 T $2.505 T 132.550 T 180.552 T level of Tniliarity rsdJO‘l r-O.112 r-0.IJT more Tamil 0 MM! T H.151 T T-lJ‘lt T level of Interest "0.!“ r-OJUS rt0.15§ r-0.206 1: TIM“ T H.105 T TIMI! T r-s.ne T {,4 Tunnel Idleeti. r-0.195 r30.132 t'0.115 TI0.205 T!2.530 T h1.152 T Tel.5(5 T 14.105 T T fiestas-t at at.” Table 11. Test his Ingenuity. Merience and interest varieties are conpared by group; tie test statistic is the artsy Analysis of Variance (mm I-Test at sc.l5. teen raises ere shoes. GraaplCrein “Jenni MIT “Tibia (as!!! ("III It!!!) Inc“) T Wflt at It.” Iilitery Tervice 5.531 5.350 5.000 (.520 0.312 I! Inty Mtim 0.500 0.519 0.522 0.550 0.115 I! - level at Hilarity 1.130 1.130 1.200 1.295 0.310 I! level at but!“ 1.935 2.000 2.110 1.932 2.152 I! Tannl lhcatiu 0.109 0.095 0.009 0.295 0.055 ll IT Insignific-t st ea.” 63 interest. such as the configuration of legend type and nethod of terrain representation. The next step in the analysis was to deternine the extent to which each of the experience and interest variables influenced battlefield nap effectiveness. Subject responses were grouped based on: (1) the nueber of recent task-related duty positions held: (2) proclaieed level of faniliarity with nilitary synbols. graphics, and operational terns: (3) foraal education in nilitary history or nilitary geography: (d) proclaieed level of interest in nilitary history or nilitary geography. A series of analysis of variance T-tests and paired Student's T-tests by task category were subsequently perforeed between groups. Significant results are sunnarised in Table 12: detailed sunnaries are found in Appendix 3 (Tables 20 through 23). The differences between group perfornance in tasks requiring sysbol construction, sysbol identification, and overall integration of nap infornation (all of Part I, and categories I through III in Parts II and III) were found to be statistically significant in favor of the . group with the nost task-related experience. whereas the differences between group perfornance in terrain analysis tasks (categories IV through VI) were statistically insignificant (Table 20). Sinilar results were found when subject responses were grouped and conpared by proclaieed level of faniliarity with nilitary synbols, graphics and operational terns (Table 21) and by extent of foreal education in nilitary history or geography (Table 22). The difference between group neans for terrain analysis tasks in the sinple nap series and for all tasks in the coeplex nap series were statistically insignificant. 64 Table 12. lffect of Inperieuca and Interest Tariahleu on Test Terforaunca. significant results and test statistics are shone hy najor tush «nastier for each variable. Tush-Ielntad Proclaiud Israel Trucluild Category! laty Tuiliarity lducatien Interest ”tins (11012 I) IAN" I} (Student 's 1') (users I) 1021 1: lilitafy 51in! Identificatiu Part 12: 0.310 T 5.505 T 2.190 T 3.312 T (Contraction) Tart 10 5.529 T 0.012 T 3.513 T 0.305 T (hatching) um I ovum 1.191 T 5.090 T 3.005 T 0.305 T "IT IT: The Aerate- Creesing (tinle lap denies) 0112001110 1-111 5.215 T 2.090 T 2.000 T 5.150 T (Quest. l-7I 0110001102 11511 0.102 I 1.030 I 1.020 I 1.101 I (finest. l-lil earn 11 mu 3.050 T 2.509 I 2.003 T 0.103 T Tth 111: The Defense of the hog-e Tlataen (Caulenln Series) 0110002110 1-111 3.103 T 2.111 I 1.550 I 2.505 T (Quest. HI 0511001120 11-11 1.131 I 0.010 I 1.025 I 0.511 I (first. 7-15) 1221 111 01.211 3.123 T 1.530 I 1.503 I 2.231 I runes 1-111 10125 1.150 T 5.209 T 3.510 T 0.250 T T Ci-ificsnt st «.05 IT Mpificsut 65 The final variable exanined was the proclaieed level of subject interest (Table 23). Again. significant differences in favor of the high interest groups were found only in sysbol construction. sysbol identification and overall integration of nap infornation tasks. All results suggest that battlefield nap effectiveness is related to the experience and interest of the sap user. however. this relationship only exists with those tasks requiring sysbol construction. identification, and overall integration of nap infornation. and is nost profound when sinple. rather than coeplex, nap displays are viewed. lo relationship exists between any of the experience or interest variables and perfornance in terrain analysis tasks. 3kTiIIIIIIIIII...-FTE——.-‘-IIIII.-Ld1 ”~VHIIII <¢IIJHHNI 1" IIMHUIIY'IHHI CGIKHHIIINHII Tannery of the Research nilitary historians and geographers use battlefield naps as a neans of connunicating the spatial relationships occurring throughout the course of battle. The successful connunication of battle infornation often requires the nap reader to perforn a series of visualization and neasurenent tasks. Of these tasks. those likely to be perforned in the study of nilitary geography include synbol identification, integration of nap infornation. and nilitary terrain analysis. The connunication effectiveness of battlefield naps has largely been ignored. prinarily due to the deviation of this type of napping free the nainstrean of cartographic thought. he a result. cartographers have often followed conventional nethods without giving consideration to the tasks that are perforned on battlefield naps. The goal of this research was to provide the battlefield cartographer with a set of enpirically derived design principles. The study focused on three research questions: (1) low do nap users effectively learn battlefield nap synbols? (2) now do battlefield naps nost effectively connunicate infornation about the battle setting? (3) What is the relationship between the prior nilitary experience or interest of the nap user and battlefield nap effectiveness? Previous literature suggests that the characteristics of battlefield nap synbols nakes then unique, and therefore, conventional nethods of synbol explanation are not likely to be effective. An 66 67 alternative nethod is to illustrate the construction of nilitary unit synbols and than to show then. in conjunction with other operational synbols, in the context in which they are used. Application of this nethod results in what is known as a "natural legend.” The natural legend fornat has been shown to inprove efficiency and understanding of topographic naps, and nay produce sinilar results with battlefield naps. Also considered is the effectiveness of battlefield naps in depicting the influence of terrain on the outcone of battle. battlefield cartographers have conventionally portrayed only the physical aspects of terrain and ignored the nilitary ones. The understanding of the effects of terrain on the outcone of battle are likely to be inproved if the pertinent nilitary aspects of terrain are interpreted and presented as an additional category of thenatic infornation. The nilitary has successfully applied thenatic napping techniques in deternining the effects of terrain on planned nilitary operations. This approach nay be successfully nodified and applied in the design of historical battlefield naps as well. A final consideration is the relationship between the experience and interest of the nap reader and battlefield nap understanding. The . cartographic literature suggests that sone nap reading tasks are dependent on prior training of the nap reader. whereas others say be dependent on visual-spatial or perceptual abilities. Two conplenentary approaches are therefore possible in inproving nap effectiveness: design nodification and inprovenent of reader skills. Categorisation of 'battlefield nap reading tasks by their dependency on either experience or perceptual abilities nay aid in the design process: inprovenent of user skills are likely to be influenced by legend type. whereas the 68 interpretive nethod of terrain representation nay help overcone deficient perceptual abilities. Conclusions The results indicate that the effectiveness of battlefield naps is influenced by the nethods of synbol explanation and terrain representation, as well as the prior nilitary experience or interest of the nap reader. based on the assunption that the naps used in the study were typical specinens of their kind. each research hypothesis can be provisionally accepted. The natural legend fornat pronotes understanding of battlefield nap synbols in certain nap reading tasks and is at least as effective as the conventional legend in others: this finding conplenents those of belucia and Killer (1982). The effects of the natural legend were nost profound in the perfornance of tasks requiring overall integration of nap infornation. The natural legend aids the reader in acquiring an overall view of the ”geographical landscape,” which. as board (19791 suggested, is basic to understanding spatial distributions. The natural legend conbined with the illustration of unit synbol construction facilitates nap reader understanding of nilitary unit synbol conposition. The illustrated description is therefore a viable and space-saving alternative to the ”cataloging" of conplex nilitary unit synbols typically found in a conventional legend fornat. Turthernore, this nethod can be expected to have application in other forns of napping that require an explanation of conplex synbols. The influence of terrain on the outcone of battle can not be effectively deternined fron geographic base nap infornation alone. however, the nilitary aspects of terrain can successfully be interpreted .41.. 69 as an additional category of thenatic infornation. The interpretive nethod of terrain representation appears to facilitate the nap reader's ability to perforn nilitary terrain analysis tasks without degrading perfornance in other tasks. Turthernore, this nethod any help clarify spatial relationships and pronote overall integration of nap infornation in the absence of, and in a nanner sinilar to. the natural legend. This last finding is not fully understood and nerits further investigation. Overall nap connunication effectiveness was nost inproved in cases where the natural legend was conbined with the interpretive nethod of terrain representation. However, the influence of these nethods was least inportant in tasks perforned on the conplex nap series. This finding supports earlier suggestions (lonnonier. 1914: Jenks, 1975: laclachren. 1982) that nap conplexity reduces nap effectiveness: these nethods will not overcone insufficient nap generalisation. and are not substitutes for good nap design. The natural legend fornat and the interpretive terrain nethod can be viewed as conplenentary, since inprovenents in understanding induced by each nethod generally apply to different categories of nap reading tasks. Furthernore. application of these alternative nethods should be based on the nap's intended use. Prior experience and interest facilitated reader understanding in synbol identification tasks and tasks requiring the overall integration of nap infornation, but not in nilitary terrain analysis tasks. Turthernore, experience and interest was found to be less influential in the perfornance of tasks on the conplex nap series than on the sinple nap series. Battlefield cartographers nay apply these findings in the nap design process; those tasks dependent on experience will only be successfully perforned by inexperienced subjects if the cartographer 7O incorporates a training nechanisn into the nap‘s legend design. Turthernore. successful perfornance in tasks which are independent of experience are likely to be deternined by the visual-spatial abilities of the subject. which in turn nay be acconnodated by design nodification. keconnendations for Terther Study This research is one of the few enpirical studies of battlefield nap effectiveness. further studies focusing on the following topics nay inprove understanding of battlefield naps: 1. The relationship between battlefield naps and their acconpanying narrative. Certain descriptive infornation cannot be learned directly free a battlefield nap and so nust be contained in sone fore of narrative (Petchenik. 1917). Several studies (Petchenik, 1911; Shinron. 1978: Perrig and Iintsch. 1918) have suggested that certain forns of text contribute to nap effectiveness, yet none have been applied to battlefield naps. 2. The relationship between battlefield nap conplexity and effectiveness. Studies of this type have been linited to the-napping of statistical surfaces (lonnonier, 1971: Jenks. 1915: Aaclachren. 1982). Although this topic was qualitatively addressed in this study. it nerits further investigation. 3. Alternative synbol sets for battlefield naps. Conventional nilitary synbols were applied to historic battle naps in this study. yet their effectiveness in this capacity was not evaluated. Alternative nethods of synbolixation should be sought and evaluated. 71 0. battle sinulations and interactive napping. Conputer and video technology have nade sinulations and interactive napping possible, and these techniques nay be applied to historic battlefield napping. IPPIIDIX I: Questionnaire \l 10 APPENDIX A Questionnaire Part IV: Questionnaire Booklet lo. (Fill in) This questionnaire is designed to assess your military experience and interest. Fill in the blanks as appropriate; for multiple choice questions, circle the response that best describes your opinion. 1. For nilitary and former nilitary only: (Circle your class or status) Cadet (Class: ) Active Duty Reserve/NC Prior Servrce 2. For non-nilitary: (Circle your class/positicn) Fresh. Soph. Junior Senior Grad. Faculty Other 3. What is your current grade? (Former military should indicate the highest grade held) (Fill in) 4. Length of military service: (Fill in) 5. "hat were your last three duty positions? Please annotate those positions that required faniliarity with military synbols, graphics and operational terns. (Fill in: include your current position if AD/Reserve military) 1) 2) 3) 6. Describe your familiarity with military symbols, graphics, and operational terms by circling the appropriate response. a. Very familiar (expert). b. Familiar. c. Sonewhat familiar. d. Unfaniliar. 7. Did your supervisors ever encourage you to study military history/nilitary geography as part of your professional development? Yes No 8. Have you ever taken part in a military history/nilitary geography course as part of your nilitary or civilian education? If so, how long was the course (senester. tern or total hours)? Yes (Length: ) No 9. Which words best describe your interest in military history/military geography? a. Very interested. b. Interested. c. Sonewhat interested. d. Little interest. e. lo interest. COITIIUID 0' TI! III? PIG! 73 lPDENDIX A (continued) 10. How useful are maps in understanding military history/military geography? a. Necessary. b. Very useful, but not necessary. c. Useful. d. Somewhat useful. e. Useless. 11. Row well did the legend studied in Part I help you to learn battlefield map symbols? It was very helpful. It was helpful. was somewhat helpful. It was somewhat confusing. It was very confusing. 09-06“ H n 12. Only' one of the two sets of maps Viewed included interpreted terrain information (shown in green). In general, how did you answer questions regarding the effect of terrain on military operations when you viewed the maps without the interpreted terrain information? a. The map provided sufficient terrain information. b. The narrative provided the needed information. c. I relied on my experience and training. d. I guessed. e. I could not answer these questions. 13. which map form, the maps with interpreted terrain information, or the maps without the interpreted terrain information, did you find more effective? a. The maps with interpreted terrain information (shown in green). b. The maps without interpreted terrain information. c. Both were equally effective. d. Both were equally ineffective. 14. How well did the narrative assist you in answering the questions? a. It was very helpful. b. It was helpful. c. It was somewhat helpful. d. I didn't need it to answer the questions 15. Select the words or statements that best describe your opinion of this test. You may circle more than one choice. a. Difficult. f. The maps were confusing. b. Easy. g. I understood the narrative. c. Boring. b. The narrative was confusing. d. Interesting. i. Sufficient time was provided. e. I understood the maps. j. Insufficient time was provided. 16. Additional comments: [PPIIDIX I: Answer Sheet 74 EDIX 3 'd *0 IN 1 Answer Sheet IIIIII Ill]! DOOILIT '0. (I111 in) Mark all your answers on this sheet; do not nerk in the test booklet . Part I: nilitary synbol Identification. Section A: Unit Synbcl Construction Section B: latching Using the basic symbol provided, Ina-pie (Answer) construct the unit symbol for: Company A, 307th Engineer Battalion 2. (Airborne), less detach-ants 3. llllllllllf‘ Part II: The nrrekeen Crossing Circle "T" for true, "F” for false, and "C" for can't tell. P O 888888888888888 'fl'fl'fl'fl'fl‘fl’fl'fl’fl'fl'fl'fl'fl’n 000000000000000 15. Part III: The Defense of tbe Logone Plateau Circle "T" for true, "F" for false, and "C" for can’t tell. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 00 88809803886886.3098 'I'I'I'fl'fi'fl'fl’fl'fl'fl'fi'fi'fl'fi"! 0000000000000 IPPIIDIX C: Consent Porn 75 APPENDIX C CONS!!! P02! 1. I freely consent to take part in a cartographic study being conducted by CPT Joseph F. Fontanella under the supervision of Dr. Richard E. Groop, Associate Professor of Geography, Michigan State University. . 2. The objective of the study is increased understanding of historical battlefield map reading and design. 3. The study has been sufficiently explained such that I have a clear idea of what I will be required to do during the course of the test. 4. I understand that I am free to discontinue my participation in the study at any time without penalty. The test will be approximately 50 to 60 minutes in length. 5. I understand that my participation in the study will be treated with strict confidence and that I will remain anonymous. Within these limits, the results of this study will be made available to me at my request. 6. I understand that this test is on a voluntary. basis. Furthermore, I understand that my participation in the study does not guarantee results beneficial to me. 7. I understand that at the completion of the test a more thorough explanation of the study will be made available at my request. Signature Date IPPIIDIX D : Script for Test Administration (.1 1 l 4 my. 76 I’llflnlfll I ICIIP? POI III? IDIIIISTIITIOI The purpose of this test is to increase understanding of historical battlefield map reading and map design. The types of maps you will find in this test are similar to those you night find in a military history or military geography test or atlas. Conduct of this test is under the supervision of the Department of Geography, hichigan State University. Are there any subjects who are ”color-blind?" ~=" ‘ (Release coloredeficient subjects from,part1cipstion) i I will now pass out the test booklets: when I call out your pay grade category, please raise your hand. (Bass out test booklets to officers/cadets. than to I son-commissioned officers, and’finaIIy'to anIisted,personne1) ,* Please do not open your test booklet until instructed to do so. The test will consist of four parts: Part I will require that you study a battlefield map and its accompanying legend. In Section I, you will first be required to construct a military unit symbol. Subsequently, in Section D you will be required to match ten map symbols with their associated descriptions. Part II will require that you view a series of maps of a fictional battle, ”The Arrakeen Crossing," read an accompanying narrative, and then answer fifteen questions pertaining to the battle. Part III is similar to part II, except that you will study another fictional battle, entitled ”The Defense of the Logone Plateau." Part IV is a questionnaire designed to assess your military experience. You will have 15 minutes to complete each part, I though IV. If you finish a part early, please do not advance to the next part or answer any questions on any previous part. You may, however, reexamine the legend viewed in Part I, and you may work on the questionnaire. In your test booklet you will find a yellow consent form, a pink answer sheet, and a blue questionnaire. Please pull them out. I will ask you now to read the consent form, and will answer any questions you have. (lesser questions) 77 IPPIIDII I (continued) If you have consented to participate in this test. please sign and date the form. Today's date is figrovide dhte). In order to maintain your anonymity, consent forms will now be collected; please pass them forward. (Collect consent forms) low please look at your answer sheet. Insure that the number at the top of your answer sheet matches the test booklet number on the front page of your test booklet. If both numbers do not match. raise your hand and I will correct the problem for you; do not correct the problem yourself. (lake necessary corrections) Please make no marks in the test booklet: make all your marks on the answer sheet. This is a timed test. Try to answer all questions to the best of your ability. If you find yourself ”stuck" on a question, proceed to the next and return to unanswered questions if time permits. If you cannot answer a question, you should circle the ”cannot tell” response on your answer sheet. Are there any questions before we begin the test? (lesser Questions) Turn to the first page and begin part I. You have 15 minutes to complete this part. (Provide elapsed time at 5 minute intervals, and at 2 minutes remaining) Lifter time espirss) This concludes the time allotted for Part I. Hake no further marks on your answer sheet. Turn to the next page and begin Part II. You have 15 minutes to .complete this part. (Provide elapsed time at 5 minute intervals, and at 2 minutes remaining) Lifter time aspires) This concludes the time allotted for Part II. Bake no further marks on your answer sheet. Turn to the next page and begin Part III. You have 15 minutes to complete this part. (Provide elapsed time at 5 sinnte intervals, and at 2 minutes remaining) hitter time aspires) This concludes the time allotted for Part III. Make no further marks on your answer sheet. 78 IPPIIDIX I (continued) Please take a few minutes to fill out both sides of the questionnaire. I would appreciate any further comments you may have about the test or its administration. Please place your answer sheet and questionnaire in your test booklet and pass them in. (collect test booklets) I would like to thank you for your participation. I will now gladly answer any additional questions you have about the test. IPPIIDIX I : Statistical and Inmeric Summaries 719 IPPIIDIX I STATISTICAL I'D IUIIIIC SUIIIIIIS Table 13. Iffectn of Varying Intlod of Terrain lepresentatioo stile lntaral legend Type is held Constant. than percentage of correct responses are conpared. Iesalts Tron: Part II, The lrrakeen Crossing (Sinple lap Series) Gronps Conpared: Group I (Ion-Interpreted) vs. Group 3 (Interpreted) Category] Groap I lean Groap 3 loan Itadent's T mentions (Ion-Interpreted) (In terprstndl ‘ Significant at n=. 05 Category I 75.0t vs. 82.2t 1.099 I! (Quest. 1-2/ Category II 59.1t vs. 51.18 1.177 I: (Quest. J-l} Category III 87.9t vs. 83.7t 1.053 If (Quest. 5-7/ Total Synbol Understanding 75.9t vs. 73.93 0.60! If i Overall Integration Tasks Category II 53.4: vs. 60.3t 3.222 3 (Quest. t-II/ Category VI 52.3t vs. 60.9t 2.783 9 (Quest. 12-15) Total Terrain Analysis Tasks 52.0t vs. 60.6! 3.522 * TIIT II OTIIILL 63.6‘ vs. 71.10 2.390 ‘ Tesnlts Tron: Part III, The Defense of the Logone Plateau (Conplex lap Series) Groaps Conparnd: Group 3 (Ion-Interpreted) vs. Group I (Interpreted) Category] Groap 3 loan Groap I lean Stadent‘s T Questions (Ion-Interpreted} (Interpreted) * Significant at s=.05 Category I 70.0t vs. 69.33 0.093 I: (Quest. 1-2/ Category II 72.2! vs. 75.0% 0.161 I: (Quest. J-l/ Category III 72.2! vs. 72.8! 0.078 I: (Quest. 5-6/ Total Synbol Understanding 71.0t vs. 72.4! 0.223 If 0 Overall Integration Tasks Category IV 45.6t vs. 59.7t 2.830 * (Quest. 7-10} Category I 48.9t vs. 59.13 1.162 If (Quest. 11-12} Category 71 33.6% vs. 53.8t 3.737 ' (Quest. 11-15) Total Terrain Analysis Tasks (2.68 vs. 57.0! 4.632 * Til! III O'llill 53.!t vs. 63.5‘ 3.309 ‘ 86) IPPIIDI! I (Continued) Table 14. stteets of Varying Iethod of Terrain sepresentation uhile Conventional Legend Type is held Constant. lean percentage of correct responses are conpared. lesults Iron: Part II, The Irrakeen Crossing (Sinple lap Series) Groups Cospared: Group 2 (Ion-Interpreted) vs. Group 1 (Interpreted) Category] Group 2 lens Group I lean Student's T Questions (Ion-Interpreted) (Interpreted) 8 Significant at 18.05 Category I 75.08 vs. 77.28 0.324 I: (Quest. 1-2) Category II 36.98 vs. 40.28 0.473 [8 (Quest. 3-4/ Category III 73.88 vs. 75.48 0.253 as (Quest. 5-7/ Total Synhol Understanding 63.68 vs. 64.38 ‘ 0.505 as 6 Overall Integration Tasks Category IV 48.58 vs. 56.58 1.809 8 (Quest. 8-11} Category II 37.58 vs. 60.38 3.492 8 (Quest. 1245/ Total Terrain 42.98 vs. 58.48 3.533 8 snalynis Taste 888T II OUIIILL 52.58 vs. 61.98 2.798 8 Results Tron: Part III, The Defense of the Logone Plateau (Coupler lap Series) Groups Cospared: Group 1 (Ion-Interpreted) vs. Group 2 (Interpreted) Category] Group I lean Group 2 lean Student's T Questions (Ion-Interpreted) (Interpreted) 8 Significant at at. 05 Category I 66.38 vs. 69.18 0.376 l8 (Quest. [-2) Category 11 69.68 vs. 57.28 1.689 8 (QWest. 3-47 Category III 59.88 vs. 57.28 0.350 as (Quest. 5-6/ Total Syshol Understanding 65.28 vs. 61.18 0.903 as 6 Overall Integration Tests Category IV 53.88 vs. 58.98 0.960 l8 (Quest. 7-10) Category I 40.28 vs. 58.48 2.265 8 (Quest. 11-12l Category 71 33.38 vs. 53.28 3.901 8 (Quest. 13-15/ Total Terrain 42.48 vs. 56.98 3.358 8 snalysin Tests sans III 0818800 52.58 vs. 58.68 1.901 8 821 APPIIDIX I (Continued) Table 15. lffects of Varying Legend Type ulile Ion-Interpreted Terrain Infornation is held Constant. dean percentage of correct responses are conpared. lesults Tron: Part II, The lrrateen Crossing (Sinple lap Series) Groups Conpared: Group 2 (Conventional Legend) vs. Group 4 (Vatural Legend) Category] Group 2 lens Group 4 lens Student's T Questions (Conventional) (literal) 8 Significant at a=.05 Category I 75.08 vs. 75.08 0.000 I: (Quest. 1-2/ Category 11 36.98 vs. 59.18 3.205 8 (Quest. J-l} Category 111 73.88 vs. 87.98 2.227 8 (Quest. 5-7( Total Synbol Understanding 63.68 vs. 75.98 3.359 8 8 Overall Integration Tasks Category IV 48.58 vs. 53.48 1.030 IS (Quest. 8-11) Category VI 37.58 vs. 52.38 2.292 8 (Quest. 12-15/ Total Terrain 42.98 vs. 52.88 2.063 8 Analysis Taste PART II OVllALL 52.58 vs. 63.68 3.298 8 lesults Tron: Part III, The Defense of the Logone Plateau (Coupler lap Series) Groups Conpared: Group 1 (Conventional Legend) vs. Group 3 (latural Legend) Category] Group I lean Group 3 lean Student's T Questions (conventional) (literal) 8 Significant at a=.05 Category I 66.38 vs. 70.08 0.548 88 (Quest. 1-2) _ Category 11 69.68 vs. 72.28 0.422 IS (Quest. J-ll Category III 59.88 vs. 72.28 1.972 8 (Quest. 5-6/ Total Synhol understanding 65.28 vs. 71.48 1.757 8 6 Overall Integration Tests Category IV 53.88 vs. 45.68 1.529 IS (Quest. 7-10/ Category 8 40.28 vs. 48.98 1.376 l8 (Quest. 11-12} Category VI 33.38 vs. 33.68 0.000 88 . (Quest. 13-15) Total Terrain 42.48 vs. 42.68 0.484 as Analysis Tasts PART III OVllALL 52.58 vs. 53.98 0.539 IS 812 IPPIIDIX I (Continued) Table 16. Iffeets of Varying Legend Type stile Interpreted Terrain Infornation is held Constant. dean percentage of correct responses are conpared. Iesults Iron: Part II, The Irrateen Crossing (Sinple lap Series) Groups Conpared: Group 1 (Conventional Legend) vs. Group 3 (Natural Legend) Category) Group I lean Group 3 lean Student's T Questions (Conventional) (lateral) 8 Significant at a=.05 Category I 77.28 vs. 82.28 0.807 IS (Quest. 1-1) Category II 40.28 vs. 51.18 1.588 IS (Quest. J-l) Category III 75.48 vs. 83.78 1.623 IS (Quest. 5-7) Total Synhol Understanding 64.38 vs. 73.98 2.177 8 6 Overall Integration Tasks Category IV 56.58 vs. 68.38 2.855 8 (Quest. 8-11) Category VI 60.38 vs. 68.98 1.629 IS (Quest. 12-15) Total Terrain 58.48 vs. 68.68 2.561 8 Analysis Taste PAIT II OVIIALL 61.98 vs. 71.18 2.982 8 Insults Iron: Part III, The Defense of the Logone Plateau (Couples lap Series) Groups Conpared: Group 2 (Conventional Legend) vs. Group 4 (Iatural Legend) Category) Group 2 lean Group 4 lean Student's T Questions (Conventional) (lateral) 8 Significant at e=.05 Category I 69.18 vs. 69.38 0.035 IS (Quest. 1-2) Category 11 57.28 vs. 75.08 2.506 8 (Quest. J-l) Category III 57.28 vs. 72.88 2.036 8 (Quest. 5-5) Total Synbol Understanding 61.18 vs. 72.48 2.336 8 6 Overall Integration Tasts Category IV 58.98 vs. 59.78 0.148 IS (Quest. 7-10) Category V 58.48 vs. 59.18 0.102 IS (Quest. 11-11) Category VI 53.28 vs. 53.88 0.123 IS (Quest. 13-15) Total Terrain 56.98 vs. 57.88 0.196 IS Analysis Taste PITT III OVIIALL 58.68 vs. 63.58 1.487 IS 813 APPIIDIX I (Continued) Table 17. Iffects of Varying Iotk Legend Type and lethod of Terrain Iepresentaion. lean percentage of correct responses are conpared. lesults Iron: Part II, The Irrakeen Crossing (Sinple Map Series) Groups Conpared: Group 2 (Conv. Legend/lon-Inter. Terrain) vs. Group 3 (lat. Legend/Inter. Terrain) Category) Group 2 lean Group 3 lean Student's T Questions (Conv./Ion-Inter.) (lateral/Inter.) 8 Significant at a=.0.6 Category I 75.08 vs. 82.28 1.114 IS (Quest. 1-2) Category 11 36.98 vs. 51.18 2.122 8 (Quest. 3-4) Category III 73.88 vs. 83.78 1.874 8 (Quest. 5-7) Total Synhol Understanding 63.68 vs. 73.98 3.081 8 I Overall Integration Tasks Category IV _ 48.58 vs. 68.38 4.694 8 (Quest. 8-11) Category VI 37.58 vs. 68.98 5.296 8 (Quest. 12-15) Total Terrain 42.98 vs. 68.68 6.055 8 Analysis Tasks PAIT II OVIIALL 52.58 vs. 71.18 6.548 8 Iesults Tron: Part III. The Defense of the Logone Plateau (Coupler lap Series) Groups Conpared: Group 1 (Conv. Legend/Ion-Inter. Terrain) vs. Group 4 (lat. Legend/Inter. Terrain) Category) Group I lean Group 4 lean Student's T Questions IConv./Ion-Inter.) (lateral/Inter.) 8 Significant at a=.05 Category I 66.38 vs. 69.38 0.401 IS (Quest. 1-2) Category II 69.68 vs. 75.08 0.886 IS (Quest. J-l) Category III 59.88 vs. 72.88 1.864 8 (Quest. 5-6) Total Synbol Understanding 65.28 vs. 72.48 1.766 8 8 Overall Integration Tasks Category IV 53.88 vs. 59.78 1.100 IS (Quest. 7-10) Category V 40.28 vs. 59.18 2.653 8 (Quest. 11-12) Category VI 33.38 vs. 53.88 4.101 8 (Quest. 13-15) Total Terrain 42.48 vs. 57.88 3.572 8 Analysis Tanks PAIT III OVIIILL 52.58 vs. 63.58 3.610 8 848 IPPIIDIX I (Continued) Table 17 (Cont.). Iffeets of Varying Ioth Legend Type and letkod of Terrain lepresentation. lean percentage of correct responses are conpared. Iesults Iron: Part II, The Arrakeen Crossing (Sinple lap Series) Groups Conpared: Group 1 (Conv. Legend/Inter. Terrain) vs. Group 4 (lat. Legend/Ion-Inter. Terrain) Category) Group I lean Group 4 lean Student's T Questions (Cunv./1ntnr.) (lateral/lun-Inter.) 8 Significant at e=.05 Category I 77.28 vs. 75.08 0.320 IS (Quest. 1-2) Category 11 40.28 vs. 59.18 2.665 8 (Quest. 3-4) Category 111 75.48 vs. 87.98 2.514 8 (Quest. 5-7) Total Iynhol Understanding 64.38 vs. 75.98 2.518 8 I Overall Integration Tasks Category IV 56.58 vs. 53.48 0.633 IS (Quest. 8-11) Category VI 60.38 vs. 52.38 1.380 IS (Quest. 12-15) Total Terrain 58.48 vs. 52.88 1.214 IS Analysis Tasks PAIT II OVIIILL 61.98 vs. 63.68 0.488 IS Iesults Tron: Part III, The Defense of the Logone Plateau (Coupler lap Series) Groups Conpared: Group 2 (Conv. Legend/Ion-Inter. Terrain) vs. Group 3 (lat. Legend/Inter. Terrain) Category) Group 2 lens Group 3 lean Student's T Questions (Conv./Inter.) (lateral/Ion-Inter.) 8 Significant at e=.05 Category I 69.18 vs. 70.08 0.135 IS (Quest. 1-2) Category II 57.28 vs. 72.28 2.078 8 (Quest. 3-4) Category III 57.28 vs. 72.28 2.129 8 (Quest. 5-6) Total Synbol Understanding 61.18 vs. 71.48 2.345 8 8 Overall Integration Tasks Category IV 58.98 vs. 45.68 2.674 8 (Quest. 7-10) Category I 58.48 vs. 48.98 1.411 IS (Quest. 11-12) Category VI 53.28 vs. 33.68 3.567 8 (Quest. 13-15) Total Terrain 56.98 vs. 42.68 4.414 8 Analysis Tasks PAIT III OVIIALL 58.68 vs. 53.98 1.522 IS £95 IPPIIDIX I (Continued) Tulle 18. Connnnieation Vailure Iatios. Patios are conpared by group: the test statistic is the One-Ia] Analysis of variance (21082) r-Test at o=.05. Iesults Iron: Part II, The Irrakeen Crossing (Sinple Map Series) Conventional Legend In turn) Legend GIOUT 1 GIOUP 2 GIODP 3 GIOUP 4 AIOVA V Category) (Interpreted (Ion -In terpret. (Interpreted (Ion-1n terpret. 8 Significant Questions. Terrain) Terrain) Terrain) Terrain) at a=.05 Category I 4.5 14.4 6.2 12.9 2.883 8 (Quest. 1-2) Category II 10.8 21.0 6.7 11.7 4.300 8 (Quest. J-l) Category III 14.6 24.0 22.6 14.1 3.373 8 (Quest. 5-7) - Total Sysbol 10.4 21.2 10.3 13.0 5.217 8 Understanding 8 Integration Tasks Category IV 12.0 26.6 15.8 28.7 6.286 8 (Quest. 8-11) Category VI 12.1 53.4 28.9 72.9 10.201 8 (Quest. 12-15) Total Terrain 11.1 41.2 21.9 50.6 1.690 8 Analysis Tasks PIIT II OVIIALL 11.0 32.8 16.6 33.6 10.868 8 Iesults Tron: Part III. The Defense of the Logone Plateau (Coupler lap Series) Con ventionai Legend Ia tnraI Legend GIOUP 2 0800! 1 GIOUP 4 GIOUP 3 AIOVA I Category) (Interpreted (Ion-In terpret. (Interpreted (Ion -In terpret. 8 significant Questions. Terrain) Terrain) Terrain) Terrain) at e:.05 Category I 11.6 12.8 18.6 3.7 2.710 8 (Quest. 1-2) Category II 16.5 32.2 18.0 15.8 2.688 8 (Quest. J-l) Category III 22.2 21.6 16.5 3.9 2.718 8 (Quest. 5-5) Total Synnol ' 17.2 21.8 17.8 7.7 3.172 8 understanding 8 Integration Tasks Category IV 26.0 29.4 16.9 32.8 3.148 8 (Quest. 7-10) Category V 11.5 36.3 13.9 30.5 3.386 8 (Quest. 11-12) Category VI 16.9 31.4 17.9 43.5 9.569 8 (Quest. 13-15) Total Terrain 18.1 32.6 16.4 36.2 10.547 8 Analysis Tasks PAIT III OVIIILL 17.6 27.8 16.2 24.5 5.540 8 £96 IPPIIDIX I (Continued) Table 19. Iffects of Varying Legend Type and letbod of Terrain Iepresentation on Test Subject Uncertainty. scan percen tage of total 'Cannot TeII' responses are conpared by test part and group. Iesults of Varying Legend Type Vbile letbod of Terrain Iepresentation is Ield Constant Groups Test Student's T Conpared Part Type of Legend / Ietnod of Terrain Iepresentation 8 Significant at a=.05 1 vs. 3 Part II Conventional/Interpreted vs. laturaI/Interpreted 0.735 IS 4.28 4.88 2 vs. 4 Part II ConventionaI/Inn-Interpreted vs. Iatural/fion-Interpreted 3.062 8 15.68 9.78 2 vs. 4 Part III conventional/Interpreted vs. natural/Interpreted 1.170 IS 9.78 5.98 1 vs. 3 Part III conventianaI/Ibn-Interpreted vs. SaturaI/lon-Interpreted 2.115 8 13.28 11.58 Iesults of Varying letbod of Terrain Iepresentation Ikile Type of Legend in Ield Constant Groups Test Student's T Conpared Part Ietnod of Terrain Iepresentation / Type of Legend 8 Significant at a=.05 2 vs. 1 Part II Ion-1nterpreted/Canventiona) vs. Interpreted/Conventional 3.513 8 15.68 4.28 4 vs. 3 Part II Tun-Interpreted/Iatural vs. Interpreted/Natural 2.929 8 9.78 4.88 1 vs. 2 Part III Jun-Interpreted/Conventional vs. Interpreted/Conventional 3.018 8 13.28 7.38 3 vs. 4 Part III Ion-Interpreted/Iatural vs. Interpreted/natural 2.658 8 11.58 5.98 Iesults of Varying Iotb Type of Legend and letbod of Terrain Iepresentation Groups Test Student's T Conpared Tart me of Legend / letbod of Terrain Iepresentation 8 Significant at n=.05 2 vs. 3 Part II Cbnventionai/lbn-Interpreted vs. SaturaI/Interpreted 3.896 8 15.68 4.88 4 vs. 1 Part II laturaI/Ion-Interpreted vs. Conventional/interpreted 2.579 8 9.78 4.28 1 vs. 4 Part III CbnventionaI/flbn-Interpreted vs. Natural/Interpreted 4.118 8 . 13.28 5.98 3 vs. 2 Part III VaturaI/Ion-Interpreted vs. Conventional/Interpreted 2.115 8 11.58 7.38 8'7 IPPIIDII I (Continued) Table 20. Iffect of tbe Innber of Task-Ielated Duty Positions held on Test Perfornance. Test perfornance is conpared betseen groups of varied duty positions: the test statistic is the One-Say Analysis of variance (28872) at o=.05. Sean percentage of correct test responses are sharp. Io One Tuo Three AIOVA I Category) Positions Position Positions Positions 8 Significant Questions (n=114) (n=36) (n=15) (n=11) at o=.05 PAIT I: lilitary Synbol Identification Part II: 61.7 80.4 86.7 86.7 8.370 8 (Construction) Part II 67.2 85.6 70.0 85.0 5.629 8 (latching) PAIT I OVIIILL 65.4 83.9 75.6 85.6 7.197 8 PAIT II: The Irrakeen Crossing (Sinple lap Series) CITIGOIIIS I-III 63.8 79.4 66.7 78.6 6.276 8 (Quest. 1-7) CITIGOIIIS IVIVI 54.5 60.4 58.3 53.1 0.742 IS (Quest. 8-15) PAIT II OVIIILL 60.1 69.3 62.2 65.0 3.050 8 PAIT III: The Defense of the Logone Plateau (Coupler lap Series) CATEGORIES I-III 64.2 76.4 70.0 70.8 3.743 8 (Quest. 1-6) CATEGORIES IV-VI 48.6 76.4 53.3 46.9 1.137 IS (Quest. 7-15) III! III OVIIILL 54.9 62.9 60.0 56.1 3.123 8 TIITS I-III TOTAL 60.1 72.1 65.9 68.9 7.168 £38 IPPIIDII I (Continued) Table 21. Iffect of Proclained Level of Paniliarity on Test Perfornance. Test perfornance is conpared.betseen groups of varied faniliarity levels: the test statistic is tne One-flay Analysis of variance (28012) at o=.05. dean percentage of correct test responses are shown. Sonesbat Very AIOVI P Category) Unfaniliar Paniliar Paniliar Ianiliar 8 Significant Questions (n=45) (nsil) (n=7l) (n=7) at n=.05 PAIT I: lilitary Synbol Identification Part II: 60.9 63.1 76.4 95.7 5.506 (Construction) Part 18 62.3 70.4 77.6 94.3 4.812 (latching) PAIT I OVIIALL 62.1 67.9 77.6 94.8 6.090 PAIT II: The Irrakeen Crossing (Sinple lap Series) CATEGORIES I-III 67.6 65.2 73.9 75.5 2.890 (Quest. 1-7) CATEGORIES 18681 54.7 54.1 56.1 66.7 1.838 [8 (Quest. 8-15) PAIT II OVIIALL 60.7 59.3 64.4 75.2 2.589 IS PAIT III: The Defense of the Logone Plateau (Coupler lap Series) CITIGOIIIS I-III 63.3 66.3 69.8 80.9 2.117 IS (Quest. 1-6) CATEGORIES IV-VI 46.7 52.3 50.2 52.4 0.814 IS (Quest. 7-15) PAIT III OVIIALL 53.3 57.9 58.2 65.0 1.638 IS TAITS I-III TOTAL 58.7 61.7 66.5 77.9 5.249 869 IPPIIDII I (Continued) Table 22. Iffects of Pornal Iducation in lilitary history or lilitary Geography on Test Perfornance. lean percentage of correct test responses are conpared hetseen groups; the test statistic is the One-Tail Student's 1' Test at o=.05. Io Pornal Sone Pornal Category) Iducation Iducation Student's T Questions (naili) (n=38) 8 Significant at o=.05 PAIT I: lilitary Synbol Identification Part II: 66.2 80.7 2.794 8 (Cunstruction) Part 18 68.9 85.0 3.613 8 (latching) PAIT I OVIIALL 68.0 83.7 3.485 8 PAIT II: The Irrakeen Crossing (Sinple lap Series) CATEGORIES I-III 67.9 77.1 2.808 8 (Quest. 1-7) CATEGORIES 18681 54.7 60.5 1.420 IS (Quest. S-li) PAIT II 0VIIALL 60.9 68.2 2.483 8 PAIT III: The Defense of the Logone Plateau (Coupler lap Series) CATEGORIES I-III 66.4 71.9 1.558 IS (Quest. 1-6) CATEGORIES IV-VI 48.7 54.7 1.425 IS (Quest. 7-15) PAIT III OVIIALL 55.8 62.2 1.503 IS TAITS I-III TOTAL 61.6 71.2 3.610 8 913 IPPIIDII I (Continued) Table 23. Effect of Proclained Level of Interest on Test Perfornance. Test perfornance is conpared betseen groups of varied interest levels; the test statistic is the One-Pay Analysis of variance (21082) at n=.05. Jean percentage of correct test responses are sheen. Io Little Soneshat Very AIOVA P Category) Interest Interest Interested Interested Interested 8 Significant Questions (n=18) (n=ll) (n=55) (n=ll) (n=18) at o=05 PAIT I: lilitary Synbol Identification Part II: 52.2 64.8 69.1 75.9 82.2 3.312 (Construction) Part II 43.3 68.1 77.6 75.2 91.1 8.345 (latching) PAIT I OIEIALL 46.3 66.9 74.2 75.5 - 88.1 8.345 PAIT II: The Irrakeen Crossing (Sinple lap Series) CATEGORIES I-III 58.7 62.2 72.9 75.6 75.4 6.154 (Quest. 1-7) CATEGORIES IVAVI 50.0 51.2 56.4 58.2 65.9 1.817 IS (Quest. 8-15) PAIT II OVIIALL 54.1 56.3 64.1 66.4 70.3 4.783 PAIT III: The Defense of the Logone Plateau (Coupler lap Series) CATEGORIES I-III 54.6 66.3 68.8 70.8 72.2 2.586 (Quest. 1-5) CATEGORIES IV-VI 43.8 49.5 50.5 51.3 52.5 0.617 IS (Quest. 7-15) PAIT III OVIIALL 48.1 54.9 57.8 59.1 60.4 2.231 IS PARTS I-III TOTAL 49.5 59.8 65.4 66.9 72.9 8.260 LIST OI’ III’IIIICIS 91 LIST or IIIIIIICII Her. I'. (1985). October 1973: The Iran-Israeli Fanlrchon Books. Conn. Badri. l., T. Iagdoub. and I. Zohdy (1978). The Rasadan lhr,1973. T.I. Dupuy Associates, Inc.. Dunn Loving. Iartras. D.J. (1978), "Post-Iconic Visual Storage: Chunting in the Reproduction of Briefly Displayed Visual Patterns.” cognitive Psychology; Vol. 10, pp. 328-355. Blaut. J.I. (1954). "The Language of naps.” The Professional Geographer, Vol. 6. pp. 9-11. Board, C. (1973), ”Cartographic Connunication and Standardization." International Yearbook of Cartography; Vol. 13. pp. 229-236. . (1978), "nap leading Tasks Appropriate in prerinental Studies in Cartographic Connunication,” The cnnadian cartographer, Vol. 15, lo. 1. pp. 1-12. Chandler. D. (1980). Atlas of lilitary Strategy. 1618-1878,.Irns and Arsour Press. London. DeLucia. 1.1. and D.I. Iiller (1982). ”natural Legend Design for Thenatic laps.” The cartographic Journal, Vol. 19. lo. 1. PP. 46-52. Dent. Borden (1972). ”Visual Organization and Thesatic nap Connunication." Annals of the Association of Inerican Geographers, Vol. 62, pp. 79-93. . (1985). Principles of Thesatic lap Design. Addison-Wesley Publishing Conpany, Reading. Iasterhy. 3.8. (1963). ”The Perception of Synbols Tor Iachine Displays," Ergonosics, Vol. 13. lo. 1. pp. 149-158. Iastsan, J.R. (1985). "Graphic Organisation and Iesory Structures Tor Iap Learning," cartographica, Vol. 22, [0.1, pp. 1-20. Ischel, D. (1978), lid-Inst Furs: The The Iippur Fur. Ischel-Drasit, Israel. Iilertsen, J.P. (1980). The Effectiveness of color Dot lips in Region Portrayal. II Thesis. Iichigan State University, Iast Lansing. 92 Isposito. v.o. (Id.). (1959). Inst Point Atlas of Aserican Pars. Trederick A. Praeger Press. Nev York. Tontanella. J.I. (1988). The Effectiveness of Battlefield lips as Learning.Aids in the Study of.Ailitary History; Iichigan State University. Departeent of Geography Sesinar in Cartography 846. Goodenough, Sinon (1982). Dir hhps. IacDonald Press. London. Griess, Tho-as I. (Id.). (1985). The list Point Historical Series: Atlas of the Second Ibrld Ear - Asia and the Pacific. Avery Publishing Group Inc.. Payne. IJ. . (1986). The lust Point historical series: Chapaign Atlas to the Anerican Civil 9hr. Avery Publishing Group Inc.. Wayne. IJ. Griffin. T.L.C (1983). ”Problen Solving on Iaps: The Inportance of User Strategies.” The cartographic Journal, Vol. 20. lo. 1. pp. 101-109. Iarrison.-A.P. (1959). "Art and Cannon Sense in Cartography." Surveying and lapping; Vol. 19. pp. 27-39. Ierrog, C. (1975). The 9hr of’Atonenent. leidenfeld I licolson. London. Iophin. V. David and Robert I. Taylor (1979)..Dunan thctors in the Design and lualuation of Aviation Ahps. AGhADograph lb. 225. North Atlantic Treaty Organization Advisory Group for Aerospace Research and Develop-ant (AGARD). London. Howard. Theodore W. (1980). Application of Thesatic.lhpping Techniques in Thrrain Analysis. Conference paper. AD -A089 061. Defense lapping Agency Iydrographic/Topographic Center. lashington. D.C. Jenhs. G.P. (1975). ”Undergeneralization and figure-Ground Relationships in Statistical lapping.” Proceedings. Auto-Chrto ll. Jessup. J.I.. Jr. and R.l. Coakley (1982). A Guide to the Study and use of lilitary.listosyu U.S. Govern-ant Printing Office. Iashington. D.C. Jordan. A.P.. (1969). The Civil sa:.. national Geographic Society. Washington. D.C. lolacny. A. (1969). ”Cartographic Infornation--A Pundasental Concept and Tern in Iodern Cartography." cartographic Journal, Vol. 6. lo. 1. pp. 47-49. Leestna. Roger A. (1967). A hhthodology for lilitary Geographic Analysis. AD-660-350. USAITL-38-Tl. Arsy Ingineer Topographic Labs. Tort Delvoir. VA. 93 IacIachren. A. (1982). "The Role of Conplexity and Synbolization nethod in Thenatic lap Iffectiveness.” Annals of the Association of Anerican Geographers. Vol. 72. lo. 4. pp. 495-513. AcCleary. G.P. (1975). "In Pursuit of the lap User.” Proceedings. Auto -Carto ll. DD. 238-250. IcGrath. J.J. (1975).. hhp Interpretation in Ahp-of-the- lhrth Plight. Technical Report lo. 215-2. Arlington. VA: U.S. Arny Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. Iiller. O.I. and Robert J. Voshuil (1964). "Theeatic lap Generalization.” The Geographical levies; Vol. 54. lo. 1. PD. 13-19. Ionsonier. I.S. (1974). ”Heasures of Pattern Conplexity for Choropleth naps.” The Aserican Chrtographer. Vol. 1. Pp. 159-169. Harrison. J.L. (1974). "A Theoretical Pranevort for Cartographic Generalization vith Inphasis on the Process of Synbolisation.” International Yearbook of Chrtography;. Vol. 14. pp. 115-128. . (1984). "Applied Cartographic Con-unication: Iap Synbolisation for Atlases.” cnrtographica. Vol. 21. lo. 1. pp. 44-84. O'Ballance. I. (1978). Ab Victor. Ab linguished: The The Ainpur 9hr. Presidio Press. San Rafael. Olson. J.I. (1975). "prerience and Isprovesent of Cartographic Connunication.” cnrtographic Journal. Vol. 12. lo. 2. pp. 94-108. Peltier. Louis C. (1961).”The Potential of lilitary Geography.” The Professional Geographer; Vol. 13. lo. 6. pp. 1-5. Perrig. l. and I. Iintsch (1985). "Prepositional and Situational Representations of Text." Journal of'henory and Language, Vol. 24. pp. 503-518. Petchenik. B.B. (1977). ”Cartography and the Asking of an Historical Atlas: A Iesoir.” The Anerican Chrtographer.‘Vol. 4. lo. 1. pp. 11-28. . (1978). ”The lapping of the American Revolutionary War in the Tventieth Century.” in Ahpping the Anerican Revolutionary 9hr. University of Chicago Press. Chicago. pp. 125-147. . (1979). ”Iron Place to Space: The Psychological Achieve-est of Thenatic napping." The Aserican Chrtographer. Vol. 6. lo. 1. pp. 5-12. Ratajsti. L. (1971). "The Hethodological Basis of the Standardization of Signs on Iconosic naps.” International Yearbook of cnrtography; Vol. 11. pp. 137-159. 94 Ratajski. L. (1973). "The Research Structure of Theoretical Cartography. " International Yearbook of Cartography. Vol. 12. 99. 217-228. Robinson. A.A. (1973). "An International Standard Synbolisn for Thenatic naps: Approaches and Probless." International Yearbook of cartography; Vol. 13. 09. 19-26. Robinson. A.A.. R.D. Sale. J.L. Iorrison. and P.C. Iuehrcke (1984).. Iiesents of cartographrz. fifth Idition. John Riley and Sons. lew York. Shinron. J. (1978). "Learning Positional Infornation Iron laps.” The Anerican cnrtographer. Vol. 5. lo. 1. pp. 9-19. Thoepson. I.R. (1962). The Arturo of lilitary Geography: A Prelisinary Survey; Ph.D. Dissertation. Syracuse University. Syracuse. Thorndyke. P.R. and C. Stasn (1980). “Individual Differences in Procedures for Knowledge Acquisition fro- Iaps." Cbgnitive Prychology; Vol. 12. pp. 137-175. Underwood. J.D.I. (1981). "Skilled lap Interpretation and Visual-Spatial Ability.” Journal of Geography; Vol. 80. pp. 116-119. U.S. III! Infantry School (1985). Graphic Representation Prograaned Tart. Student handbook 7-6. 1985. USAIS. Port Benning. . (1985). The Pundasentals of hip Reading: A self-Instructional Text. Student Handbook 21-21. 1985. USAIS. Port Benning. U.S. Arsy Coanand and General Staff College (1985). conbined.Ares Operations, Vblune Two.. Conbined Ares and Services Staff School Progransed Text I716. 1985. CICSC. Port Leavenworth. U.S. Depart-ant of the Arny.(1987). Tnpographic Operations, Pield Ianual 5-105. Septenber 1987. Govern-ant Printing Office. Washington. D.C. . (1970). lilitary'Sbeols. Pield Ianual 21-30. Hay 1970. Governeent Printing Office. lashington.D.C. . (1979). Tnpographic Support, Pield Ianual 21-32. Septesber 1979. Govern-ant Printing Office. Washington. D.C. . (1978). Thrrain Analysis. field Ianual 21-33. Hay 1978. Govern-ant Printing Office. Washington. D.C. . (1972) lilitary Geographic Intelligence (Terrain). Pield Ianual 30-10. Iarch 1972. Governeent Printing Office. Uashington. D.C. 95 U.S. Depart-ant of the Arny.(1984) Intelligence and Electronic Inrfare Operations. Pield Ianual 34-1. August 1984. Govern-ant Printing Office. Rashington.D.C. . (1985) Operational ferns and Synbols. Tield Annual 101-5-1. October 1985. Govern-ant Printing Office. lashington. D.C. . (1987) Engineer Eield Data. Iield Ianual 5-34. Septenber 1987. Governnent Printing Office. Uashington.D.C. Van Roy. B.U and J.L. Iorrison (1973). A Study of the Relative Visual conparisons of Selected Geoeetric and Pictorial Peint synbols. University of Wisconsin. Departnent of Geography Seninar 907. cited in Iopkin and Taylor (1979)..Ausan rectors in the Design and Eraluation of Aviation hips. AGIRDegraph Ab. 225. London. UR: NATO AGARD. Villiaas. J.R. and R.P. Talson (1963). ”Relationship of Display Systess Variables to Synbol Recognition and Search Tine.” Journal of Engineering Psychology; Vol. 2. lo. 3. pp. 97-111. Voseloff. T. (Pub.). (1958). The Official Atlas of the Civil Per; Tho-as Voseloff Inc.. Rew York. MICHIGAN sran UNIV. LIBRRRIES 4))("WWII“)W)I")ll)()(l)|)|)(|))|()l))))|)(H) 31293005794494