Skip to main content
Log in

A model of metacognition for bushfire fighters

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Cognition, Technology & Work Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Large-scale bushfires are complex or macrocognitive decision environments (Klein et al.). They involve many people, such as incident management teams, firefighting crews, and resident communities. Those people can also be geographically dispersed. This means that they need to coordinate their bushfire response efforts and manage multiple, often competing, cognitive demands. To do this, bushfire responders need to use metacognitive skills to regulate their thinking, particularly under stressful high cognitive load conditions. We explored these types of issues with career and volunteer bushfire fighters (Frye and Wearing in J Cogn Technol 16(2): 33–44, 2011). We found that rule-based procedures can sometimes reduce errors, and increase safety, because they reduce cognitive load (e.g., ‘you just do it’). However, fixation on other rules and procedures can increase errors, and erode safety, because people fail to adapt to the current situation (e.g., ‘you really need to think about that’). In this paper we use a model of metacognition to describe how experts regulate their thinking and thus avoid errors associated with cognitive overload (such as tunnel vision and goal fixation) during large-scale bushfires. The implications for bushfire training and procedures are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adams R, Ericsson A (2000) Introduction to cognitive processes of expert pilots. Hum Perform Extreme Environ 5(1):44–62

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson M, Oates T, Chong W, Perlis D (2006) The metacognitive loop I: enhancing reinforcement learning with metacognitive monitoring and control for improved perturbation tolerance. J Exp Theor Artif Intell 18(3):387–411

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bushfire CRC (2010) Research Task Force—2009 Black Saturday Bushfires. Australian Bushfire Cooperative Research Centre, Melbourne. http://www.bushfirecrc.com.au. Retrieved 12 Nov 2012

  • Cohen MS, Freeman JT, Wolf S (1996) Metarecognition in time-stressed decision making: recognizing, critiquing, and correcting. Hum Factors 38(2):206–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Connolly T (1999) Action as a fast and frugal heuristic. Mind Mach 9:479–496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dörner D (1990) The logic of failure. Hum Factors Hazard Situat 327(1241):463–473

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunloslky J, Metcalf J (2009) Metacognition. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 1–8

    Google Scholar 

  • Endsley M (1995) Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Hum Factors 37(1):32–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ericsson KA (2006) The influence of experience and deliberate practice on the development of superior expert performance. In: Ericsson KA, Charness N, Feltovich PJ, Hoffman RR (eds) The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 39–68

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Fadde PJ, Klein GA (2010) Deliberate performance: accelerating expertise in natural settings. Perform Improv 49(9):5–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fire Services Commissioner of Victoria (2013) Report on the 2012/2013 Victorian Bushfire Season. http://www.firecommissioner.vic.gov.au/latest-news/201213-season-overview/. Retrieved 05 May 2013

  • Flavell J (1979) Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: a new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. Am Psychol 34(10):906–911

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frye L (2012) A multi-agency incident leadership framework. In: Proceedings of the 3rd human dimensions in wildland fire conference, Seattle, 17–22 April 2012

  • Frye L, Wearing A (2011) The central mountain fire project: achieving cognitive control during bushfire response. J Cogn Technol 16(2):33–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Frye L, Wearing A (2013) A model of metacognition for bushfire fighters. In: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on naturalistic decision making, 22–24 May 2013, Marseille, France

  • Frye L, Wearing A (2014) What were they thinking? How the experts make decisions during a large-scale bushfire. In: Owen C (ed) Human factors challenges in emergency management. Ashgate Press, Melbourne, VIC

  • Gigerenzer G, Goldstein DG (1996) Reasoning the fast and frugal way: models of bounded rationality. Psychol Rev 103(4):650–669

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman RR, Woods DD (2011) Beyond Simon’s Slice: five fundamental trade-offs that bound the performance of macrocognitive work systems. IEEE Intell Syst 26(6):67–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnstone G (2002) Report of the investigation and inquests into a wildfire and the deaths of five firefighters at Linton on 2 December 1998: State Coroner’s Office, Victoria

  • Kahneman D, Klein G (2009) Conditions for intuitive expertise: a failure to disagree. Am Psychol 64(6):515–526

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein G (1999) The recognition primed decision model. sources of power: how people make decisions. The MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 15–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein G, Calderwood R, Clinton-Cirocco A (1988) Rapid decision making on the fire ground. Technical Report 796, US Army Research Institute for the Behavioural and Social Sciences

  • Klein G, Ross K, Moon B, Klein D, Hoffman R, Hollnagel E (2003) Macrocognition. IEEE Intell Syst 18(3):81–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leonard HB (2010) Organizing response to extreme emergencies, Submission to the 2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission. Doc. ID: EXP.3031.001.0018

  • McLennan J, Pavlou O, Omodie M (2005) Cognitive control processes discriminate between better versus poorer performance by fire ground commanders. In: Montgomery H, Lipshitz R, Brehmer B (eds) How professionals make decisions. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, pp 209–221

    Google Scholar 

  • Militello L, Dominquez C, Lintern G, Klein G (2010) The role of cognitive systems engineering in the systems engineering design process. Syst Eng 13(3):261–273

    Google Scholar 

  • Omodei M, McLennan J, Reynolds C (2005) Identifying the causes of unsafe firefighting decisions: a human factors interview protocol (Bushfire CRC Project D2.3 Safety in Decision Making and Behaviour, Tech. Rep. No 1). Australian Bushfire Cooperative Research Centre, Melbourne. http://www.bushfirecrc.com.au. Retrieved 13 Nov 2012

  • Pressley M (2000) Development of grounded theories of complex cognitive processing: exhaustive within- and between-study analysis of think-aloud data. In: Schraw G, Impara J (eds) Issues in the measurement of metacognition. Buros Institute of Mental Measurements, Lincoln, pp 261–296

    Google Scholar 

  • Putman T (1995) The collapse of decision making and organisational structure on storm king mountain. Wildfire 4(2):40–45

    Google Scholar 

  • QSR International (2008) NVivo8 Qualitative Analysis Software. QSR International, Melbourne

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon HA (1956) Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychol Rev 63:129–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stretton EB (1939) Transcript of evidence and Report of the Royal Commission into the causes of and measures taken to prevent the bushfires of January, 1939, and to protect life and property in the event of future bush fires. (Report No. 000002967). Parliament of Victoria, Melbourne

  • t’ Hart P (2010) Organizing for effective emergency management. Submission to the 2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission. Doc. ID: EXP.3031.001.0001

  • Teague B, McLeod R, Pascoe S (2009) 2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission - Interim Report (No. 225 – Session 2006–09). Parliament of Victoria, Melbourne

  • Teague B, McLeod R, Pascoe S (2010) 2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission—Final Report Summary. Parliament of Victoria, Melbourne

    Google Scholar 

  • Valot (2002) An ecological approach to metacognitive regulation in the adult. In: Chambers P, Izaute M, Marescaux P (eds) Metacognition: process, function and use. Kluwer Academic Publisher, Boston, pp 135–152

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Woods D, Branlat M (2010) Hollnagel’s test: being ‘in control’ of highly interdependent multi-layered networked systems. Cognit Technol Work 12(2):95-101

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Richard Jones (of the firm One Eighty-Seven and a Half) produced the graphic design of this model for our use in bushfire training.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lisa M. Frye.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Frye, L.M., Wearing, A.J. A model of metacognition for bushfire fighters. Cogn Tech Work 18, 613–619 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-016-0372-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-016-0372-4

Keywords

Navigation