Research on simulator training has rarely focused on the way simulated contexts are constructed collaboratively. This study sheds light on how structuring role-play and fostering social interactions may prove fruitful for designing simulator training. The article reports on a qualitative study of nautical students training in a ship simulator. The study examines how a group of students, together with a professional maritime pilot, enacted professional roles and collaboratively constructed a simulated context for learning to navigate. Their activities on the bridge were framed within the maritime profession’s hierarchical system of captain and officers, and we examine in detail how these institutionally defined positions become important resources for meaning-making during role-play. The article portrays how two competing activity contexts were constructed, and how the role-play provided opportunities for enacting professional roles and work tasks. However, it also shows that it is challenging to pick up on what is significant to learn and to confront this in debriefing. The article concludes that the students’ collaboration and meaning-making is an entity of training that may be more efficiently addressed.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
ABS (American Bureau of Shipping Technical Report). (2004). ABS review and analysis of accident databases: 1991–2002 data. American Bureau of Shipping Technical Report: SAHF 2003–5.1, March 2004.
Alessi, S. M. (1988). Fidelity in the design of instructional simulations. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 15(2), 40–47.
Arnseth, H. C., & Ludvigsen, S. R. (2006). Approaching institutional contexts: Systemic versus dialogic research in CSCL. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(2), 167–185.
Baker, A., Jensen, P., & Kolb, D. A. (1997). In conversation: Transforming experience into learning. Simulation & Gaming, 28, 6–12.
Barnett, M. L. (2004). Risk management training: The development of simulator-based scenarios from the analysis of recent maritime accidents. In Proceedings of the Advances in International Maritime Research Conference. Tasmania: IAMU.
Barnett, M. L., Gatfield, D. I., & Pekcan, C. H. (2006). Non-technical skills: The vital ingredient in world maritime technology? In Proceedings of the International Conference on World Maritime Technology. London: Institute of Marine Engineering, Science, and Technology.
Brandt, E. (2008). “En utdanning du kommer langt med”—maritim utdanning i videregående skoler, fagskoler og høyskoler. Rapport 18/2008. Oslo: NIFU STEP.
Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Brydges, R., Carnahan, H., Rose, D., Rose, L., & Dubrowski, A. (2010). Coordinating progressive levels of simulation fidelity to maximize educational benefit. Academic Medicine, 85(5), 806–812.
Collins, A. (2006). Cognitive apprenticeship. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 47–60). New York: Cambridge University Press.
De la Croix, A., & Skelton, J. (2009). The reality of role-play: Interruptions and amount of talk in simulated consultations. Medical Education, 43(7), 695–703.
Dillenbourg, P., Järvelä, S., & Fischer, F. (2009). The evolution of research on computer-supported collaborative learning: From design to orchestration. Technology-Enhanced Learning, Part I, 3–19.
Duranti, A., & Goodwin, C. (Eds.). (1992). Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Endsley, M. R. (1995a). Measurement of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors, 37(1), 65–84.
Endsley, M. R. (1995b). Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors, 37(1), 32–64.
Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.
Fanning, R. M., & Gaba, D. M. (2007). The role of debriefing in simulation-based learning. Simulation in Healthcare, 2(2), 115–125.
Fidelity. (n.d.). In Oxford dictionaries. Retrieved 9.9.2012 from http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/fidelity.
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. New York: Harper and Row.
Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 606–633.
Goodwin, C. (1995). Seeing in depth. Social Studies of Science, 25(2), 237–274.
Goodwin, C., & Duranti, A. (1992). Rethinking context: An introduction. In A. Duranti & C. Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Greeno, J. G. (1997). On claims that answer the wrong questions. Educational Researcher, 26(1), 5–17.
Hollnagel, E. (2011). Simulator studies: The next best thing? In A. B. Skjerve & A. Bye (Eds.), Simulator-based human factors studies across 25 years. London: Springer.
Hood, L., McDermott, R., & Cole, M. (1980). “Let’s try to make it a good day”—some not so simple ways. Discourse Processes, 2(3), 155–168.
Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Hutchins, E., & Klausen, T. (1996). Distributed cognition in an airline cockpit. In D. Middleton & Y. Engeström (Eds.), Communication and cognition at work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hutchins, E., & Palen, L. (1997). Constructing meaning from space, gesture, and speech. In L. B. Resnick, R. Säljo, C. Pontecorvo, & B. Burge (Eds.), Discourse, tools, and reasoning: Essays on situated cognition (pp. 24–40). Berlin: Springer.
Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 13–31). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Johnson, E. (2007). Surgical simulators and simulated surgeons: Reconstituting medical practice and practitioners in simulations. Social Studies of Science, 37(4), 585–608.
Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39–103.
Koschmann, T. (Ed.). (1996). CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Koschmann, T. (2002). Dewey’s contribution to the foundations of CSCL research. In G. Stahl (Ed.), Proceedings of CSCL 2002: Foundations for a CSCL community (pp. 17–22). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning. Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Leontev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Linell, P. (1998). Approaching dialogue. Talk, interaction and contexts in dialogical perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Linell, P. (2009). Rethinking language, mind and world dialogically: Interactional and contextual theories of human sense-making. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.
Linell, P., & Persson Thunqvist, D. (2003). Moving in and out of framings: Activity contexts in talks with young unemployed people within a training project. Journal of Pragmatics, 35(3), 409–434.
Mathieu, J. E., Heffner, T. S., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2000). The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(2), 273–283.
McDermott, R. (1977). Social relations as contexts for learning in school. Harvard Educational Review, 47(2), 198–213.
Middleton, D., & Engeström, Y. (Eds.). (1996). Communication and cognition at work. Beverly Hills: Sage Books.
Ochs, E. (1979). Introduction: What child language can contribute to pragmatics. In E. Ochs & B. Schieffelin (Eds.), Developmental pragmatics. New York: Academic.
Petraglia, J. (1998). The real world on a short leash: The (mis)application of constructivism to the design of educational technology. Educational Technology Research and Development, 46(3), 53–65.
Rehmann, A. J., Mitman, R., & Reynolds, M. (1995). A handbook of flight simulation fidelity requirements for human factors research (Technical Report No. DOT/FAA/CT-TN95/46). Wright-Patterson, AFB, OH: Crew Systems Ergonomics Information Analysis Center.
Rystedt, H. (2002). Bridging practices: Simulations in education for the health-care professions. PhD-thesis. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.
Rystedt, H., & Lindwall, O. (2004). The interactive construction of learning foci in simulationbased learning environments: A case study of an anaesthesia course. PsychNology Journal, 2(2), 168–188.
Rystedt, R., & Sjöblom, B. (2012). Realism, authenticity, and learning in healthcare simulations: Rules of relevance and irrelevance as interactive achievement. Instructional Science, 40(5), 785–789.
Salas, E., Wilson, K. A., Burke, C. S., & Wightman, D. C. (2006). Does crew resource management training work? An update, an extension, and some critical needs. Human Factors, 48(2), 392–412. doi:10.1518/001872006777724444.
Schegloff, E. A. (1991). Reflections on talk and social structure. In D. Boden & D. Zimmerman (Eds.), Talk and social structure: Studies in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis (pp. 44–70). Oxford: Polity Press.
Seale, C., Butler, C., Hutchby, I., Kinnersley, P., & Rollnick, S. (2007). Negotiating frame ambiguity: A study of simulated encounters in medical education. Communication & Medicine, 4(2), 177–187.
Stokoe, E. (2011). Simulated interaction and communication skills training: The ‘Conversation analytic role-play method’. In C. Antaki (Ed.), Applied conversation analysis: Changing institutional practices. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Suthers, D. (2006). Technology affordances for intersubjective meaning-making: A research agenda for CSCL. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(3), 315–337.
Vicente, K. (2006). The human factor: Revolutionizing the way people live with technology. New York: Routledge.
Vincenzi, D., Wise, J. A., Mouloua, M., & Hancock, P. A. (Eds.). (2009). Human factors in simulation and training. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society. In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & G. Wells (Eds) (1993), ‘Re-evaluating the IRF sequence: A proposal for the articulation of theories of activity and discourse for the analysis of teaching and learning in the classroom.’ Linguistics in Education, 5(1), 1–37.
We would like to thank Elisabeth Stokoe for her valuable comments on data transcripts and for sharing her insights on role-playing as communicative activity. We also would like to thank David Middleton and Anniken Furberg for their positive and constructive comments on an early presentation of data at a seminar on interaction analysis at Intermedia, University of Oslo. We are also in debt to Karianne Skovholt, Marit Skarbø, and Susanne Knudsen for valuable feedback on earlier drafts. Finally, we would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.
Appendix 1. Transcription conventions
Appendix 1. Transcription conventions
|||Square brackets mark the start and end of overlapping speech. They are aligned to mark the precise position of overlap.|
|Underlining||Underlining indicates emphasis; the extent of underlining within individual words locates emphasis and also indicates how heavy it is.|
|CAPITALS||Capitals mark speech that is audibly louder than surrounding speech. This is beyond the increase in volume that comes as a by-product of emphasis.|
|°I know it||‘Degree’ signs enclose audibly quieter speech.|
|(0.4)||Numbers in round brackets measure pauses in seconds (in this case, 4 tenths of a second). If they are not part of a particular speaker’s talk, they should be on a new line. If in doubt, use a new line.|
|(.)||A micro pause, audible but too short to measure.|
|((stoccato))||Additional comments from the transcriber, e.g. about features of context or delivery. Refer to the previous line.|
|she wa::nted||Colons show degrees of elongation of the prior sound; the more colons, the more elongation.|
|Yeh,||‘Continuation’ marker—speaker has not finished; marked by fall-rise or weak rising intonation, as when delivering a list.|
|>he said<||‘Greater than’ and ‘lesser than’ signs enclose speeded-up talk. Occasionally, they are used the other way around for slower talk.|
|solid.= =We had||‘Equals’ signs mark the immediate ‘latching’ of successive talk, whether of one or more speakers, with no interval.|
|heh heh||Voiced laughter. Can have other symbols added, such as underlining, pitch movement, extra aspiration, etc.|
|sto(h)p i(h)t||Laughter within speech is signalled by h’s in round brackets.|
|y’know?||Question marks signal stronger, ‘questioning’ intonation, irrespective of grammar.|
|Yeh.||Full stops mark falling, stopping intonation (‘final contour’), irrespective of grammar, and not necessarily followed by a pause.|
|(xx) or (blrf)||Un-gotten material. Nonsense syllables are sometimes provided, to give at least an indication of various features of the un-gotten materials.|
|The transcriptions follow standards from Jefferson (2004), and are inserted from:|
About this article
Cite this article
Hontvedt, M., Arnseth, H.C. On the bridge to learn: Analysing the social organization of nautical instruction in a ship simulator. Computer Supported Learning 8, 89–112 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-013-9166-3
- Simulator training
- Activity contexts
- Interaction analysis