Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Low-fi simulation of bridge team communication

A study of the authenticity of language patterns observed in ‘chat’ messaging to facilitate Maritime English training

  • IAMU Section Article
  • Published:
WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The paper compares the pedagogical advantages of two simulation types used for training verbal maritime communication. It tests the hypothesis that “low-fi” simulation using online web conference software, specifically ‘chat’ or messaging, is a valid complementary tool for the instruction of Maritime English and full-mission simulation. Based on a series of exercises involving multi-national and multi-lingual students, various linguistic patterns are determined and compared to audio recordings of full-mission simulation. Probability of superiority effect sizes is computed to quantify the observed effects. The findings corroborate the proximity of language patterns found in low-fi and full-mission simulation. Pedagogical implications are discussed, and future research possibilities are outlined.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. English was formally adopted by the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization (IMCO), today’s IMO, as the international language of the sea in 1977.

  2. Table A-11/1 of the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978, as amended, refers to the officer’s ability to use “adequate English” to perform his or her duties “also with a multi-lingual crew”.

  3. According to Motowidlo et al. (1990), low-fi simulations “simply present a verbal description of a hypothetical work situation, instead of a concrete representation, and (…) ask applicants to describe how they would deal with the situation, instead of having them actually carry out some action to deal with it.”

  4. A “stand-on” vessel is a vessel which maintains her course and speed under the prevailing circumstances. A “give-way” vessel is a vessel which either reduces her speed, alters her course or takes other action to give another vessel priority.

  5. Web conferencing is a form of real time communication (RTC) in which multiple computer users all see the screen at the same time. Web conferencing includes features such as texting, messaging, voice, and full-motion video.

  6. More detailed descriptions of the exercise are provided by John et al. (2013a, b) and Noble et al. (2014).

  7. This test was adopted for all significance testing as no distribution was found to be normally distributed (Anderson-Darling test), and no two distributions were found to be homoscedastic (Levene test).

  8. Additional details on lexical density in bridge team communication can be found in John et al. (2013a).

  9. Examples have been reproduced in their original form and errors are thus intended.

  10. Clearly, emoticons and some abbreviations are not the representatives of oral interaction and would thus constitute an exception when claiming that the data mirrors the spoken word.

  11. Constructivism, founded by Jean Piaget, is a learning theory which encourages learners to develop their skills through their active involvement in constructing knowledge for themselves.

  12. Reference is specifically to the use of the IMO Standard Marine Communication Phrases (SMCP). Study of the use of SMCP within the context of the simulation herein described goes beyond the scope of this text, but the authors intend to broaden research to include this particular area in the future papers.

References

  • Baayen RH (2001) Word frequency distributions Vol. 18. Springer

  • Bailey N, Housley W, Belcher P (2006) Navigation, interaction and bridge team work. Sociol Rev 54(2):342–362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnett ML (2004) Risk management training: the development of simulator-based scenarios from the analysis of recent maritime accidents. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Advances in International Maritime Research, Tasmania, IAMU Australia. Retrieved from: http://ssudl.solent.ac.uk/434/1/Risk_Management_Training.pdf

  • Belcher P (2002) A sociological interpretation of the COLREGS. J Navig 55(2):213–224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grissom RJ, Kim JJ (2005) Effect sizes for research. A broad practical approach. Mah

  • Hilgert H (1983) Defining the close-quarters situation at sea. J Navig 03:454–461

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • John P, Brooks B (2014) Lingua franca and its grammar footprint: introducing an index for quantifying grammatical diversity in written and spoken language. J Quant Linguist 21(1):22–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • John P, Brooks B, Wand C, Schriever U (2013a) Information density in bridge team communication and miscommunication—a quantitative approach to evaluate maritime communication. WMU J Marit Aff 1-16

  • John P, Brooks B, Schriever U (2015) Profiling bridge team communication by non-native speakers: a quantitative comparison between baseline and standard marine communication phraseology. Forthcoming

  • John P, Noble A, Björkroth P (2013b) Making SMCP count!. Proceedings of the International Maritime English Conference (IMEC25), Piri Reis University, Istanbul, Turkey

  • Khataria A (2011) Maritime English and the VTS. Proceedings of the International Maritime English Conference (IMEC23), Constanta Maritime University, Constanta, Romania

  • Leonard M, Graham S, Bonacum D (2004) The human factor: the critical importance of effective teamwork and communication in providing safe care. In: BMJ Simulation & Technology Enhanced Learning. Online ISSN 2044-5423. Retrieved from: http://qualitysafety.bmj.com/content/13/suppl_1/i85.full

  • The MARCOM Project Final Report. The impact of multicultural and multilingual crews on MARitime COMmunication, Contract No WA-96-AM-1181, A Transport RTD Programme DG VII (1998) Project co-ordinator: the seafarers international research centre, Cardiff University, U.K

  • Marine Accident Investigation Branch. (2002) Report on the investigation of the collision between Pride of Portsmouth and HMS St Albans, London

  • Marine Accident Investigation Branch. (2005) Report on the investigation of the collision between Lykes Voyager and Washington Senator, London

  • Marine Accident Investigation Branch. (2010) Report on the investigation of the grounding of MV Maersk Kendal, London

  • Motowidlo SJ, Dunnette MD, Carter GW (1990) An alternative selection procedure: the low-fidelity simulation. J Appl Psychol 75(6):640

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Transportation Safety Board (2006) Accident report NTSB/MAR-08/01PB2008-916401, Washington

  • National Transportation Safety Board (2007) Accident report NTSB/MAR-08/02PB2008-916402, Washington

  • Noble A, Björkroth P, John P (2014) Exploiting the didactic possibilities of low-fi simulation in virtual bridge team communication exercises, Proceedings of the International Maritime English Conference (IMEC26). Maritime Institute Willem Barentsz, Terschelling

    Google Scholar 

  • Popescu C, Varsami AA, Birsan E (2011) Maritime English used on simulators for training future deck officers in Constanta Maritime University, Proceedings of the International Maritime English Conference, IMEC 23. Constanta Maritime University, Constanta

    Google Scholar 

  • Pritchard B, Kalogiera D (1999) On some features of conversation in maritime VHF communication. In: Coulthard M, Cotterill J, Rock F (eds) Working with dialogue: selected papers from the 7th IADA Conference, Birmingham 1999. Max Niemeyer Verlag GmbH, Tübingen, pp 185–196

    Google Scholar 

  • Pyne R, Koester T (2005) Methods and means for analysis of crew communication in the maritime domain. The Archives of Transport. Vol XVII, no 3-4

  • Sihmantepe A, Sernikli S, Ziarati R (2011) Building maritime English by event simulation, Proceedings of the International Maritime English Conference (IMEC 23). Constanta Maritime University, Constanta

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Leunen W The maritime simulator: an instrument for MET assessment?, Proceedings of the International Maritime English Conference (IMEC 23), Constanta Maritime University, Constanta, Romania

  • Ziarati R, Ziarati M, Çalbaş B (2009) Improving safety at sea and ports by developing standards for maritime English. In Bridge conference, Finland

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Maritime Studies, Jade University of Applied Sciences, Weserstr. 52, 26931, Elsfleth, Germany

    Peter John

  2. Antwerp Maritime Academy, Noordkasteel Oost 6, 2030, Antwerp, Belgium

    Alison Noble

  3. Novia University of Applied Sciences, Juhana herttuan puistokatu 21, 20100, Turku, Finland

    Peter Björkroth

Authors
  1. Peter John
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alison Noble
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Peter Björkroth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter John.

Ethics declarations

The data was collected anonymously and sought to comply with the ethical regulations of participating universities.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

John, P., Noble, A. & Björkroth, P. Low-fi simulation of bridge team communication. WMU J Marit Affairs 15, 337–351 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13437-015-0097-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13437-015-0097-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation