In the episodes chosen for analysis the students work in teams of two on the bridge in the work roles of officer-of-the-watch and look-out, training in the heavily trafficked waters of the Dover Strait. They are given the task to cross the Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS) where crossing the lane in accordance with the anti-collision regulations should be done by making a sharp turn; "as nearly as practicable at right angles to the general direction of traffic flow." According to the IMO (International Maritime Organization) text on the anti-collision regulations (COLREG) this “reduces confusion to other ships as to the crossing vessel's intentions and course and at the same time enables that vessel to cross the lane as quickly as possible.” The first of the two scenarios are designed as driving at night, a situation where the students have to use radar technologies as their primary method for observation. In addition, a course plan has been constructed on a nautical paper chart. When we come into the first episode, we are visiting the bridge simulator at the beginning of the exercise. At this point, the instructor routinely checks in on the students before starting the simulation, controlling that they are all set for departure. That is, that the students have set all instruments correctly and constructed a plausible course plan. In the episode that follows, the instructor has just entered the room and walked up to the chart table to scrutinize the course plan.
Episode 1:
01 Ins: /okey (.) the plan then/
02 then you go like this (.) n’ then exa:ctly:
03 really good
04 then you’ll show clearly that you’re going to cross
05 n’ then you cross
06 /yup
07 St1: °m°
08 Ins: that shouldn’t be mistaken by anyone
09 St1: nah but one might (ju) [think]
10 Ins: [bu:t] one can (ju) never be sure
11 St1: nah
The instructors’ utterance in line 01 directs the students’ attention towards the course plan as well as his sweeping hand gesture over the chart table. The chart is laying openly on the chart table in the simulator, directly accessible to the participants, and the instructors next utterance “then you go like this” is paired with his hand movement on the chart, highlighting the graphical elements on the chart showing the students’ plan to cross the TSS. Both students lean over and direct their attention towards the instructors’ actions. In this way, the chart serves as a shared focal point for both verbal and non-verbal instruction in which the use of the indexical “like this” in line 02 makes sense for the participants. The chart and the plotted course plan are also an object that makes the intended crossing available, and thus also assessable to the instructor. The talk connected with inspecting the plan in line 02 is followed by the positive assessment “really good” in line 03. In line 04 with an account of the positive assessment, i.e., the clarity of the intended crossing. Hence, the intention to cross is not a private thought of the student; it is made public through the plotted course on the nautical chart, and thus accessible for the student members of the bridge team as well as the instructor. The talk directed to the course plan also involves reasoning about how others will perceive our actions. To show clearly that one is on the way to cross is to produce an action so it can be recognizable to others as that kind of action, i.e., to cross the lane so it can be recognized as a crossing. The utterance by the instructor in line 08 can be read as continuation on the explanation of the positive assessment. The crossing is made with clarity so that others can understand our actions: “that shouldn’t be mistaken by anyone”. In the next turn, student 1 responds to this, saying “nah but one might (ju) think”, showing a bit hesitant that everyone will see this action as a crossing, thus displaying awareness of the complexities involved in interpreting the intentions of other vessels. This concern is ratified by the instructor, delivering the utterance “bu:t one can (ju) never be sure” before the student has finished his sentence, confirming that the concerns expressed are valid. This is agreed on by the student, delivering a minimal response, “nah”.
The paper chart at the center of this activity is at the heart of maritime navigation, described by Hutchins (1995, p. 61) as “a carefully crafted computational device”, an analogue artefact that enables plotting the course to represent some of the spatial relationships in the world. While paper charts largely have been replaced by electronic charts on modern ship bridges the so called ECDIS, the paper chart is still widely used in educational practice. In analytical terms, the course plan plotted on the nautical chart take the form of an inscription, a material object that is publicly available for the students that form the bridge team as well as the instructor (Roth & McGinn, 1998). The notion of an inscription is connected to the concept of representations. While a representation refers to a substitute or an image that stands in place of an object, idea, or concept, the term inscription involves marking or recording information, whether physically or metaphorically and but highlight the accessible nature of embodied objects. Going from an analysis of representations towards an analysis of inscriptions is to go from an analysis of the individual mind towards an analysis of social arenas. Both representations and inscriptions play crucial roles in communicating ideas, concepts, or information but operate in distinct ways regarding the creation and transmission of meaning. What is important for our analysis is not the course plan on the nautical chart per se, but the role of the course plan as an arena for reasoning about rule following.
In sum this episode turns our attention to how students are fostered into the professions way of communicating their intentions by showing surrounding traffic that they have the intention to cross the TSS by making a turn as close to 90 degrees as possible. Moreover, this episode shows how the instructor makes rounds to the students bridge to monitor the students’ progress in preparing for the simulation, the role of their marked plan on the chart for assessing their plan, and how the paper chart it is used as an arena for reasoning about issues involved in following COLREG. For our purposes of informing design, the use of the nautical chart in training is interesting since the use of analogue artefacts puts the challenges in automating feedback in a semi-automated environment on display. During simulator training, the students’ work on the bridge is distributed between technological instruments and tools, analogue artefacts such as the paper charts and checklists, as well as collaborative teamwork activities. As we have seen in this example, this is true also for the instructors’ work of providing feedback to students, using talk and hand gestures directed towards the nautical paper chart to provide his assessment and positive feedback on the students’ plan to cross the TSS lane.
The second episode also involved the paper chart, but in a less central way. In this episode, it is the work role of officer-of-the-watch (OoW) and lookout on the bridge that is in focus, an important aspect of learning the working order on the bridge. According to the prescribed working order, the OoW is in control of navigating and maneuvering the simulated vessel. The lookout is responsible for maintaining a close look at the marine environment as seen through the window of the bridge and on the radar display. In practice, this means that the OoW mainly will be positioned in front of the radar on the starboard side, but also that the OoW will be the one in charge of regularly taking positions, in this case, on the paper chart. The lookout should be positioned in front of portside radar maintaining lookout unless the order from the OoW directs attention to other matters.
For the instructor, the spatial positions of the students in the room, being at the right place at the right time, display the students’ understanding of the work roles on the bridge (Husebø et al. 2012). In this case, the student lookout is being positioned in the wrong place, taking positions at the chart table. This situation on the bridge is seen through the monitoring technologies in the instructor room and calls for correction. When this episode begins, the instructor has just entered the bridge simulator. But instead of correcting the student lookout about his incorrect spatial position, the instructor addresses his question to the student OoW as the one in charge of the bridge, asking him why the lookout is standing next to the chart table (lines 01–03).
Episode 2:
01 Ins: >hah< officer-of-the-watch
02 St1: m:::
03 Ins: why is the lookout standing at the chart table/
04 St1: what/
05 St2: I was just looking around
06 St1: dunno (.) he was just looking
07 Ins: is he allowed to/ do you trust him that much/
08 St1: yeah (.) ri::ght… ((laughing))
09 Ins: yeah (.) ‘cause you don’t let him take position
10 St1: nah
11 Ins: nah (.) you’ll have to stand beside him (.) if he should do
12 that
13 St1: m::
14 Ins: and keep an eye on him
15 St2: ((mumbling))
16 Ins: >all right< o::kay
17 St2: if it’s okay/
18 Ins: yeah (.) you should ask the shipmate
19 St1: yeah (.) that’s okay
20 Ins: I’m just wondering (.) we shouldn’t have any lookouts on the
21 loose here (.) they should sort of be on lookout
22 St1: yeah
23 Ins: not standing looking at the chart (.) then one needs the
24 shipmate’s permission
However, it is Student 2 who delivers and answer, saying that he was just “looking around” (line 05). This is repeated by Student 1 in line 06, “dunno... he was just looking”. In line 07, the instructor is ignoring the answer to his question delivered by the lookout, looking only at student 1 in position of the OoW, as he directs a new question to the OoW asking “is he allowed to? do you trust him that much?” By addressing his talk to the OoW, the instructor is highlighting how the professional hierarchy enters into bridge team communication, that is, that the captain of the ship communicates to the next person in line, i.e., the OoW. While the student OoW answers back by saying “yeah (.) right” and laughing, it is unclear if the students understand the correction as a correction. Although the students might treat their work during simulation as an equal collaboration between peers, we can see how the instructor shifts roles in line 09, from captain of a ship to his role as instructor, delivering a straightforward correction that explicate the work order on the bridge “yeah (.) ‘cause you don’t let him take position”.
In this example, we can see how the instructors’ ongoing monitoring of the students work on the bridge occasions a correction of the students working order. In this example, it is the spatial positions of the students on the bridge that forms the basis for the instructor's’ assessment, and his feedback about how and why the students should be positioned in a certain way when working as a bridge team. Moreover, the conversations on the bridge display information of the students current understanding, or as in this situation, lack of understanding of the hierarchical working order on the bridge. Here we can see how they approach this task by treating the simulation as the kind of problems that they regularly face as students in higher education and are expected to solve in a collaborative way where all parties contribute in an equal manner. At this point, in their second year of training, they are still not fully aware of the expectations of their participation in simulations, i.e., they have not realized that they should commit to the as-if framework. Moreover, the instructor’s assessment is finely tuned to the kinds of social cues that put the students’ current understanding on display, such as the answer from student 2 in line 05 or the deliverance of “yeah ri::ght” followed by laughter in line 8. The instructor treats this utterance as an insufficient display of understanding, which leads up to the clarifications in lines 09–24.