Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 7 (2015) 71–84

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Learning, Culture and Social Interaction

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/lcsi

Full length article

Professional vision in simulated environments — Examining

professional maritime pilots' performance of work tasks in a
full-mission ship simulator
Magnus Hontvedt ⁎
Department of Education and School Development, Vestfold and Buskerud University College, P.O. Box 2243, N-3103 Toensberg, Norway
Department of Educational Research, University of Oslo, PO Box 1092, Blindern, 0317 Oslo, Norway

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper reports on a qualitative study of professional maritime pilots who used a ship simulator
Received 11 August 2014 to train for cruise ship navigation in high winds by the use of Azipod propellers. The instructional
Received in revised form 5 June 2015 design of the exercise involves the participants experiencing work-like situations in the simula-
Accepted 24 July 2015
tors and then reflecting on these situations in debriefings. Interaction analysis of the maritime pi-
Available online 14 August 2015
lots' training showed that simulator training has distinct advantages. However, the detailed
analysis of the pilots' issues with the simulator's accuracy also demonstrated that a lack of
Keywords: photorealism and fidelity in the simulator's visual display may have affected the dynamics of
Simulator training
the work tasks for which pilots are trained. The results of the analysis showed that the partici-
Fidelity
pants' professional perception of work environments — their professional vision — may come in
Maritime pilots
Professional vision conflict with an instructional strategy to isolate certain elements of the learning objective from
Interaction analysis the total experience. The article concludes by arguing that the organisation of simulator training
must consider whether the degree of fidelity meets the requirements of the situated work tasks
and learning objectives, while also attending to the specific nature of the professionals' expertise.
© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Maritime pilots belong to a proud profession with strong historical roots. In the field of shipping, they play a crucial role as local
guides with extensive knowledge of the waters for which they are certified. Similar to other professional groups for whom mistakes
involve considerable danger and cost, maritime pilots frequently use simulators to develop professional expertise in a safe and flexible
environment. Thus, simulators are frequently used for training in professional domains such as aviation, shipping and the military.
This article reports on observations of maritime pilots’ training in full-mission ship simulators and discusses the pros and cons of sim-
ulating work activity for learning purposes. Interaction analysis is used to examine videos of actual training (Jordan & Henderson,
1995), allowing the investigation of both the technical and social requirements of successful training.
A simulator can be defined as a ‘device that duplicates the essential features of a task situation and provides for direct human
operation’ (Vincenzi, Wise, Mouloua, & Hancock, 2008, p. 426). The degree to which a simulator matches the characteristics of a
real setting is often referred to as the level of simulator fidelity, and the effect of fidelity on learning and instruction has been much
debated in the research literature (Dahai, Nikolas, & Dennis, 2008; Krange, Moen, & Ludvigsen, 2012; Rystedt & Sjöblom, 2012). Across
various theories of learning, instructional designs have been developed to enhance systematic encounters between situated actions
and reflection on action (Kolb, 1984; Schön, 1983; Tuomi-Gröhn & Engeström, 2003). The support for ‘authentic’ and situated

⁎ Department of Education and School Development, Vestfold and Buskerud University College, P.O. Box 2243, N-3103 Toensberg, Norway.
E-mail address: manh@hbv.no.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2015.07.003
2210-6561/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
72 M. Hontvedt / Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 7 (2015) 71–84

experiences is considered a major advantage of using simulations for training (Baker, Jensen, & Kolb, 1997; Dahai, Nikolas, Elizabeth, &
Dennis, 2008; Rystedt, 2002; Salas, Bowers, & Rhodenizer, 1998). However, few studies have investigated the situated practices of
simulator training on an interactional level. The present study aims to add to the current body of research by providing an empirical
account of the role of simulator fidelity in facilitating ‘real’ experiences for professionals using ship simulators.
Maritime pilots guide merchant ships through unsafe waterways where local knowledge is crucial for safe navigation. Their ability
to lead ships safely in and out of ports solely by orienting visually to elements in their surroundings, such as islands, buoys and land-
marks, is characteristic of their profession. Pilots' professional conception of tasks and situations — their professional vision — is shown
as vital to how they perceive and perform in a simulated environment. In a study of archaeologists' and lawyers' ways of distinctively
seeing and understanding events specific to their professions, Goodwin (1994) defined professional vision as “socially organised ways
of seeing and understanding events that are answerable to the distinctive interests of a particular social group” (p. 606). In this case,
the ways in which maritime pilots are trained to favour visual lookout in manoeuvring ships can be considered a form of professional
vision. By closely examining how the pilots perform tasks, respond to training scenarios and activate their professional experiences,
the following analysis seeks to shed light on whether the simulator constitutes a reliable learning environment in which maritime pi-
lots can practise cruise ship manoeuvring. To my knowledge, such issues have not been scrutinised in prior studies of ship simulators.
To address this gap, the following research questions are posed:
How are work tasks re-created and trained for in ship simulator training sessions for maritime pilots?

How is simulator fidelity related to training objectives and to the participants' professional performance of work tasks?

To answer these research questions, the following analysis investigates instances in which the simulators successfully facilitate a
work-like training environment, including encounters with glitches and problems in this socio-technical environment. ‘Socio-techni-
cal’ is used as a descriptive term that encompasses work systems that rely on the joint efforts of human and technological interlocu-
tors. By analysing problems in the simulator training, the analysis will show how small disturbances in the simulator software affect
instructional scaffolds and, consequently, participants' learning. The study analyses video recordings of cooperative training activities
from a sociocultural learning perspective.
The next section presents a review of the background and prior research on the use of simulators for professional training. The an-
alytical framework will then be outlined before the empirical setting and research design are described. The Results section includes
the interaction analysis (Jordan & Henderson, 1995) of five extracts from a training session. The Discussion section considers some
possibilities for meeting the opportunities and challenges described in the Empirical setting and research design section.

2. Simulators as a resource for re-creating the socio-technical environment of a ship's bridge

Training within the maritime domain is often focused on meeting training objectives explicated within the cross-disciplinary field
of human factors, which is concerned with human performance in technology-saturated environments as well as the ergonomic de-
sign of such environments (Vicente, 2003). Several studies have identified human factors that are commonly associated with ship ac-
cidents, such as fatigue, lack of situational awareness, lack of teamwork and poor decision-making (Hetherington, Flin, & Mearns,
2006). However, even if the role of human factors in accidents is known, it is not obvious how training to overcome these factors
can be effectively accomplished.
Simulators are commonly used for learning technical skill, coordination and teamwork in a safe environment. Existing research
shows that simulator training can provide relevant content and scenarios as well as instructional features and opportunities for mea-
suring individual and team performance in several professional domains, such as health, aviation and shipping (Okuda et al., 2009;
Salas, Tannenbaum, Kraiger, & Smith-Jentsch, 2012; Salas, Wilson, Burke, & Wightman, 2006; Vincenzi et al., 2008). Within this
cross-disciplinary field of simulator training, prior studies have examined crew resource management (Salas et al., 2006), skill acqui-
sition (Ross, 2012; Silvennoinen, Helfenstein, Ruoranen, & Saariluoma, 2012) and the relationship between simulator fidelity and
photorealism on one hand and learning on the other (Beaubien & Baker, 2004; Dahlstrom, Dekker, van Winsen, & Nyce, 2009;
Vincenzi et al., 2008).
In the field of simulator training, there seems to have been an underlying belief that mere exposure to the physical work environ-
ment contributes to the development of competence (Dahlstrom et al., 2009; Salas et al., 1998). Fidelity is often labelled simply as high
or low, and such general levels are frequently associated with learning efficiency. The Alessi hypothesis is often cited, which claims
that maximum effectiveness in learning can be achieved by training novices in low-fidelity simulators before moving on to more com-
plex tasks in high-fidelity simulators (Alessi, 1988; Dahai et al., 2008). Such claims may provide some useful general principles and
guidelines for practitioners, but they do not specifically connect fidelity with training objectives. Unlike these previous studies, the
present study focuses on the requirements for fidelity on an interactional level.
Interactional studies of professionals' work enable the researcher to detail aspects of dialogue, gestures and gaze and analyse how
types of professional work involve partaking in socio-technical settings. For example, Goodwin (1995) showed how differently
positioned actors use spaces and representational technologies to create a common course of action an oceanographic research vessel.
Another example of a detailed analysis of such a work system is Heath and Luff (1996), who explicated the collaborative and socio-
technical coordination of the line control rooms of the London Underground. Heath and Luff pointed to actors' ability to participate
in the coordinating and communicative patterns at work as crucial to success. In a similar line of reasoning, Suchman (1997) portrayed
 M. Hontvedt / Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 7 (2015) 71–84 73

workplaces as actively constituted fields of perception and interaction, as opposed to mere physical locations, that are continuously
maintained by participants. These studies demonstrate a complexity in professionals' collaborative solving of work tasks in socio-
technical environments. Simulators provide a physical context for performing work tasks in socio-technical settings. However, it is
not obvious how these environments can re-create professional practices.
Some detailed studies of interactions in simulators have been conducted, documenting simulators as useful tools for creating
work-like contexts for action. In their studies of interaction in flight simulators, Hutchins and Klausen (1996) and Hutchins and
Palen (1997) demonstrated how professional efforts are distributed in a system of actions and how joint representations are produced
through gestures, gaze and talk. While simulations were not their primary focus, the simulator was considered ‘the next best thing’ in
which the flying of aircrafts may be studied as a case of distributed cognition. A rare interactional study of ship simulators is that by
Gould et al. (2009) on the effects of using an electronic chart display and information system (ECDIS) in simulated ship navigation.
These studies shed light on simulators as effective means of exercising professional actions with a high degree of correspondence
with actual work practice. However, they did not focus on simulators as learning resources but rather as test-beds for measuring
expertise.
Conversely, several interactional studies of the use of simulations in healthcare have maintained that the social practices
of simulating are a separate research subject. These studies emphasise that the social and situated aspects of simulations are
crucial to learning outcomes (Häll, Söderström, Ahlqvist, & Nilsson, 2011; Johnson, 2007; Krange et al., 2012; Rystedt &
Lindwall, 2004). For example, Rystedt (2002) emphasised professionals' prior experiences as important since these enable
participants to perceive simulated scenarios as representing typical problems in anaesthesia. Rystedt and Sjöblom (2012) in-
vestigated medical training participants' experience of realism, demonstrating the manner in which the simulation emerged
on the basis of the participants, the simulator and the context. The study also showed how participants might treat an isolat-
ed part of a simulated scenario as an authentic representation of clinical practice even though every feature of the real situ-
ation was not present. Therefore, learning cannot be considered static or inscribed in the technological environment itself;
instead, it should be seen as a situated and social achievement (Rystedt & Sjöblom, 2012). As Petraglia (1998, p. 53) pointed
out, it is problematic to assert that learning environments correspond to the real world prior to learners' interaction with
them.
Consequently, this study focuses on the participants' enactment of work tasks within the socio-technical system of a sim-
ulated ship bridge. This is a particularly important aspect of nautical training because the ways in which work tasks are distrib-
uted and coordinated on a ship's bridge are crucial for journey safety (Hetherington et al., 2006; Hutchins, 1995). I have not
been able to locate prior interactional studies of ship simulator training. This article thus sheds light on this underexplored as-
pect of training by investigating how a group of maritime pilots with extensive knowledge of the waters, as well as the work
tasks being simulated, interpret and utilise a simulator environment in training and how this training is shaped by sociocul-
tural and situational contingencies.

3. Analytical framework

This study employs a sociocultural learning perspective in which learning is seen as a complex process involving the in-
terplay between the mind, the body and their sociocultural settings mediated by cultural artefacts (Säljö, 2001; Vygotsky,
1978). By focusing on peoples' actions, their situated and tool-mediated construction of meaning, the sociocultural perspec-
tive moves the locus of investigation away from internal processes of the mind and enables seeing and conceptualising par-
ticipants' joint meaning-making and the identification of learning opportunities as partaking in systems of collaborative
activity.
In activity systems, material objects and mental representations are integrated into a joint process, which draws on the resources
of several actors (Greeno, 2006, p. 79). The notion of creating activity systems through the use of physical and social tools is especially
visible on a ship's bridge as ship navigation demands a collaborative team effort. Accordingly, seafarers' professional work is reliant on
the ability to participate in activity systems that exceed individuals' accumulated capacity. Understanding the technology of nautical
practice serves more than just technical purposes; it is a way of connecting to the sociocultural practices of the profession (Lave &
Wenger, 1991, pp. 101–102). From a normative stance, simulations may be considered a desired strategy for schooling as they can
provide a true-to-life setting for learning by participation in activity systems. However, one might discard the value of simulations
from the same standpoint—as real settings are so complex and reliant on contextual dependencies that they cannot be replicated
without losing their relevance.
To shed light on this issue, the current study is concerned with providing empirical accounts of the situated practices of sim-
ulator training in their own right, not as a duplication of the actual work situation. From a sociocultural perspective, profession-
alism is viewed as actively constructed and enacted in practice, not as a stable skill set or ability. Therefore, when investigating
the pilots' training and professional development, it is important to recognise that their specific ways of ‘seeing’ are entwined
with instrument control and operating within the socio-technical environment. Goodwin's (1994) notion of professional vi-
sion, thus, is not restricted to the use of gaze but encompasses the discursive practices used by the members of a profession
to conceive their professional environment. A well-functioning bridge team can be recognised by its joint orientation to such
‘centres of coordination’. Since, maritime pilots play a specific role in a distributed system of professional doings, it is crucial
to acknowledge that this is a collaborative and discursive environment, as well as a physical environment, before thoughtfully
reconstructing these patterns in training.
74 M. Hontvedt / Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 7 (2015) 71–84

4. Empirical setting and research design

This study reports on video observations of the ways in which professional maritime pilots used ship simulators to train for cruise
ship manoeuvring in and out of Oslo Harbour. Norwegian maritime pilots are usually captains who have completed dedicated pilot
training. This training involves several theoretical elements, a significant amount of practice with a senior pilot as well as memorising
a detailed map of the waters for which pilots are licensed. These pilots also attend various courses and training sessions beyond their
initial qualification, such as the training session discussed in this article.
The pilot is not an employee of the ship but an external expert who has the autonomous responsibility to guide and oversee
how ships navigate in specific waters. According to international regulations, it is mandatory to have a pilot on board in order to
enter certain ports (International Maritime Organisation, 1968). The pilot usually gains access to the ship via another boat or via
helicopter and must quickly become attuned to the bridge team in order to guide the ship safely into port. The full-mission ship
simulator portrayed in this analysis allows for many training objectives and instructional designs. However, for practical and in-
structional purposes, it is common to devote specific training sessions in full-mission ship simulators to a particular task or skill
set. The training may target certain subjects, such as anchoring, overtaking, rudder and engine loss, equipment failure, bridge
team failure or — as in the case of this study — steering cruise ships using Azipod propellers in high winds. Azipods are a rela-
tively new type of 360-degree manoeuvrable propeller that allows greater flexibility in steering, and are commonly used on
towboats, ferries and cruise ships. The training objective in this session included technical skill in handling the ship in high
winds using Azipod propellers as well as participating in the distributed system of actions that ensure safe departure from
Oslo Harbour.

4.1. Participants

Together, 12 maritime pilots participated over two training days. The training days were organised as parallel sessions in two
ship simulators. On each day, two groups of three maritime pilots were led by two instructors who oversaw the movements of all
simulators and could change weather and traffic conditions and ship placements. The two simulators were not connected, but
the participants experienced the same scenario of leaving Oslo Harbour in high winds. The pilots in this study had different
levels of experience, but because they were certified pilots, they all had exceptionally detailed knowledge of the environment
being simulated.
The outline of each training day is illustrated in Fig. 1. Each of the two training days consisted of a joint briefing before being
divided in two groups. The two groups were assigned identical scenarios, and both came together for debriefings. One group of
participants was placed in the Bergen simulator, which was a full-scale replica of a ship's bridge placed in a room with a 240-
degree projection. The other group was placed in the less-immersive Frøya simulator in which they handled bridge instruments
on a desk in front of three plasma screens that functioned as ‘windows’. After experiencing a 90-minute scenario, the two groups
met in debriefing and switched simulators before continuing training. The participants were encouraged to position themselves

Fig. 1. Outline of each training day. The full-mission ship simulator ‘Bergen’ is depicted on the left and the semi-immersive ship simulator ‘Frøya’ to the right.
 M. Hontvedt / Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 7 (2015) 71–84 75

in the functional roles of a bridge crew. Throughout the day, the instructors adjusted the scenario to include more wind or other
external factors.

4.2. Data

The video data corpus consists of video from the simulators Frøya and Bergen (Fig. 1) as well as the control room and a brief-
ing/debriefing room. The training facility in which this study was conducted has hosted training on advanced ship simulators
since the early 1990s and provides formal professional education and individually designed training for various companies
and institutions. The two training days in this study comprise approximately 10 h of training and are drawn from a larger set
of videos of both nautical students and professional maritime pilots training in the same simulator facility. The larger compo-
nent of the material comprises approximately 45 h of training obtained during 11 training sessions over a two-year period
(2010 to 2012). The video observations were conducted in a naturalistic setting, meaning that the training practices were ob-
served without intended interventions on the part of the researcher (Heath, Hindmarsh, & Luff, 2010). The following analysis
focuses on five extracts from the training. Extracts I and II are related as they portray an instance from training that was later
discussed in a debriefing. The latter three extracts were collected across teams and simulators in the training to demonstrate
persistent issues regarding accuracy in the simulation.

4.3. Data analysis

Interaction analysis is an empirical and video-based method used to study social interaction, as it evolves through talk, non-verbal
interactions and the use of artefacts and technologies among members of a community of practice (Derry et al., 2010; Jordan & Hen-
derson, 1995). In this study, two training days with identical layout and objectives for two groups of maritime pilots from the same
area were analysed. The sessions were transcribed, and interaction analysis was applied to investigate the pilots' use of simulators.
Here, a specific centre of attention became salient: the professionals using the simulators seemed to treat the simulations differently
than students. Compared to prior observations of nautical students in the same simulators, the high level of expertise among the par-
ticipants generated particularly interesting reactions to the dilemmas presented. Similar to students, the pilots shifted between
treating the simulator as ‘real’ and treating it as a resource for attaining work experiences that are not easily accessible in practice.
However, it appeared that the professionals tended to take a more critical stance towards the simulators and were disturbed by dif-
ferences between the simulators and actual work settings. In particular, the sequences in which the pilots indicated a mismatch be-
tween the simulated and real-work settings were scrutinised.
To facilitate the learning objective of Azipod handling, some tools and their positions in the bridge activity system became
especially important: the training requested a certain level of fidelity in connection with the Azipod controllers and steering,
the precision on electronic maps (ECDIS), a realistic rendering of the outside environment as well as for the software to realis-
tically calculate and replicate the effect of wind and thrusters on the ship's movements. As shown in Fig. 2, the knobs used for
controlling the Azipods and the simulation software were identical in the two simulators. The ECDIS provides frequently up-
dated sea maps that show the positioning route and other information about the ship's movements and the surrounding waters;
it is an internationally approved substitute for paper maps.1 In the training described here, the ECDIS was a key resource for
manoeuvring and a vital component of the bridge system. The data analysis focused particularly on a perceived mismatch be-
tween the electronic map and the visual lookout, which made the electronic map a more accurate source of information than
the windows.

4.4. Limitations

Due to a limited sample of participants, this study's estimation of how future training will develop should be regarded with caution.
However, analyses of specific situations and smaller corpuses of data can, to a certain extent, be considered generalisable as they indicate
a range of possible activities within a specific sphere (Ercikan & Roth, 2006, p. 15). A premise in interaction analysis is that artefacts and
technologies set up a social field, such as simulated ship travel, within which certain activities become very likely, some possible, and
others improbable. Providing verifiable observation from such settings allows ‘building generalizations from records of particular, nat-
urally occurring activities and steadfastly holding our theories accountable to that evidence’ (Jordan & Henderson, 1995, p. 41).
Against this backdrop, this study interacts and contributes to sociocultural learning theory and research on simulator training in
ways that can develop theory and future practice. However, its limitations should be noted, and future studies could advance the
findings of this study in several ways, for example, by mapping regularities in a larger corpus of simulator training or by exam-
ining how bridge teams solve tasks across simulators and actual participation on ships at an interactional level.

1
In Norway, the Norwegian Mapping Authority bears nationwide responsibility for geographical information, operates the national property registry and oversees all
property registrations in Norway. It also provides a description of the ECDIS in English. See http://www.kartverket.no/en/Kart/Nautical-Charts/Electronic-Navigational-
Charts/.
76 M. Hontvedt / Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 7 (2015) 71–84

Fig. 2. In both simulators, each Azipod propeller is handled with identical knobs shown at the left. In the Bergen simulator, these controllers are located in the centre,
with the ECDIS and radar located on each side.

5. Results

The Results section consists of two parts: the observations and the majority of the video data displayed, which, in accordance
with the training objectives, the pilots actively navigated and tested the effect of wind on the simulated cruise ships. Five ex-
tracts from the training have been chosen for close analysis in this article: two extracts display typical training situations and
were selected to demonstrate the instructional design. However, the data also displayed important pitfalls and problems in-
volved in simulating situated professional actions. Therefore, the three subsequent extracts focus specifically on problematic is-
sues, elucidating important aspects of the ways in which the social and technical requirements of training must to be attuned to
each other.

5.1. Analysis part I: the instructional design

The intention of this simulator training was to allow professionals to test how ships react to high winds in a life-like environ-
ment and then encourage them to reflect on their actions in a debriefing session. Maritime pilots are required to enter ships and
quickly adapt to new bridge teams, bridge instrument layouts and ship types. Although pilots usually instruct the captain on
how to manoeuvre the ship safely, they should also have the ability to operate the thrusters and controllers themselves. This
training was aimed at strengthening the pilots' ability to handle the thrusters as well as linking these experiences to the general
principles of manoeuvring via the use of Azipods. Like most simulator sessions in this facility, it followed an instructional design
consisting of a short briefing before simulator sailing and a debriefing. Briefings and debriefings were facilitated in a room ded-
icated to that purpose, equipped with a smart board that allowed the replaying of the movements of a training session on an
electronic map.

5.1.1. Extract I: distributing work tasks and enacting professional roles

After departing Oslo Harbour, the bridge crew navigated outward via the close waters of the inner Oslofjord. The follow-
ing extract portrays a typical situation in which the pilots enact professional positions as a helmsman, captain and pilot.
Throughout the transcriptions, most commands, such as ‘midships’ or speed, were uttered in English. The remaining dia-
logues were originally in Norwegian and were subsequently translated. Because they change formal roles throughout the ex-
tracts, the pilots were assigned a specific number and a formal position for enacting a role. The transcripts employ some of
the conventions developed for conversation analysis (Jefferson, 2004; see Appendix 1 for descriptions of transcription
symbols).
This first extract provides an example of the dynamic integration of coordination and communication. It displays the training as a
work-like setting, as well as an instructional one, as the participants are allowed to train for unusual situations in their daily practice.
The following dialogue portrays the simulated captain and pilot negotiating how to distribute tasks; the third crew member, Pilot 7,
remains silent.

1. Pilot 5/captain: Okay mister pilot are you happy?

2. Pilot 6/pilot: Yeah I'm happy
3. Pilot 5/captain: Okay. You want a helmsman?
4. Pilot 6/pilot: Eh. Set these midships and steer with them
5. Pilot 5/captain: Helmsman?
6. Pilot 6/pilot: I like to steer manually myself, with pods
7. Pilot 5/captain: Okay
 M. Hontvedt / Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 7 (2015) 71–84 77

8. Pilot 6/pilot: Thank you.

(2.0)
9. Pilot 6/pilot: I have never steered manually with pods. This is the only place.
10. Pilot 5/captain: Yes.
11. Pilot 6/pilot: One is allowed to try
12. Pilot 5/captain: That's fine
(6.0)
13. Pilot 5/captain: Six knots
14. Pilot 6/pilot: Yes
15. Pilot 5/captain: Increasing nicely and drifting starboard

In line one, we see Pilot 5 enacting the role of captain and asking for a response from Pilot 6, who was assigned the formal role of
pilot in this scenario. In line two, Pilot 6 confirms Pilot 5's statement that all is well. Pilot 5, in line three, asks whether he would like a
helmsman to steer on his command, in which case, Pilot 7 (who is silently awaiting commands) would take up the steering wheel and
steer to his command. However, Pilot 6 hesitates for a moment before he makes a request to steer manually himself with the use of
controllers (see illustration of controllers in Fig. 2). This is a bit unconventional in terms of their actual work practice because, in real
life, either the captain or a helmsman usually conducts the steering. In lines 6–11, he explains that he would like to steer himself be-
cause ‘this is the only place one is allowed to try’. After this short elaboration, lines 13–15 indicate how the crew enacts professional
positions and routines for distributing work.
The extract shows that the simulated context provided opportunities for learners to participate in situated actions considered impor-
tant for the nautical profession, such as navigating manually with pods. It also shows how the physical environment facilitates the op-
eration of tools that mediate professional action as well as the maritime profession's specific way of communicating and enacting work
tasks. The pilots sometimes take the formal roles of captain, pilot or helmsman, and formal positions are deeply integrated with such
communication and coordinating actions. However, through the meta-talk and unusual choice of manual steering, it is also made evident
that the simulation is an instructional setting that differs from the actual work situation in terms of formal responsibilities, authority and
objectives. Consequently, simulator training is a work-like training situation, but it should not be conceived as actual work performance.

5.1.2. Extract II: reflecting on action in debriefings

Experiences like those portrayed in Extract I were later examined in debriefing sessions. Instructors consider this a crucial element
of training because it allows for connecting the participants' situated actions with general rules and principles. The following extract
portrays a sequence from the debriefing that followed Extract I in which they expanded on how they distributed the roles and work
tasks of the pilot, captain and helmsman.

1. Instructor: Okay. But about being pilots, two pilots, pilot and captain. I saw you changing to helmsman?
2. Pilot 7: Yes, that is the way it is in real life, so I think, this is a way to keep it as close to reality as possible
3. Pilot 5: We did that in three different ways
4. Instructor: Yes?
5. Pilot 5: The first time I steered by knobs
6. Instructor: Mm
7. Pilot 5: Then he used a helmsman and then used knobs further out. And then helmsman at the end
8. Instructor: Yes, so you have different experiences then?
9. Pilot 5: Yes
(3.0)
10. Instructor: This is, again. If you think about establishing procedures, these are experiences you can bring into that discussion

In the debriefing session, the instructor asks the pilots how they organised the distribution of tasks (line one), and Pilot 7 states
that they distributed tasks in ways that were as close to reality as possible (line two). In line three, Pilot 5 points out that they did
this in three ways. In the first session, the pilot steered via knobs. The second session combined the use of a helmsman and manual
steering by the pilot, and in the third session, the actual steering was delegated to a helmsman throughout. In line eight, the instructor
refers to this as ‘different experiences’ and subsequently points out that these diverse experiences can be valuable in developing future
procedures for attending ships.
The instructional design of the training session involves briefings, authentic experiences with handling ships and debriefing ses-
sions. This design is typical of most simulator sessions at this facility. However, the kinds of technical facilitation needed to scaffold
the specific learning objectives were not easily determined and may have varied according to the task. In the first two extracts, the
ability of the simulator to provide a realistic setting is evident. However, the simulated setting is also shown to be a plastic environ-
ment that is different from the real setting.
Extracts I and II show typical situations in which the pilots were provided with the opportunity to critically engage with and reflect
upon professional tasks in a safe environment. However, in instances other than those portrayed in these first two extracts, the work
activities were discarded, and the pilots expressed frustration with inaccuracies in the simulator. In the next section, this aspect of the
training will be further analysed by examining incidents in which the team encountered problems.
78 M. Hontvedt / Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 7 (2015) 71–84

5.2. Analysis part II: detailing troubles in distributed work activities

The training sessions were intended to train maritime pilots to manoeuvre ships in and out of port with the use of Azipod propel-
lers, and their training was conducted in full-mission simulators with an aim to replicate all elements of the real situation. Though the
training afforded frequent learning opportunities, as portrayed in Part I, the pilots also reported issues with the quality of the visual
lookout. All maritime pilots are qualified to guide ships through the waters in which they are certified on the sole basis of visual look-
out, and this ability to navigate using visual lookout is the core of their professional expertise. This second part of the analysis will
show the manner in which this orientation is grounded in core elements of pilots' professional expertise and that it is difficult to iso-
late specific learning objectives from this professional basis. The following extract shows an incident in which the pilots were forced to
disregard this professional basis by relying on the ECDIS, instead of a visual lookout, when departing Oslo Harbour, even if the weather
conditions were good and visibility was clear.
When investigating social practices using interaction analysis, it may be useful to examine such problems and breakdowns
in the activity (Jordan & Henderson, 1995). By focusing on instances in which the participants deal with the problems of coor-
dinating work tasks on the bridge, the next part of the analysis will shed light on the way in which the re-creation of profes-
sional practice depends on the careful configuration of both the technical and social properties of training in order to be
successful.

5.2.1. Extract III: trouble due to weak support for visual lookout
In Extract III, three maritime pilots are using the semi-immersive ship simulator Frøya to navigate a cruise ship out of Oslo
Harbour. This was one of the first instances in which the pilots reported that a lack in fidelity impeded their work task. Frøya
has a medium level of fidelity in terms of the bridge equipment and visual display and a high level of fidelity in terms of the
thruster controllers and the replication of the wind's effect on the ship's manoeuvrability. The extract portrays a group's first
session in which Pilot 1, who was less familiar with the use of Azipods than the others, manoeuvres the controllers. The other
two pilots observe and give advice. They do not perform professional roles, such as captain and first officer, but instead maintain
general discussion.

1. Pilot 2: What you can do (.) is you can choose to steer with one pod as well=
2. Pilot 3: =now it's turning too much again ((orienting to the ECDIS))
3. Pilot 1: Yes, I can speed up one pod
4. Pilot 2: But look (.) Those images do not correspond ((pointing at the ‘windows’ and ECDIS))
5. Pilot 3: °No°
(4.0)
6. Pilot 1: [mmm eh]
7. Pilot 2: [It is] nice it's not like that in real life then=
8. Pilot 1: =I should see Kavringsanden now. A green mark; is it the one over there? Is it?
9. Pilot 2: Yes, you have a mark on the north side there
10. Pilot 1: Should I go out there then?
((an instructor enters the room and observes))
11. Pilot 1: Yes, so that is supposed to be Kavringsanden, there are several objects there then
12. Pilot 2: Yes (.) [that should be]
13. Pilot 1: [That should] be Kavringsanden
14. Pilot 3: There, you see the green mark?
15. Pilot 2: Is it really supposed to be a green mark there then?
16. Pilot 3: They have switched the two
17. Pilot 2: No, it is. No, that has to be Kavringsanden
18. Pilot 3: But you see that the green mark is closer to shore here, nearer Tjuvholmen than the other one?
19. Pilot 2: There, that's the green mark
20. Pilot 3: That has to be marked as a green mark
21. Pilot 2: Yes
22. Pilot 3: And that is all wrong.
23. Pilot 1: Should I check?
24. Pilot 3: That one is a little light buoy=
25. Pilot 2: =That one is a light buoy
26. All: He he he he
27. Pilot 1: I can't go north around that?
28. Pilot 3: Yes, you can go north
29. Pilot 1: Okay
30. Pilot 2: But just now, I would actually put it the other way just to increase the angle ((pointing at the controllers))
31. Pilot 1: Yes
32. Pilot 2: But, I'm saying it's impossible to drive by these things ((pointing at the ‘windows’)), you just have to drive by that one ((pointing at the ECDIS))

In the first lines, Pilots 2 and 3 are instructing the less experienced Pilot 1, who is operating the controllers throughout the
session on how to operate the Azipod controllers. In line one, Pilot 2 shows Pilot 1 various ways of coordinating and positioning
the two Azipod controllers for effective manoeuvring. Pilot 3 then points to the ECDIS and remarks that Pilot 1 has now turned
 M. Hontvedt / Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 7 (2015) 71–84 79

too much (line two). Pilot 1 responds to this, but Pilot 2 responds to the concern about the vector by pointing to the lack of con-
sistency between the ‘window’ and the ECDIS (line four). In lines five and six, the other two pilots subtly agree before Pilot 2
softens his statement by saying that luckily, it is not like that in the real world (line seven). This utterance may be interpreted
as a way of attributing the error to the technology instead of his colleagues because, in a real situation, the ECDIS and the visual
display would be attuned to each other.
In line eight, Pilot 1 draws the others' attention back to the surrounding waters by remarking that he cannot locate a specific sea-
mark, ‘Kavringsanden’, and seeks to confirm whether he is pointing at the right one. Pilot 2 confirms the observation of a mark but
does not specify it as Kavringsanden. In line 11, Pilot 1 responds to Pilot 2's unsatisfactory answer by repeating out loud that it is
Kavringsanden before he asks whether there are more marks at this spot. Pilots 2 and 3, who are both more experienced, begin to dis-
cuss whether the colour of the mark is accurate (lines 15–22), and they share doubts that something is wrong, which is communicated
via the phrase ‘all wrong’ in line 22. In line 23, Pilot 1 asks if he should check this (presumably on the map), but his question is
disregarded by Pilots 2 and 3. This demonstrates a tendency to highlight differences between the simulated scenario and the real
world instead of enacting the surroundings as real.
Throughout lines 15 to 26, Pilots 1 and 2 eagerly discuss the differences between the simulation and the real world before their
laughter in line 26. While Pilot 1 does not participate in this debate, he does ask about where to turn and remains focused on navigat-
ing. This may be partly because he is the one steering the ship and needs to figure out a response, but this passive role also seems con-
nected to his lesser familiarity with this specific port. Pilot 1 is certified for this area, but does not have his daily work here. It is
consistent throughout the extract that Pilot 1 questions his professional expertise when he encounters obstacles. Pilots 2 and 3, how-
ever, tend to question the technological environment.
In line 27, Pilot 1 again turns his attention back to navigating and obtains a proper response in lines 28 to 30. Pilot 2 then points to
the simulated windows and claims that it is impossible to navigate visually because of the lack of fidelity in the visual display. He states
that these conditions force one to navigate via the ECDIS.
This extract displays the pilots' major concern throughout the training: they were not content with the graphical representation of
the visual display and were frustrated when the ECDIS exceeded the visual lookout as a key source of information. According to the
pilots (this was also pointed out in the debriefing), the lack of simulator fidelity forced them to rely on the instruments for fine nav-
igation, which, professionally, should be secondary to the visual lookout. This instance demonstrates that the simulation should not
only provide credible surroundings but also facilitate the appropriate socio-technical management of navigational processes.
This implies that technical fidelity is sometimes crucial in facilitating appropriate work actions. In the worst case, a lack of fidelity
to central functions may lead to training sessions in which the participants manipulate the underlying rules and dynamics of the sim-
ulations instead of engaging in the appropriate professional practices.
When the participants complained about the visual inconsistencies between the electronic map, the visual display and the actual
waters for which they were certified, the instructors encouraged them to focus on the learning objective of manoeuvring large ships in
high winds using Azipod propellers. However, throughout the training, it was evident that disregarding elements conceived as central
to their professional expertise was problematic for the participants. The following two extracts demonstrate more subtle ways in
which the lack of simulator fidelity affected the pilots' training.

5.2.2. Extract IV: inconsistencies create distractions from the learning objective
In contrast to the previous extract, this extract shows a group of three pilots working in the Bergen simulator. This simulator is
more immersive than Frøya, but it uses the same software. Even if this simulator has a higher level of fidelity, especially in its visual
display and physical layout, the pilots regularly communicate the same problems with the accuracy of the simulation. The previous
extract showed that the pilots identified inconsistencies in the simulator, which impeded their training. However, even if the partic-
ipants were aware of these inconsistencies, it appeared difficult for them to disregard or isolate such inconsistencies from the overall
training objectives.
Here, the team is approaching the end of its session (it has left the port in Oslo Harbour) when one of the pilots uses the simulation
to explain his preferred route for further navigating the Oslofjord. They do not enact roles in this extract but discuss different strategies
for manoeuvring out of the harbour.

1. Pilot 5: When we are leaving now (x), we will turn when we go through Dynahullet, and then we turn starboard over
2. Pilot 6: No port
3. Pilot 5: No port, to avoid those ten-metre shallow parts ((pointing))
4. Pilot 6: Yes, exactly. I just made an adjustment
5. Pilot 5: Yes, yes.
6. Pilot 6: Just because I felt we were too close to Kobbernaglen
7. Pilot 5: Then I usually (.) yeah you see ((pointing out the ‘window’)), if you see here, you see Gåsøya, right?
8. Pilot 6: Yeah
9. Pilot 5: Then you've got Bjørkøya behind there. And do you see Bjørkøya in that strait between Gåsøya and those small islets there?
10. Pilot 6: Yes
11. Pilot 5: Then you are on target, you can head out, then you are in the deepest channel.
12. Pilot 6: Okay
13. Pilot 5: It's not like that here, though
14. Pilot 7: No, so in here you'll have to steer at that buoy
80 M. Hontvedt / Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 7 (2015) 71–84

In line one, Pilot 5 explains his preferred route for guiding ships out of Oslo Harbour, which involves avoiding certain shallow areas.
In line four, Pilot 6 concurs with Pilot 5's strategy and explains that some of his adjustments and considerations of the route were
based on the same judgements. Pilot 6 then connects his colleague's ‘real-life’ explanation to the situated actions of navigating in
the simulator. Line seven shows Pilot 5 further sharing detailed knowledge of the landscape and their surrounding waters, which
demonstrates how the pilots eagerly shared perceptions and professional judgements in the simulator. In lines eight to 11, Pilot 5
shows his landmarks for exiting the harbour, but in line 13, he concludes that it is not the same in the simulator. Lines 13–14 show
the participants making each other aware of the discrepancies between the simulator and the real waters, which might be crucial
on an actual ship.
This extract displays a divergence in the training because the participants differed on whether to ‘play along’ with the simulated
environment in order to keep a realistic framing or to point out and explicate the inconsistencies between the real Oslo Harbour and
the simulated Oslo Harbour. The extract demonstrates the pilots' difficulty in separating the specified learning objectives from the
overall experience of the training. These difficulties occurred because of their profession-specific ways of perceiving their surrounding
waters.
This extract, like the previous one, shows how difficult it was for the pilots to disregard discrepancies between how they experi-
enced the simulator and the real waters for which they are certified. It also displays a general problem in full-mission simulators: im-
portant issues may arise that are not sufficiently supported by the simulator. Choosing a full-mission simulator implies a belief in the
importance of training within an immersive environment, which could involve the execution of several secondary tasks in addition to
the primary training task.
The learning objective of manoeuvring a cruise ship in high winds with the use of Azipods relates to general competencies
that must always be met on every new ship. In such cases, the simulator should create an environment that acquaints pilots
with certain tools and principles, which are subsequently discussed during the debriefings and then adapted to local circum-
stances on a real ship. In this context, the simulator facilitates relevant experiences. However, when the participants
attempted to share insights regarding the actual waters, this secondary training objective involved a level of photorealism
that was difficult to supply through simulation. Hence, the simulator did not offer the degree of fidelity necessary for
familiarising pilots with the unchanging elements of these specific waters. The next extract shows that this was difficult for
the pilots to ignore.

5.2.3. Extract V: a shift from learning and experiencing to editing

Extract V shows the final incident from the same session as Extracts I and IV in which three pilots are leaving Oslo Harbour in the
full-mission ship simulator Bergen. In the scenario, the bridge team has left port, and the pilots are enacting the roles of captain,
helmsman and pilot. The ship is heading out of Oslo Harbour and towards the lighted buoy Kobbernaglen and the Dyna Lighthouse,
both well-known seamarks in Oslo. The pilots are discussing how to adjust speed according to wind when the pilot who is acting as
captain questions the relationship between the visual display and the ECDIS. The extract shows frustration among the pilots regarding
the fact that the simulator's projection differs from the radar and the ECDIS. They thus divert attention from the learning objective and
actively attend to editing the simulated scenery.

1. Pilot 7/pilot: Well, when I look out, I'd like to turn over.
2. Pilot 5/captain: He he [yeah, but]
3. Pilot 7/pilot: [But when I] look at the vector, then.
4. Pilot 5/captain: Yes, it looks fine there. So it seems you can just point at Kobbernaglen.
5. Pilot 7/pilot: Yes
6. Pilot 5/captain: The one they put out there.
7. Pilot 7/pilot: Yes, that should have been=
8. Pilot 5/captain: A bit further in…
9. Pilot 7/pilot: Yeah. Starboard ten ((gives course to the helmsman))
10. Pilot 5/captain: ((On the radio)) It looks like … it's Bergen, it seems you have put that seamark Kobbernaglen a little too close to Dyna visually; on the
radar it looks fine. Or on that ECDIS…
11. Radio: Yes okay, we can put it a little closer, a little more to the south next time
12. Pilot 7/pilot: Port ten
13. Pilot 6/ Port ten
helmsman:
14. Pilot 7/pilot: Midships
15. Pilot 6/ Midships
helmsman:

The opening sequence shows Pilot 7's hesitation about whether to alter his course for Kobbernaglen, which is a well-
known seamark outside Oslo, or to maintain the same course a bit longer to gain more height before turning. In line 1,
Pilot 7 shows his concern with a slight inconsistency between what he sees out of the simulated window and what is
shown on the ECDIS. When looking out of the window, he says that he would like to turn, but his rising intonation expresses
hesitation, and the short pause prompts Pilot 5 to respond with light laughter because he is familiar with the problem (line
two). This laughter is followed by a short overlapping speech (lines 2 and 3) that signals joint support for one another's hes-
itation regarding whether to trust the visual lookout or the ship's trajectory on the ECDIS. In line four, Pilot 5 explicitly
 M. Hontvedt / Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 7 (2015) 71–84 81

supports the decision to trust the visual view out of the window, and they jointly agree that it is okay to set their course for
Kobbernaglen.
In line 6, Pilot 5 points at Kobbernaglen and asks whether that is the landmark ‘they placed there’. His statement shows that the
pilots acknowledge the fact that this is a simulated environment and that they question the consistency of the simulated environment
in relation to the real waters. In lines seven and eight, they jointly conclude that the buoy is misplaced, and in line 10, Pilot 5 radios the
instructor and asks him to change the placing of the buoy in the simulation. The instructor approves without questioning the alterna-
tive location of Kobbernaglen and states that it will be moved before the next session. In lines 12–15, the pilots return to participating
in the simulation and carry out a closed loop communication, calling out and confirming course changes between Pilot 6 and Pilot 7
who operated as the helmsman.
Extract V shows the pilots' confusion with a perceived discrepancy between the visual lookout and the real world in the full-
mission simulator, Bergen. Lines six to eight show how they sequentially recap where the Kobbernaglen waters should be placed.
Instead of adapting to the problem within their roles and trusting the waters as they are visually presented, the pilots radio the facil-
itators and request that they correct the visual image. This illustrates that issues of fidelity can be either relevant or irrelevant to the
learning objective. Furthermore, it is not always easy for the participants to disregard inconsistencies, even if they are off-topic. In their
professional practice, the pilots lead such ships in and out of the actual port, which makes them very aware of the differences between
the simulated and real environments. This may cause them to expect even greater fidelity. In order to attain the learning objectives for
this session, it was vital that the simulators replicate factors such as wind force and their effects on Azipod steering. However, it might
not be crucial that the simulator replicate all other aspects of the situation, such as life-like projections of the landscape or the wider
water area.
As the previous two extracts also demonstrated, the pilots were trained to navigate visually and to treat all other equip-
ment as support systems. This extract showed that instead of treating their simulated environment as real for training pur-
poses, the pilots questioned the accuracy of the simulation and requested that it be altered to correspond with their inner
picture of how the waters were supposed to look. This suggests that the pilots' professional vision prevented them from
accepting inconsistencies in the simulated environment and attending to the learning objective of steering with Azipods in
high winds.

6. Discussion

Together, the analyses present some distinct ways in which professionals may conceive of work tasks that are presented to
them in a simulator. Contrary to prior studies focusing on simulators as test beds for studying work performance (e.g. Gould
et al., 2009; Hutchins & Klausen, 1996; Hutchins & Palen, 1997), this study has shed light on simulator activities as training sit-
uations. The analyses demonstrate the potential for simulators to facilitate instructional designs that include situated actions in
a work-like environment, but they also illustrate some of the potential pitfalls of such training. The first section of the analysis
displayed the dual concerns of the participants: maintaining a realistic setting while also willingly modifying the environment
to provide the desired context for training. By portraying how strategies for steering are socially negotiated within the bridge
team, the first two extracts illustrated how the participants socially constructed the simulated activity as both authentic and in-
structional, sometimes in ambiguous ways.
However, the second part of the analysis focused on trouble in the simulation and showed that to re-create work tasks, very spe-
cific requirements must be met in terms of the scenario, simulator fidelity and the learning objective in order for such training to func-
tion well. Matters of fidelity were not shown to be a stable aspect of the simulator; instead, the demand for fidelity varied as it
interacted with other elements of the system.
The analysis of these extracts revealed three strategic considerations for simulator training: First, efficient training requires
technological fidelity that specifically corresponds to the training objective with respect to instrument response, visual replica-
tion of environments and activity facilitation. This involves a critique of the Alessi hypothesis (Alessi, 1988) because when fidel-
ity is related to concrete tasks, general categories of high and low fidelity are shown as insufficient measures of efficacy. The
extracts showed that equipment fidelity must match the training objective and that the requirements for fidelity should be
closely linked to the training scenario. Second, fidelity, the participants' professional vision and the scenario are interconnected.
Isolating the targeted skills from the total experience was a problem for the participants. In Extracts IV and V, the frustration re-
garding fidelity in the projection was largely caused by the pilots' familiarity with the actual waters. It is important to note, how-
ever, that this replication of the landscape was not essential to the learning objective. An awareness of participants' professional
vision may be critical for creating instructional designs because many innovative and advanced attempts to create technological
support for learning in the workplace have failed, not because of technological insufficiency but because of ‘insensitivity’ to the
ways individuals actually interact and collaborate in the workplace (Heath & Luff, 1996). The pilots’ annoyance of irregularities
in their homeport diverted their focus from the main learning objective to an ancillary discussion of the simulated landscape's
correspondence with the real one. The analysis demonstrates that sometimes, full-mission simulators may generate problems
relating to training focus and supervision. However, modifying the scenario or providing more thorough tutoring may lessen
such problems with the simulator fidelity. Had the scenario taken place at a port that the pilots did not know as well, the par-
ticipants might have focused more on the effects of heavy winds on the Azipods than on the accuracy of the projection of this
specific port area. The problems encountered by the pilots in the simulators may be interpreted in several ways: had the tech-
nological environment have generally greater technical fidelity, the problems could have been avoided. However, had the tech-
nological environment been more sophisticated, would the participants have then attended specifically to the Azipods? It is
82 M. Hontvedt / Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 7 (2015) 71–84

possible that the extracts pointed to an inherent problem with the use of full-mission simulators: isolating skills in such an en-
vironment conflicts with the participants' professional vision (Goodwin, 1994) and with creating centres of attention in naviga-
tional processes (Suchman, 1997). Similar to Rystedt (2002), this shows the importance of participants' prior experiences in
conceiving work tasks. The results of the analyses suggest that instructional designs must maintain strict focus on learning ac-
tivities without losing contact with the contexts for the application of the skill being trained. This is a dilemma in simulator
training: the need for controlled and focused training as well as maintaining a high level of ecological validity. Third, lack of fi-
delity may harm the logic of the actual work task and the training participants towards shifting from performing within a sim-
ulated work environment to simply manipulating the simulated model.2 An important point from the training observation was
the pilots' remark on the lack of agreement between the electronic equipment and the ‘windows’. The opportunities for visual
lookout in close manoeuvrings were not sufficiently supported by the projection, causing the pilots either to solve tasks less ac-
curately via visual lookout or to adapt their strategies to match the simulator environment and navigate via the ECDIS. Such an
imbalance between the tools and visual representation may tempt participants to change their professional strategies to fit the
simulator environment instead of their work setting. In this training of professional pilots, the participants resisted deviating
from their professional ways of doing things, though one may speculate about whether less trained personnel would notice
such subtle inconsistencies. This incident shows a potential problem in viewing low-fidelity simulators as simpler versions of
high-fidelity simulators: the re-created work practices may not remain consistent. This supports the claim of Rystedt and
Sjöblom (2012) that participants can treat a particular task in a work-like manner without an immersive context but that cre-
ating work relevance should be seen as an interactive achievement. If the training is not carefully configured, there is a danger
that the underlying set of rules and strategies for succeeding in the simulator are not the same as those needed in the work set-
tings for which the participants are being trained.
These three strategic factors should be considered in examining the relationships between learning objectives, professional
vision and simulator fidelity. The ‘fit’ between the tool and the user is not the only important factor: how this technology is used
and framed within an instructional design is also vital. This involves not only technological possibilities but also appropriate
framing and the development of professional practices (Petraglia, 1998; Rystedt & Sjöblom, 2012). The interaction analysis per-
formed in the present study provided insights into the ways in which simulators are put to use in professional contexts. It also
identified possible problems and opportunities for creating instructional designs that aim to simulate the features of a real
setting.

7. Concluding remarks

This study has shown that simulators may facilitate environments for professional action. However, the results of the analysis sug-
gest that the technological aspects of the simulator are fundamentally connected to instructional design, thus mandating the appro-
priate configuration of the capabilities of the simulator, the scenario and the participants' professional ways of enacting work tasks.
The findings suggest that the distinct ways in which professionals perceive and solve work tasks are both a resource and a challenge
for trainers.
The pilots repeatedly criticised the fact that some navigation tasks were solved most successfully by using electronic equipment
instead of visual lookout. When they encountered such issues, the training participants were forced to decide whether to remain
faithful to the professionally appropriate procedure of relying on their visual outlook or to adapt to the underlying dynamics of the
simulation and navigate via the electronic map. In socio-technical work systems, such coordination between a system's agents (either
technical or human) is crucial to its resilience (Nyssen, 2010). This study stressed the importance of gaining further knowledge about
simulators as resources for re-creating coordinating practices and presented interaction analysis as a fruitful method for examining
professional expertise and potential problems in training. In this respect, applying interaction analysis to training practices may be
considered a proactive method in risk management.
This analysis displayed fidelity in simulated work tasks as potentially crucial for re-creating the activity system of a ship's bridge.
Consequently, successful simulator training involves a close consideration of whether the degree of fidelity meets the requirements of
the situated work tasks and learning objectives. This involves taking into account the nature of the professionals' particular expertise,
e.g. their professional vision, because from such a professional viewpoint, specific tasks are not easily separated from the social prac-
tices from which they originated.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Hans Christian Arnseth, Kenneth Silseth and the NIA-network at Vestfold University College for their
valuable suggestions during the planning and development of this research work. I thank Vestfold and Buskerud University Col-
lege for funding this study. I would also like to express my gratitude to the anonymous reviewers for their detailed and helpful
comments.

2
For a similar discussion of computer games for learning, see Linderoth (2004). It was shown that players often undertake strategies that manipulate the game as a
rule system rather than engaging with the story and its fictional elements.
 M. Hontvedt / Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 7 (2015) 71–84 83

Appendix 1. Transcription conventions

The transcriptions follow standards from Jefferson (2004) and have been retrieved from: http://www-staff.lboro.ac.uk/~ssjap/
transcription/transcription.htm

[] Square brackets mark the start and end of overlapping speech. They are aligned to mark the precise position of overlap, as in the example.
Underlining Underlining indicates emphasis; the extent of underlining within individual words locates emphasis and indicates how heavy it is.
°I know it° ‘Degree’ signs enclose audibly quieter speech.
(0.4) Numbers in round brackets measure pauses in seconds (in this case, four-tenths of a second). If they are not part of a particular speaker's
talk, they should be on a new line.
(stoccato) Additional comments from the transcriber, e.g. about features of context or delivery.
Yeh, ‘Continuation’ marker — speaker has not finished; marked by fall-rise or weak rising intonation, as when delivering a list.
Nhe saidb ‘Greater than’ and ‘lesser than’ signs enclose speeded-up talk. Occasionally, they are used the other way round for slower talk.
solid.= =We ‘Equal’ signs mark the immediate ‘latching’ of successive talk of either one or more speakers, with no interval.
had
y'know? Question marks signal a stronger, ‘questioning’ intonation, irrespective of grammar.
Yeh. Full stops mark falling, stopping intonation (final contour), irrespective of grammar, and are 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.

References

Alessi, S.M. (1988). Fidelity in the design of instructional simulations. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 15(2), 40–47.
Baker, A.C., Jensen, P.J., & Kolb, D.A. (1997). In conversation: Transforming experience into learning. Simulation & Gaming, 28(1), 6–12.
Beaubien, J., & Baker, D. (2004). The use of simulation for training teamwork skills in health care: How low can you go? Quality and Safety in Health Care, 13(Suppl. 1),
i51–i56.
Dahai, L., Nikolas, M., & Dennis, V. (2008a). Simulation fidelity. In D.A. Vincenzi, J.A. Wise, M. Mouloua, & P.A. Hancock (Eds.), Human factors in simulation and training
(pp. 61–73). Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Dahai, L., Nikolas, M., Elizabeth, B., & Dennis, V. (2008b). Transfer of training. In D.A. Vincenzi, J.A. Wise, M. Mouloua, & P.A. Hancock (Eds.), Human factors in simulation
and training (pp. 49–60). Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Dahlstrom, N., Dekker, S., van Winsen, R., & Nyce, J. (2009). Fidelity and validity of simulator training. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 10(4), 305–314. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1080/14639220802368864.
Derry, S.J., Pea, R.D., Barron, B., Engle, R.A., Erickson, F., Goldman, R., & Sherin, B.L. (2010). Conducting video research in the learning sciences: Guidance on selection,
analysis, technology, and ethics. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(1), 3–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10508400903452884.
Ercikan, K., & Roth, W.M. (2006). What good is polarizing research into qualitative and quantitative? Educational Researcher, 35(5), 14–23.
Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 606–633. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/aa.1994.96.3.02a00100.
Goodwin, C. (1995). Seeing in depth. Social Studies of Science, 25(2), 237–274. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/030631295025002002.
Gould, K.S., Røed, B.K., Saus, E. -R., Koefoed, V.F., Bridger, R.S., & Moen, B.E. (2009). Effects of navigation method on workload and performance in simulated high-speed
ship navigation. Applied Ergonomics, 40(1), 103–114.
Greeno, J. (2006). Learning in activity. In R.K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 79–96). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Häll, L.O., Söderström, T., Ahlqvist, J., & Nilsson, T. (2011). Collaborative learning with screen-based simulation in health care education: An empirical study of collab-
orative patterns and proficiency development. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(5), 448–461. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00407.x.
Heath, C., Hindmarsh, J., & Luff, P. (2010). Video in qualitative research: Analysing social interaction in everyday life. London: Sage.
Heath, C., & Luff, P. (1996). Convergent activities: Line control and passenger information on the London Underground. In Y. Engeström, & D. Middleton (Eds.),
Cognition and communication at work (pp. 96–129). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hetherington, C., Flin, R., & Mearns, K. (2006). Safety in shipping: The human element. Journal of Safety Research, 37(4), 401–411.
Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Hutchins, E., & Klausen, T. (1996). Distributed cognition in an airline cockpit. In Y. Engeström, & D. Middleton (Eds.), Cognition and communication at work (pp. 15–34).
New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Hutchins, E., & Palen, L. (1997). Constructing meaning from space, gesture, and speech. In L.B. Resnick, R. Säljö, C. Pontecorvo, & B. Burge (Eds.), Discourse, tools, and
reasoning: Essays on situated cognition (pp. 23–40). Berlin: Springer.
International Maritime Organisation (1968). Recommendations on pilotage. Resolution A.159 (ES.IV) (London, UK).
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.
Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Krange, I., Moen, A., & Ludvigsen, S. (2012). Computer-based 3-D simulation: A study of communication practices in a trauma team performing patient examination
and diagnostic work. Instructional Science, 40(5), 829–847.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Linderoth, J. (2004). Datorspelandets mening. Bortom idén om den interaktiva illusionen. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.
Nyssen, A.S. (2010). From myopic coordination to resilience in socio-technical systems: A case study in a hospital. In E. Hollnagel, J. Paries, D.D. Woods, & J. Wreathall
(Eds.), Resilience engineering in practice (pp. 219–236). Aldershot: Ashgate.
Okuda, Y., Bryson, E.O., DeMaria, S., Jr., Jacobson, L., Quinones, J., & Shen, B. (2009). The utility of simulation in medical education: What is the evidence? Mount Sinai
Journal of Medicine, 76(4), 330–343. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/msj.20127.
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.
Ross, J.G. (2012). Simulation and psychomotor skill acquisition: A review of the literature. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 8(9), e429–e435. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecns.2011.04.004.
Rystedt, H. (2002). Bridging practices: Simulations in education for the healthcare professions. Göteborg: Acta Universitetis Gothoburgensis.
Rystedt, H., & Lindwall, O. (2004). The interactive construction of learning foci in simulation-based learning environments: A case study of an anaesthesia course.
PsychNology Journal, 2(2), 168–188.
84 M. Hontvedt / Learning, Culture and Social Interaction 7 (2015) 71–84

Rystedt, H., & Sjöblom, B. (2012). Realism, authenticity, and learning in healthcare simulations: Rules of relevance and irrelevance as interactive achievements.
Instructional Science, 40(5), 785–798. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11251-012-9213-x.
Salas, E., Bowers, C.A., & Rhodenizer, L. (1998). It is not how much you have but how you use it: Toward a rational use of simulation to support aviation training. The
International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 8(3), 197–208. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327108ijap0803_2.
Salas, E., Tannenbaum, S.I., Kraiger, K., & Smith-Jentsch, K.A. (2012). The science of training and development in organizations: What matters in practice. Psychological
Science in the Public Interest, 13(2), 74–101.
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. The
Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 48(2), 392–412. http://dx.doi.org/10.1518/001872006777724444.
Säljö, R. (2001). Læring i praksis: Et sosiokulturelt perspektiv [Learning in practice: A sociocultural perspective]. Oslo: Cappelens Akademiske.
Schön, D.A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Silvennoinen, M., Helfenstein, S., Ruoranen, M., & Saariluoma, P. (2012). Learning basic surgical skills through simulator training. Instructional Science, 40(5), 769–783.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11251-012-9217-6.
Suchman, L. (1997). Centers of coordination: A case and some themes. In L.B. Resnick, R. Säljö, C. Pontecorvo, & B. Burge (Eds.), Discourse, tools, and reasoning: Essays on
situated cognition (pp. 41–62). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Tuomi-Gröhn, T., & Engeström, Y. (2003). Between school and work: New perspectives on transfer and boundary-crossing. Amsterdam: Pergamon Press.
Vicente, K.J. (2003). The human factor: Revolutionizing the way people live with technology. New York: Routledge.
Vincenzi, D.A., Wise, J.A., Mouloua, M., & Hancock, P.A. (2008). Human factors in simulation and training. Boca Raton, CA: CRC Press.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental processes. In M. Cole, S. Scribner, V. John-Steiner, & E. Souberman (Eds.), Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.