Marco conceptual

Don has slowly started to notice differences in what he was taught at CCTC and the kind of work he does on board. So far, he has spent a lot of his time cleaning the ship and working with the crew on the deck, doing the day-work. It’s a good way of familiarizing himself with the ship and learning how to keep it clean and in shape. He also enjoys working with the crew, as they share the same nationality. There are parts of working on deck, which are different from learning them at the training center. Don remembers practicing the mooring operation at the training center, but to

do it in practice was a scary experience the first time. The fear of causing an accident or getting injured was too much, and his mind went blank the first time he tried to remember the steps he had learned. [Vignette 4]

The third aspect of disconnecting and re-drawing distinctions occurs when cadets learn new ways of doing on board. This is different from the first section, where cadets learn different ways of participating because this focuses on the differences in ways of doing without the safety net of the training center. When they go on board, as Don experiences in the vignette above, cadets no longer have the safety net of the training center. While their safety and inexperience are considered when they are given work tasks, they do have to participate in certain maneuvers, such as the mooring operation which can cause accidents if done incorrectly. The cadet would have some experience in performing these tasks at the training center, but doing them on the ship, with real fear for their safety, causes nervousness which can affect their performance, (see Chapter 5, section 5.2.3, for further details on the coping with fear in practice). Furthermore, experiencing practices on board means that the cadets learn to re-draw distinctions about the consequentiality of actions on board. This is noted in the example below, where the cadet notes that at the training center he was lax about following the proper procedures but he realized the importance of those safety guidelines when he performed the operation on board.

I: And, did you make mistakes initially or did you … How did you learn what to do or how did you figure out what to do when you were on board? I8-C6: Exactly just like you said. I did make mistakes and actually a lot of them. Because, most of my theoretical learnings were just partly that, because I thought it was like this or like that in my mind but then it’s different sometimes in the real world.

I8-C6: For example, in the mooring operations: So, there happens to be a certain – how do I say this – sets of authority that you should follow or sets of safety guidelines that you should follow always. I somehow disregarded some of those safety rules in training when I was not yet, I was not in the real world.

The example above demonstrates both the disconnecting from the previous site as well as the re-drawing of distinctions. It shows the disconnecting from the previously learned ways of doing at CCTC in terms of the differences in ways of doing at CCTC and experiencing them in the “real world” and the re-drawing of distinctions as to the consequences of not following the safety guidelines.

Physical immersion in practice (Ribeiro, 2012) where the primary activity of seafaring happens can also lead to re-drawing the distinctions learned at CCTC in terms of what to do in a certain situation. In simulation training cadets are told to follow procedures per international protocol; however, in practice, the officers on board exercise situational judgement in terms of what makes sense to do in the current situation. Through observing officers exercising situational judgement (Tsoukas & Vladimirou, 2001), cadets also learn the process of exercising situational judgement themselves - a form of vicarious learning, in other words.

In phase 1 cadets learned the rationale behind the rules of performing practices on board through learning the why-how connections. At that stage, they did not know how to interpret the rules (Schatzki, 2005) for the specific situation. It is this interpretation of rules that is done through exercising situational judgement. Consequently, they are disconnecting from the practices at CCTC and making new connections regarding the interpretation of rules for individual situations. The interview extract below exemplifies this. During the interview, the officer was asked if, as a cadet,

he had encountered a difference between what was taught and what was experienced. He gives the example of the procedure for restricted visibility. During training, the ‘correct’ practice learned was that a ship should provide a sound signal when entering an area of restricted visibility. However, on board, the officers make a judgement call whether to use the audio signal and might not use it if they do not think it is required, as is disturbs the sleeping crew on board.

I: And did you experience a situation where that was different from what you were expecting or what you had been trained to do so far?

I17-O8: Yes, one time when I was together with the second officer, and we were doing restricted visibility. We have been trained here that the vessel before it enters in restricted visibility should use the sound signal. But in the reality, I learned that if you think that it’s not necessary don’t do it because especially at night because all of them will be …

I: … Sleeping.

I17-O8: Yes. Moreover, then if you will make a sound it might be there. So that is a little bit different from the training we have here, yes.

The example above shows the difference between what was learned at CCTC and what is experienced on board. At the training center, the cadet learned to draw distinctions in terms of ‘correct’ and ‘incorrect’ practices in terms of sound signals. That is, if in an area of restricted visibility, use a sound signal (correct practice) as opposed to not using it (incorrect practices). However, the cadet might not have used a sound signal in practice at CCTC, or if sound signals are used during simulation training they are lower in volume and, usually, everyone within the vicinity of the sound signal is awake. Consequently, these distinctions are redrawn when the cadet moves on board and learns that sound signals might not be utilized in all situations of restricted visibility. For the cadet, these exercises in judgement only occur when she or he experiences them in

practice. Exercising situational judgement can also be linked to the cadets’ shifting identity as a prospective officer because the cadet is starting to understand what it means to be an officer in charge of a navigation watch. As he sees the officers perform situational judgement, and starts to learn to do so himself, he starts to work towards his identity as a prospective officer.

Another aspect of learning different ways of doing is related to the calculations the cadets learn at the training center. On board, the ship, the rationale behind calculations remains the same; however, the ways of doing changes from learning the scientific principles to learning to do in a more practical way. The example below highlights the cadets’ experience in learning to do ETA calculations on board and at the training center. One cadet notes that the solution was “much more enlightening and shorter.” This sentiment was echoed by other interviewees who found that the calculations on board seemed “easier” or “not as difficult” in comparison with what they were taught at the training center.

I: So, what would be the difference between calculations of ETA the way that you learned on board versus the way that you learned here?

I3-C1: Because you understand in the training center that you need to be specific, specific what is this number, what is that and that, you don’t come up directly to the solution. But on board, on board a ship you can just make the solution more easily and shorter and the practical way. And then knowledge from the captain was being imparted to make the solution much more enlightening and shorter. And practical skills really like steering the ship; you cannot learn merely in the training center, you must do it yourself.

The example above shows the tensions that arise when distinctions about courses of action learned at CCTC (doing ETA calculations in a particular

format) do not coincide with the actual practices on board. Furthermore, for some of the cadets, certain aspects of the practices, like steering the ship, can only be learned through participation at the site where these tasks are performed. The difference in the ETA calculations between CCTC and the ship demonstrates the difference between ways of doing at the two sites of practice.

Not everything ‘goes’ in practice (Nicolini & Monteiro, 2017) and, in order to participate in the practices on board, cadets need to learn these new ways of doing. For example, if cadets performed the calculations per the training center, they might take longer which, in turn, might lead to a perception of less skill, or the officers might get annoyed that they are not doing things the way they are taught to on board. In order to participate, cadets need to learn to decide the correct course of action for the situation on board. Practice theory emphasizes the importance of knowing how, here the different ways of knowing how or different learning mechanisms (Lave, 1996) to perform the same action are seen. This is important for the process of transition because, through redrawing distinctions, cadets are able to start participating competently as per the community on board which, in turn, instigates a change in identity from being a CCTC trainee to a member of the crew.

In all, this section has highlighted aspects of re-drawing distinctions when the cadets move from the CCTC to the ship. This redrawing of distinctions comes when cadets experience new ways of doing or doing in practice at a different site which might not always coincide with the theory and practices learned at the training center. Hence, through movement between the sites of practice cadets experience tensions when there are differences between what was learned at the training center and what is being practiced on board. These tensions, in terms of experiencing different ways of doing and needing to show a different form of skillfulness, become something that the

cadets need to reconcile in order to participate in the practices on board. They reconcile these differences, as the sections above have shown, through disconnecting from the practices at the previous site. Through disconnecting with the practices at the previous site, and re-drawing distinctions, the cadets are starting to shift their identities from being trainees at the training center to becoming members of the crew on board. It is not a smooth continuous transition through gradual accumulation of experiences that comes from movement between sites. Rather, the cadets, in a sense, need to set aside certain aspects of what they learned previously at CCTC and redraw those aspects, as per the standards required by the community on board, in order to participate as a competent practitioner within that community.

4.3Phase 3 - Reflecting after Returning