trainer interventions

8/4/2019 Trainer Interventions

1/22

Trainer interventions asinstructional strategies in air

traffic control trainingInka Koskela

Department of Social Research, University of Tampere, Tampere,Finland, and

Hannele PalukkaFaculty of Economics and Administration, University of Tampere,

Tampere, Finland

AbstractPurpose This paper aims to identify methods of guidance and supervision used in air traffic controltraining. It also aims to show how these methods facilitate trainee participation in core work activities.

Design/methodology/approach The paper applies the tools of conversation analysis andethnomethodology to explore the ways in which trainers and trainees act and interact in trainingsituations. The data consist of the video recordings (total 38 hours) and ethnographic materialgathered at a vocational institute for aviation and in two aerodrome control tower units.

Findings The trainers used five different instructional strategies with which they guided andcontrolled the trainees actions. In simulator training, learning was structured as a process throughwhich the procedural knowledge possessed by the expert controllers was transferred to the traineesthrough interventions such as orders, test questions and additions. As the trainees progressed to theon-the-job training phase, interaction evolved from being trainer-driven to trainer-guided. Thetrainees performance was fine-tuned and guided towards local practices of particular work position by

means of instructions and information deliveries.Practical implications The simulator training and on-the-job training appear as two distinctiveforms of vocational training with their own aims. In order to improve the quality of the training, it issuggested that greater attention should be given to the ways in which these two separate areas oflearning could be better reconciled.

Originality/value This ethnomethodological study on training interaction complements theunderstanding of instructional strategies used at different stages of air traffic control training. It isproposed that research into the local and social production of training interaction can shed useful lighton the complexities of workplace learning and training interaction, providing a novel perspective forthose engaged in practice of vocational education.

Keywords Training, Air transport, Education, Trainer intervention, Instructional strategies,Air traffic control, Finland

Paper type Research paper

1. IntroductionThis article is concerned with examining vocational training and learning as a socialactivity in the context of Finnish air traffic control training. Air traffic control training is

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1366-5626.htm

The authors would like to thank Professor Stephen Billett for his valuable feedback on an earlierversion of this article. The authors would also like to acknowledge two anonymous reviewers fortheir useful comments.

Trainerinterventions

293

Received 27 August 2010Revised 20 December 2010Accepted 4 February 2011

Journal of Workplace Learning

Vol. 23 No. 5, 2011

pp. 293-314

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

1366-5626

DOI 10.1108/13665621111141902


2/22

in large part based on learning by doing, either in simulated or authentic workenvironments. The aim is to produce responsible and skilled air traffic controllers withsound basic knowledge and skills in air traffic control work. A qualified air trafficcontroller is capable of handling several departing and arriving aircraft at the same time

and of responding and adapting quickly to changing circumstances (e.g. Sanne, 1999;Palukka, 2003; Palukka and Auvinen, 2005). Air traffic controllers must be able to makeindependent decisions and apply the most appropriate decisions and managementmethods to each situation. It is crucial that the job is done safely but efficiently, withoutcausing unnecessary delay to air traffic. Indeed this is a highly complex job that requiresspecialized skills and expertise acquired through training, practice and experience.

he purpose of this article is to examine the processes and structures oftrainer-trainee interaction in which professional skills and knowledge are transmittedand acquired. We apply the tools of conversation analysis and ethnomethodology toexplore the ways in which trainers and trainees act and interact in training situations.The data consist of video recordings (total 38 hours) and ethnographic materialgathered at a vocational institute for aviation and two aerodrome control tower units.We have two major questions: what methods of guidance and supervision are used inthe training of air traffic controllers, and how do these methods facilitate traineeparticipation in core work activities. These questions are further elaborated in terms oftwo metaphorical perspectives on learning, i.e. learning as knowledge acquisition andlearning as participation.

The paper begins with an overview of the two metaphors of learning. This includes areview of previous research on workplace learning and training activities inapprenticeship. We then provide a brief characterization of air traffic control workand controllers professional identity. Next, we present the methodological principles ofour study. The two subsequent sections then illustrate how trainers apply differentmethods of guidance and supervision and how the participation of trainees is facilitated

through the training activities. Finally, the paper discusses the theoretical,methodological and practical implications of the empirical findings. We propose thatresearch into the local and social production of training interaction can shed useful lighton the complexities of workplace learning, training interaction and trainee participation,providing a novel perspective for those engaged in practice of vocational education.

2. Vocational training as viewed through the two metaphors of learningIn the context of vocational training, learning is often defined as the acquisition ofknowledge and skills through practice. In this process of practical training, the formaltheoretical knowledge conveyed in the training course is turned into conceptualknowledge possessed by an expert (Bereiter, 1997). In this understanding of learning as aprocess of learning by doing, the emphasis is on the individual mind and the individuals

cognitive structures. Knowledge is seen as a property, target of assimilation orcommodity (Etelapelto and Rasku-Puttonen, 1999). Indeed vocational training in generalis grounded in the ideal of an individual, constructivist view of learning. It is thoughtthat the individual learner has a pivotal role in developing their knowledge and skillsstructure and in acquiring, processing and reviewing the knowledge they need (FinnishNational Board of Education, 2002). From the vantage-point of the constructivistlearning concept, learning appears as a process of reorganizing and complementing thelearners existing frameworks of thinking and action.

JWL23,5

294


3/22

The acquisition metaphor (Sfard, 1998) provides a useful perspective on learning asa process of individual knowledge and skills acquisition, allowing us to explore andanalyse human intelligence, learning and knowledge at a general level (Hakkarainenet al., 2004). Viewed in terms of this metaphor, learning appears as a process in which

knowledge is transferred to the individual learner. From the knowledge acquisitionperspective, learning is a process that takes place in the mind of each learner: it is theindividual capacity of that learner to refine and process information and to combine itto form ever richer cognitive structures (Sfard, 1998). Conventional thinking aboutknowledge acquisition has it that the human mind is like a container that can beaccessed as necessary, while learning is a process in which that container is refilled(Bereiter, 2002). Given this emphasis on the one-way movement of knowledge, thisperspective separates the learner from their social and cultural environment(Hakkarainen et al., 2004, p. 19) as well as from the collective processes that mediatethe learners socialization into the community of learning.

Since the early 1990s, these individually focused approaches to learning have metwith increasing competition from socio-constructivist and cultural approaches whichstress the role of the social and physical environment in learning (e.g. Lave andWenger, 1991; Resnick, 1993; Saljo, 2001; Hakkarainen et al., 1999). Bothsocio-constructivist (e.g. Duffy and Jonassen, 1992) and situational concepts oflearning (e.g. Brown et al., 1989; Lave and Wenger, 1991) are based on the notion of thesituated, functional and practical dimension of learning. It is thought that knowledge,skills and learning are situationally connected to experience, doing and social action.

When learning is approached as a process of knowledge and social practices, theemphasis shifts to the role of social communities in learning and in the development ofexpertise. Anna Sfard (1998) describes these approaches by reference to the participationmetaphor. Viewed through the participation perspective, learning to become an expertand the development of expertise happen through participation in expert cultures (Lave

and Wenger, 1991; Billett, 2006). Learning happens through growth into membership ofan expert community. The key to learning lies in the learner gradually moving from theperiphery of the community to the centre and to full participation. Knowledge is seen not

just as a static entity, but as a dynamic and negotiable process that unfolds throughinteraction, co-participation and cooperation (Billett, 2002). This means that no one canclaim ownership of knowledge, and it also has no specific locus; instead it is a dimensionof participation in cultural practices (Lave and Wenger, 1991; Sfard, 1998).

In the context of learning by doing and practising, interaction between learner andteacher is based on the so-called cognitive apprentice model (e.g. Collins et al., 1989;Collins et al., 1991; see Vygotsky, 1978). Learning is based on the cooperation betweenmaster and apprentice, and the necessary skills are picked up in the process ofconducting authentic job tasks in real workplace environments. The relationship

between master and apprentice is not just cooperative, but also reciprocal. By observing,supervising and explaining, the qualified expert can steer the novices actions in amanner appropriate to the situation. The learner, in turn, can actively contribute to the

job by observing and copying the actions of the expert. In the course of learning, theprocesses, rules and norms related to the job are not only made visible, but also shared,maintained, re-interpreted and shaped in the interaction between the participants. Thethinking then is that the reciprocal relationship between qualified expert and traineeinvolves not only the transfer of the practical tacit knowledge needed on the job, but it


295


4/22

also helps to create a sense of professional identity and membership of the professionalcommunity (e.g. Collins et al., 1989; Sfard, 1998; Lave and Wenger, 1991).

In the context of workplace learning, then, it makes sense to consider learning bothin terms of knowledge acquisition and transfer and in terms of meaningful

participation in a professional community (Sfard, 1998; see, also Mori and Markee,2009). In becoming an expert participant of the community, the individual needs toacquire, develop, and appropriate knowledge as well as collaborate, act and interact inthe expert community. Still, neither of the metaphors easily translates into concreteinstructional descriptions or practices. They do not provide any methodological toolsfor examining how concretely interaction is organized, how knowledge is transferred inpractice or how different participation levels vary from one situation to another.Instead they represent general, abstract and normative ideas about learning andteaching. To fully understand the nature of workplace learning we need detaileddescriptions of the organization of training interaction.

Pedagogical strategies and activities embedded in workplace learning havepreviously been researched in a range of different contexts, including air traffic control(Owen, 2009; Teperi and Leppanen, 2010), design engineering (Collin and Valleala,2005), paediatrics (Beckett and Gough, 2004), consumer-focused manufacturing(Ellinger and Cseh, 2007) and other occupational groups (Koopmans et al., 2006).However, most of this work has explored instructors or employees pedagogicalstrategies and practices based on self-reports or interview data. This, to us, representsonly one side of the coin, since instructor-manifested activities and personalpedagogical ideas may differ widely from actual instructional events taking place inthe interaction (see, e.g. Hakkarainen et al., 2001; Perakyla and Vehvilainen, 2003). Tocomplement the picture of workplace learning and instruction, we feel it is necessary torecord, observe and analyse instructional patterns and strategies in their naturalenvironment, as they emerge in actual training settings. We therefore have chosen to

focus on studying what the trainers are doing rather that what they say they are doing.In recent years these kinds of interaction-oriented studies into learning and teachinghave focused on actual interactions and collaborations between trainer and trainee andthe environments in which they operate (e.g. Goodwin, 1994; Martin, 2004; Nishizaka,2006; Melander and Sahlstrom, 2009; Filliettaz et al., 2010; Hindmarsh et al., 2011). Relyingon methods of conversation analysis and multimodal analysis of social interaction, thesestudies have examined the social organization of training, the processes and structures ofinteraction and material and multimodal dimensions of practice-based training. On theother hand less attention has been paid to the ways in which instructional activitiesfacilitate trainees knowledge development and participation in training activities insafety critical environments. We still know relatively little about what concretely happensin the interaction between novices training for an occupation and qualified experts in that

occupation. For instance, how do professionals communicate to trainees, through whatthey do and what they say, the practices, knowledge and norms of the job? And how dothe methods of guidance and supervision they use facilitate and limit the participation oftrainees in practising the skills they need on the job?

3. The air traffic control community: the job and the workplace cultureAir traffic controllers are charged with the job of tracking and directing aircraft incontrolled air space. In executing this job they interact not only with pilots, but also

JWL23,5

296


5/22

with other air traffic controllers and air traffic control units. Air traffic control is asocio-technical and safety-critical work environment with a strict task-based divisionof labour: the tasks and activities are distributed both professionally, temporally,spatially and organizationally. The safe and expeditious flow of air traffic requires that

there is seamless cooperation among all the people and units involved, and that a jointunderstanding is created and maintained between them. The work is mediated not onlyby means of material artefacts i.e. equipment and information systems but also bymeans of human artefacts, i.e. rules and regulations, communication practices andprofessional culture. Air traffic control is a dynamic cooperative activity that relies onshared meanings and common understandings among individual air traffic controllers.It requires a commitment on the part of all the professionals involved to coordinated,goal-oriented and shared problem-solving.

Research on air traffic control belongs traditionally to the discipline of psychology.Most of this research has been dominated by trait theory and cognitive explanations,focusing primarily on the individuals internal states and dispositions and on theknowledge, skills and cognitive capacities required in the job of air traffic controller(Hopkin, 1995). Viewed from a trait theory perspective, air traffic control appears as aresponsible, controlled, complex and dynamic activity that requires not only perfectand consistent performance but also creative problem-solving skills (e.g. Lenorovitzand Phillips, 1987, p. 1776; Ryder and Redding, 1993, p. 75).

Psychologically oriented research has a tendency to reduce the agents of air trafficcontrol to their individual characteristics, to events taking place within the individualsmind. Consequently the social environment in which air traffic controllers go abouttheir job is excluded from the field of analysis. If human agents are classified and ratedsolely on the basis of their knowledge, skills or cognitive capacities and are so removedfrom the environment in which they work, this may lead to the false suggestion thatthe problems in the work process are due to weak individuals (Engestrom, 1995). Trait

theory and cognitive research regard air traffic control work as a mechanical activityprogrammed by external or biological factors, and in so doing fail to take account ofsubjective value orientations by virtue of which air traffic control work is also acultural and social activity (Arminen et al., 2010).

Earlier research into the professional identity of Finnish air traffic controllers hasshown that they view themselves as a distinct professional group whose members havebeen born with innate skills to control air traffic (Palukka, 2003). These skills are theproduct not just of external conditions such as the education system, but also of certaininnate and immutable characteristics and internal powers within the individual, certainpersonality traits. These beliefs and views about individual qualities and capacities alsotrickle down into practices of air traffic control training. In a study of on-the-job trainingprogrammes for Australian air traffic controllers, Owen (2009) claims these programmes

reflect a similar ethos of innate qualities as was highlighted by Palukka (2003):on-the-job-training instructors, she says, demonstrate a belief in ability, valueperformance in demonstrating ability, and underscore the need to exude confidence.

The view that working in air traffic control requires certain innate individual qualitiesis constructed and maintained not just by air traffic controllers. Several researchers inthis field (e.g. Hopkin, 1988, 1995; Eissfeldt and Maschke, 1991; Brehmer, 1996) havereiterated the argument that the ability to control air traffic is largely based on innateand immutable individual characteristics. They suggest that certain personality traits,


297


6/22

brain mechanisms and individual qualities such as reaction and observation skills,coordination, memory and decision-making are necessary to learning the skills that areneeded in air traffic control work. These kinds of explanations are deeply entrenched inour culture. They are closely similar to the way that Homer explained the actions of

Achilles by reference to his courage and pride and the actions of Odysseus by referenceto his foresight and cunning (Hakkarainen, 2000, p. 85).

The widely shared belief about air traffic controllers innate characteristics andindividual qualities is clearly rather problematic. If the professional expertise ofcontrollers is based solely on their individual skills, traits and competencies, how is itpossible to learn and train for this job in the first place?

4. Research methods and dataThe purpose of this article is to analyse the instructional strategies that are used insimulator and on-the-job training for air traffic controllers. It applies the tools ofconversation analysis to explore the way in which trainers and trainees act and interact

in training situations. The main focus of the conversation analysis (CA) is on theorganization of social activity and interaction. CA seeks to explicate organizationalfeatures of talk and action as they are displayed and understood by the participants inthe actual events of interaction. The focus is on how particular social actions, such asadvising, requesting and questioning are organized and locally produced through talk(e.g. Schegloff and Sacks, 1973; Schegloff, 2007, pp. 7-12).

The data for the research were collected at two different stages of air traffic controltraining. The first dataset was collected during simulator training at a vocationalinstitute for aviation, and the second during on-the-job training sessions at twoaerodrome control units. The researchers gained access to this field by first negotiatingwith representatives of the vocational institute for aviation, after which a meeting wasorganized to recruit voluntary participants for the study.

The data consist of observations and video recordings of training situations andinterviews with trainers and trainees. The primary dataset for the analysis consists ofthe video recordings. The close analysis of actual interaction makes use of ethnographicresearch methods by anchoring the interpretations offered to the authors existingunderstanding of the air traffic control system and work. The ethnographic observationand interview material provides also the necessary background understanding of airtraffic control training. The first stage of data collection comprised 12 simulator sessions.These sessions involved nine trainees and six trainers, and they were video recordedusing three digital video cameras and a device linking their signals. The second stage ofdata collection comprised 26 hours of video recorded training situations at twoaerodrome control units. The on-the-job training sessions involved two trainees and fourtrainers. These sessions were also recorded using three digital video cameras.

The primary interest in the data analysis was to gain understanding about the basicstructures of trainee-trainer interaction. To this end the recordings from the trainingsessions were transcribed in detail so as to characterize the dynamics of the turn-takingsystem and aspects of speech delivery (Appendix). The process of preparing thetranscripts and viewing the video recordings helped to draw attention to the fact that thetrainers had recurrent ways of carrying out the task of teaching. The data corpus waslater revisited in order to identify trainer interventions used at different stages of training.Transcribed text files and coded video recordings were used to assist in this phase of the

JWL23,5

298


7/22

analysis. Different types of trainer interventions were identified based on two sets ofcriteria: intervention turn designs, and their sequential import. The analysis of turndesigns covered not only the choice of words and grammatical aspects, but also the waysin which these interventions were uttered. The sequential import of the interventions was

analysed in relation to what kind of action this turn performed and what type of action itproduced as a relevant next. The scope of the analysis was thus extended to the traineesresponses following the trainer intervention. As a result of this analysis, five recurrenttrainer interventions were identified in the data. The data observations were furthervalidated in joint seminars with other conversation analysts and the research subjects.

As regards the limitations of the study, it is worth noting that the data collectionprocedure did not follow a longitudinal qualitative design, but rather represents across-sectional approach. While this research design enables us to make somecomparisons between two distinctive types of training settings and activities withinthose settings, it does not allow us to follow the trainees development and learningover time. Another concern is that the focus of the study produces a trainer-centredanalysis. It follows that less attention is paid to the ways in which the trainees activelyengage in and contribute to the ongoing training activities.

5. FindingsIn air traffic control training, the interaction between trainer and trainee revolves aroundtwo intertwined institutional frameworks: the education framework and the aviationframework. First, the actions of trainer and trainee are determined by the educationframework and the respective roles of the participants within that framework. Thetrainees primary role is to perform the job tasks assigned and to learn in the process,while the trainer takes a supervisory and teaching role. Second, the opportunities andlimitations for the trainers and trainees actions are determined by the air traffic controlsystem and its inherent logic. Both the trainer and trainee interact with the changes

happening in the work environment: both of them interpret what they see, respond to theevents they observe and formulate their responses in relation to the rules and regulationsgoverning air traffic control work. Due to asymmetries of knowledge and skills, gaps ofunderstanding occur quite frequently throughout the training sessions. The trainers areusually faster, more fluent and competent in noticing and understanding local demandsfor accomplishing certain air traffic control tasks. To facilitate the trainees participationin the work activities, the trainers apply different methods of guidance and supervision.

These methods of guidance and supervision are henceforth called interventions, asthey routinely interfere with and suspend unfolding activities in which the trainee isengaged. Five different types of interventions were identified in the data, i.e. givingorders, asking test questions, complementing speech production, providing instruction,and giving information. Interventions are interactive tools of training with which the

trainer can control and guide the trainees actions. Interventions have two mainfunctions in interaction: they either provide direction and guidance to the trainee, orthey serve to correct the trainees actions. Directive interventions are intended to guidethe trainees attention and actions to air traffic control tasks that are most relevant tothe current traffic situation. Corrective interventions, then, are ways of addressingmistakes made by the trainee. The next two sections illustrate trainer interventions inmore detail with the help of data extracts, examining them as part of the sequentialprogression of training activities.


299


8/22

5.1 Simulator training as relational exchange and participationAccording to the cognitive apprentice model, learning takes place in a reciprocalrelationship between master and apprentice. However, if we turn to examine simulatortraining for air traffic controllers and study more closely knowledge exchange and

participation at the level of interaction, the relationship between trainer and traineeappears relational. Simulator training is designed to support the assimilation ofknowledge and skills about the procedures, tasks, rules and regulations, emphasizingthe role of individual trainee controllers and their cognitive structures in the learningprocess. On the interactional level, the training focuses more on the individualsperformance and accomplishment of the tasks than on the comprehensive managementand planning of air traffic flows. Through interventions, the training activities arestructured into a process through which the knowledge possessed by the expertcontrollers is transferred to the novice trainees. This is particularly clear from the typeof interventions that are applied in the simulator training.

One of the most typical trainer interventions used in simulator training is the giving

of an order. Figure 1 clearly demonstrates the participants orientation towards theaccomplishment of the tasks at hand, and specifically the trainers orientation towardsthe trainees performance. While the trainees primary role is to perform the job tasksassigned and to learn in the process, the trainer takes a supervisory role. Theparticipants asymmetrical alignment to the job task at hand becomes apparent as thetrainer prompts the trainee to move on to the next task, as illustrated in Figure 1.

In this training situation the trainees task is to assist an aircraft to take-off. The trainee(TE) has instructed an aircraft (Homer One) to taxi to the runway and wait for takeoffclearance. The runway is occupied by another aircraft that has just landed (OCM). At thesame time a third aircraft (OCC) that is entering the aerodrome zone is calling tower (line1). The trainee acknowledges he has heard this call on lines 3 and 5. The trainee then turnshis attention to a new task, as indicated by the particle then. However it is impossible to

infer where the trainee intends to orientate next. Before the trainee proceeds to actual taskimplementation, the trainer (TR) intervenes by ordering him to issue takeoff clearance to

Figure 1.Example 1

JWL23,5

300


9/22

the aircraft (Homer One) waiting on the runway (line 9) as he says: read. In response, thetrainee immediately gives takeoff clearance to this aircraft (lines 10-11).

It is clear from the trainers intervention that he thinks the trainee is in need ofguidance on how to manage with the overlapping tasks. The motivation for giving the

order arises from the trainees deliberate shift from one task to another. As the airtraffic controllers work is time-critical and involves constant change, the trainees mustlearn how to multitask and to organize tasks in a prospective manner. Giving an orderis an explicit and direct way of telling the trainee which task should be performed nextand of prompting the trainee to address that task. For the trainee and the trainer thiskind of direct guidance is not problematic, instead both of them orient to the situationas an event where the more experienced party has the right and the responsibility toguide and direct the others actions. Through orders and the subsequent traineeresponses, the trainee and the trainer continuously co-construct their asymmetrical andrelational relationship into being.

Our analysis here also shows how in simulator training the trainers help theirtrainees accomplish the job tasks at hand by asking them test questions. Testquestions shape the trainers and trainees relationship in a slightly different way thanthe intervening order. Trainers use test questions to check their traineesunderstanding of the ongoing traffic situation and provide subtle guidance fororientation to a new task. Test questions are a common method of pedagogicalinteraction more generally, allowing teachers to involve learners in interaction and toelicit their knowledge (e.g. Mehan, 1979; Levinson, 1992; Seedhouse, 2004). By askingtest questions, trainers in air traffic control training are both able to control traineesunderstanding and to orient them to critical aspects of the task at hand. In Figure 2, thetrainer asks a test question in order to reorient the trainees focus to a new task.

This sequence illustrates a training situation in which the trainee is assisting anaircraft that is coming in to land. On lines 1-6 the trainee (TE) advises the landing aircraft

(J36) of opposite traffic. This sequence ends with the trainees acknowledgementTower on line 6. On line 7, the trainer presents a test question to the trainee: And whodo you talk to next? This serves to refocus the trainees orientation to the next task. Thewording of the question does not specify the relevant task, but allows the trainee to makean independent assessment as to which aircraft requires his attention next. The traineecommits to appropriate action by orienting to the changing airspace situation andissuing landing clearance to the aircraft in question on lines 11-12.

Test questions are used recurrently in situations where the trainee is not handling asituationally relevant task. Through the test question, the trainer is suggesting that thetrainee is lacking situational awareness. Like orders, test questions convey a directivefunction in training interaction, invoking the trainee to accomplish a certain task. Byquestioning trainees, trainers invite them to engage in an active problem-solving

process. Instead of explicitly singling out the task, the trainers highlight criticalcontextual aspects related to the task at hand, so as to guide the trainees to recognize itand allow them to complete it by themselves.

In Figure 3, the trainees and trainers asymmetrical alignment to the task at handand their differing access to relevant resources becomes apparent in the way that thetrainer helps the trainee complete the route clearance.

The extract illustrates a training situation where the trainee is assisting a departingaircraft. On lines 1-2 the trainee (TE) issues route clearance to the aircraft (Homer One).


301


10/22

The relevant source of information for delivering route clearances are flight progressstrips. These strips contain information such as the aircrafts identification and type, flightrules, departure and arrival airport, take-off time, altitudes, route and navigation points.

However, they do not contain all the information that is needed in clearance production.Instead, the trainee must recall appropriate phrases out of his memory. However, it is clearfrom the pauses and the searching for words that this is not going without difficulty. Thetrainer therefore decides to intervene with two additions. The first addition comes on line 4in response to the trainees incomplete clearance. Apparently the trainees hesitation andslowness with the route clearance after departure (two separate 0.2 second pauses on line4) prompts the trainer to intervene with another addition. This second intervention (flyon line 6) helps the trainee get to the end and complete the route clearance.

Figure 2.Example 2

Figure 3.Example 3

JWL23,5

302


11/22

It is clear that the trainee is lacking in sufficient skills to formulate the appropriateclearance. By adding an element to the trainees speech production, the trainer givesthe trainee a clue as to how he should continue with the phrase, helping him to producethe rest of the clearance. Addition can thus be regarded as an instructional strategy

that provides assistance and cognitive resources for trainees so that they can completethe task at the skill level just beyond what they could accomplish by themselves (seezone of proximal development, Vygotsky, 1978). It is worth noting that althoughregularly used in simulator training, the addition is a context-specific instructionalstrategy directly linked to the controllers key competencies, i.e. mastery of aviationphraseology and communication procedures.

The previous examples have shown how directive interventions such as orders, testquestions and additions shape the trainers and trainees asymmetrical and relationalrelationship. In simulator training the trainers corrective interventions also structurethe participants relationship as relational. In the next example, the trainer uses a testquestion for corrective purposes (Figure 4).

Figure 4 illustrates a case in which the trainee is assisting an aircraft to taxi to theapron. Aircraft Oscar Alpha Juliet (OAJ) has just landed. On lines 1-2 the trainee (TE)uses the wrong call Oscar Alpha Yankee (OAY) to inform the aircraft of its landingtime and to instruct it to taxi to the terminal area. On line 4 the trainer (TR) turns thetrainees attention to this mistake by presenting the test question, Is it AlphaYankee? The trainee responds by saying again his taxiing clearance: Oscar Alpha

Juliet. The incorrect clearance code highlighted by the intervention (line 1) is thuslocated and resolved on line 6.

In simulator training, trainers draw trainees attention to mistakes and errors theynotice either by test questions or by direct orders or instructions. The choice offormulation has rather different consequences. If they ask a test question, trainerspoint out that the trainee has made a mistake. However trainers do not offer any

alternative instead, but leave the task of correcting the mistake to the trainee. Itremains the trainees job to figure out what they have done wrong and how the mistakeshould be corrected. In the case of direct corrections, trainers assume the responsibilityfor correcting the mistake themselves. The trainee is only expected to repeat. In

Figure 4.Example 4


303


12/22

simulator training corrective interventions serve as instructional strategies with whichexpert controllers control and regulate the speech and performance of novices. As such,these interventions complete the central goal of training, which is the location andremediation of problematic or incorrect practices.

Our analysis here goes to show that in the early stages of air traffic control training,a major goal is to ensure the accomplishment of current job tasks (see, also Owen, 2009;Rogoff, 1990). To this end trainers must repeatedly provide guidance to the traineesand correct their mistakes in order to enhance their performance. Viewed from theknowledge acquisition perspective, simulator training mainly focuses on thedevelopment of trainees procedural knowledge. Procedural knowledge refers here tothe controllers ability to perform various tasks related to the provision of airnavigation services, air traffic services and the management of air traffic. Throughinterventions, the knowledge and skills gained by trainers is proceduralized ininteraction. Once acquired, these skills are potentially applicable and transferable toother situations or to other contexts.

From the participation perspective, then, simulator training is shaped by theparticipants engagement in joint activities and work practices. The spatialarrangement provides them mutual access to different resources, tools andinformation sources, enabling them to develop a shared understanding about theongoing situation. Still, on the interactional level, the relationship between trainer andtrainee is co-constituted as asymmetrical and relational. Typically, trainees activitiesare trainer-led. Trainers have an active role in monitoring, guiding and controllingtrainees in their training. In their capacity as experts they also have an institutionalright and responsibility to judge and assess the performance of trainees as adequate orinappropriate. The data show that one of the key areas for trainer intervention is thesituation where the trainee needs to turn his attention to a new task. In these situationsthe trainer usually passes on information, either directly or indirectly, to the trainee

about what tasks they need to perform and in what order. The trainees, for their part,are usually willing to take this advice; they very rarely object to or resist the proposedtasks or corrected activities.

5.2 On-the-job training as reciprocal exchange and participationOn-the-job training can be approached as a process of knowledge and social practicesin which the air traffic control community assumes a major role in learning and in thedevelopment of expertise. In this context learning and the development of expertisehappen through participation in the community of practice. The key in on-the-jobtraining is that the trainee moves gradually from the periphery of the community to itscentre and to full participation. This process implies that the knowledge and skills thatare needed in air traffic control are not so much someones exclusive property as a

dimension of participation in the air traffic control community.In on-the-job training, learning is more reciprocal than in simulator training.

On-the-job training is designed to provide trainees access to the local requirements fora particular performance within a particular work position. The transition from globalprocedures and practices to local ones is emphasized throughout on-the-job training(see, also Lave, 1990). Trainer interventions are accordingly more heavily focused onthe trainees local knowledge and skills, i.e. on the distinctive features of the particularwork position rather than on general knowledge about procedures, rules and

JWL23,5

304


13/22

regulations. By supporting trainees in their work, trainers not only make visible thetacit knowledge embedded in a specific work position and location, but also enhancethe development of the trainees situational awareness and understanding of theongoing situation.

As air traffic control trainees progress through their learning, training interactionmoves increasingly from a trainer-driven activity to a joint collaborative reciprocal effort between trainers and trainees. In on-the-job training situations, trainers steer anddirect trainees mainly by giving instructions and delivering information. By givinginstructions the trainers can justify proper courses of action. As an interventionsteering the trainees actions, the instruction carries imperative weight, since itprompts action in compliance with the rules and regulations. The trainee must followthe instructions given and change his earlier actions. In Figure 5 the instruction givenby the trainer reminds the trainee of how to separate arriving and departing traffic.

Figure 5 illustrates a case in which the trainee assesses the current traffic evolutionin the control zone. At the same time as an aircraft (OCM) is approaching the controlzone, another aircraft (FAV141K) is about to take off. On line 1 the trainee (TE) tells thetrainer (TR) that he will contact approach control to request clearance for the outboundaircraft (FAV141K). The trainer gives his approval on line 2. Then, the trainee callsapproach control and requests for departure clearance (line 4). During this call, on line6, the trainee receives a first call from the approaching aircraft (OCM). Since the traineeis still in the process of gaining clearance, he requests the approaching aircraft to waitfor new instructions. Once he has received clearance from approach control, the traineebegins planning the approach of the approaching aircraft (OCM). On line 22 the trainerconfirms that the trainees plan is correct by saying Yes; and a second time on line 24,where he says Right. These confirmations suggest that the trainee so far has copedwell with his tasks of traffic planning. However the trainee has not yet noticed theproblem of crossing traffic. This is evident from the trainers instruction (lines 34-41).

The trainee responds to the trainers intervention by a critical assessment of his ownactions: Damn it yeah. The trainer reassures the trainee, saying that this is a trainingsituation and that the trainee is not yet required to assume the same level ofresponsibility as is required of a qualified professional with a full licence at this airtraffic control unit (line 44). The trainee then requests departure clearance fromapproach control in accordance with the trainers instructions.

When the trainee fails to recognize the need to recoordinate the two aircraft, thetrainer initiates an instruction to highlight this problem. By intervening with aninstruction, the trainer updates the trainees mental picture of the situation and drawshis attention to a potential loss of separation. Even though the trainer needs to correctthe trainees actions, the training activities rest on and are shaped by the participantsreciprocal and collaborative effort. First of all, right after the trainee has accepted the

inappropriate clearance from approach control, the trainer refrains from interveningand gives the trainee the opportunity to notice the problem for himself (see pause intalk on line 19). The trainee, on the other hand, explicitly offers his traffic plan to thetrainer for confirmation as he explains his intentions regarding traffic management(lines 20-21). The trainer confirms that the trainees traffic plan is correct, but stillrefrains from pointing out the problem. Third, when the trainer finally launches hisinstruction, it is designed to provide a step-by-step pathway for the trainee to inferwhat the possible problem might be. The problem is partly rooted in the local rules and


305


14/22

Figure 5.Example 5

JWL23,5

306


15/22

standards of this work position. As an experienced controller, the trainer is familiarwith the local requirements beyond the task and through his instructions makes thesetacit aspects explicit to the trainee as well. Fourth, after the potential error situation hasbeen handled, the affective load is collaboratively alleviated between the trainee andtrainer.

In our last example, the trainer provides information to a trainee after completion ofa task by telling him about practices followed in tower control as well as the distinctive

features of the air space that are tower controls responsibility. In the example thetrainer focuses more on the trainees local knowledge and skills than on his familiaritywith the rules and regulations (Figure 6).

This sequence illustrates a traffic situation in which the trainee is planningaerodrome traffic. The task involves monitoring the control zone and managingapproaching aircraft. On lines 1-3 the trainee (TE) tells his trainer that he needs tocontact approach control to check the location of the approaching aircraft (OCM)because he is unable to see it. The trainer begins his intervention by questioning this

Figure 5.


307


16/22

(line 10). The trainer further expands on this on lines 12-13 by saying that it is in factpossible to detect from the tower aircraft approaching from the west. The trainersassessment advises the trainee as to where he should look in order that he can spotapproaching aircraft. The trainer uses his outstretched right arm, palm downwards, topinpoint a dip behind a field: thats where the trainee should be looking. As the aircraftappears on the horizon, the trainer changes his gesture to show that this generalstatement has become concretized and a specific event: the arm remains extended, buthe is now pointing his finger at the plane. In this way the trainers verbal and bodilyinformation together constitute a resource that steers the trainees attention, allowingthe trainee to orientate to the current traffic situation.

In this situation, the reciprocal relationship between trainer and trainee involves notonly the transfer of the practical tacit knowledge needed in this particular workposition, but it also enhances the trainees professional vision (Goodwin, 1994).Professional vision is socially organized ways of perceiving and understandingrelevant events and materials of the environment that enable the air traffic controllersto interpret the current air traffic situation in a task-relevant manner. Rather thandependent on individual cognitive and psychological processes, professional vision isassociated with and shaped by interpretations and meanings produced in the course of

Figure 6.Example 6

JWL23,5

308


17/22

practical action (Goodwin, 1994). However, a skilled air traffic controller and a traineesee different things in their environment in different ways (see, also Goodwin andGoodwin, 1996). By giving information, the trainer is able to both assist the trainee inperceiving relevant events and features of the local environment and develop his

professional vision.The two examples analysed above have shown how air traffic control requires not

just peer learning and coordinated learning based on a division of labour, but alsoreciprocal understanding of traffic management. On-the-job training is an interactiveand horizontal activity in which an experienced and qualified expert and aninexperienced novice take turns to work at a task level and a meta cognitive level.During this later stage of air traffic control training, trainees activities are no longertrainer-directed but become increasingly trainer-guided. The trainee assumes an activerole in planning air traffic, designing the job tasks and performing the work. Thetrainer, in turn, monitors and fine-tunes the trainees performance. Viewed from theperspective of knowledge acquisition, the on-the-job training phase focuses on thedevelopment of trainees local knowledge rather than on global procedural knowledgeof the work. Local knowledge refers to the features, standards, rules and contextualaspects that are inherently coupled to the specific work environment in which thevarious tasks are performed. Indeed, the major goal of on-the-job training is to supportthe development of practice-based procedures in the work position concerned. From theparticipation point of view, on-the-job training is based on the participants mutualengagement in goal-directed activity aimed at effective management of air traffic.Rather than constantly teaching, controlling or correcting their trainees, the trainerssupport them in problem solving so that they can work quasi-independently.

6. Discussion and conclusionIn this article we have examined the vocational training of air traffic controllers as a

social accomplishment, approaching it from the vantage-point of trainer-traineeinteraction. We have applied the tools of conversation analysis and ethnomethodologyto analyse the processes and structures of interaction through which knowledge andskills are taught and learned in two distinctive training environments. Our aim was tostudy the methods of guidance and supervision used in air traffic control training andthe ways in which these methods facilitated trainee participation at different stages ofthe training programme. The instructional strategies identified were further discussedin relation to the knowledge acquisition and participation perspectives on learning.

We found that the trainers used five different instructional strategies with whichthey guided and controlled the trainees actions. Five different types of trainerinterventions were identified: giving orders, asking test questions, complementingspeech production, providing instruction and giving information. Interventions were

found to have two main functions in training interaction: they either provided directionand guidance to the trainee, or they served to correct the trainees actions. Directiveinterventions were intended to guide the trainees attention and actions to air trafficcontrol tasks that were most relevant to the current traffic situation. Correctiveinterventions, for their part, were ways of addressing mistakes made by the trainee. Byproviding guidance and correcting mistakes, the trainers not only made visible thetacit knowledge embedded in air traffic control work, but also supported thedevelopment of the trainees situational awareness and their understanding.


309


18/22

Both cognitive and social dimensions of learning appeared as interdependentaspects of the training processes of the air traffic controllers. In simulator training,learning was structured as a process where generalized procedural knowledge aboutindividual air traffic control tasks was made explicit to the trainees through

interventions such as orders, test questions and additions. At this stage of the trainingthe goal was to familiarize the trainees to the practices of a community (see Gherardiet al., 1998) rather than socialize them in a community of practice (Lave and Wenger,1991). The training interaction was shaped by asymmetrical and relational aspects asthe trainees activities were very much trainer-led. As a consequence, a relationalrelationship was identified as a dominant feature of simulator training.

As the training progressed, its focus gradually shifted from the transmission ofglobal, generalized knowledge towards the local requirements in a particular location.On-the-job training concentrated on the tacit and local aspects embedded in a specificwork position and environment. In this context the development of expertise took placethrough trainee participation in authentic activities within the community of practice(Lave and Wenger, 1991). As the trainees progressed to this stage of their training,interaction evolved from being trainer-driven to trainer-guided. The traineesperformance was fine-tuned and guided mainly by means of instructions andinformation deliveries. In on-the-job training, the nature of the interaction betweentrainer and trainee was found to be reciprocal as they collaboratively built andnegotiated practices, procedures and local standards beyond the tasks at hand. As aresult, simulator training and on-the-job training appeared as two distinctive forms ofvocational training with their own aims and contributions. From the viewpoint of thetrainees professional development, it is essential that they gain learning experience inboth environments and gradually move from a peripheral to a central position of the airtraffic control community.

As we have suggested in this article, training interaction is based on trainers

interventions and trainees responses. From a research point of view this interaction isnot consciously and deliberately organized, however, and therefore it appears as lessthan coherent from a supervision theory point of view. Air traffic control trainers seemto cope very well with the challenges of interaction by relying on their own skills,cognitive capacities and personal qualities (see, also Owen, 2009). Indeed it seems thatthe practices of supervision and interaction in training are not so much shared,collective capital of community as the air traffic control trainers own human capital.Training interventions are a salient but neglected part of air traffic control training. Itis clearly important that vocational training has access to tools for the consciousobservation and reflection of trainer-trainee interaction and cooperation (see, alsoTeperi and Leppanen, 2010.)

To capture and unravel the actual training event, we need tools that are sensitive to

the local production of training interaction. Ethnomethodologically inspired studies ontraining interaction allow us to focus on the practices and procedures of situatedactions and events especially in training in high reliability organizations. Interactionstudies on vocational training may significantly add to our theoretical understandingof teaching and training strategies, helping us to re-specify the processes andstructures of authentic pedagogical interaction. Importantly, these interaction studiescan correct, re-specify and expand practitioners own ideas and assumptions of theirwork (Perakyla and Vehvilainen, 2003).

JWL23,5

310


19/22

In order to improve the quality of air traffic control training, we suggest that it isnecessary to reflect both individually and collectively on the actual training events asthey take place in both simulator training and on-the-job training. In addition, wesuggest that the relationship between simulator training and on-the-job training

requires closer evaluation. Greater attention should be given to the ways in which thesetwo types of training experiences and activities are appropriately reconciled.Consequently, further research is needed to see how these two separate areas oflearning can be more effectively integrated.

References

Arminen, I., Auvinen, P. and Palukka, H. (2010), Repairs as the last orderly provided defense ofsafety in aviation, Journal of Pragmatics, Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 443-65.

Atkinson, J.M. and Heritage, J. (Eds) (1984), Structures of Social Action: Studies in ConversationAnalysis, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Beckett, D. and Gough, J. (2004), Perceptions of professional identity: a story from paediatrics,

Studies in Continuing Education, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 195-208.Bereiter, C. (1997), Situated cognition and how to overcome it, in Kirsher, D. and

Whitson, J.A. (Eds), Situated Cognition: Social, Semiotic and Psychological Perspectives,Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 281-300.

Bereiter, C. (2002), Education and Mind in the Knowledge Age, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.

Billett, S. (2002), Workplace pedagogic practices: co-participation and learning, British Journalof Educational Studies, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 457-81.

Billett, S. (2006), Constituting the workplace curriculum, Curriculum Studies, Vol. 38 No. 1,pp. 31-48.

Brehmer, B. (1996), Recruitment, selection and training of air traffic controller students, Issuesin the selection of air traffic controller candidates, MRU Report No. 24, Luftfarts-verket,Norrkoping.

Brown, J.S., Collins, A. and Duguid, P. (1989), Situated cognition and the culture of learning, Educational Researcher, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 32-42.

Collin, K. and Valleala, U.M. (2005), Interaction among employees: how does learning take placein the social communities of the workplace and how might such learning be supervised?,

Journal of Education and Work, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 401-20.

Collins, A., Brown, J.S. and Newman, S.E. (1989), Cognitive apprenticeship: teaching the craft ofreading, writing, and mathematics, in Resnick, L.B. (Ed.), Knowing, Learning, and

Instruction: Essays in Honor of Robert Glaser, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 453-94.

Collins, A., Brown, J.S. and Holum, A. (1991), Cognitive apprenticeship: making thinkingvisible, American Educator, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 38-46.

Duffy, T. and Jonassen, D. (Eds) (1992), Constructivism and the Technology of Instruction: A Conversation, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.

Eissfeldt, H. and Maschke, P. (1991), Bewahrungskontrolle eines psychologischenAus-wahlsverfahrens fur den Flugverkehrskontrolldienst anhand von Kriterien derBerufs-ausbildung, DLR, Forschungsbericht DRL-FB-91-11, Institut fur Flugmedizin,Hamburg.

Ellinger, A.D. and Cseh, M. (2007), Contextual factors influencing the facilitation of otherslearning through everyday work experiences, Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 19No. 7, pp. 435-52.

Engestrom, Y. (1995), Kehittava tyontutkimus, Painatuskeskus, Helsinki.


311


20/22

Etelapelto, A. and Rasku-Puttonen, H. (1999), Projektioppimisen haasteet ja mahdollisuudet,in Etelapelto, A. and Tynjala, P. (Eds), Oppiminen ja asiantuntijuus. Tyoelaman jakoulutuksen nakokulmia, WSOY, Helsinki, pp. 181-205.

Filliettaz, L., de Saint-Georges, I. and Duc, B. (2010), Skiing, cheese fondue and Swiss watches:

analogical discourse in vocational training interactions, Vocations and Learning, Vol. 3No. 2, pp. 117-40.

Finnish National Board of Education (2002), Lennonjohdon perustutkinto. Opetussuunnitelmanperusteet 18.12.2001 (in Finnish), available at: www.oph.fi/download/110660_lennonjohto_perustutkinto_tutkinnon_perusteet.pdf (accessed 15 August 2010).

Gherardi, S., Nicolini, D. and Odella, F. (1998), Towards a social understanding of how peoplelearn in organizations, Management Learning, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 273-98.

Goodwin, C. (1994), Professional vision, American Anthropologist, Vol. 96 No. 3, pp. 606-33.

Goodwin, C. and Goodwin, M.H. (1996), Seeing as situated activity: formulating planes,in Engestrom, Y. and Middleton, D. (Eds), Cognition and Communication at Work,Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 61-95.

Hakkarainen, K. (2000), Oppiminen osallistumisen prosessina, Aikuiskasvatus, Vol. 20 No. 2,pp. 84-98.

Hakkarainen, K., Lonka, K. and Lipponen, L. (1999), Tutkiva oppiminen: Alykkaan toiminnanrajat ja niiden ylittaminen, WSOY, Porvoo.

Hakkarainen, K., Lonka, K. and Lipponen, L. (2004), Tutkiva oppiminen: Jarki, tunteet ja kulttuurioppimisen sytyttajana, WSOY, Porvoo.

Hakkarainen, K., Muukkonen, H., Lipponen, L., Ilomaki, L., Rahikainen, M. and Lehtinen, E.(2001), Teachers skills and practices of using ICT and their pedagogical thinking,

Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 181-97.

Hindmarsh, J., Reynolds, P. and Dunne, S. (2011), Exhibiting understanding: the body inapprenticeship, Journal of Pragmatics, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 489-503.

Hopkin, V.D. (1988), Air traffic control, in Wiener, E.L. and Nagel, D.C. (Eds), Human Factors in

Aviation, Academic Press, New York, NY, pp. 639-63.Hopkin, V.D. (1995), Human Factors in Air Traffic Control, Taylor & Francis, London.

Koopmans, H., Doornbos, A. and Van Eekelen, I. (2006), Learning in interactive work situations:it takes two to tango: why not invite both partners to dance?, Human Resource

Development Quarterly, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 135-58.

Lave, J. (1990), The culture of acquisition and the practice of understanding, in Stigler, J.W.,Shweder, R.A. and Herdt, G. (Eds), Cultural Psychology, Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, pp. 259-86.

Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991), Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation,Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Lenorovitz, D.R. and Phillips, M.D. (1987), Human factors requirements engineering for airtraffic control systems, in Salvendy, G. (Ed.), Handbook of Human Factors, John Wiley

& Sons, New York, NY, pp. 1771-89.

Levinson, S.C. (1992), Activity types and language, in Drew, P. and Heritage, J. (Eds), Talk atWork: Interaction in Institutional Settings, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,pp. 66-100.

Martin, C. (2004), From Other to Self: Learning as Interactional Change, Acta UniversitatisUpsaliensis, Uppsala.

Mehan, H. (1979), What time is it, Denise?: asking known information questions in classroomdiscourse, Theory into Practice, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 285-94.

JWL23,5

312


21/22

Melander, H. and Sahlstrom, F. (2009), Learning to fly: the progressive development of situationawareness, Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 53 No. 2, pp. 151-66.

Mori, J. and Markee, N. (2009), Language learning, cognition, and interactional practices:an introduction, International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, Vol. 47

No. 1, pp. 1-9.Nishizaka, A. (2006), What to learn: the embodied structure of the environment, Research on

Language and Social Interaction, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 119-54.

Owen, C. (2009), Instructor beliefs and their mediation of instructor strategies, Journal ofWorkplace Learning, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 477-95.

Palukka, H. (2003), Johtotahdet lennonjohtajien ammatti-identiteetin rakentuminenryhmahaastatteluissa, Tampere University Press, Tampere (in Finnish), available at:http://acta.uta.fi/teos.php?id9098 (accessed 15 August 2010).

Palukka, H. and Auvinen, P. (2005), Ilmailuvuorovaikutus lenta jien ja lennonjohtajienyhteistoiminnalliset tyokaytanteet, Final report (in Finnish), available at: www.tsr.fi/files/TietokantaTutkittu/2002/102064loppuraportti.pdf (accessed 15 August 2010).

Perakyla, A. and Vehvilainen, S. (2003), Conversation analysis and the professional stocks of

interactional knowledge, Discourse and Society, Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 727-50.Resnick, L.B. (1993), Shared cognition: thinking as social practice, in Resnick, L., Levine, J. and

Teasley, S. (Eds), Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition, American PsychologicalAssociation, Washington, DC, pp. 1-20.

Rogoff, B. (1990), Apprenticeship in Thinking: Cognitive Development in Social Context, OxfordUniversity Press, New York, NY.

Ryder, J.M. and Redding, R.E. (1993), Integrating cognitive task analysis into instructionalsystems development, Educational Technology Research and Development, Vol. 41 No. 2,pp. 75-96.

Saljo, R. (2001), Oppimiskaytannot: sosiokulttuurinen nakokulma, WSOY, Helsinki.

Sanne, J.M. (1999), Creating Safety in Air Traffic Control, Arkiv Forlag, Lund, Linkoping Studiesin Arts and Science, 193.

Schegloff, E.A. (2007), Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis1, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Schegloff, E.A. and Sacks, H. (1973), Opening up closings, Semiotica, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 289-327.

Seedhouse, P. (2004), The Interactional Architecture of the Language Classroom: A Conversation Analysis Perspective, Blackwell, Malden, MA.

Sfard, A. (1998), On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one, Educational Researcher, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 4-13.

Teperi, A-M. and Leppanen, A. (2010), Learning at air navigation services after initial training,Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 335-59.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978), Mind in Society, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Appendix. Transcription conventionsThe transcription conventions used in data examples are based on the system developed by GailJefferson (1974, cf. Atkinson and Heritage, 1984, pp. ix-xvi):

. Falling terminal intonation.

, Flat terminal intonation.

? Rising terminal intonation.


313


22/22

8 Quiet or whispered talk.

# Creaky voice.

: Prolonged sound; every: counts as on tens of second length of production.

, . Talk produced slower than surrounding.

. , Talk produced faster than surrounding.

whe- Cut off word.

what Emphatic stress.

WHAT Produced louder than surrounding talk.

= Latching utterances, i.e. preceding utterance immediately follows the first.

* Intonation rise.

# Intonation fall.[ Beginning of the overlapping talk.

] End of the overlapping talk.

.hhh Hearable inhalation.

hhh Hearable exhalation.

(0.0) Pauses in talk measured in tenths of seconds.

(.) Pause in talk shorter that one tenth of second.

( ) Incomprehensible talk for the transcriber.

(right) Transcribers best guess at unclear talk.

(( )) Transcribers additional observation/comment.

! Analysts signal of a significant line.

About the authorsInka Koskela is a PhD candidate in the Department of Social Research at the University ofTampere. In her doctoral dissertation she examines structures of trainer-trainee interaction in airtraffic control training. The research combines methods of conversation analysis and multimodalvideo analysis. The research reported in this article forms a part of her doctoral dissertation,financially supported by the Finnish Doctoral Program in Social Sciences (SOVAKO). InkaKoskela is the corresponding author and can be contacted at [email protected]

Hannele Palukka holds a PhD in Sociology from the University of Tampere. She is ProjectManager at Faculty of Economics and Administration. Her scholarly interest is in theorganization of work and relations in working life and organization of social interaction in highreliability organizations. She holds several years of work experience in air traffic control and hasa long history of research collaboration within the aviation industry.

JWL23,5

314

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

trainer interventions

Documents