This study was designed to investigate the cultural and cognitive dimensions of debriefing. Pilots and flight examiners from five airlines were involved in this cognitive anthropological study. The data include (a) videotaped debriefing sessions and associated interviews with participants and (b) stimulated recall and modified think-aloud protocols with flight examiners. Findings point to the varied structures and contents of debriefing practices, in part mediated by the tools available to the participants. Some implications from this research are already taken up in the industry and are currently subject to an ongoing investigation.
AdlerA. B.BlieseP. D.McGurkD.HogeC. W.CastroC. A. (2009). Battlemind debriefing and battlemind training as early interventions with soldiers returning from Iraq: Randomization by platoon. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77, 928-940.
2.
AusubelD. P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
3.
BeattieG.ShoveltonH. (1999). Do iconic hand gestures really contribute anything to the semantic information conveyed by speech? An experimental investigation. Semiotica, 123, 1-30.
4.
ChengA.EppichW.GrantV.SherbinoV.ZendejasB.CookD. A. (2014). Debriefing for technology-enhanced simulation: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Medical Education, 48, 657-666.
D’AndradeR. (1995). The development of cognitive anthropology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
7.
DennehyR. F.SimsR. R.CollinsH. E. (2009). Debriefing experiential learning exercises: A theoretical and practical guide for success. Journal of Management Education, 22, 9-25.
8.
DismukesR. K.McDonnellL. K.JobeK. K. (2000). Facilitating LOFT debriefings: Instructor techniques and crew participation. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 10, 35-57.
9.
DismukesR. K.SmithG. M. (Eds.). (2000). Facilitation and debriefing in aviation training and operations. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
10.
FanningR. M.GabaD. M. (2007). The role of debriefing in simulation-based learning. Simulation in Healthcare, 2, 115-125.
11.
HadarU.ButterworthB. (1997). Iconic gestures, imagery, and word retrieval in speech. Semiotica, 115, 147-172.
12.
HanksW. F. (1992). The indexical ground of deictic reference. In DurantiA.GoodwinC. (Eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon (pp. 43-76). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
13.
HeathC.LuffP. (2000). Technology in action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
14.
HenriqsonE.van WinsenR.SaurinT. A.DekkerS. W. A. (2011). How a cockpit calculates its speeds and why errors while doing this are so hard to detect. Cognition, Technology, and Work, 13, 217-231.
15.
HutchinsE. (1995a). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
16.
HutchinsE. (1995b). How a cockpit remembers its speeds. Cognitive Science, 19, 265-288.
17.
HutchinsE.PalenL. (1997). Constructing meaning from space, gesture and speech. In ResnickL. B.SaljöR.PontecorvoC.BurgeB. (Eds.), Discourse, tools, and reasoning: Essays on situated cognition (pp. 23-40). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
18.
JordanB.HendersonA. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4, 39-103.
19.
Leont’evA. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness and personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
20.
LuriaA. R. (1973). The working brain: An introduction to neuropsychology. New York: Basic Books.
21.
MavinT. J.RothW.- M.DekkerS. W. A. (2013). Understanding variance in pilot performance ratings: Two studies of flight examiners, captains and first officers assessing the performance of peers. Aviation Psychology and Applied Human Factors, 3, 53-62.
22.
McNeillD. (1992). Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
23.
McNeillD. (2000). Language and gesture. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
24.
MorrisonJ. E.MelizaL. L. (1999). Foundations of the after action review process (Special Report 42). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
25.
RogalS. M. M.SniderP. D. (2008). Rethinking the lecture: The application of problem based learning methods to atypical contexts. Nurse Education in Practice, 8, 213-219.
26.
RothW.- M.MavinT. J. (2014). Peer assessment of aviation performance: Inconsistent for good reasons. Cognitive Science, 39(2), 405-433.
27.
RothW.- M.MavinT. J.MunroI. (2014a). Good reasons for high variance (low interrater reliability) in performance assessment: A case study from aviation. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 44, 685-696.
28.
RothW.- M.MavinT. J.MunroI. (2014b). How a cockpit forgets speeds (and speed-related events): Toward a kinetic description of joint cognitive systems. Cognition, Technology and Work, 17(2), 279-299.
29.
RouderJ. N.SpeckmanP. K.SunD.MorreyR. D. (2009). Bayesian t tests for accepting and rejecting the null hypothesis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 225-237.
30.
SaxeG. B. (1991). Culture and cognitive development: Studies in mathematical understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
31.
Sheets-JohnstoneM. (2011). The primacy of movement (2nd ed.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
32.
TannenbaumS. I.CerasoliC. P. (2013). Do team and individual debriefs enhance performance? A meta-analysis. Human Factors, 55, 231-245.
33.
TulvingE. (1984). Précis of Elements of episodic memory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 7, 223-268.
34.
VygotskyL. S. (1989). Concrete human psychology. Soviet Psychology, 27(2), 53-77.
35.
ZemelA.KoschmannT.LeBaronC.FeltovichP. (2008). “What are we missing?” Usability’s indexical ground. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 17, 63-85.
36.
ZuckermanS. K.FranceD. J.GreenC.Leming-LeeS.AndersS.MoccoJ. (2012). Surgical debriefing: A reliable roadmap to completing the patient safety cycle. Neurosurgical Focus, 33(5), E5, 1-8.
