Advertisement

WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs

, Volume 17, Issue 1, pp 17–30 | Cite as

Simulator training for maritime complex tasks: an experimental study

  • Karina HjelmervikEmail author
  • Salman Nazir
  • Andreas Myhrvold
Article

Abstract

Training simulators are largely deployed to provide operators working within complex systems to instil adequate skills to handle normal and abnormal situations. Improved technology and higher computation power have significantly increased the use of training simulators in the training programs. The goal of this pilot study is to determine the design of training in order to prepare for complex tasks within the maritime domain. In this experimental study, students are trained to perform docking operations when ocean currents with increasing complexity are introduced in the training program. The effect of the training is evaluated by comparing two groups: one trained with homogenous currents and the other with heterogeneous currents. Objective performance measures are used to analyse the participants’ performance. The results indicate that when the participants were exposed to tasks with gradually increasing complexity, they performed better as compared to those who were exposed to complex tasks too early in the training. The results suggest that even though the technology and computational power provide for new possibilities in training simulators, new features that make the tasks more complicated should not be included too early in the training without sufficient investigation. It is also found that increasing functional fidelity of the simulation during training has resulted in the improved performance of the participants during the complex tasks (docking operations), as compared to those training with the highest fidelity from the beginning.

Keywords

Education and training assessment Simulator training Maritime education and training Learning theory Competence Ocean currents 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The experiments were performed in the SimStrøm research project in a cooperation between Kongsberg Maritime and the University College of Southeast Norway. The project was funded by the regional research fund Oslofjordfondet (research grant no. 248723). We would like to thank Stefan Backmann, Anders Nes and Svend Nordby for facilitating the experiments and for their valuable contributions.

Compliance with ethical standards

The experiment was performed in accordance to the ethical standards laid down in the 1991 Declaration of Helsinki. All participants signed a consent form.

References

  1. Bacchetti P (2010) Current sample size conventions: flaws, harms, and alternatives. BMC Med 8:1–7.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-8-17 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bacchetti P, Deeks SG, McCune JM (2011) Breaking free of sample size dogma to perform innovative translational research. Sci Transl Med 3:1–9.  https://doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed.3001628 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baldauf M, Schröder-Hinrichs J-U, Kataria A, Benedict K, Tuschling G (2016) Multidimensional simulation in team training for safety and security in maritime transportation. J Transp Saf Secur 8:197–213.  https://doi.org/10.1080/19439962.2014.996932 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berg N, Storgård J, Lappalainen J (2013) The impact of ship crews on maritime safety publications of the Centre for Maritime Studies. Univ Turku A64:1–48Google Scholar
  5. Bryman A (2012) Social research methods. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  6. Cohen J (1992) A power primer. Psychol Bull 112:155–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dahlstrom N, Dekker S, van Winsen R, Nyce J (2009) Fidelity and validity of simulator training theoretical issues in ergonomics. Science 10:305–314.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14639220802368864 Google Scholar
  8. Dekker S (2003) When human error becomes a crime. Hum Factors Aerosp Saf 3:83–92Google Scholar
  9. Detsky AS (1990) Using cost-effectiveness analysis to improve the efficiency of allocating funds to clinical trials. Stat Med 9:173–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. DNV (2007), Statement of Compliance, DNV Id. No. 135908. Retrieved from:https://kongsberg.com/en/kongsberg-digital/maritime%20simulation/ksim%20navigation%20-page/. Accessed November 2017
  11. Flin RH, O’Connor P, Crichton M (2008) Safety at the sharp end: a guide to non-technical skills. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., HampshireGoogle Scholar
  12. Fujii M, Asaki K, Kubono M, Hamada T (2015) Evaluation method of training scenario for ship manoeuvring simulator exercise in BRM training. Paper presented at the International Conference on Ship Manoeuvrability and Maritime Simulation, New Castle University, Newcastle upon TyneGoogle Scholar
  13. Gould KS, Røed BK, Saus E-R, Koefoed VF, Bridger RS, Moen BE (2009) Effects of navigation method on workload and performance in simulated high-speed ship navigation. Appl Ergon 40:103–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hjelmervik KB, Kristensen NM, Staalstrøm A, Røed LP (2017) A simple approach to adjust tidal forcing in fjord models. Ocean Dyn 67:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Issenberg SB, McGaghie WC, Petrusa ER, Gordon DL, Scalese RJ (2005) Features and uses of high-fidelity medical simulations that lead to effective learning: a BEME systematic review. Med Teach 27:10–28.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590500046924 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Karau SJ, Kelly JR (1992) The effects of time scarcity and time abundance on group performance quality and interaction process. J Exp Soc Psychol 28:542–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kerr NL, Tindale RS (2004) Group performance and decision making. Annu Rev Psychol 55:623–655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kim T-e, Nazir S (2016) Exploring marine accident causation: a case study. Occup Saf Hyg IV:369–374Google Scholar
  19. Kluge A (2014) The acquisition of knowledge and skills for taskwork and teamwork to control complex technical systems: a cognitive and macroergonomics perspective. Springer, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kluge A, Sauer J, Schüler K, Burkolter D (2009) Designing training for process control simulators: a review of empirical findings and current practices. Theor Issues Ergon Sci 10:489–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lau Y-y, Ng AKY (2015) The motivations and expectations of students pursuing maritime education. WMU J Marit Aff 14:313–331.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13437-015-0075-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Muirhead PMP (2004) New technology and maritime training in the 21st century: implications and solutions for MET institutions. WMU J Marit Aff 3:139–158.  https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03195056 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nazir S, Hjelmervik K (2017) Advance use of training simulator in maritime education and training: a questionnaire study. In: International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics. Springer, pp 361–371Google Scholar
  24. Nazir S, Manca D (2015) How a plant simulator can improve industrial safety. Process Saf Prog 34:237–243.  https://doi.org/10.1002/prs.11714 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nazir S, Øvergård KI, Yang Z (2015a) Towards effective training for process and maritime industries. Proc Manuf 3:1519–1526.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.409 Google Scholar
  26. Nazir S, Sorensen LJ, Øvergård KI, Manca D (2015b) Impact of training methods on distributed situation awareness of industrial operators. Saf Sci 73:136–145.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2014.11.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nikitakos N, Sirris I, Dalaklis D, Papachristos D, Tsoukalas VD (2016) Game-based learning for maritime education and training: the case of Trader of the World. WMU J Marit Aff 16:1–27.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13437-016-0119-3 Google Scholar
  28. Okazaki T, Kunieda C (2011) Development of a training support tool for marine pilot trainees. In: International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics. IEEE, pp 189–194Google Scholar
  29. Øvergård KI, Nielsen AR, Nazir S, Sorensen LJ (2015) Assessing navigational teamwork through the situational correctness and relevance of communication. Proc Manuf 3:2589–2596Google Scholar
  30. Passosa C, Nazir S, Mol ACA, Carvalho PV (2016) Collaborative virtual environment for training teams in emergency situations. Chem Eng 53:217–222.  https://doi.org/10.3303/CET1653037 Google Scholar
  31. Pyne R, Koester T (2005) Methods and means for analysis of crew communication in the maritime domain. Arch Transp 17:193–208Google Scholar
  32. Røed LP, Kristensen NM, Hjelmervik KB, Staalstrøm A (2016) A high-resolution, curvilinear ROMS model for the Oslofjord. FjordOs technical report No. 2. Norwegian Meteriological InstituteGoogle Scholar
  33. Rothblum AM (2000) Human error and marine safety. Paper presented at National Safety Council Congress and Expo, OrlandoGoogle Scholar
  34. Salas E, Bowers CA, Rhodenizer L (1998) It is not how much you have but how you use it: toward a rational use of simulatio to support aviation training. Int J Aviat Psychol 8:197–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Salas E, Tannenbaum SI, Kraiger K, Smith-Jentsch KA (2012) The science of training and development in organizations: what matters in practice. Psychol Sci Public Interest 13:74–101.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612436661 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Saus E-R, Johnsen BH, Eid J (2010) Perceived learning outcome: the relationship between experience, realism and situation awareness during simulator training. Int Marit Health 61:258–264Google Scholar
  37. Sellberg C (2016) Simulators in bridge operations training and assessment: a systematic review and qualitative synthesis. WMU J Marit Aff 16:1–17.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13437-016-0114-8 Google Scholar
  38. Voytkevich A, Bogdanecs A, Fernandez M (2015) Key performance indcators for assessing simulator task scenarios: paper presented at the International Conference on Ship Manoeuvrability and Maritime Simulation. New Castle University, Newcastle upon TyneGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© World Maritime University 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Technology and Maritime SciencesUniversity College of Southeast NorwayNotoddenNorway

Personalised recommendations