Advertisement

Maritime simulator training across Europe: a comparative study

  • Salman Nazir
  • Sophie Jungefeldt
  • Amit Sharma
IAMU Section Article
  • 63 Downloads

Abstract

Simulator-based training has witnessed considerable attention in recent years for the training of operators in the maritime domain and is employed by majority of nautical training institutes. IMO has published the model course 6.10 Train the simulator trainer and assessor which acts as a guideline and aims to promote uniformity in the simulator-based training for maritime operations. Nevertheless, the model course should not be “implemented blindly,” since one has to acknowledge the institution’s own resources and apply them in an appropriate way. Consequently, a variation in different institutions simulator training can exist. This study aims to discover how such variations exist in the European full mission simulator training institutions. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to clarify each of the participating institution’s simulator training design. The interviews comprised relevant performance indicators—e.g., identical elements, training time, teaching of general principles, students’ needs, feedback, training needs analysis, assessment, and instructors´ qualifications—selected after a detailed literature review. The findings present variations and similarities observed in the European simulator training facilities, in relation to the designated performance indicators. The study demonstrated that although some simulator training in Europe appears to be performed uniformly due to comparable proceedings and understanding of the model course 6.10, the implementations of these aspects on the basis of interpretation and available infrastructure can create dissimilarities.

Keywords

EU maritime institutions Maritime education and training Performance indicators Comparative study 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the participants in the study for their valuable contributions and anonymous reviewers for their feedback.

References

  1. Baldwin TT, Ford JK (1988) Transfer of training: a review and directions for future research. Pers Psychol 41:63–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berg BL, Lune H (2012) Qualitative research methods for the social sciences, 8th edn. Pearson, BostonGoogle Scholar
  3. Black P, Wiliam D (1998) Inside the black box: raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan 2:139–148Google Scholar
  4. Bransford JD, Brown A, Coocking RR (2000) How people learn: brain, mind, experience, and school: expanded edition. The. National Academies Press, Washington, DC.  https://doi.org/10.17226/9853 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Collins A, Kapur M (2014) Cognitive apprenticeship. In: Cambridge handbook of learning science, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 47–60Google Scholar
  6. Crossan MM, Lane HW, White RE (1999) An organizational learning framework: from intuition to institution. Acad Manag Rev 24:522–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dewey J (2004) Democracy and education. Courier Corporation, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Farmer E, van Rooij J, Riemersma J, Jorna P, Moraal J (1999) Handbook of simulator-based training. Ashgate Publishing Company LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. Flick U (2007) Designing qualitative research vol 1. Sage, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Flick U (2009) An introduction to qualitative research. Qualitative Forschung, 4th edn. Sage, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  11. Frankfort-Nachmias C, Nachmias D (2008) Research methods in the social sciences, 7th edn. Worth Publishers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Grossman R, Salas E (2011) The transfer of training: what really matters. Int J Train Dev 15:103–120.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2419.2011.00373.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hattie J, Timperley H (2007) The power of feedback. Rev Educ Res 77:81–112.  https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hays RT, Jacobs JW, Prince C, Salas E (1992) Flight simulator training effectiveness: a meta-analysis. Mil Psychol (Taylor & Francis Ltd) 4:63–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hiebert NM, Vo A, Hampshire A, Owen AM, Seergobin KN, MacDonald PA (2014) Striatum in stimulus–response learning via feedback and in decision making. NeuroImage 101:448–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. International Maritime Organization (1972) Convention on the international regulations for preventing collisions at sea. IMO, LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. International Maritime Organization (2011) International convention on standards of training, certification and Watchkeeping for seafarers (STCW): including 2010 Manila amendments ; STCW convention and STCW code. IMO publication, 3rd consolidated edn. IMO, LondonGoogle Scholar
  18. International Maritime Organization (2012) Model Course 6.10 Train the simulator trainer and assessor. International Maritime Organization, LondonGoogle Scholar
  19. Kluge A, Sauer J, Schuler K, Burkolter D (2008) Designing training for process control simulators: a review of empirical findings and current practices. Theor Issues Ergon Sci 10:489–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Littleton K, Mercer N (2013) Interthinking: putting talk to work. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. Liu D, Blickensderfer EL, Macchiarella ND, Vincenzi DA (2009) Transfer of training. In: Vincenzi DA, Wise JA, Mouloua M, Hancock PA (eds) Human factors in simulator and training. CRC press, New York, pp 49–60Google Scholar
  22. Maté A, Trujillo J, Mylopoulos J (2017) Specification and derivation of key performance indicators for business analytics: a semantic approach. Data Knowl Eng 108:30–49.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.datak.2016.12.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Miles MB, Huberman AM, Saldaña J (2014) Qualitative data analysis: a methods sourcebook, 3rd edn. Sage, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  24. Moroney WF, Lilienthal MG (2009) Human factors in simulation and training an overview. In: Vincenzi DA, Wise JA, Mouloua M, Hancock PA (eds) Human factors in simulation and training. CRC press, New York, pp 4–35Google Scholar
  25. Nærings- og fiskeridepartementet (NFD) [Ministry of food and fisheries] (1999) Forskrift om vakthold på passasjer- og lasteskip [Passenger and cargo look out regulations]Google Scholar
  26. Nazir S, Jungefeldt S (2017) Simulator based maritime training—a comparative study Proceedings of International Association of Maritime Universities, 2018 in 11–15 October 2017, Varna, pp 82–91Google Scholar
  27. Nazir S, Øvergård KI, Yang Z (2015) Towards effective training for process and maritime industries. Procedia Manuf 3:1519–1526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Postholm MB (2011) Organisering og ledelse av læringsaktivitet [Organization and management of learning activities]. In: Lærerarbeid for elevenes læring 5–10. Høyskoleforl., Kristiansand,Google Scholar
  29. Sharma A, Nazir S, Wiig AC, Sellberg C, Imset M, Mallam S (2019) Computer supported collaborative learning as an intervention for maritime education and training. In: Nazir S, Teperi AM, Polak-Sopińska A (eds) Advances in human factors in training, education, and learning sciences. AHFE 2018. Advances in intelligent systems and computing, vol 785. Springer, pp 3–12Google Scholar
  30. Thorndike EL, Woodworth RS (1901) The influence of improvement in one mental function upon the efficiency of other functions: II. Functions involving attention, observation and discrimination. Psychol Rev 8:553–564.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0071363 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Vygotsky LS, Cole M, John-Steiner V, Scribner S, Souberman E (1978) Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  32. White BY (1984) Designing computer games to help physics students understand Newton’s Laws of motion. Cogn Instr 1:69–108.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0101_4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© World Maritime University 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Training and Assessment Research group (TARG), Department of Maritime OperationsUniversity of South-eastern NorwayBorreNorway

Personalised recommendations