1 Introduction

Higher education is transforming various fields globally due to a broad set of factors, including changing policies, technological advancements, and economic dynamics. These changes influence curricula delivery methods and content (Altbach et al. 2019). Substantial discussions have arisen over the years regarding what teaching should look like, what should be emphasised, what the curriculum entails, and how it can be better structured to meet students’ needs (Behar-Horenstein and Niu 2011; Biggs 1996; Light et al. 2009; Moore 2005; O’Connor 2022; Oliver and Hyun 2011; Ramsden 2003). Although some of these discussions date back many years, the principles and questions they raise continue to influence contemporary educational discourse.

This study examines the curriculum in marine simulator-based education, exploring the foundational aspects of maritime education, such as regulatory frameworks, technological advancements, and educational methods. Maritime training evolved from an apprenticeship model, where novices learned directly from experienced sailors during sea voyages, to a more formalised education system (Emad 2011). This shift is mainly attributed to internationalising and enforcing the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) Standards of Training, Certification, and Watchkeeping (STCW) Convention. Under this system, aspiring seafarers are required to undergo academic training at specialised maritime education and training (MET) institutions or authorised training providers to obtain the necessary certifications.

Integrating advanced educational tools like simulator-based training has become pivotal due to complex technological advancements in the maritime domain. The STCW standards mandate the use of simulators for specific competencies (IMO, 2010, pp. 93,94). Simulator-based education bridges the gap between theoretical knowledge and practical skills, offering a controlled, risk-free environment where trainees can experience realistic scenarios (Hontvedt and Øvergård 2020; Kim et al. 2021; Wahl 2020). Initially, simulators were basic, focusing on navigation and ship handling, but they have evolved into highly sophisticated systems capable of simulating various vessels, environments, and situations (Nautilus 2021). This evolution aligns with seafarers’ diverse learning needs, ensuring effective training. Ongoing research in MET explores simulator training effectiveness, leading to continuous improvements. There is an increasing emphasis on the pedagogical integration of simulator-based training into the broader curriculum. Technological advancements in navigation, engineering, and communication necessitated a shift in training methods. Numerous studies in maritime higher education have investigated how educational practices can be enhanced to facilitate effective learning in simulators (De Oliveira et al. 2022; Nazir and Hjelmervik 2017; Scanlan et al. 2022; Sellberg 2016; Sharma et al. 2018). These studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of simulator-based training in enhancing practical skills and understanding complex maritime operations. However, there is still a need for comprehensive research that thoroughly examines how the curriculum can be optimally structured to maximise the benefits of simulator-based training.

To address this gap, research is needed to explore the factors affecting learning and teaching in maritime simulator-based education. This includes examining the structure, delivery methods, assessment, and student practices to ensure that the teaching and learning are effective, comprehensive, and coherent. Understanding these factors can lead to improved training for seafarers, enabling them to adapt to the evolving maritime environment. Thus, this study introduces a curriculum concept map to provide a comprehensive understanding of the curriculum. By offering a structured approach, the concept map may guide stakeholders, allowing them to understand the scope and focus of curriculum forms and enable further improvements. The following section provides detailed information about the curriculum and its various forms.

2 Background

The term “curriculum” encompasses multiple meanings and definitions. A simplistic view of a curriculum is a basic lesson plan, which fails to recognise its complexity and multifaceted role in shaping educational experiences. For example, Doll (1992) defines curriculum as the formal and informal content and process through which learners gain knowledge and understanding, develop skills, and alter attitudes, appreciations, and values under the auspices of an academic institution. From this perspective, a curriculum is not merely a checklist or a sequential arrangement of lessons; it is a dynamic, interactive framework designed to adapt to students` changing needs and be responsive to the diverse variables that affect learning. It should be seen as a comprehensive strategy integrating academic theories with practical applications, aiming for the holistic growth of learners.

The following definition is derived from several definitions (Armstrong 1989; Duncan and Frymier 1967; Johnson Jr 1967; Krug 1957). The curriculum is a master plan for organising the learning-teaching process, including instructional strategies, teaching methods, learning resources, lesson plans, evaluation and assessment, staff development and the reconstruction of the human experience within and outside the school.

In the literature, numerous definitions exist regarding forms of curricula, each contributing to the educational framework. Therefore, an initial selection was made based on their relevance and alignment with the research scope. Emphasis was also placed on selecting widely cited and recognised definitions within the field of education. This approach ensured that the chosen definitions contributed to the study’s conceptual framework and provided a foundation for further analysis and discussion. Table 1 provides these definitions in alphabetic order to facilitate a comprehensive curriculum understanding.

Table 1 Definitions and roles of various curricula forms
Full size table

The curriculum development process culminates in a set of events that has the potential to reconstruct human experiences, leading to desired learning outcomes (Duncan and Frymier 1967). It enables students to gain greater control over their knowledge by reconstructing socially valued information and experience (Bell 1984).

Incorporating clearly defined curricula forms within the research framework establishes a structured methodology for data collection in educational settings. Clear definitions enable comparing educational practices across different settings, times, or domains. Consistent terminology also ensures that all stakeholders understand the data’s scope and focus, enhancing the credibility and validity of the research findings. Moreover, it helps to understand the interplay between different curricula forms, such as how the ‘Program Curriculum’ is actually ‘Received’ by students and the degree to which it aligns with the ‘Prescribed Curriculum’ from authoritative bodies like the IMO. In the context of maritime simulator-based education and training, defining the curriculum forms is helpful for theoretical clarity and practical application. However, these definitions may evolve with ongoing research and contributions from diverse stakeholders.

3 Methodology

This study employs a qualitative research design, utilising a concept map as a primary methodological tool. A concept map is designed to depict hierarchical connections between concepts (Novak and Gowin 1984). Novak and Cañas (2008) defined a concept map as a graphical tool for organising and representing knowledge. A concept map can structure a research project, reduce qualitative data, analyse the themes and interrelationships within a study, and present findings. Creating a concept map involves generating, organising and refining ideas to produce a comprehensible and meaningful representation of the subject matter (Conceição et al. 2017). Two key features of concept maps that play a significant role in fostering creative thinking are the structure they depict and the capacity to explore and identify new cross-links (Novak and Cañas 2008).

Some curricula may fail to capture the nuances and complexities of the subject matter, leading to the oversimplification or exclusion of essential concepts. To address this, concept mapping aligns with the study`s aim to explore complex interactions within MET. The initial concept map was generated based on a review of the existing literature, ensuring its foundation within the theoretical constructs established by prior studies. Key concepts were identified through a literature review, which included searches in academic databases such as Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar and HVL digital library using key words such as “curriculum,” “curriculum development,” “learning and teaching,” “maritime education,” and “maritime simulator-based training”. Establishing a foundational understanding of the current state of MET involved exploring prevailing theories, methodologies, and educational practices. This exploration helped identify existing gaps and areas requiring further investigation, while the further literature review clarified the interactions and impacts within the context of MET.

Building on this, an iterative design methodology is adopted, informed by the principles of participatory design, highlighting its emphasis on user involvement to ensure the usability and relevance of the design (Sanders and Stappers 2008). A co-design process was implemented to organise the preliminary model and enhance its practical applicability, involving a diverse group of stakeholders, including educators and students, in a series of evaluative sessions. These sessions facilitated a two-way exchange of ideas, allowing stakeholders to contribute their unique perspectives, a process that aligns with the collaborative frameworks (Brown and Green 2019). Specifically, interviews and idea exchanges were conducted with four different program managers/ directors from four maritime institutions for these sessions. Additionally, focus group sessions were held with four groups of students, totalling 24 students, and at one institution, a focus group involved 15 educators, including researchers, lecturers, and simulator instructors.

The insights earned from these discussions led to revisions of the map. For example, the earlier, more detailed version was refined for greater clarity and practicality. Terminology was simplified: “Written/Overt” and “Taught/Explicit” were combined into broader categories like “Prescribed,” “Program”, and “Taught,” while “Learned/Received” was condensed into “Received.” Structural changes involved merging various detailed components into more general categories, such as reducing the detailed distinctions of curriculum types into overarching factors like “Education system factors” and “Student factors.” Connections between forms of curricula were also simplified; for instance, previously complex interrelations between different curriculum aspects were made more direct to focus on core relationships, such as linking “Program” directly to “Taught” and “Assessed.”

These changes were iteratively incorporated into the study, resulting in a refined version that more accurately reflects the practices and experiences of the intended users. This refinement included clarifying some categories, refining the overall structure, and reorganising the connections between key elements to better align with the insights gained from stakeholder feedback. Moon (2006) highlights the importance of iterative feedback in educational design, a principle we embraced by incorporating insights from diverse maritime educators to refine the map’s content. Those insights were discussed among the authors, who are all experienced educators, each bringing their unique disciplinary perspectives to the process. One author, with an extensive background in human-centred design principles, ensured the map was intuitive and user-friendly. Another, an expert in social sciences, contributed insights on efficient data integration. The third draws on deep maritime operational experience and academic focus on simulator training. A consensus was reached on the map’s structure and content through this interdisciplinary dialogue. This approach not only improved the functionality of the concept map but also reinforced the integral role of feedback in educational design, reflecting the team’s comprehensive expertise in shaping a dynamic educational tool tailored to maritime training.

To enhance the reliability of the findings, member checking was used during discussions. This process involved returning the data or interpretations to the participants for verification, allowing them to confirm the accuracy and resonance of the findings with their experiences (Hoffart 1991). This approach helped ensure that the concept map accurately reflected the participants’ perspectives and enhanced the study’s credibility (Candela 2019).

To further refine and validate the map, it was presented at the International Association of Maritime Universities Conference in the fall of 2023 in Helsinki, Finland. Feedback from international maritime educators led to some more adjustments in the study. These included refining the connections between elements. In the earlier version, bidirectional connections highlighted the ongoing interaction between forms such as “Taught” and “Received,” indicating that what students learn (Received) can influence future teaching methods (Taught) and vice versa. The model might now emphasise a more straightforward, linear understanding of the curriculum process by shifting to unidirectional connections in the final version. This change was likely made to create a more streamlined and accessible model, even though it may sacrifice some of the complexity that bidirectional connections provided. The decision to simplify these connections reflects the iterative process of refining the model to balance complexity with clarity, ensuring it remains practical and usable for its intended audience.

This study acknowledges the limitations inherent in qualitative research, including potential biases in participant selection (Huberman 2014). Additionally, the subjective nature of a concept map reflects the perspectives of a limited number of stakeholders, which may limit its generalizability. Future research could extend this methodology by assessing the long-term impact of the concept map on educational outcomes in MET.

As illustrated in Fig. 1, the concept map is divided into two sections, each represented by different background shades—cross-links between concepts help to see that a concept is related to another on the map. The top half focuses on factors outside a student’s control (university- or education system-related), while the lower half emphasises factors within a student’s control. Since this study focuses on student-centred learning, the received curricula are displayed at the centre of the concept map.

The iteration has transformed the map`s layout, resulting in a more free-form design. Traditional linking phrases and directional arrows have been removed, enhancing the visual representation of interconnectedness without the constraints of a fixed hierarchy. This redesign introduces a flexibility that might cause some to view it more like a mind map (Buzan and Buzan 2006). Despite these changes, the map effectively identifies and connects various concepts, offering insights into how individual perceptions are interlinked. This adaptability in the concept map’s definition expands its potential uses, making it a versatile tool in educational research.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Student-centred maritime simulator-based education curricula concept map

Full size image

This concept map illustrates the interplay between education system factors and student factors within a curriculum context. It shows how external prescriptions shape the design of program curricula, which are then supported, supplemented, taught, and assessed. At the intersection of these factors in the educational system is what the student “Receives.” This reception is not only by formal instruction taught and assessment but also by co-curricular and extracurricular activities that impact the students` broader engagement with the content. The map also incorporates the concept of self-directed learning and societal influences, acknowledging that various activities and societal norms shape students’ learning experiences, not just formal education.

In the following sections, each factor in the concept map is examined in detail, highlighting how they collectively scaffold the MET curriculum. The validation of the concept map is planned as a future research phase, including focus group discussions with students and comprehensive interviews with decision-makers, institution directors, and educators.

4 Maritime simulator-based education curriculum concept map

4.1 Education system factors

As previously defined, the curriculum is a master plan for organising the learning-teaching process, including instructional strategies, teaching methods, learning resources, lesson plans, evaluation and assessment, staff development and the reconstruction of the human experience within and outside the school. The following sections will offer further insights into these levels and the impacting factors. The explanation of the factors will encompass both halves of the diagram.

4.1.1 Prescribed curriculum

Prescribed curriculum refers to the subjects, knowledge and competencies mandated by regulatory bodies. The relevant authorities determine the curriculum at the system level, specifying what must be taught at each educational stage. The Council of Europe (2018)’s Reference Framework Of Competences For Democratic Culture states that at the institutional level, teachers and educational leaders adapt the prescribed curriculum to fit the school’s context and educational requirements.

International regulations and standards play a primary role in shaping MET curricula, ensuring seafarers’ training meets the safety and operational standards required for the global maritime industry, particularly under the STCW Convention (IMO, 2010). The STCW Code outlines training and certification requirements for different seafarers’ roles, such as deck officers, engineering officers and ratings. It provides a complete framework for institutions and educators to build lesson plans, apply teaching practices and design assessments. This framework aligns with a competency-based curriculum approach, emphasising specific competencies and outcomes across subjects. Competences—including values, attitudes, skills, knowledge, and critical understanding—are interconnected and acting competently involves applying these factors in various situations, such as problem-solving or proposing solutions (Europe 2018).

For example, the STCW Code Table A-II/1 defines the minimum competency standards for officers in charge of a navigational watch on ships of 500 gross tonnages or more. The table is divided into four columns, outlining the structure of a maritime training curriculum or competence assessment framework. For example, the table for navigation at the operational level (IMO, 2010, p. 109):

Column 1 lists the competence to be achieved, which in this case is “Manoeuvre the ship”.

Column 2 describes the knowledge and understanding required, including specific knowledge areas like ship handling and the effects of draught, trim, speed, and current.

Column 3 details the methods for demonstrating competence, such as examinations and assessment of evidence from in-service experience, approved training ship experience, simulator training, and model ship handling, where appropriate.

Column 4 specifies the criteria for evaluating competence, ensuring that safe operating limits of ship systems are maintained during manoeuvres.

These tables determine the content and framework of both the program and taught curricula.

Resolution 15 of the STCW Convention emphasises the importance of regular reviews and the need to address emerging technologies. It recommends that amendments be developed and adopted on a five-year cycle basis, with a comprehensive review every ten years to address inconsistencies and keep the convention current (IMO, 2010, p. 60). Although this decennial review process is essential, it may lag behind the rapid pace of technological advancements. In 2022, the IMO Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) agreed to conduct a comprehensive review of the STCW Convention and Code, aiming to complete it by 2026, with the Sub-Committee On Human Element, Training And Watchkeeping (HTW) leading this effort.

National regulatory authorities in both maritime and education also influence MET. Accredited educational entities deliver MET programs, including maritime schools, institutions, training service providers, and authorised organisations. In Norway, the Norwegian Maritime Authority (NMA) is the governing body responsible for authorising organisations and certification of seafarers. Certification requires completing education at a MET institution and gaining practical onboard training. After fulfilling their required sailing time, graduates can begin working as deck officers on various types of vessels.

The Ministry of Education and Research oversees higher education in Norway, ensuring its quality, including tertiary vocational education. The Norwegian Qualification Framework (NQF) emphasises evaluating what students know, what they can perform, and what they can do after their education. The NQF uses categories of “knowledge,” “skills,” and “general competencies” to define the learning outcomes for a student who has completed their bachelor’s (NQF 2014).

In summary, while international regulatory bodies prescribe a framework for program curricula, institutions must also adapt to national regulations, conditions, and specific needs.

4.1.2 Program curriculum

Program curriculum refers to the educational program that institutions design in accordance with the requirements and standards established by regulatory authorities and the needs of the industry. The program curriculum is typically more detailed than the prescribed curriculum. Directors or program managers actively ensure alignment by evaluating whether the prescribed curriculum has been sufficiently addressed. It consists of educational objectives, content, and instructional resources developed and documented by educational institutions to guide classroom instruction. It typically organises the learning-teaching process, including study plans, materials and guides (Glatthorn et al. 2018).

In Norway, four maritime institutions offer educational programs titled “Bachelor of Nautical Science,” each with subtle differences in their program curriculum. Despite students earning similar certificates after completing their 3-year programs, the structure of their bachelor’s degrees differs. Each program adheres to the STCW Code tables A-II/1 and A-II/2 by offering three to four navigation courses (NAV I, II, III, and IV), all incorporating simulator practices. The incorporation of simulator-based training within the program curriculum is influenced by institutional approaches, with key factors including which simulator types to use, the allocated hours in simulators, and the number of simulator instructors. Examining the programs in the frame of NAV courses across four institutions reveals distinct variations that are key to understanding their effectiveness. First, the courses` European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS) credits of NAV courses vary among the programs. Two institutions assign 10 ECTS to these courses, while the others assign 7.5 ECTS.

Second, the commencement of navigation courses and simulator practices differs by semester. While three programs begin in the first semester, one starts in the second semester. Even though they deliver similar content, one program offers three distinct modules (theoretical, practical, and applied) for NAV1, NAV2, and NAV3. Furthermore, some programs include NAV4. The duration of simulator practice also varies, ranging from 216 h in some programs to as much as 336 h in others (MARKOM 2020).

Additionally, the selection of other courses and optional courses differs across programs. Introducing a new pilot 4-year practical navigation program (including a one-year sea service) in one of the institutions raises questions about its potential impact on students and the program curricula. The analysis of the identified differences between institutions is beyond the scope of this study; however, it is evident that despite STCW standards, there are variations in their implementation in maritime education and training programs at both national and international levels. Lastly, these programs are subject to annual revisions, adapting continuously based on new developments and feedback received (HVL 2022; NTNU 2023; UiT 2023; USN 2023).

Learning outcomes in these programs are presented as knowledge, skills, and general competence, as outlined in the STCW tables and Norwegian National Qualifications Framework. It is essential to specify what candidates are expected to understand, demonstrate, and communicate by the end of the course (Tait 2003). Learning outcomes provide learners with clear information to assist them in selecting qualifications to study, thereby promoting more effective learning. For teachers, learning outcomes specify the module’s content and ensure alignment with the appropriate delivery and assessment methods. Moreover, adopting a learning outcomes approach shifts the focus to the learner, emphasising the teacher’s role as a facilitator (Adam 2006).

4.1.3 Taught curriculum

Taught curriculum is influenced by the program and prescribed curricula and interacts with the assessed curriculum, supplemental curriculum and received curriculum. It serves as a bridge between program requirements and delivery to students. Moreover, the taught curriculum ensures that expected learning outcomes are assessed, effectively evaluating learners` progress. Regarding what is taught, the curriculum is frequently taken for granted and assumed to be easily transferable into new forms (O’Connor 2022). Instructor interpretation and delivery, including individual teaching styles, can impact how students receive and understand the curriculum. On the other hand, understanding the needs of the students and their learning styles and backgrounds is key for tailoring the curriculum to ensure effective learning outcomes.

Learning objectives in the taught curriculum define what students are expected to learn, focusing on teaching and the teacher’s intentions, while learning outcomes focus on what students achieve (the latter will be explored in Sect. 4.1.5). Objectives indicate the module’s general content, direction, and intentions from the teachers’ perspective (Moon 2006). Learning objectives guide instructors in selecting appropriate teaching methods and materials. However, available resources, such as educational materials and technological tools, can limit or expand the curriculum’s scope. In Norway, the prescribed Learning Management System (LMS) streamlines the digital program for both instructors and students. It facilitates communication between teachers and students with features like course organisation, assignment management, grading tools, and multimedia support. Additionally, LMS allows students to access course materials and relevant details effortlessly (HVL 2024; NTNU 2024; USN 2024).

Edwards (2011) underscores the importance of understanding variations for effective curriculum implementation from program curricula to taught curricula. In Norway, higher education educators must meet specific requirements, such as completing pedagogy courses and utilising various modules to improve instructional strategies, teaching methods, and staff development. Simulators play a key role in the taught curriculum, integrating industry culture, norms, and values. However, no pedagogy courses specifically focused on teaching in simulators offered by these institutions, indicating a potential gap in the current educational framework.

Instructors teaching in maritime simulators must complete IMO model courses such as IMO 6.09 Training Course for Instructors and IMO 6.10 Train the Simulator Trainer and Assessor Model course (Sdir 2023). Private maritime training organisations and manufacturers typically offer these courses, which may lack practical experience in higher education-level teaching. IMO 6.09 prepares participants to plan and prepare teaching and instruction effectively. It covers selecting suitable teaching methods, materials, and evaluation techniques for the teaching and learning process. IMO 6.10 (2012) aims to ensure that trainees develop a conceptual understanding of the significance of maritime education and simulator training, emphasising the human element and providing insights into learning psychology. The course covers planning, organisation, leadership, interpersonal relationships, communication skills, adult learning processes, teaching methodologies, trainee assessment, and course evaluation (IMO, 2010). It is ideal for maritime professionals new to training or with limited instructional experience. The courses align with the STCW Convention’s requirement for qualified personnel to conduct training leading to certification. The course supports STCW Regulation I/6, which pertains to instructor qualifications and includes key aspects (IMO, 2010).

The taught curricula in various educational fields have adapted primarily due to the shift to online and blended learning models necessitated by the pandemic (Valverde-Berrocoso et al. 2021). This shift has led educators to innovate and integrate digital tools and platforms to maintain practical teaching standards while addressing the challenges of remote student engagement and assessment (Valverde-Berrocoso et al. 2021). These adaptations reflect a broader trend towards more flexible, technology-integrated educational approaches in response to changing global circumstances.

While the pandemic-induced shift towards technology-focused education has brought benefits—such as integrating digital tools and increasing teaching flexibility—many researchers, including Vangrieken et al. (2015), emphasise the importance of teacher collaboration. They argue that moving away from a culture of isolation towards collaboration fosters cross-generational learning, innovation, and higher achievement. Collaboration also supports professional development, reduces workload, and enhances efficiency. Despite the potential for technology to create a more isolated teaching environment, it should not replace collaboration but instead, be seen as an opportunity to enhance and diversify collaborative practices. It fosters communication, promotes professional dialogue, sharing ideas and resources, technological skills, and collective efficacy among teachers, enhancing teaching effectiveness and instruction quality (Main and Bryer 2005).

Furthermore, collaboration boosts teacher motivation and learning. It also promotes student-centered instructional strategies. Collaboration ensures alignment of written, taught and tested curricula (Bertrand et al. 2006), supports school restructuring, and contributes to a cultural shift towards equity, addressing all students’ needs, flattening power structures, and flattening power structures within schools.

Ongoing efforts are underway to enhance collaboration among maritime simulator instructors. For instance, the International Association of Maritime Universities (IAMU) project SimED, led by Chalmers University, organises maritime simulator instructors camps and seminars for IAMU member universities to share good practices and scenarios (IAMU 2024). A similar initiative has been initiated nationally in Norwegian maritime higher education institutions (COAST 2024b).

In conclusion, effectively implementing the program curricula into the taught curriculum requires a nuanced understanding of the interplay between teacher interpretation, student needs, and available resources. Adopting a student-centred approach, enhancing teacher training, and utilising diverse instructional strategies can bridge the gap between the program and taught curriculum, ensuring its practical applicability and relevance, especially in fields that require specialised knowledge and tools.

4.1.4 Supplemental curriculum

Supplemental curriculum is an additional set of educational materials or intangible concepts such as a learning environment’s culture, values and norms. Although not always explicitly included in the curriculum, maritime culture significantly influences teaching and learning in MET. Students’ attitudes, values, and behaviours are shaped by the maritime community’s culture, which is rich in tradition, hierarchy, seamanship and teamwork. Students acquire these cultural values through observation and interaction (especially in simulator-based education), absorbing non-technical skills like leadership, communication, and decision-making—critical for success in the maritime industry that may not be formally taught. Considering maritime culture`s norms and values as part of the supplemental curriculum, alongside simulators, presents an integrated approach in MET. Despite thorough professional instruction, culture and environmental influence can still prevail (Mossop et al. 2013).

The supplemental curriculum also encompasses the concept of the hidden curriculum. Jerald (2006) defines the hidden curriculum as an implicit set of attitudes, knowledge, and behaviours conveyed without conscious intent. It is communicated indirectly through words and actions. Addressing this requires understanding how the hidden curriculum can positively or negatively impact the education system. Teachers need to be aware of its presence and how it manifests in the school environment. This study aims to highlight this phenomenon within the context of simulator use, considering the working environment and how simulator exercises often reflect implicit norms in action.

Simulators as learning resources fall under the supplemental category for several reasons: First, they provide practical, hands-on experiences that reinforce theoretical knowledge but are not always the primary mode of instruction. They often complement and enhance the teaching provided in the taught curriculum. Simulators offer flexibility in how and when they are used as supplemental tools. They can also be accessed outside of regular class hours, allowing students to practice and refine their skills at their own pace—a key characteristic of supplemental materials. Thus, they serve as a valuable adjunct to the core educational content, enhancing and enriching the overall learning experience without being the primary mode of instruction.

Advanced simulator-based training reduces real-life errors in trainees (De Oliveira et al. 2022). Maritime simulators are categorised into various types based on their capabilities and training objectives. According to DNV (2023), these simulators are divided into four categories: Class A for full-mission simulators, Class B for multi-task simulators, Class C for limited-task simulators, and Class S for special-task simulators. Among maritime educators, simulators are commonly categorised into four types: desktop-based simulators, full-mission simulators, virtual reality (VR) simulators, and cloud-based simulators. For example, low-fidelity desktop simulators still contribute to maritime education by providing accessible training for relatively simple training and familiarisation purposes (Kim et al. 2021).

On the other hand, full mission bridge simulators provide realistic and immersive training experiences, imparting both technical skills and the less tangible aspects of maritime culture. These simulators replicate real-world maritime conditions with high fidelity, encompassing the dynamics of ship movement, weather conditions, and navigational challenges. Realism creates an environment that feels as close to real life as possible. By combining different types of simulators through the learning process, students receive a comprehensive educational experience where theoretical knowledge is seamlessly integrated with practical, hands-on training.

Research in the MET increasingly focuses on their utilisation, implementation, fidelity experience and design of training and assessment interventions (Kim et al. 2021). This includes determining the most effective sequence of simulator types, ranging from desktop versions to full-mission simulators and integrating VR and AR technologies. For example, Dewan et al. (2023) found that immersive VR simulators deeply engage students in their learning process. Additionally, cloud-based simulators have recently started to be used in MET, facilitating remote simulations and reducing the necessity for physical presence. With cloud-based simulators, instructors and students conduct simulations online using their devices, such as PCs. This technology allows MET institutions to maintain standardised education and training practices, even amidst contemporary challenges (Gyldensten et al. 2023; Kim et al. 2021). Tusher et al. (2023) indicate that adherence to regulatory standards is the primary factor in selecting which type of simulator to use, while the cost of these simulators ranks as the least important criterion. Full-mission simulators are preferred for their comprehensive, realistic training environments. VR simulators offer immersive experiences, and cloud-based and desktop simulators are valued for their accessibility and convenience.

Through this blend of implicit curriculum and advanced simulation technology, the effectiveness and efficiency of training services also depend on other factors, including investment costs, operational expenses, the number of instructors and trainees, and the frequency and intensity of training sessions (Fracaro et al. 2022).

4.1.5 Assessed curriculum

Assessed curriculum refers to components of an educational program that are evaluated to measure student learning and achievement. This concept directly influences how teaching is delivered and student progress is monitored. In maritime education, the assessed curriculum ensures that students not only acquire the necessary knowledge and skills but also demonstrate competence in key areas. The two primary types of assessments, formative and summative, play significant roles in evaluating and shaping student learning and competence (Dolin et al. 2018).

Assessments are designed to measure how well students have achieved the specified learning outcomes (Torrance 2007). This alignment ensures that the evaluations closely reflect what has been taught. Learning objectives also provide a basis for feedback, helping to identify areas where the taught curriculum might need adjustments or enhancements.

The assessed curriculum typically includes various elements, from theoretical knowledge to practical skills. In maritime education, this might encompass understanding maritime laws and regulations, navigation skills, safety procedures, and ship operations. Summative assessment is a structured and comprehensive evaluation method carried out post-instruction, typically through in-class tests and project work, to assess learning outcomes, knowledge acquisition, and retention (Dixson and Worrell 2016). Summative assessment methods in MET vary widely, including written theory exams, practical demonstrations, simulator-based assessments, and project work. Traditional assessments in MET have typically been based on instructors’ subjective judgments (Karahalil et al. 2023). These assessments determine whether students have achieved the course’s learning outcomes.

Simulators have become an integral part of maritime education, allowing for assessing students’ competencies in ways that were not previously possible. For example, a final simulator exam might assess a student’s ability to manage a ship in various conditions, indicating their readiness to handle real-life maritime scenarios. In Norway, written and simulator exams are combined for navigation course assessment, with weighting ranging from 30 to 70% of the total grade. For instance, in one institution, the NAV1 course assessments are conducted with 70% for the written exam and %30 using desktop simulators. Conversely, in other institutions, the weighting is 40% for the written exam and 60% for simulator use. The choice of simulator settings for exams depends on the student’s proficiency level and the specific learning outcomes of the course. Full mission simulators are employed for NAV2 and NAV3 courses. These methods ensure a comprehensive evaluation of student capabilities by testing different aspects of learning. The selection of simulator type and the percentage weighting assigned to each depend on the program curriculum of each institution.

One of the key features of the assessed curriculum is its alignment with STCW requirements. Training and assessment under the convention need to be structured according to written programs and conducted, monitored, evaluated and supported by qualified persons. According to STCW, examination and assessment of competence for masters, chief mates and officers regarding navigation at operational and management levels (tables AII/1 and AII/2) are based on evidence obtained from one or more of the following: approved in-service experience, approved training ship experience, approved simulator training, where appropriate, approved laboratory equipment training.

STCW procedures using simulators to assess candidate competencies include: Assessors must clearly define and communicate valid performance criteria. They should also establish explicit, objective assessment criteria to ensure consistent and reliable evaluations. Candidates must be thoroughly briefed on both the tasks at hand and the specific criteria by which their competency will be judged. The assessment process should account for standard operational procedures and interactions within the simulator setting. While scoring or grading methods can be employed, they should be cautiously used only once thorough validation. The primary focus of the assessment should be on the candidate’s ability to perform tasks safely and effectively to the assessor’s satisfaction (IMO, 2010). This procedure ensures that the curriculum remains relevant and that students are being prepared for the actual demands of the assessment.

On the other hand, formative assessment should be ongoing, consistent, and engaging to effectively discern students’ learning requirements and modify teaching strategies based on evaluating student progress. It helps students grasp the objectives of a course and supports them in cultivating the skills necessary to evaluate their understanding and knowledge (Karahalil et al. 2023). Formative assessment focuses on understanding students’ progress and identifying areas where they need more support or instruction. Through this approach, assessed curricula not only measure student learning but also might provide feedback that can be used to improve taught curricula. This feedback helps educators to identify areas where students may be struggling and adjust the curriculum accordingly. This ongoing process of evaluation and adjustment maintains the quality and relevance of maritime education.

4.2 Student factors

The curricula outlined in 4.1 play a significant role in what students learn; however, students also learn through various methods and experiences. These include a wide range of online resources they may discover, as well as collaborative educational experiences such as group discussions and teamwork, hands-on practical experience, and observation and reflection on past experiences all contribute to learning. Additionally, individual characteristics, such as personality traits, responsibility, curiosity, and interest in the subject, play significant roles in the learning process.

This section of the study aims to identify the factors that impact learning among higher education students both within and outside the formal education context. These factors were initially identified through a literature review and then verified and further explored through insights gathered from student focus group interviews. This approach ensures that the identified factors are both theoretically grounded and practically relevant. The following sections explore the complex interplay of these factors to enhance the understanding of effective learning strategies in higher education.

4.2.1 Received curriculum

Received curriculum refers to what students understand, learn and retain. It encompasses educational content and social, emotional and physical concepts. Alignment between the taught and received curricula leads to a more effective learning environment for students. However, just because something is taught does not mean it is received (Bradley 2020; Kelly 2009). Therefore, students must be assessed to determine if the learning outcomes are achieved and identify gaps between what is taught and what is received.

Constructivist principles in higher education emphasise students actively constructing knowledge through engagement and interaction rather than passively receiving information. Buchanan and Smith (1998) highlight that learners bring their experiences and prior knowledge to the learning process. The teacher’s role shifts to facilitating exploration, critical thinking, and inquiry, as Trinidad (2020) suggests, moving the instructional focus from teacher-led to student-centred. This approach encourages students to set their learning objectives and engage actively, fostering self-reliance and lifelong learning skills.

O’Connor (2022) acknowledges the importance of student engagement in fostering critical thinking and preparing them for a dynamic world. This educational approach values active involvement over rote learning, emphasising the importance of students’ active role in their educational journey. Student-centred learning empowers students to take responsibility for their education and the confidence necessary to become lifelong learners in a complex, ever-changing world.

Instructional strategies under this paradigm are problem-based, inquiry-based, project-based, and collaborative learning, emphasising active participation and critical thinking. Lueddeke (1999) notes that these strategies allow students to apply knowledge in practical contexts, enhancing problem-solving and communication abilities vital for the 21st century.

In MET, the received curriculum refers to the knowledge, skills, and competencies students acquire and internalise through their experiences, interactions, and interpretations of classroom instruction. This can differ from the taught curriculum due to students’ varied learning styles, prior knowledge, personal perspectives, motivations, and societal factors. The received curriculum is influenced by student involvement, behaviour, active listening, note-taking, collaboration with classmates, preparedness, questioning, and use of technology. These factors shape the students’ learning experience and understanding of the subject matter. Based on conceptual and practical differences, the leading student factors are categorised into four concepts: co-curriculum, extracurricular, self-directed learning, and societal curriculum, which are explained below.

4.2.2 Co-curriculum

Co-curriculum refers to activities designed to supplement a school’s program curriculum. These activities are typically linked directly to the program curriculum and enhance students’ learning experiences (Bartkus et al. 2012; Kuh 2001). The Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education defines co-curricular activities as “Activities that take place outside the classroom but reinforce or complement classroom curriculum in some way. Activities are typically ungraded and may not offer academic credit, but they support student learning, development, and success.” (CAS 2024).

There are also conflicting views on whether co-curricular activities are mandatory or voluntary. According to Stirling and Kerr (2015), citing the Great School Partnership (2013), co-curricular learning is voluntary and not obligatory, while Bartkus et al. (2012) refer to these activities as required. Nevertheless, engagement in co-curricular activities is widely acknowledged and encouraged as an essential component of the student experience (Kuh 2001).

Considering the various interpretations, Abras et al. (2022) define co-curricular learning experiences as those aligned with learning outcomes related to students’ curricular and career objectives, involving activities outside formal curriculum instruction, aimed at enhancing and reinforcing learning and engagement, complementing the student’s curricular experience, and including assessment. The data obtained from assessing co-curricular activities should be utilised for the program and institutional improvements. Assessment in the co-curricular domain may range from being absent to relying on student self-reporting or peer evaluation of performance, often without the guidance of predefined learning outcomes.

In maritime education, co-curricular activities might include simulator training sessions or maritime workshops, offering hands-on experiences that reinforce classroom learning. In nautical studies, maritime students are encouraged to engage in co-curricular activities where they can apply their acquired knowledge through practice in simulators. The provision of full access to maritime simulators in Norwegian institutions exemplifies the commitment to enhancing students’ practical skills through co-curricular activities. These activities are directly aligned with program objectives and are facilitated by the department staff and peer mentors, such as second-year and third-year students. By allowing students to use simulators outside regular curriculum hours, maritime institutions acknowledge the importance of hands-on experience in learning. This extended access enables students to practice independently and reinforce their classroom learning through practical application. Additionally, receiving peer feedback enhances their learning.

The voluntary nature of these simulator activities encourages self-directed learning and initiative. Students who choose to participate demonstrate a proactive approach to their education, seeking opportunities to improve their competencies beyond what is required. Students can develop abstract principles and apply them across various contexts through these activities. Moreover, these activities often require students to assume various roles in a simulated environment, including leadership positions, improving their leadership and teamwork skills as they communicate effectively, make decisions, and collaborate to achieve common objectives.

In one institution, where co-curricular activities are organised, staff and peer mentors, known as student assistants, collaborate closely. In 2022 and 2023, a team of nautical Bachelor of Science students evaluated these activities and collected data for their bachelor theses. Rossland et al. (2022) indicate that students value this additional practice time, leading to increased satisfaction and a sense of preparedness. The hands-on experience gained through simulators allows students to build confidence in their abilities. Interacting with classmates and students from other classes during simulator sessions fosters a sense of community. These interactions activate learners as instructional resources for one another, forming study groups, peer learning opportunities, and a supportive network that can be academically and professionally beneficial (Karahalil et al. 2023).

Co-curricular activities involving maritime simulators reflect Norway’s holistic approach to maritime education. After reviewing current practices, slight differences were determined in their implementation across four maritime institutions. For instance, one institution promotes these activities with the support of peer mentors and staff, clearly articulating the responsibility for implementation. In contrast, the other institutions provide independent usage of simulators, resulting in lower levels of participation, which could benefit from further evaluation. The outcomes from bachelor students’ theses highlight good practices (Rønning, 2023; Rossland et al. 2022). As their efforts show promising results, institutions and the Centre of Excellence in Maritime Simulator Training and Assessment (COAST) collaborate to improve these practices.

There has been debate regarding the distinction between co-curricular and extracurricular activities. Bartkus et al. (2012) conducted a literature review to clarify this difference. They defined co-curricular activities as those aligned with the curriculum, complementary to students’ goals, often evaluated, and frequently required by study programs. In contrast, extracurricular activities are optional outside the classroom (Bartkus et al. 2012). The following section presents further explanations about extracurricular.

4.2.3 Extracurricular

Extracurricular activities are those organised outside of the regular program curriculum. These activities, whether academic or non-academic, occur outside the regular classroom, are not part of the curriculum, may or may not be assessed, and are optional (Bartkus et al. 2012). They support students’ personal, social, and intellectual development and may contribute to their academic and professional advancement (Lawhorn 2008). In maritime education, such activities might include participating in a sailing or rowing team. Students can develop leadership, teamwork and personal growth skills through these activities while gaining practical maritime knowledge.

Engagement in extracurricular activities can enhance a student’s learning models. Leadership is another critical skill that can be honed through extracurricular involvement (Walinga et al. 2021). For instance, leading a sailing team can teach students about responsibility, decision-making, and coordinating group efforts towards common goals. These experiences directly translate to the leadership qualities required on a ship, where a clear command and structured hierarchy are paramount.

Work-integrated learning (WIL) is a widely recognised approach in higher education that integrates theoretical learning with real-world experiences, enhancing graduate employability. This method involves various practices such as industry expert visits, simulations, and practicums, which bridge classroom study with workplace practices. WIL is adaptable, depending on the context, discipline, and pedagogical intent, and it focuses on aligning educational experiences with career outcomes. While WIL’s flexibility may lead to diverse interpretations, it aims to produce innovative and collaborative graduates by blending theory with practice (Cooper et al. 2010).

Extracurricular activities like organised ship visits offer students valuable insights into the maritime industry. These visits, which may involve a range of vessels from commercial to naval, enable students to observe operational dynamics directly, enriching their classroom knowledge with practical experience. Interaction with industry professionals during these tours fosters meaningful conversations and advice, offering perspectives beyond academic texts. Engaging in such programs can boost students’ confidence in their workplace capabilities, give them a clearer understanding of the skills and standards expected by industry, and cultivate abilities that enhance their employability and comprehension of the professional world (Jackson, 2015). Such engagements help students align their education and career goals and provide firsthand industry knowledge for career decisions. Institutions or instructors can play a key role in facilitating these tours.

In Norway, COAST has organised the Tugboat Tournament for the last three years, with a different institution hosting each year (COAST 2024a). In 2024, nautical students from Norwegian maritime institutions (HVL, UiT, NTNU, and USN) participated in this event at HVL, engaging in collaborative learning experiences. A total of 25 students participated in the tournament, fostering new friendships and expanding their professional networks. The competition involved two teams, each comprising two tugboats with crews. The Tugboat Tournament proved to be an effective method for enhancing student engagement through enjoyable simulator experiences. It exceeded mere competition, reflecting the student community’s dedication, teamwork, and passion. Participants left with valuable lessons, lasting connections, and fond memories. Responses from the post-tournament survey provided valuable insights. Some feedback from students included managing teamwork under pressure, developing and improving team dynamics, enhancing planning and communication skills, mastering manoeuvring techniques with azimuth thruster, gaining insights into different schools’ approaches, acknowledging the necessity for further practice, and understanding the impact of scenarios on learning. The interaction among students from different institutions and their valuable insights also provided data for educators to enhance program offerings.

In recent years, there has been a noticeable trend among students towards engaging more with digital platforms and video content for learning purposes (Orús et al. 2016; Pinto and Leite 2020). The high level of interest among students in watching and creating videos reflects this shift in learning preferences. To encourage this interest, COAST plans a short film and photo competition for maritime students to encourage them to showcase their creativity in maritime simulator-based training to their peers and the public. This competition aims to foster enthusiasm among students for maritime education and training by inspiring them to explore maritime simulator-based training. The competition focuses on themes such as briefing, debriefing, feedback, team collaboration, learning by doing, repeated practice with a spotlight on co-curricular activities, grading and assessment practices, and the human contribution to safety (COAST 2024c).

4.2.4 Self-directed learning

Self-directed learning involves individuals taking the initiative and assuming responsibility for their learning process. It allows individuals to set their own learning goals and determine what knowledge is valuable to acquire. This form of learning can occur within or outside formal educational settings (Loeng 2020). The primary distinction between self-directed learning and education system-directed learning lies in the educational approach. In traditional pedagogy, the education system involves transmitting information and predetermined learning outcomes.

In contrast, a self-directed learner is an independent individual who takes responsibility for their own learning journey, such as diagnosing their learning needs, identifying human and material resources, and choosing and implementing appropriate strategies (Knowles 1975). According to the meta-analytical review by Boyer et al. (2014), internal locus of control, motivation, support, and self-efficacy are factors that enhance students’ inclination to engage in self-directed learning. Furthermore, it has been associated with improved academic performance. Therefore, educators should explore effective ways to implement self-directed learning practices for students.

With its vast array of material resources, the internet has become a tool for learners seeking to take charge of their educational journey. Online videos, documentaries, and AI tools offer extensive information, including websites dedicated to maritime news, technological updates, and regulatory changes. Students can access the latest industry reports, research articles, and developments. Visual content like video tutorials and documentaries can be particularly effective for learning complex maritime concepts and skills. For instance, watching real-time ship operations or a documentary on maritime history might provide context and depth to theoretical knowledge.

Furthermore, the rapid advancement of AI tools, particularly in education, has gained attention. Recent literature, especially post-2020, explores these technologies, their impact on learning outcomes, and the ethical considerations they raise (Chiu et al. 2023).

Self-directed learning through these resources enables students to tailor their education to their interests and career goals. They can learn niche areas of maritime studies or acquire skills directly relevant to their desired job role. However, the challenge lies in critically evaluating information. The open nature of the internet means that not all content is accurate or reliable. Educators should aim to tackle disinformation in education as students may be impacted more by media literacy education (McDougall et al. 2018). Students should develop digital literacy skills to discern the quality of their sources. This includes checking the credentials of content creators, cross-referencing information across multiple reputable sources, and staying updated with information from official regulatory bodies and recognised industry experts (November 2009). Engaging with professionals can provide a safeguard against misinformation. These entities often curate content, endorse training programs, and provide forums for discussion and clarification, which can guide students towards reliable information.

The dynamic nature of the maritime industry requires professionals to engage in lifelong learning (Bolmsten et al. 2021). Digital resources, when used cautiously, can facilitate continuous professional development and ensure that maritime professionals remain competent and competitive in their field.

4.2.5 Societal curriculum

Societal curriculum shapes students’ attitudes, values and beliefs, impacting their academic and personal development. Although it is not often as explicit as the written materials that constitute the program curriculum, it is equally important in determining student success (Skiba et al. 2016). These curricula operate side by side. In addition to the education and training students receive at university, they receive a lifelong education through societal curricula (Cortes 1979). This type of learning occurs through students’ interactions with their environment and people, including family, peer groups, and neighbourhoods, both within and outside the university. Societal curricula are frequently unconscious or implicit and may be influenced by university culture, social norms, educators and other adults’ personal beliefs and biases.

Students absorb social norms and industry practices through internships, apprenticeships, and professional interactions. Internships are structured, pre-professional experiences that blend academic learning with practical work elements, offering a managed transition into professional careers (Charles Sides 2017). These experiences can transfer the unspoken rules and expectations of the maritime sector, such as the importance of punctuality or the value of precision in navigation.

Family or educators’ personal beliefs and biases can also shape students’ attitudes. For example, a mentor’s problem-solving approach or stance on regulatory compliance can influence a student’s development (Johansson and Felten 2014).

Much of the societal curriculum is assimilated unconsciously. Students may not realise how their values and beliefs are shaped until they reflect on their experiences or encounter different perspectives (Bovill and Woolmer 2019). To ensure that societal curricula have a positive impact, maritime education programs should encourage students to reflect on their experiences. This reflection can help students recognise and evaluate the influences shaping their attitudes and beliefs, allowing them to make conscious choices about the values they adopt.

4.3 Discussion and future work

Understanding the curriculum necessitates thoroughly investigating the various factors that impact learning. This study defines the curriculum and identifies these factors, ensuring a shared understanding among all stakeholders, which is key to maintaining the relevance and applicability of MET programs. By systematically addressing these factors, MET institutions can tailor their educational offerings more effectively.

In this context, the developed concept map serves as a tool for enhancing the quality and effectiveness of maritime simulator-based education, where practical skills and theoretical knowledge must be integrated effectively. By mapping out educational components, the concept map highlights connections, interdependencies and gaps within the current educational framework. It also clarifies the roles and responsibilities of different stakeholders, including decision-makers, program managers, educators, and students. These insights can support the refinement of the curriculum and maintain educational standards. According to current and future workforce needs, decision-makers mandate and revise standards and frameworks that prescribe the curriculum. Program managers are tasked with designing the program, and educators are responsible for delivering the content, ensuring that students develop the necessary skills and knowledge. Finally, students, as the primary recipients, effect the educational process by offering feedback and demonstrating the effectiveness of the education system factors through their learning outcomes, making them active participants in the educational process.

One of the key contributions of this study is identifying the complex relationships between different forms of curricula, such as prescribed, program, taught, and received curricula, within the context of MET. The concept map illustrates how these curricula interact and influence one another, providing insights into the dynamic nature of education in this field. By facilitating comparisons of educational practices across institutions, the concept map can foster a culture of continuous improvement in training practices.

For example, the connections between the Prescribed–Program and the Program–Taught highlight the top-down influence, where the prescribed curriculum sets the foundational framework for the entire educational structure. This unidirectional flow ensures that the program curriculum is developed in alignment with regulatory requirements and educational standards, such as those outlined in the STCW Convention. The program curriculum, in turn, informs the taught curriculum, determining the specific content, instructional strategies, and resources that educators will deliver to students, thereby maintaining the quality and relevance of maritime education.

Similarly, the Supplemental–Program, Supplemental–Taught, and Supplemental–Received connections represent different dynamics within the educational framework. Program resources and decisions, such as the extent of simulator use and types of simulators to be employed, impact learning. The supplemental feeds into the taught curriculum, integrating simulators, as well as broader norms, values, and industry expectations into the teaching process. This directly impacts the received curriculum, enriching the student’s learning experience. The supplemental also directly contributes to the received curriculum by providing opportunities to apply theoretical knowledge both within or outside the formal classroom activities. This unidirectional flow underscores the role of supplemental materials in enhancing core educational content, thereby enriching the learning experience.

Lastly, the Assessed–Prescribed, Assessed–Program, Assessed–Taught, Assessed–Received connections show how the assessed curriculum plays a critical role in shaping both the program and taught curricula. According to the prescribed, assessments allow educators to determine whether program objectives are being met and whether the content aligns with learning outcomes. This feedback loop, though unidirectional in its impact on teaching methods and content delivery, ensures that the taught curriculum is continuously refined to meet assessment standards. Moreover, it reinforces the knowledge and skills that students retain, ensuring alignment between what is taught and what is ultimately learned and demonstrated by students.

While top-down influences are crucial, bottom-up factors driven by students also play a significant role in shaping the curriculum. The Received–Taught, Received–Assessed, and Received–Supplemental connections illustrate how student feedback and performance, as captured through observations and assessments, impact curriculum development. Students’ engagement, feedback, and demonstrated learning outcomes contribute to refining the taught and program curricula. This bottom-up influence ensures that the program evolves in response to student’s needs and learning experiences, making it more relevant and effective. For instance, when students struggle with specific content areas, this feedback can lead to adjustments in teaching strategies or supplemental resources, enhancing the overall learning process. The Received–Co-curricular, Received–Extracurricular connections demonstrate how these activities impact students’ engagement, which can, in turn, influence administrative initiatives to support these activities and allocate necessary resources.

The interconnectedness of these curriculum forms, including the contributions from bottom-up student factors, illustrates the complexity of maritime education, where each factor influences the others to create a coherent educational experience. Understanding these unidirectional connections allows for more effective teaching strategy adjustments that ensure alignment across all curricular levels. For example, the study highlights the importance of understanding the variations between what is prescribed by regulatory bodies and how it is implemented in programs. The findings indicate a need for further exploration into how good practices from various institutions can be optimised to enhance learning outcomes. Variations in training in simulators can lead to different learning experiences. Overall, the concept map can be instrumental in identifying gaps within the current educational framework. Visually mapping the components makes spotting underdeveloped or overlooked areas easier, allowing for targeted improvements.

Acknowledging the impact of the sea service period on students’ learning experiences and outcomes is crucial. This phase of maritime training plays a significant role in shaping cadets’ practical skills and theoretical understanding. The variation in training schedules, with some students starting their internships after their studies and others in the new practical four-year program at HVL systematically receiving this training, may lead to different learning outcomes. Therefore, an additional concept box is being considered to explore the interplay between the sea service and other factors. As more data is collected, this concept box will be further refined to provide a more comprehensive understanding of these dynamics. Recognising the complexity of MET, this approach highlights the need for adaptable, data-driven strategies in curriculum alignment.

The concept map is expected to undergo modifications. As factors evolve due to regulatory shifts, institutional changes, resource dynamics, and advancements, understanding how and when these changes occur will help ensure the curriculum remains responsive and adaptive to new developments. However, its current form offers educators a framework to understand the diverse factors involved in curricula, from the prescribed curriculum to the societal curriculum and their impact on a student’s learning journey. Educators can develop more integrated and cohesive teaching strategies by identifying the connections and interdependencies between these factors. The forthcoming steps involve implementing this tool in collaboration with stakeholders to validate and enhance the model.

The COAST consortium aims to enhance the quality of simulator-based training across maritime institutions in Norway. Utilising the concept map as a foundational tool, the consortium can systematically identify commonalities and differences in current practices, pinpointing areas for improvement and innovation. This approach not only benefits Norwegian maritime institutions but also sets a model for international standards in simulator-based training, potentially influencing similar educational frameworks in other countries and professions.

5 Conclusion

The development of a curricula concept map is a step in the context of maritime simulator-based education. This concept map offers a comprehensive and structured framework that integrates various education systems and student factors, enhancing the understanding of MET curricula. By facilitating a more effective comparison and analysis across diverse educational settings, the concept map supports a consistent and precise approach to terminology, improving comprehension among stakeholders, including institutional members and regulatory bodies.

One of the key strengths of this concept map is its adaptability and potential applicability beyond the MET. It is a theoretical model and a practical tool that can be adapted for curriculum development and evaluation in other educational domains and international contexts. The versatility emphasises its potential to enhance educational practices across various fields.

The study also sets the stage for future research, highlighting the importance of assessing the effectiveness of this concept map in shaping and refining maritime simulator-based education curricula. Such research will ensure that the developed curricula are comprehensive, practical, and closely aligned with the evolving needs.

In summary, the concept map provides a foundation for improving maritime education, offering guidance for curriculum development and promoting collaboration among stakeholders. Its inclusive and flexible design ensures that maritime education remains dynamic, relevant, and effective, ultimately contributing to preparing competent and skilled maritime professionals.