Advance Use of Training Simulator in Maritime Education and Training: A Questionnaire Study

  • Salman NazirEmail author
  • Karina Hjelmervik
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 596)


Simulator training has seen its growth and effectiveness since last two decades across all socio-technical complex systems including maritime. The adaption of simulator training in Maritime Education and Training has been well embraced in the education programs, as they provide enhanced learning, as well as possibilities of simulating abnormalities and malfunctions. One way of understanding the impact and benefits of various features of training/education simulators is by the user themselves. This can be achieved by a well-designed questionnaire study, which is the focus of this work. An experiment was designed and conducted to investigate the effect on learning outcome based on the realistic currents in the simulator, which was compared with those who were trained with simple (uni-directional) currents. Apart from objective performance indicators – e.g., cross track error, speed, etc. – a questionnaire was developed and conducted to acquire various parameters that are linked to overall performance and learning of the participants.


Human factors Simulator training Navigation Self-assessment 



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


  1. 1.
    Berg, N., Storgård, J., Lappalainen, J.: The impact of ship crews on maritime safety. Publications of the Centre for Maritime Studies, University of Turku A 64 (2013)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Christiansen, M., Fagerholt, K., Nygreen, B., Ronen, D.: Maritime transportation. In: Handbooks in Operations Research and Management Science, vol. 14, pp. 189–284 (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berle, Ø., Asbjørnslett, B.E., Rice, J.B.: Formal vulnerability assessment of a maritime transportation system. Reliabil. Eng. Syst. Saf. 96, 696–705 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Perrow, C.: Normal Accidents. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1999). Updated editionGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pyne, R., Koester, T.: Methods and means for analysis of crew communication in the maritime domain. Arch. Transp. 17, 193–208 (2005)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nazir, S., Sorensen, L.J., Øvergård, K.I., Manca, D.: Impact of training methods on distributed situation awareness of industrial operators. Saf. Sci. 73, 136–145 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Salas, E., Tannenbaum, S.I., Kraiger, K., Smith-Jentsch, K.A.: The science of training and development in organizations: what matters in practice. Psychol. Sci. Public Interest 13, 74–101 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kirkpatrick, D.L.: Four steps to measuring training effectiveness. Pers. Adm. 28, 19–25 (1983)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Røed, L.P., Kristensen, N.M., Staalstrøm, A., Hjelmervik, K.: A high-resolution, curvilinear ROMS model for the Oslofjord. MET Report no. 4/2016, Norwegian Meteorological Institute, Norway (2016)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hjelmervik, K., Nazir S., Myhrvold, A.: Simulator training for maritime complex tasks: an experimental study. WMU J. Marit. Affairs (2016, manuscript under review)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    International Maritime Organization: Amended guidelines for the presentation of navigational-related symbols, terms and abbreviations Annex 2 guidelines for the presentation of navigational-related terms and abbreviations. In: IMO-Vega (ed.) IMO (2014)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Okazaki, T., Kunieda, C.: Development of a training support tool for marine pilot trainees. In: 2011 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC), pp. 189–194. IEEE (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Adams, R.A.: Calculus: A Complete Guide. Addison-Wesley Publishers Limited, Edmonton (1995)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bryman, A.: Social Research Methods. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2012)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bradburn, N.M., Sudman, S., Wansink, B.: Asking Questions: The Definitive Guide to Questionnaire Design–for Market Research, Political Polls, and Social and Health Questionnaires. Wiley, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nazir, S., Øvergård, K.I., Yang, Z.: Towards effective training for process and maritime industries. Procedia Manuf. 3, 1519–1526 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nazir, S., Colombo, S., Manca, D.: Minimizing the risk in the process industry by using a plant simulator: a novel approach. Chem. Eng. 32, 109–114 (2013)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Training and Assessment Research Group (TARG), Department of Maritime OperationsUniversity College of Southeast NorwayBorreNorway

Personalised recommendations