Impact of simulation fidelity on student self-efficacy and perceived skill development in maritime training

• Autorzy: Renganayagalu S. K. , Mallam S. , Nazir S. , Ernstsen J. , Haavardtun P.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.12716/1001.13.03.25

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Maritime education and training (MET) has a long tradition of using simulator training to develop competent seafarers and relevant seafaring skills. In a safety critical domain like maritime industry, simulators provide opportunities to acquire technical, procedural and operational skills without the risks and expense associated with on-the-job training. In such training, computer-generated simulations and simulators with higher realism are inferred to better training outcomes. This realism, or the extent to which simulators replicate the experience of a real work environment, is referred to as the “fidelity” of a simulator. As the simulation technology develops, the maritime industry adapts to more advanced, higher fidelity simulators. However, the cost of a simulator generally increases with increasing fidelity, and thus practical and economic constraints must be considered. In this paper, we investigated two types of simulators on perceived skill development of the students at engine room simulation training. We compared the self-efficacy levels of 11 second year marine engineering students and their perceived skill development between two different fidelity engine room simulators. The result suggests that students have higher motivation and prefer to train with immersive training simulators compared to the traditional training. This article aims to add to existing knowledge on the influence of fidelity of simulators in training effectiveness in maritime education and training.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

human factor; maritime education and training (MET); simulation fidelity; perceived skill development; maritime training; virtual reality; structure of observed learning outcome (SOLO); Head Mounted Display (HMD)

• Wydawca: Faculty of Navigation, Gdynia Maritime University
• Czasopismo: TransNav : International Journal on Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea Transportation
• Rocznik: 2019
• Tom: Vol. 13, no. 3
• Strony: 663--669
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 33 poz., rys., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Renganayagalu S. K.

• University College of Southeast Norway, Bø, Norway
• Institute for Energy Technology, Halden, Norway

autor

Mallam S.

• University College of Southeast Norway, Bø, Norway

autor

Nazir S.

• University College of Southeast Norway, Bø, Norway

autor

Ernstsen J.

• University College of Southeast Norway, Bø, Norway

autor

Haavardtun P.

• University College of Southeast Norway, Bø, Norway

Bibliografia

• 1. Alessi, S. M. (1988). Fidelity in the design of instructional simulations. Journal of computer-based instruction.
• 2. Allen, R. W., Park, G. D., Cook, M. L., & Fiorentino, D. (2007). The effect of driving simulator fidelity on training effectiveness. DSC North America.
• 3. Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents, 5(1), 307-337.
• 4. Boud, D., & Falchikov, N. (1989). Quantitative studies of student self-assessment in higher education: A critical analysis of findings. Higher education, 18(5), 529-549. - doi:10.1007/BF00138746
• 5. Cha Lee, Gustavo A. Rincon, Greg Meyer, Tobias Hollerer, & Bowman, D. A. (2013). The effects of visual realism on search tasks in mixed reality simulation. - doi:10.1109/TVCG.2013.41
• 6. Crofts, J. F., Bartlett, C., Ellis, D., Hunt, L. P., Fox, R., & Draycott, T. J. (2006). Training for shoulder dystocia: a trial of simulation using low-fidelity and high-fidelity mannequins. Obstetrics Gynecology, 108(6), 1477-1485. - doi:10.1097/01.AOG.0000246801.45977.c8
• 7. Dahlstrom, N., Dekker, S., Van Winsen, R., & Nyce, J. (2009). Fidelity and validity of simulator training. heoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 10(4), 305-314. - doi:10.1080/14639220802368864
• 8. Doug A. Bowman, & McMahan, R. P. (2007). Virtual Reality- How Much Immersion Is Enough? Computer, 40(7), 36-42. - doi:10.1109/MC.2007.257
• 9. Dunning, D., Johnson, K., Ehrlinger, J., & Kruger, J. (2003). Why people fail to recognize their own incompetence. Current directions in psychological science, 12(3), 83-87. - doi:10.1111/1467-8721.01235
• 10. Gerathewohl, S. J. (1969). Fidelity of Simulation and Transfer of Training- A Review of the Problem. Federal Aviation Administration Office of Aviation Medicine Report.
• 11. Grady, J. L., Kehrer, R. G., Trusty, C. E., Entin, E. B., Entin, E. E., & Brunye, T. T. (2008). Learning nursing procedures: The influence of simulator fidelity and student gender on teaching effectiveness. Journal of Nursing Education, 47(9), 403-408. - doi:10.3928/01484834-20080901-09
• 12. Hamstra, S. J., Brydges, R., Hatala, R., Zendejas, B., & Cook, D. A. (2014). Reconsidering fidelity in simulation-based training. Academic Medicine, 89(3), 387-392. - doi:10.1097/ACM.0000000000000130
• 13. Hjelmervik, K., Nazir, S., & Myhrvold, A. (2018). Simulator training for maritime complex tasks: an experimental study. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs. doi:10.1007/s13437-017-0133-0 - doi:10.1007/s13437-017-0133-0
• 14. Kraiger, K., Ford, J. K., & Salas, E. (1993). Application of cognitive, skill-based, and affective theories of learning outcomes to new methods of training evaluation. Journal of applied psychology, 78(2), 311. - doi:10.1037/0021-9010.78.2.311
• 15. Liu, D., Macchiarella, N. D., & Vincenzi, D. A. (2008). Simulation fidelity. Human factors in simulation training, 61-73. - doi:10.1201/9781420072846.ch4
• 16. Mallam, S. C., Nazir, S., Renganayagalu, S. K., Ernstsen, J., Veie, S., & Edwinson, A. E. (2019). Design of Experiment Comparing Users of Virtual Reality Head-Mounted Displays and Desktop Computers. Congress of the International Ergonomics Association, Springer, Cham., 240-249. - doi:10.1007/978-3-319-96077-7_25
• 17. McMillan, J. H., & Hearn, J. (2008). Student self-assessment: The key to stronger student motivation and higher achievement. Educational Horizons, 87(1), 40-49.
• 18. Nazir, S., Øvergård, K. I., & Yang, Z. (2015). Towards effective training for process and maritime industries. Procedia Manufacturing, 3, 1519-1526. - doi:10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.409
• 19. Noble, C. (2002). The relationship between fidelity and learning in aviation training and assessment.
• 20. Norman, G., Dore, K., & Grierson, L. (2012). The minimal relationship between simulation fidelity and transfer of learning. Medical education, 46(7), 636-647. - doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2012.04243.x
• 21. Rieber, L. P. (1994). Computers graphics and learning: Brown & Benchmark Pub.
• 22. Roenker, D. L., Cissell, G. M., Ball, K. K., Wadley, V. G., & Edwards, J. D. (2003). Speed-of-processing and driving simulator training result in improved driving performance. Human Factors, 45(2), 218-233. - doi:10.1518/hfes.45.2.218.27241
• 23. Salas, E., Bowers, C. A., & Rhodenizer, L. (1998). It Is Not How Much You Have but How You Use It:Toward a Rational Use of Simulation to SupportAviation Training. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 8(3), 197-208. - doi:10.1207/s15327108ijap0803_2
• 24. Salas, E., Tannenbaum, S. I., Kraiger, K., & Smith-Jentsch, K. A. (2012). The science of training and development in organizations: What matters in practice. Psychological science in the public interest, 13(2), 74-101. - doi:10.1177/1529100612436661
• 25. Sharma, S., Boet, S., Kitto, S., & Reeves, S. (2011). Interprofessional simulated learning: the need for ‘sociological fidelity’. In: Taylor & Francis. - doi:10.3109/13561820.2011.556514
• 26. STCW, I. (2011). International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers,(STCW) 1978, as amended in 1995/2010. nternational Maritime Organisation, London, UK.
• 27. Sturm, L. P., Windsor, J. A., Cosman, P. H., Cregan, P., Hewett, P. J., & Maddern, G. J. (2008). A systematic review of skills transfer after surgical simulation training. Annals of Surgery, 248(2), 166-179. - doi:10.1097/SLA.0b013e318176bf24
• 28. Thorndike, E. L. (1913). Educational psychology (Vol. 2): Teachers college, Columbia university.
• 29. Thorndike, E. L. (1935). The psychology of wants, interests and attitudes. - doi:10.1037/14639-000
• 30. Venkatesh, V. (2000). Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Information systems research, 11(4), 342-365. - doi:10.1287/isre.11.4.342.11872
• 31. Veritas, D. N. (2011a). Maritime simulator systems. In.
• 32. Veritas, D. N. (2011b). Standard for certification No. 2.14 maritime simulator systems october 2007. Retrieved from https://rules.dnvgl.com/docs/pdf/DNV/stdcert/2011-01/Standard2-14.pdf
• 33. Witmer, B. G., & Singer, M. J. (1998). Measuring presence in virtual environments: A presence questionnaire. Presence, 7(3), 225-240. - doi:10.1162/105474698565686

Uwagi

Opracowanie rekordu w ramach umowy 509/P-DUN/2018 ze środków MNiSW przeznaczonych na działalność upowszechniającą naukę (2019).