315
1 INTRODUCTION
The use of cloud‐based simulators in maritime
educationhasbeenanewlearningtooldevelopedin
recent years, offering a number of benefits such as
increasedaccessibilityandflexibilityforstudents[1].
However, little is known about maritime studentsʹ
perspectivesonusingthesesimulatorsandhowthey
may impact the design of maritime education
programs.Inthisarticle,weseektoexploremaritime
students’ use and perceptions of cloud‐based
simulators and how they may be used more
effectively in maritime education [2]. Through
ethnographicfieldworkandinterviewswithmaritime
students at a university, we aim to
understand the
benefits and challenges of using cloud‐based
simulators and the implications for the design of
maritime education programs [3]. Our findings
contributetothegrowingbodyofresearchontheuse
of technology in maritime education and provide
valuable insights for educators seeking to enhance
their studentsʹ learning experience
when training in
low‐fidelitysimulators.
This study investigates the challenges and
opportunities of cloud simulators in maritime
education from a student’s perspective in order to
inform educational design for implementing cloud‐
basedsimulatorsinMaritimeEducationandTraining
(MET).Cloudsimulatorsisacloud‐basedversionofa
desktop
simulator that allows students to use the
simulator from anywhere, not just on campus[1].
Desktop simulators and cloud‐based simulators are
utilisedduringbasicnavigationexercisesdesignedto
teach students the fundamentals of ship navigation.
Inmaritimeeducationandtraining(MET),instructor‐
Maritime Students’ Use and Perspectives of Cloud-
Based Desktop Simulators: CSCL and Implications for
Educational Design
W.Gyldensten
1
,A.C.Wiig
1
&C.Sellberg
2
1
UniversityofSouth‐EasternNorway,Borre,Norway
2
UniversityofGothenburg,Gothenburg,Sweden
ABSTRACT: This study investigates the challenges and opportunities of using cloud‐based simulators for
traininginmaritimeeducationandtraining(MET).Theaimistomapbachelorstudents’useandperspectives
to inform educational design when implementing cloud simulation into the curricula. This study uses
an
ethnographic design approach in the tradition of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) and
drawsonvideo‐recordedexercisesandinterviews(n=22)from1stand3rd‐classmaritimebachelor’sstudents
engagedinnavigationexercisesoncloudsimulation.Thefindingssuggestthatindividualtrainingwithcloud‐
basedsimulatorsinMETcanenhance
therepetitionofskillsnecessaryforbetterperformanceinafull‐mission
simulatorwithcurrenttechnologyandratherstraightforwardinstructionaldesigns.However,thefindingsalso
emphasisethatsimulator exercises need tobe more engagingfor students inorder toprovidea meaningful
learningexperience.Hence,simulatorsoftwareneedstoprovide
themeansforstudentstocollaborateduring
exercises, and feedback provided by the system needs to be carefully aligned with the student’s previous
knowledgeinordertoprovideadequatescaffolding.
http://www.transnav.eu
the International Journal
on Marine Navigation
and Safety of Sea Transportation
Volume 17
Number 2
June 2023
DOI:10.12716/1001.17.02.0
7
316
based simulator exercises have been a crucial but
restricted resource for maritime students [4].
Moreover,eveniftraininginsimulatorsisregulated,
therearenoregulationsregardingtheamountoftime
spentinasimulator.Asaresult,theamountoftime
that students are given to participate in learning
activitieswithinthesimulatorisoftentheresultofan
administrative compromise between the availability
of the simulator and instructor resources. The
relatively recent development of cloud‐based
simulators, in which students can practice basic
navigation on their own, has the potential to be a
valuable addition to the physical
simulators offered
today.This study takes on an ethnographic design
approach,drawingonvideo‐recordedmaterialsfrom
maritime bachelor students engaged in navigation
exercises on cloud‐based simulators (n=22), followed
by group interviews [3].The aim is to map the
students’useandperspectivesonthechallengesand
opportunitiesofthe
cloudsimulatorusedinmaritime
education to inform educational design when
implementingcloudsimulationintothecurricula.The
researchquestionsare:
4. How do MET students make use of cloud based
simulatorsforbasicnavigationtraining?
5. Whatisthestudent’sviewontheopportunitiesand
challenges of using a
cloud simulator for basic
navigationtraining?
6. Howcanwedesignexercisesforcloudsimulators
that support collaborative learning between
students?
2 BACKGROUND:COMPUTERSUPPORTIVE
COLLABORATIVELEARNING
This study draws on previous research from
ComputerSupportedCollaborativeLearning(CSCL),
a research field focusing on understanding how
technology can support collaboration and
learning,
withsmallgroupsastheunitofanalysis[5].CSCLas
a research field arosein the 1990s in reaction tothe
introductionofsoftwarethat“forcedstudentstolearn
asisolatedindividuals”[6,p.1].Incontrast,CSCLis
based on an opposite concept: by proposing the
development
ofsoftwareandapplicationsthatbring
people together to engage in learning through joint
intellectual exploration and social interaction. Since
the 1990s, CSCL has grown into an evolving and
eclectic research field, as researchers from different
disciplines, such as education, psychology, and
computer science, continuously explore how
technology can support collaborative
learning in a
variety of settings, from formal learning in
educationalsettings,suchasschoolsanduniversities
[7], to learning in informal settings, such as leisure
activitiesandlearningintheworkplace[8].Moreover,
CSCL research draws on three main theoretical
perspectives on learning: cognitive, socio‐cognitive,
andsocioculturalperspectives
[9].Withoutgoinginto
detail on all three perspectives on learning in the
CSCLfield,wewillfocusonandadoptasociocultural
perspective[10].
Fromthesocioculturalperspective,CSCLresearch
starts with an empirical investigation of micro‐
interaction during computer‐supported collaborative
learningactivities[9].Byshiftingtheanalyticalfocus
from individual learning to group collaboration,
CSCL typically views meaning‐making activities as
interactional achievements [5]. This means that
meaning‐making is situated within the sequential
order of talk and bodily conduct between multiple
participantsinasetting,whichalsobecomesthefocal
point for the study of CSCL, using
ethnographic
fieldwork and case studies as the main methods of
inquiry[11].Inparticular,Stahl[12]highlightedhow
empirical studies that employ micro‐interactional
analysesofspeech,gesture,artefacts,andtechnology
could make the details of these interactional
achievementsvisibleinausefulwayforguidingthe
design of computer‐based
artefacts as well as
instructional designs. Moreover, it is common for
CSCL research to involve interviews with teachers
andlearnersdirectlyafterparticipationincomputer‐
basedactivity[13].Interviewsareimportantinorder
tounderstandand examinetheintricaterelationship
between the social and the material and refine the
practices
involved in computer supported
collaborative learning processes [3]. Hence, as
explainedbyStahlandcolleagues,“CSCLresearchhas
both analytic and design components. To design for
improved meaning‐making,however,requires some means
ofrigorouslystudyingpraxis.Inthisway,therelationship
between analysis and design is a symbiotic one—design
must
beinformedbyanalysis,butanalysisalsodependson
designinitsorientationtotheanalyticobject.”[6,p.11].
This highlights the importance of balancing
analytical and design components, which can be
achievedby studyingexisting learningpractices and
incorporating this understanding into the design of
new exercises.This
would enable maritime
instructors to create more effective and meaningful
learning experiences for their students. Previous
CSCL studies on simulations in MET have shown
valuable for outlining the ways that the simulator
instructor is central for supporting students in
reachingthelearningobjectivesoftheexercise[4],the
complexquestionof
selectingtheappropriatelevelof
simulator fidelity for specific tasks and groups of
learners [14] as well as the benefits of students
learning together in small groups during training in
the simulator [2]. For our purpose of informing
instructional design when implementing a new
technology in MET, we drew on
both ethnographic
observations of students working with cloud‐based
simulations at a Scandinavian university, as well as
contextual interviews with the students conducted
directlyaftercompletingthesimulation.
2.1 CollaborationinCSCL
To distinguish between the different concepts of
collaboration and cooperation is important when
applying CSCL contexts in maritime education
and
training. Stahl and colleagues [6] distinguish
collaborationandcooperationbasedonDillenbourg’s
[15] and Roschelle & Teasley’s [16] definitions: “In
cooperation, partners split the work, solve sub‐tasks
individually and thenassemblethepartialresults intothe
final output. In collaboration, partners do the work
‘together.”[6,p.3]
Collaboration,ontheotherhand,is
seen as “a process by which individuals negotiate and
share meanings relevant to the problem‐solving task at
hand … Collaboration is a coordinated, synchronous
317
activity that is the result of a continued attempt to
constructandmaintainasharedconceptionofaproblem”
[6,p.3].
Therearemanydifferenttypesofdigitaltoolsused
inCSCLactivitiestofacilitatecollaborationamongits
members.Inameta‐analysisof425empiricalstudies
Chen et
al. [17] identifiedseven major subcategories
ofcollaborationtoolsthatcanbecategorisedas:basic
online discussion tools, enhanced online discussion
tools, visual representation tools, group awareness
tools,graphs or multimediafor instruction,adaptive
or intelligent systems, and virtual environments.
Moreover, Chen’s [17] meta‐review highlights the
numerous benefits of
utilising CSCL at both the
individual and group level, such as enhanced
knowledgegain,skillacquisition,student perception
of critical thinking skills, improved problem‐solving
abilities, increased motivation and engagement, and
better communication and social skills. Chen et al.
[17] also emphasised that the use of CSCL fosters a
senseof
responsibility,accountability,andownership
amongstudents,whichultimatelycontributestotheir
overall learning experience and professional
development.Whilethesimulationtoolsinfocusfor
this study would fall under thevirtual environment
classification, student collaboration is central to
traditional training in full mission simulators where
thestudentworksinteams
tonavigateavessel[18].
The simulator environment is a powerful tool for
mimickingtherelevantfeaturesoftheworksettingon
boardanactualvesselandprovidesasafesettingfor
theconstructionandexplorationofthetaskathand.
Hence,throughsimulatedactivities,thedevelopment
ofprofessionalknowledgeoccurs
collectivelythrough
the collaborative building of understanding among
studentsina simulator[6]. However,itis important
to acknowledge that students in the simulator also
cooperate by dividing tasks among each member of
the bridge team to manage all the complex tasks
associated with the operation of the vessel in
the
simulator[2].
3 METHOD:VIDEORECORDEDFIELD
OBSERVATIONSANDINTERVIEWS
Theethnographicdesigninthisstudywasinspiredby
Crabtree et al. [3], drawing on video‐recorded
observations and interviews from a group of 22
maritimebachelorstudents.Thestudentswerepartof
twodifferentclassesinamaritimebachelor’s
program
and were recruited via website, email, and direct
contact. The 1st year students consisted of 10
participants enrolled in a basic navigation course at
theuniversity.Thethird‐yearstudentconsistedof12
participantsandhadpassedallsimulatorexercisesin
thebachelorʹsdegree.Theaimwasto
gainknowledge
ofthestudentʹsperceptionofthecloudsimulatorboth
from the perspective of a novice simulator user (1st
yearstudents)andamoreexperiencedsimulatoruser
(3rd year students). The 1st year students were
enrolledin abasicnavigation coursewithadesktop
simulator as the primary simulator
and a cloud
simulatorasasupplementbetweenthescheduledand
instructor lead teaching. The 3rd year students had
finished their certificate simulation training and
served as an expert group. However, they had no
previousexperienceofusingcloudsimulation.
Theexercisewasperformedinthecloudsimulator
labat
theuniversity(Figure1).Eachsimulationlasted
approximately30minutesandinvolvedtwostudents.
The learning objective in the cloud simulator was
Automatic Radar Plotting Aid (ARPA), a basic and
important function of the navigation radar. The
proficient handling of ARPA functions is a learning
objective for the basic navigation course.
Several
measures were considered to design the study as
naturallyaspossible.ARPAexerciseswerechosenas
thefocalpointforthisstudybecauseARPAtraining
represents the first advanced semi‐automated
function the student learns to master in their
education,anditisapartofthecertificatepart
ofthe
education.Thestudentsnavigatedashipinopensea
withseveralotherpre‐assignedsimulatedships.The
learninggoalwastolearnhowtooperatetheRadar
and perform manoeuvres to avoid collision. During
the simulation, the students received e‐coach
messages on the screen stating how the students
should navigate and how to operate the Radar.
TrainingtohandleARPAfunctionsintheRadarwas
themaintopicintheweekthatfieldworktookplace,
and the training session in the cloud simulator lab
wasselectedfor closeranalysisandvideorecording.
The lab was set up with
two cloud simulator
workstations containing two monitors, a keyboard,
and a computer mouse. One monitor displayed the
Radar, and one monitor displayed the instruments
like autopilot, rudder control and turn indicators
(Figure1and2).
Figure1.Pictureofaworkstationinthecloudsimulatorlab
Figure2: Screenshotofthe twomonitors displayingradar
andinstrumentpanel
3.1 Dataanalysisandanalyticalprocedure.
Each student’s simulation exercise using the cloud
simulatorwasrecordedontwocameras,oneinfront
318
and one behind the workstation. The studentʹs
monitorwasalsorecordedusingascreencapturetool
(OBS).Avideomixerstoredallvideostreamsinone
folderonanexternalharddrive.
Immediatelyafterthecloudsimulatorexercise,the
two participants were interviewed together in the
simulatorlab.The
interviewerusedasemi‐structured
qualitative interview guide to better grasp the
studentsʹexperiencesandperceptionsofhowtotrain
usingthecloudsimulatorexercise.Toensurethatthe
students felt comfortable sharing their thoughts
during the interview, they were informed that their
identities and responses would be kept private
and
anonymisedand thatthey could withdrawfromthe
research at any time. The research design followed
standardethicalconsiderationsandwasapprovedby
the Norwegian Agency for Shared Services in
EducationandResearch(SIKT)
Allinterviewswerevideoandaudio‐recordedand
transcribed by the first author. The data corpus
for
this study consists of 11 group interviews with two
studentseach,tenfirstyearstudentsand12thirdyear
students.Interviewtranscriptsfrom1stand3rdwere
divided into separate guides and subjected to
qualitative content analysis [19]. We used data
analysis software NVivo for organising and coding
data
[20]. Based on our research questions, the data
was coded to identify salient themes from the
interviews into relevant nodes [21]. A list of themes
waschosenbasedontheobservationsoftheexercise,
including implications, contextualisation, design for
cooperation,brief/debrief,andcompetence.Thevideo
material was used mainly when the
audio material
was challengingtograsp, such as whenparticipants
weretalkingabout“this”and“that”pointingtowards
themonitors.
Our methodologicalapproach is ethnographically
informed, which we argue has several advantages,
includingprovidingacomprehensiveoverviewofthe
phenomena under study and being sensitive to the
researchcontext. However,
the approach also has
limitations,forexample,thesmallsamplesize,which
can limit the generalizability of the findings.
Moreover, ethnographic research can be subject to
biasbecauseitdrawsontheresearcher’sskillindata
collectionandanalysis,whichcanleadtoinaccuracies
in the findings. To avoid suchpitfalls,
the empirical
materialinthisstudyhasbeensubjectedtocomputer‐
supported data analysis as well as collaborative
analysiswithintheteamofauthors.
4 RESULTS
Findings from the video‐recorded exercise showed
thatstudents,althoughtheyhadaccesstoatleastone
peer during the simulation, solved their navigation
tasks individually. There was little communication
betweenpeersseenduringthesimulation,andinthe
few examples where communication occurred, it
consisted mainly of simple question‐response
sequences. The transcript below presents such a
sequence:
1C02:[00:29:52]Ichangedthecourseto94
1C01:[00:29:58]Ichangeditto90
1C02:
[00:30:00]youchangedto090
After the cloud simulation exercise, the students
were interviewed about their perception of the
exercise. Although all the students were pleased to
have access to the cloud simulator, there was a
noticeable difference in the degree of enjoyment
among them. In general, the participants were
satisfied with the implementation of the cloud
simulatorinthenavigationcourse.
1C10:[00:11:51]Itʹsverypositivethatwehaveaccess
to it, that we can learn about radar and different
thingsrelatedtoradar.Itʹsagoodtool
1C1:[00:16:48]Ithinkweʹreveryluckytobe
allowed
touseit
1C7:[00:00:47]Ithinkitʹsokay.
The 1st yearstudentshad mixed feelings, froma
verypositivetoamoreindifferentviewonaccessing
the cloud simulator. On the other hand, noneof the
students had any negative views regarding
implementing the cloud‐based simulators
in the
navigational course.The students emphasised that
thecloudsimulatorwasanexcellenttoolforlearning
about the basic navigation instruments and the
flexibilityofthesimulator.Onestudentsaiditwasan
advantagetolearnabouttheinstrumentsattheirown
paceintheirsparetime.
1C1: [00:04:16] And
itʹs very useful for the
introduction to radar. If youʹve never seen a radar
image before, itʹs highly recommended. For the first
exercises, it takes you through an introduction to
radar.Inthatsense,itʹsvery,veryhelpful
Cloudsimulatorsofferstudentstheopportunityto
engage
in repetitive training beyond that available
through desktop simulators, which are usually
limited. The limited time available for instructor‐led
instructions is often mentioned as the favourable
advantageof the use of cloud simulators among the
students.
1C1: [00:08:12] Thatʹs the problem with that subject.
Itʹsonlysimulatorevery
otherweek,sowedonʹtget
continuity.Thatʹswhycloudsimulatorisquiteuseful.
After the cloud simulator exercise, the students
described that the main disengagement was the
discrepancybetweenavailabletimeandunnecessary
long exercises. The students expressed that they felt
some exercises were time‐consuming and
had too
littleaction.Theywereawarethatthecloudsimulator
wasameaningfulandrelevantlearningarenaforthe
introductory navigation course, but because of the
longexercisesandlongwaitingtimes,theystruggled
with the engagement to both start and complete the
exercises:
1C1:[00:14:01] Somein the class
havesaid thatthey
donʹtwanttodotheexercisesbecauseittakessolong.
1C1:[00:14:11]After we changed course, we satand
justwaitedforittopass,anditwas13minutes.
1C5:[00:01:15]Ithinkitʹs interesting,but it cangeta
bitlong‐winded
sometimeswhennothingshappen.
Therearemanystudentswhoemphasisethatlong
waiting times in the cloud simulator are one of the
319
reasons for their disengagement. In addition, they
refertoanothergroupofstudentswhodonotdoany
cloudsimulatorexercises.Thisisduetotheamountof
time consumed waiting for the next challenge or
event.Thisiswhymanyofthesestudentsfeelthatthe
cloud simulator should
be optimised in such a way
thatit willreducewaitingtimes. Thiswill make the
experience more enjoyable for them. This
disengagement also leads to distractions away from
the cloud simulator. One student said that he/she
oftenwentawayfromthecomputerandmadecoffee
waitingforthe next
event in the simulator.Another
common distraction is the use of mobile phones
duringsimulatorexercises.
1C1:[00:13:48]TherehavebeenseveraltimeswhereI
havemademyselfacupofcoffeeordonesomething
elsejusttopassthetime.UsedmyPhone
As for the text‐based briefingbefore
the exercise,
studentswerepleasedwithhowitwasimplemented
anddidnotseeitasadisadvantage.Moststudentsdo
not miss instructor‐led briefings, as one student
stated:ʺI think itʹs quite nice to be independent.ʺ A
student stated that the e‐couch messages that
accompaniedthe
exercisewereveryhelpful,andthe
exercisesshouldbeeasytoperformnomatterwhat:
1C2: [00:03:01] No, I think itʹs nice to be a little
independentaswell.
1C1: [00:03:05] And the introduction you receive in
the beginning explains everything, so if you read it
carefully,youʹllknow
whattodo
1C6: [00:07:40] But the messages with E‐coach are
quitehelpful.
1C6: [00:07:46] It takes quite a bit to not be able to
completeanexerciseregardless
Students are more open to a digital debriefing
formataftertheexercise.The studentsareunsure of
how this should
be presented and even struggle to
understand how it can be implemented in the
simulator.It isnot very significant,but some sortof
statistics would be helpful in a debrief one student
said. Some students mentioned that a debrief map
with ARPA data would be helpful. Another student
said debriefing
in general, was a good idea, but it
wasnʹt crucial on easy cloud‐based simulators
exercises.
1C09:[00:03:05]Debriefingisdefinitelyausefulthing.
Itcouldbenice,butitʹsnotsomethingthatʹsdonein
theseexercises.Itʹsnotincredibleimportant.
1C09:[00:10:29]Soyoucould
getsomethinglikethis,
forexample,whereitshowstheARPAandtheCPA.
Youcouldgetsomethinglikethat,oragraphshowing
the CPA and where it goes, if you were within 1.5
nauticalmilesonceor
1C5:[00:07:07]Maybenotforsuchasimpleexercise,I
donʹt
thinkthatʹsnecessary
1C2: [00:16:09] And then an overhead image where
youcanseethetracksofwhereyouhavesailedand
whereothershavesailed
Inthebachelorstudyprogram,thecloudsimulator
is contextualised to prepare students for the
upcomingfullmissionsimulator.Thestudentsinthe
interviewssaidthecloudsimulatorpreparedthemfor
the full mission and made the entry process more
straightforward.Asone3rdclassstudentsaid,ifhe
hadusedthecloudsimulatortolearntheradarbefore
he started on the full mission, he would not be so
nervous and might have
learned more in the full
mission because he would be more secure on the
radar.Anotherstudentreflectedonthebridgeteams
and the importance of familiarising oneself with all
theinstruments beforestarting thefull mission. One
studentevenwantedtohave exercises that reflected
thelearninggoalsof
thefullmission.Duringthefull
mission, the learning curve was quite steep, and it
wasdifficulttofolloweachinstrumentʹslessonwhen
you only were at a station every third week
(Navigation,Radar,andHelmsman).Aspartofthe
fullmissionsimulator,thestudentcouldbetrainedon
their
ownoncloudsimulatorexerciseswithlearning
goalsbasedonthefullmissionsimulatorexercises.
3C5: [00:23:32] Things also move quickly when it
comes to new topics, like when we started with the
dead reckoning thing and such. You did it the first
timeandfeltthatyouhadit
bytheendoftheexercise,
but three weeks later when you had to do it again,
you had to startfromscratch. If you had something
like this (Cloud Simulator), you couldwork with it,
repeatit,andyou donʹthavetospendalotoftimeon
it,
justrepeatitonceaweekorso,andsuddenlyyou
knowitmuchbetter
3C07:[00:06:25]Ithinkmaybeitwouldhavegivenus
abetterunderstandingofthingsthatcameabitlater
forus.
3C‐03:[0:11:00]: I remember in one of the early
exercises, we had to
sail at night. We couldnʹt see
anything (poor visibility), and everyone was so
nervous.Wehadtonavigatesolelybyradar.Butwith
something like this, you could become more
accustomedtoit.Youwouldhaveabetterfoundation
forit.
3C‐04: [00:10:04]: The important thing is the (Radar)
toolsandthe(Radar)modes(TM,RM,TV,RV)inthe
radar.Gettingfamiliarwiththemsothatwhenyougo
down to the full mission simulator, you know that
youdonʹthavetobeuncertain.
5 DISCUSSION
Ludvigsen & Arnseth [9] states that a scaffolding
process can be thought
of as a cognitive division of
labourbetweenstudentsandthetool(s)thatthey are
usingaspartofthelearningprocess.Studentsshould
be able to connect prior knowledge to a task and to
future practice through scaffolding. It is possible to
support students to collaborate more productively,
and the
knowledge that is represented can be
displayed in a number of ways that can facilitate
cognitivedevelopmentasaresult.Scaffoldingcanbe
seenasanimportanttoolincomputer‐basedlearning
[9].Inacloudsimulatorcontext,studentsarealone
without an instructor or fellow students to
communicate with.
Scaffolding in this setting is
based onthe student’s prior knowledge, the written
text is presented as a brief and e‐coach message
receivedduringsimulation.Hence,itisimportantthat
the learning objective of the exercise is designed to
320
meet the students at their level of understanding in
order for the student to be able to build further on
priorknowledgeand,atthesametimebechallenging
enoughtofacilitateprofessionallearning.Thestudent
inourstudythatusescloudsimulatorstatesthatthey
use it mostly at
home ontheir own computer.They
communicate how they like having access to the
simulator also off campus, and that they appreciate
the flexibility and repetitive training that it offers.
Mainly, the students in our study does not feel the
needforaninstructortobepresent,arguingthatthe
e‐coach messages work well for this particular task.
Thence,thescaffoldprovidedbythee‐coachseemto
meet the needs of the students at this point in
training. However, we found other challenges with
the students’ use of cloud simulators, mainly in
connection to feelings of boredom and feelings
of
meaningfulness inscenarioswhere things move ata
slowpace.Forthisreason,itisimportanttoconsider
the following features when designing simulation
softwareaswellasindesigningtasksforstudents.
The first feature is an exploration of specific
content [9]. Studentsʹ abilities to participate in
complicated
problem‐solving are directly tied to the
activities they complete and the structure of those
tasks. To gain such knowledge the activity must be
meaningful to the students. In the perception of the
students,theyfeelthattheyarewastingtime,waiting
for the next action or event in the exercise.
One
student said that the cloud‐based simulators is
interesting, but it gets tediously long sometimes. A
tiresome exercise cannot be seen as a complicated
problem‐solving exercise designed to give the
studentsdeeperknowledge.Inlightofthesefindings,
arecommendationistodesigneducationaltasksthat
mightbe
moremeaningfulforstudents,forexample,
by adding work‐relevant tasks to the training of
ARPA equipment. Such work‐relevant tasks can be,
for example, to continuously take positions and/or
keepingalogbook.
The second feature emphasises the use of
simulations and dynamic visualisation to create
affordancesinwhichstudentscan
testhypothesesand
manipulate parameters[9].Thisfeatureservescloud
simulatorswell,itisnaturallya simulatorwherethe
students manipulate parameters to learn how to
operatethedifferentbridgeinstruments.Atthesame
time,thestudentsmusthaveexercisesallowingthem
to test out how their actions are impacting
the
simulationandlearninghowtooperateashipsafely
and practicable. Another option is to frame the
exercise in a problem‐based learning context where
the students use the instruments to test different
parametersandhowthatinfluencesthesimulation.In
thecurrentversionofthecloudsimulator,thereis
no
option to see outside the vessel as there is no
visualisationavailable.Abettervisuallookoutwould
help the student visualise the exercise, which could
enhancelearning.
The third feature is to encourage students to
collaborateintheirwork.Onewaytoapproachthisis
to use internal and
external scripts. Ludvigsen &
Arnseth [9] suggest that students scripting
collaboration with plays, scenes and roles, using
internal scripts close to prior knowledge.The e‐
coachmessagescanserveasscriptsforthestudentsin
lack of fellow students to collaborate with. The
messagescan beinternalforsuggestionorrepetitive
knowledge and external for what to do.E‐ Coach
messages can have different transmitters over what
type of action the students are expected to execute.
Todifferentiatethis,differentscriptsinthemaritime
contextcancomefromthecaptaintakingtheformof
direct orders, instructional feedback that can come
from an instructor and visual cues on what is
happening outside the vessel, which can be
communicatedbythehelmsmanorlookout.
The fourth future envisioned students forming
theirownaims,andusingvariousconceptsandideas,
anddevelopingmorecomplexformsofreasoning[9].
In achieving this, the student must
understand the
link between the learning gaols, the cloud simulator
and upcoming learning goals in the full mission
simulator.They must understand why they are
learningthisandinwhatcontext.Hence,debriefings
shouldbeconductedaftereachexercise.Inorderfor
studentsto be able to performthe exercises
without
instructor support, an appropriate format for
debriefingcanbewrittendebriefings,wherestudents
are asked to reflect on the simulation in a textual
format.
6 CONCLUSIONS
Inthisarticle,wehaveaimedtoexplainhowstudents
make use of cloud simulators, as well as gaining
insights into their perspective of
using cloud
simulator in navigation training. Furthermore, we
have suggested some key features to consider when
designing cloud simulator exercises based on CSCL.
The findings suggest that individual training with
cloud‐based simulators in MET can enhance the
repetitionofskillsnecessaryforbetterperformancein
full mission simulator with
current technology and
rather straightforward instructional designs.
However, a challenge is how to frame meaningful
exercises in cloud‐based simulators.This study
contributes with an empirically based and theory‐
driven description of how to design simulation
softwareandeducationaltaskstoprovidemeaningful
learningexperiencesformaritimestudents.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Simulator instructor Morten Bustgaard contributed to
developing the maritime simulator scenario for the
experimentandisgratefullyacknowledgedbytheauthors.
The authors would also like to thank the Centre of
ExcellenceinMaritimeSimulatorTrainingandAssessment
(COAST) in Norway for their funding and facilitation for
thisresearchwork.
REFERENCES
[1]T.‐E. Kim et al., ‘The continuum of simulator‐based
maritime training and education’, WMU J. Marit. Aff.,
vol.20,no.2,pp.135–150,Jun.2021,doi:10.1007/s13437‐
021‐00242‐2.
[2]A. Sharma, S. Nazir, A. C. Wiig, C. Sellberg, M. Imset,
and S. Mallam, ‘Computer supported collaborative
321
learningasaninterventionformaritime educationand
training’, in Advances in Intelligent Systems and
Computing, Cham: Springer International Publishing,
2019,pp.3–12,doi:10.1007/978‐3‐319‐93882‐0_1.
[3]A. Crabtree, M. Rouncefield, and P. Tolmie, Doing
Design Ethnography, 2012th ed. London, England:
Springer,2012,doi:10.1007/978‐1‐4471‐2726
‐0.
[4]C. Sellberg, ‘From briefing, through scenario, to
debriefing: the maritime instructor’s work during
simulator‐basedtraining’,Cogn.Technol.Work,vol.20,
no.1,pp.49–62,Feb.2018,doi:10.1007/s10111‐017‐0446‐
y.
[5]G. Stahl, ‘A decade of CSCL’, Int. J. Comput. Support.
Collab.Learn.,vol.10,no.
4,pp.337–344,Dec.2015,doi:
10.1007/s11412‐015‐9222‐2.
[6]G. Stahl, T. Koschmann, and D. Suthers, “Computer‐
supported Collaborative Learning: An Historical
Perspective,” in Cambridge Handbook of the Learning
Sciences,2006,p.409.
[7]S. Ludvigsen and R. Steier, ‘Reflections and looking
aheadforCSCL:digitalinfrastructures,digitaltools,
and
collaborativelearning’, Int.J. Comput. Support.Collab.
Learn., vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 415–423, Dec. 2019, doi:
10.1007/s11412‐019‐09312‐3.
[8]S.Ludvigsen,A.Lund,andI.Rasmussen,“Introduction:
Learning across sites; new tools, infrastructures and
practices,”inLearningAcrossSites,Routledge,2010.
[9]S. Ludvigsen and H.
C. Arnseth, ‘Computer‐supported
collaborative learning’, in Technology Enhanced
Learning, Cham: Springer International Publishing,
2017,pp.47–58,doi:10.1007/978‐3‐319‐02600‐8_5.
[10]R. Säljö, ‘Development, ageing and hybrid minds:
Growth and decline, and ecologies of human
functioningin a socioculturalperspective’, Learn.Cult.
Soc. Interact., vol. 37, no. 100465,
p. 100465, Dec. 2022,
doi:10.1016/j.lcsi.2020.100465.
[11]C.E.Hmelo‐SilverandH.Jeong,‘AnoverviewofCSCL
methods’, in International Handbook of Computer‐
Supported Collaborative Learning, Cham: Springer
International Publishing, 2021, pp. 65–83, doi:
10.1007/978‐3‐030‐65291‐3_4.
[12]G.Stahl,“Contributionstoatheoreticalframeworkfor
CSCL,”
in Computer Support for Collaborative
Learning,Routledge,2023,pp.62–71.
[13]Y. Kali and C. Hoadley, ‘Design‐based research
methods in CSCL: Calibrating our epistemologies and
ontologies’, in International Handbook of Computer‐
Supported Collaborative Learning, Cham: Springer
International Publishing, 2021, pp. 479–496, doi:
10.1007/978‐3‐030‐65291‐3_26.
[14]M.Hontvedt
andK.I.Øvergård,‘Simulationsatwork
—aframework for configuring simulation fidelity with
trainingobjectives’,Comput.Support.Coop.Work,vol.
29, no. 1–2, pp. 85–113, Apr. 2020, doi: 10.1007/s10606‐
019‐09367‐8.
[15]P. Dillenbourg, “What do you mean by collaborative
learning?,” in Collaborative learning: cognitive and
computationalapproaches,
Amsterdam,NL:Pergamon,
ElseiverScience,1999,pp.1–16.
[16]J. Roschelle and S. D. Teasley, “The construction of
shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving,”
presented at the Computer supported collaborative
learning,Springer,1995,pp.69–97.
[17]J.Chen,M.Wang,P.A.Kirschner,andC.‐C.Tsai,‘The
role of collaboration,
computer use, learning
environments, and supporting strategies in CSCL: A
meta‐analysis’, Rev. Educ. Res., vol. 88, no. 6, pp. 799–
843,Dec.2018,doi:10.3102/0034654318791584..
[18]M.HontvedtandH.C.Arnseth,‘Onthebridgetolearn:
Analysingthesocialorganisationofnauticalinstruction
in a ship simulator’, Int. J.
Comput. Support. Collab.
Learn., vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 89–112, Mar. 2013, doi:
10.1007/s11412‐013‐9166‐3.
[19]C. Heath, J. Hindmarsh, and P. Luff, Video in
Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications,2010,doi:10.4135/9781526435385.
[20]K. Jackson, Qualitative data analysis with NVivo, 3rd
edition.ThousandOaks,CA:
SAGEPublications,2019.
[21]V. Braun and V. Clarke, ‘Reflecting on reflexive
thematic analysis’, Qual. Res. Sport Exerc. Health, vol.
11, no. 4, pp. 589–597, Aug. 2019, doi:
10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806.
