783

1 INTRODUCTION

Maritime education plays a critical role in developing

competent, safety-conscious seafarers prepared to

perform effectively in complex, safety-critical

navigational environments. Beyond acquiring

theoretical knowledge, maritime training requires

cadets to develop the practical competencies,

judgment, communication, and professional attitudes

needed for shipboard operations. The International

Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and

Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW) establishes

international minimum standards for seafarer training,

certification, and watchkeeping, including competency

requirements for deck officers and navigational

watchkeeping. The STCW framework also recognizes

Enhancing Cadet Competencies through Experiential

Onboard Navigational Training: A Quasi-Experimental

Study

A.G. Gargalicano, R.R. Germo & D.A. Dalipe

John B. Lacson Foundation Maritime University, Iloilo City, Philippines

ABSTRACT: Experiential learning is fundamental to maritime education because it enables cadets to translate

classroom knowledge into practical shipboard competencies essential for safe navigation and professional

practice. This study examined changes in navigational knowledge and professional attitudes following onboard

navigational training aboard M/V Capt. John B. Lacson among third-year Bachelor of Science in Marine

Transportation (BSMT) students. A quasi-experimental one-group pretest–posttest design was employed

involving 40 third-year BSMT students during Academic Year 2025–2026. Data were collected using two

validated instruments: a 30-item achievement test measuring navigational knowledge and a 30-item attitude

questionnaire assessing students’ attitudes toward onboard navigational training. Quantitative data were

analyzed using descriptive statistics, paired-samples t-test, mean-gain analysis, and Cohen’s d, while qualitative

responses were examined through thematic analysis. Results showed that navigational knowledge increased

from a pretest mean of 13.00 (SD = 2.19) to a posttest mean of 25.00 (SD = 1.43), representing a mean gain of 12.00

points and a very large effect size (d = 4.45), with the difference being statistically significant, t(39) = −28.155, p <

.001. Students’ attitudes likewise increased from a pretest mean of 3.14 (SD = 0.50), interpreted as High, to a

posttest mean of 3.60 (SD = 0.30), interpreted as Very High, with a mean gain of 0.46 and a large effect size (d =

0.79), t(39) = −5.019, p < .001. Thematic analysis further revealed three key themes: integration of theoretical

knowledge and practical application, development of confidence and professional readiness, and enhanced safety

awareness and teamwork. These findings provide empirical evidence of substantial improvements in students’

navigational knowledge and positive changes in their professional attitudes following structured onboard

navigational training, while the qualitative findings suggest perceived gains in confidence, readiness, safety

awareness, and teamwork. The study highlights the value of authentic shipboard experiences in competency-

based maritime education and supports integrating experiential learning into maritime curricula to develop

competent, safety-conscious, and industry-ready seafarers.

http://www.transnav.eu

the International Journal

on Marine Navigation

and Safety of Sea Transportation

Volume 20

Number 3

September 2026

DOI: 10.12716/1001.20.03.24

784

the importance of appropriate training methodologies

and the development of technical and non-technical

competencies relevant to safe maritime operations [4].

A central challenge in maritime education is

therefore effectively integrating classroom-based

theoretical instruction with authentic operational

experience. While classroom instruction provides the

conceptual foundation for navigation, shipboard

training gives cadets opportunities to apply their

knowledge in realistic operational contexts. Research

on maritime education and training indicates that

practical and simulation-based learning environments

can support the development and assessment of

professional competencies by allowing learners to

engage with navigational tasks, operational decision-

making, and realistic bridge situations [5] [10]. Realistic

training environments are particularly important in

maritime education because navigation involves

complex interactions among technical knowledge,

situational awareness, communication, decision-

making, and teamwork.

Experiential learning provides a theoretical basis

for understanding how authentic shipboard

experiences can contribute to students' learning and

professional development. Kolb [6] conceptualized

learning as a process in which knowledge develops

through the transformation of experience. From this

perspective, learners construct and strengthen

knowledge by engaging in concrete experiences,

reflecting on those experiences, developing conceptual

understanding, and applying what they have learned

to subsequent situations. In maritime education, this

learning cycle is particularly relevant because cadets

can encounter actual navigational operations and

subsequently connect those experiences with concepts

previously introduced in the classroom. Studies of

maritime training have likewise emphasized the

importance of realistic and practice-oriented learning

environments in supporting competency development

and preparing students for professional maritime

responsibilities [5] [7].

The development of professional attitudes is also an

important dimension of maritime training. Safe

navigation depends not only on technical knowledge

but also on responsible professional behavior,

communication, teamwork, safety consciousness, and

confidence in performing assigned duties. Maritime

training research has highlighted the importance of

developing these technical and non-technical

competencies through realistic training and

collaborative learning experiences [8] [12]. These

competencies align with the broader STCW emphasis

on competence, safety, leadership, teamwork, and

effective watchkeeping in maritime operations [4].

At John B. Lacson Foundation Maritime University

(Arevalo), Inc., the M/V Capt. John B. Lacson provides

an authentic shipboard environment in which cadets

can experience navigational operations, bridge

watchkeeping, safety procedures, and other maritime

activities. Unlike simulator-based environments,

actual shipboard training exposes learners to the

operational context in which maritime competencies

are ultimately required. However, despite the

importance of onboard training in maritime education,

empirical evidence is still needed to show how

authentic shipboard navigational experiences are

associated with measurable changes in students'

knowledge and professional attitudes. This need is

particularly relevant in institutional contexts where

training vessels are integrated into maritime education

and can serve as authentic learning environments.

The present study addresses this need by

examining changes in navigational knowledge and

attitudes among third-year Bachelor of Science in

Marine Transportation (BSMT) students before and

after onboard navigational training aboard the M/V

Capt. John B. Lacson. The study used a one-group

pretest–posttest quasi-experimental design to measure

changes in students' performance and attitudes, and

examined qualitative student reflections to provide

contextual insight into their learning experiences.

Using both objective performance measures and

students' reported experiences allows the study to

examine not only whether measurable changes

occurred but also how students perceived the

relationship between theoretical knowledge and

authentic shipboard practice.

The study is particularly significant because it

evaluates an authentic onboard learning experience

rather than relying solely on simulation or perception-

based measures. By examining navigational

knowledge, attitudes, effect sizes, and qualitative

reflections within the same training context, the study

provides a more comprehensive assessment of the

educational value of structured onboard navigational

training. The findings may help improve shipboard

training practices and curriculum design by providing

evidence on how authentic maritime experiences can

support competency-based education, professional

development, safety awareness, and readiness for

future shipboard responsibilities. The study also

contributes to Sustainable Development Goal 4

(Quality Education) by highlighting the role of

relevant, practice-oriented learning experiences in

developing knowledge and skills for employment and

professional practice.

The novelty of this study lies in its empirical

evaluation of authentic onboard navigational training

using a quasi-experimental one-group pretest–posttest

design among third-year BSMT students aboard a

university training vessel. While previous maritime

education research has extensively examined

simulator-based training and technology-supported

learning, the present study focuses specifically on an

actual shipboard navigational training environment

and examines changes across both cognitive and

affective learning outcomes. The study further

integrates a 30-item navigational knowledge test, a

validated 30-item attitude questionnaire, paired-

samples statistical analysis, mean-gain analysis, effect-

size estimation, and qualitative student reflections.

This combination provides evidence of both the

magnitude of observed learning changes and students'

experiences of theory–practice integration, confidence

and professional readiness, safety awareness, and

teamwork. The study therefore contributes empirical

evidence supporting the use of authentic shipboard

experiences as a complementary strategy for

strengthening competency-based maritime education.

Guided by this context, the study aimed to evaluate

the effectiveness of onboard navigational training

conducted aboard the M/V Capt. John B. Lacson among

785

third-year BSMT students of John B. Lacson

Foundation Maritime University (Arevalo), Inc. during

Academic Year 2025–2026.

Specifically, this study sought answers to the

following questions:

1. What are the pretest and posttest scores of the third-

year BSMT students in navigational knowledge

before and after undergoing onboard navigational

training aboard M/V Capt. John B Lacson?

2. What is the level of students’ attitude toward

onboard navigational training before and after the

training?

3. Is there a significant difference between the

students’ pretest and posttest scores in navigational

knowledge following the onboard navigational

training?

4. Is there a significant difference between the

students’ pretest and posttest attitudes toward

onboard navigational training following the

intervention?

5. What are the mean gains in the students’

navigational knowledge and attitude before and

after the onboard navigational training?

6. What is the magnitude of the observed pretest–

posttest change in students’ navigational

knowledge and attitude following the onboard

navigational training?

7. What feedback, reflections, or insights can be drawn

from the students regarding their experiences

during the onboard navigational training?

2 MATERIALS AND METHODS

2.1 Research Design

This study employed a quasi-experimental one-group

pretest–posttest research design, supplemented by a

qualitative descriptive component, to evaluate the

effectiveness of onboard navigational training

conducted aboard the M/V Capt. John B. Lacson among

third-year Bachelor of Science in Marine

Transportation (BSMT) students. The quantitative

component involved administering a pretest before the

onboard navigational training and a posttest after the

training intervention to determine changes in students’

navigational knowledge and attitudes toward onboard

navigational training.

The one-group pretest–posttest design was

appropriate because the study involved an intact

group of students scheduled to undergo onboard

navigational training as part of their academic

program. The design enabled the researchers to

compare students’ performance and attitude scores

before and after the intervention. According to

Creswell and Creswell [3], quasi-experimental designs

are appropriate for examining changes associated with

an intervention when random assignment or a control

group may not be feasible.

The study also included a qualitative descriptive

component through open-ended questions

administered after the training. The qualitative

component was not intended to constitute a separate

qualitative research design but to supplement the

quantitative findings by providing contextual

information about students’ experiences, reflections,

and insights regarding the onboard training. The

responses were analyzed using thematic analysis to

identify recurring patterns and themes related to

learning transfer, confidence and professional

readiness, safety awareness, and teamwork.

Thus, the study primarily used a quantitative quasi-

experimental design with a supplementary qualitative

descriptive component. Integrating quantitative

pretest–posttest results with students’ qualitative

reflections provided a more comprehensive

understanding of the observed changes following the

onboard navigational training.

2.2 Participants

The study respondents consisted of 40 third-year

Bachelor of Science in Marine Transportation (BSMT)

students from one selected section of John B. Lacson

Foundation Maritime University (Arevalo), Inc. who

underwent onboard navigational training aboard M/V

Capt. John B. Lacson during Academic Year 2025–2026.

Purposive sampling was employed because the

selected section was specifically scheduled to undergo

the onboard navigational training and was accessible

to the researchers during the data collection period. All

40 students who met the study criteria and consented

to participate were included.

Before the study, the researchers secured

permission from the appropriate university

authorities, including the BSMT Dean and the

Shipboard Training Officer (STO). Participation was

voluntary, and respondents were informed of the

study's purpose, the confidentiality of their responses,

and their right to withdraw at any time without

penalty.

2.3 Instrument

Two research instruments were utilized to assess the

effectiveness of onboard navigational training aboard

M/V Capt. John B Lacson.

The first instrument was a 30-item multiple-choice

navigational knowledge test designed to assess

students’ understanding and application of essential

navigational concepts and procedures. The test

covered six major domains: (1) International

Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea

(COLREGs); (2) bridge watchkeeping and lookout

duties; (3) Electronic Chart Display and Information

System (ECDIS) and radar operations; (4) passage

planning and ship handling; (5) Bridge Resource

Management (BRM) and communication; and (6)

safety, emergencies, and shipboard drills. A Table of

Specifications (TOS) was developed to ensure

appropriate distribution of test items across the

identified content domains and alignment with the

intended learning objectives and cognitive levels. Each

correct answer was assigned one point, with a

maximum possible score of 30.

The second instrument was a 30-item attitude

questionnaire using a four-point Likert scale ranging

from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 4 (Strongly Agree). The

questionnaire assessed students’ attitudes toward

onboard navigational training across three areas: (a)

navigational attitude, (b) attitude toward bridge

watchkeeping and teamwork, and (c) safety and

786

emergency preparedness attitude. These dimensions

were treated as components of the overall attitude

toward onboard navigational training and analyzed

collectively as the study's affective outcome.

To supplement the quantitative data, the posttest

questionnaire included open-ended questions to

gather respondents’ reflections, experiences, insights,

and suggestions regarding the onboard navigational

training. These qualitative responses provided

additional information to interpret the quantitative

findings and identify areas for improvement in the

training program.

To establish the content validity of the two research

instruments, a panel of experts in maritime education,

navigation, and research evaluated the instruments.

For the multiple-choice knowledge test, the expert

review followed the Table of Specifications to ensure

the items adequately represented the identified content

domains and learning objectives. The items in both

instruments were assessed for clarity, relevance,

organization, and alignment with the study objectives.

The 30-item navigational knowledge test obtained a

Content Validity Index (CVI) of 0.93, while the 30-item

attitude questionnaire obtained a CVI of 0.96,

indicating excellent content validity for both

instruments.

Pilot testing was conducted among BSMT students

who were not included in the actual study. Since the

navigational knowledge test consisted of

dichotomously scored items, the Kuder–Richardson

Formula 20 (KR-20) was used to determine its internal

consistency. The knowledge test obtained a reliability

coefficient of 0.90, indicating excellent internal

consistency. For the 30-item attitude questionnaire,

Cronbach’s alpha was used to determine internal

consistency, yielding a reliability coefficient of 0.95,

also indicating excellent internal consistency.

These results established that both quantitative

instruments demonstrated excellent content validity

and internal consistency and were suitable for

assessing students’ navigational knowledge and

attitudes toward onboard navigational training.

2.4 Data Collection

Before conducting the study, the researcher obtained

formal approval from the appropriate university

authorities. A request letter outlining the study's

objectives, procedures, and schedule was submitted for

approval.

The data collection process followed a pretest–

intervention–posttest procedure consistent with the

quasi-experimental research design. During the pretest

phase, the 30-item navigational knowledge test and the

30-item attitude questionnaire were administered

before the respondents underwent onboard

navigational training. The results served as the study's

baseline measures.

During the intervention phase, the respondents

underwent actual onboard navigational training

aboard M/V John B Lacson under the supervision of the

Shipboard Training Officer. The training activities

included bridge operations, watchkeeping duties,

navigational planning, ECDIS handling, radar

observation, bridge resource management, and safety

drills.

After completion of the training, the same

quantitative instruments were administered as

posttests to determine whether changes occurred in the

students’ navigational knowledge and attitude toward

onboard navigational training. Open-ended questions

were also administered to gather qualitative feedback

regarding the respondents’ learning experiences,

reflections, and suggestions.

All responses were treated confidentially, and

participation remained voluntary throughout the

study.

2.5 Data Analysis

The data gathered from the respondents were

organized, coded, tabulated, and analyzed using the

Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS).

Descriptive statistics, including frequency counts,

percentages, means, and standard deviations, were

used to describe the students’ navigational knowledge

and attitudes before and after the onboard navigational

training.

For the 30-item navigational knowledge test, scores

were interpreted using a competency-based

classification system. A score of 21–30, equivalent to

70% and above, was classified as “Passed,” indicating

satisfactory knowledge and understanding of onboard

navigational concepts and procedures. A score of 0–20

was classified as “Failed,” indicating insufficient

knowledge and understanding of the identified

navigational concepts and procedures.

Mean gain scores were computed by subtracting the

pretest mean from the posttest mean (Posttest Mean −

Pretest Mean). Positive mean gain values indicate an

increase in students’ scores following the onboard

navigational training.

Paired-samples t-tests were used to determine

whether statistically significant differences existed

between the pretest and posttest scores in navigational

knowledge and attitude toward onboard navigational

training. The level of significance was set at α = .05. The

paired-samples effect size, expressed as Cohen’s d_z,

was computed to determine the magnitude of the

pretest–posttest change. In interpreting the effect sizes,

values of approximately 0.20, 0.50, and 0.80 were

considered small, medium, and large effects,

respectively [2]. Because the study employed a one-

group pretest–posttest design without a comparison

group, the effect sizes were interpreted as indicators of

the magnitude of observed change rather than

definitive evidence of causality.

Table 1. Mean Scale, Descriptive Rating, and Indicators for

Attitude Toward Onboard Navigational Training

Mean

Scale

Descriptive

Rating

Indicators

3.51 –

4.00

Very High

The students demonstrated a very positive

attitude toward onboard navigational

training.

2.51 –

3.50

High

The students demonstrated a positive

attitude toward onboard navigational

training.

787

1.51 –

2.50

Low

The students demonstrated a less favorable

attitude toward onboard navigational

training.

1.0 –

1.50

Very Low

The students demonstrated a very low level

of attitude toward onboard navigational

training.

Table 2. Mean Scale, Descriptive Rating, and Indicators for

Navigational Knowledge Test

Mean

Scale

Descriptive

Rating

Indicators

21-30

Passed

The students demonstrated satisfactory

knowledge and understanding of onboard

navigational concepts and procedures.

0-20

Failed

The students demonstrated insufficient

knowledge and understanding of onboard

navigational concepts and procedures.

For the qualitative component, the open-ended

responses collected after the training were analyzed

using thematic analysis following Braun and Clarke

[1]. The researchers first familiarized themselves with

the responses by repeatedly reviewing the students’

written feedback. The researchers then generated

initial codes from meaningful statements relevant to

the research questions and the students’ experiences

during the onboard navigational training. Related

codes were subsequently grouped into categories, from

which potential themes were developed. The themes

were then reviewed and refined to ensure that they

represented meaningful and recurring patterns within

the responses. Finally, the themes were clearly defined

and named, and the findings were organized to

demonstrate how the qualitative responses

complemented the quantitative results.

The analysis focused particularly on students’

descriptions of theoretical knowledge application,

confidence and professional readiness, safety

awareness, communication, and teamwork. Selected

respondent codes were used to maintain anonymity

while demonstrating the basis of the identified themes.

Consistent with Braun and Clarke’s [1] approach, the

thematic analysis was used to identify patterns of

meaning within the students’ reflections rather than to

quantify the frequency of responses. The qualitative

findings were treated as supplementary evidence that

provided contextual insight into the students’

experiences and perceptions of the onboard

navigational training.

The researchers ensured that all ethical principles

were observed throughout the study. Before data

collection, the researchers sought permission from the

Research and Development Center of John B. Lacson

Foundation Maritime University (Arevalo), Inc., and

obtained informed consent from the respondents.

Participation in the study was voluntary, and

respondents were informed that they could withdraw

at any time without penalty.

The researchers strictly maintained confidentiality

and anonymity by not requiring respondents to

provide personal identifiers in the questionnaire. All

data gathered were used solely for academic and

research purposes. The researchers complied with the

provisions of the Data Privacy Act of 2012 (Republic

Act No. 10173) to protect respondents’ information.

Additionally, the instruments were designed to

avoid discomfort, pressure, or bias. Respondents were

assured that their honest responses would be treated

with respect and used only for educational and

research purposes related to improving onboard

navigational training practices.

3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Pretest and Posttest Scores of the Students in

Navigational Knowledge Before and After Undergoing

Onboard Navigational Training aboard M/V Capt.

John B Lacson

The pretest was administered to determine the

baseline navigational knowledge of the third-year

Bachelor of Science in Marine Transportation (BSMT)

students before undergoing onboard navigational

training aboard M/V Capt. John B Lacson. After the

onboard navigational training, the same set of

questionnaires was administered as a posttest to

evaluate improvement in students’ navigational

knowledge and understanding of maritime operational

concepts.

Table 3 presents the pretest and posttest scores of

the students in navigational knowledge. Forty (40)

third-year BSMT students participated in the study.

The students obtained a pretest mean score of 13 with

a descriptive rating of “Failed” and a standard

deviation of 2.19. This finding indicates that prior to the

onboard navigational training, the students

demonstrated insufficient knowledge and

understanding of navigational concepts, bridge

watchkeeping procedures, safety protocols, and

shipboard operational practices.

After undergoing the onboard navigational training

aboard M/V Capt. John B Lacson, the students achieved

a posttest mean score of 25 with a descriptive rating of

“Passed” and a standard deviation of 1.43. The increase

in mean score from 13 to 25 indicates a substantial

improvement in the students’ navigational knowledge

after exposure to actual shipboard training and

practical navigational activities.

The lower standard deviation in the posttest results

further suggests that students’ scores became more

consistent after the training intervention, implying that

the onboard navigational training contributed not only

to improved performance but also to more uniform

learning outcomes among participants.

The findings support the principle of experiential

learning, which emphasizes that students strengthen

their knowledge by engaging in concrete experiences,

reflecting on those experiences, and applying concepts

in practical contexts [6]. In maritime education, realistic

training environments give learners opportunities to

connect theoretical instruction with operational tasks

and develop professional competencies. These findings

are consistent with previous maritime education

research emphasizing the importance of structured

instruction, realistic training environments, and

assessment in developing maritime and navigational

competencies [10] [5].

The results therefore suggest that the observed

improvement in navigational knowledge following the

onboard training was consistent with the educational

value of experiential and practice-oriented maritime

training. The substantial increase from the pretest to

788

the posttest indicates that students performed

considerably better after participating in the structured

onboard learning experience.

Table 3. Pretest and Posttest Scores of the Students in

Navigational Knowledge Before and After Undergoing

Onboard Navigational Training aboard M/V Capt. John B

Lacson

Test

Mean

Descriptive Rating

Pretest

Failed

2.19

Posttest

Passed

1.43

Table 4 presents students’ attitudes toward onboard

navigational training before and after training aboard

M/V Capt. John B Lacson. The pretest results showed a

mean score of 3.14, a descriptive rating of “High,” and

a standard deviation of 0.50. This finding indicates

that, even before the onboard navigational training, the

students already had a generally positive attitude

toward navigation, bridge watchkeeping, teamwork,

safety awareness, and maritime operational

responsibilities.

After the onboard navigational training, the

posttest results showed an increased mean score of 3.60

with a descriptive rating of “Very High” and a

standard deviation of 0.30. The increase in the mean

score demonstrates that the training positively

influenced the students’ attitudes toward onboard

navigational practices and maritime operational

learning. The lower standard deviation in the posttest

further suggests that the students developed more

consistent and favorable attitudes after participating in

the actual shipboard training activities.

The improvement in students’ attitudes may be

attributed to their direct exposure to authentic

navigational operations, bridge procedures, safety

activities, and collaborative shipboard tasks.

Experiential learning gives students opportunities to

connect classroom concepts with real professional

situations, potentially strengthening engagement and

appreciation of their future occupational

responsibilities [6]. Maritime training research likewise

emphasizes the importance of realistic learning

environments, structured instruction, collaborative

activities, and opportunities for reflection in

developing professional competencies and confidence

[8] [10].

The findings therefore suggest that the onboard

training experience was associated not only with

improved knowledge but also with a more favorable

attitude toward navigational activities, teamwork,

safety responsibilities, and professional shipboard

practice.

Table 4. Level of Students’ Attitude Toward Onboard

Navigational Training Before and After Undergoing

Training aboard M/V Capt. John B Lacson

Test

Mean

Descriptive Rating

Pretest

3.14

High

0.50

Posttest

3.60

Very High

1.30

3.1 Significant Difference Between Pretest and Posttest

Scores in Navigational Knowledge

Table 5 presents the results of the paired samples t-test

on the pretest and posttest scores of the third-year

BSMT students in navigational knowledge after

undergoing onboard navigational training aboard M/V

Capt. John B Lacson. The results show that the students

obtained a pretest mean score of 13.00 (SD = 2.19),

which increased to a posttest mean score of 25.00 (SD =

1.43), yielding a mean difference of 12.00.

The statistical analysis revealed a significant

difference between the pretest and posttest scores, t(39)

= -28.155, p<.001. This result indicates that the onboard

navigational training had a statistically significant

effect on improving the students’ navigational

knowledge. The large magnitude of the t-value further

suggests a strong effect of the intervention on students’

learning outcomes.

The substantial increase in posttest scores

demonstrates that students performed significantly

better after undergoing actual shipboard training. This

improvement may be attributed to the experiential

nature of onboard training, where cadets were exposed

to real navigational operations such as bridge

watchkeeping, COLREG application, ECDIS usage,

radar plotting, passage planning, and safety drills.

Such hands-on learning experiences reinforce

theoretical knowledge and enhance cognitive retention

and procedural understanding.

The substantial increase in posttest performance

indicates that students demonstrated significantly

higher navigational knowledge after the training. This

finding aligns with the principles of experiential

learning, in which direct experience gives learners

opportunities to apply, test, and refine knowledge in

authentic contexts [6]. Maritime education research has

similarly emphasized the importance of structured

scenarios, instruction, and assessment in supporting

the development of professional navigational

competencies [10] [5].

Table 5 Mann-Whitney Test Result on the Pretest Mean

Score Performances between the Experimental and Control

Groups

Test

Mean

Difference

Sig (2-

tailed)

Pretest

3.14

2.19

-28.155*

<.001

Posttest

3.60

1.43

Note. Asterisk (*) means significant at .05 level of probability.

3.2 Significant Difference Between Pretest and Posttest

Attitude Toward Onboard Navigational Training

Table 6 presents the results of the paired samples t-test

on the students’ attitude toward onboard navigational

training before and after undergoing training aboard

M/V Capt. John B Lacson. The pretest results show that

the students obtained a mean attitude score of 3.14 (SD

= 0.50), interpreted as “High,” indicating that even

before the intervention, the students already

demonstrated a generally positive disposition toward

navigation, bridge watchkeeping, teamwork, and

safety-related responsibilities. After the onboard

training, the posttest mean increased to 3.60 (SD = 0.30),

interpreted as “Very High,” suggesting an

improvement in their overall attitude toward onboard

navigational training and shipboard learning

experiences.

The paired-samples t-test revealed a statistically

significant difference between the pretest and posttest

attitude scores, t(39) = -5.019, p < .001. This result

indicates that the onboard navigational training had a

significant positive effect on improving the students’

789

attitudes toward maritime operations and shipboard

responsibilities.

The increase in attitude scores may be attributed to

the students’ direct exposure to real-life bridge

operations, navigational procedures, and safety drills

during the onboard training. Experiential learning

helps cadets better appreciate the relevance of

theoretical concepts, leading to improved motivation,

engagement, and a more professional attitude toward

maritime duties. When learners are placed in authentic

operational environments, their attitudes tend to shift

from passive understanding to active appreciation of

professional responsibilities.

These findings are consistent with the experiential

learning perspective, which suggests that direct

engagement with authentic tasks can strengthen

learners’ understanding and appreciation of

professional practice [6]. In maritime training, realistic

and collaborative learning environments can also build

students’ confidence and perceived skill development,

particularly when learners have opportunities to

participate actively in training activities and receive

structured guidance [8] [10].

The observed increase in attitude scores therefore

suggests that the onboard training experience was

associated with a more favorable disposition toward

navigational practice, teamwork, safety, and

professional shipboard responsibilities.

Table 6. Paired Samples t-Test on the Pretest and Posttest

Scores of Students’ Attitude Toward Onboard Navigational

Training Before and After Undergoing Training aboard

Test

Mean

Difference

Sig (2-

tailed)

Pretest

3.14

0.50

0.46

-5.019*

<.001

Posttest

3.60

1.30

Note. Asterisk (*) means significant at .05 level of probability.

Table 7 presents the mean gains in students’

navigational knowledge and attitude before and after

undergoing onboard navigational training aboard M/V

Capt. John B Lacson. The results show a mean gain of

12.00 points in navigational knowledge, increasing

from 13.00 in the pretest to 25.00 in the posttest. This

indicates a substantial improvement in students’

cognitive understanding of navigational principles,

COLREGs application, bridge watchkeeping

procedures, and shipboard operational competencies.

For students’ attitude toward onboard navigational

training, the mean increased from 3.14 to 3.60, resulting

in a mean gain of 0.46. Although the numerical gain is

smaller than that observed for the knowledge test, the

increase represents a positive shift from a “High” to a

“Very High” level of attitude. This suggests that the

onboard training experience further strengthened

students’ confidence, appreciation of bridge

operations, teamwork, safety awareness, and

professional responsibilities.

Taken together, the mean gains in both outcomes

indicate positive changes following the onboard

navigational training. The larger numerical gain in

navigational knowledge reflects substantial

improvement in cognitive performance, while the

positive increase in attitude indicates a favorable shift

in students’ affective and professional dispositions.

These findings are consistent with Kolb’s [6]

experiential learning perspective, in which concrete

experience, reflection, conceptual understanding, and

application contribute to learning. The findings also

correspond with maritime education research

emphasizing the importance of realistic training

environments and structured learning activities in

developing professional competencies and perceived

skill development [10] [8].

Table 7. Mean Gains in Students’ Navigational Knowledge

and Attitude Before and After Onboard Navigational

Training

Variable

Pretest Mean

Posttest Mean

Mean Gain

Navigational Knowledge

Attitude Toward Onboard

3.14

3.60

0.46

Navigational Training

Table 8 presents the effect sizes of the onboard

navigational training on students’ navigational

knowledge and attitude. Cohen’s d_z was computed to

determine the magnitude of the pretest–posttest

changes. The results revealed a very large effect for

navigational knowledge (d_z = 4.45) and a large effect

for students’ attitude (d_z= 0.79).

For navigational knowledge, the effect size of 4.45

indicates an exceptionally large standardized

improvement between the pretest and posttest scores.

This finding demonstrates that the observed increase

in students’ navigational knowledge was not only

statistically significant but also substantial in

magnitude. The effect size greatly exceeds Cohen’s [2]

conventional benchmark of 0.80 for a large effect,

indicating a very large pretest–posttest change in

students’ navigational knowledge following the

onboard training.

For students’ attitude toward onboard navigational

training, the effect size of 0.79 indicates a large practical

effect and is close to the conventional 0.80 threshold for

a large effect [2]. This result suggests that the students

experienced a meaningful positive change in their

reported attitudes toward onboard navigational

training following the intervention.

The substantially larger effect observed for

navigational knowledge compared with attitude may

be partly explained by the different measurement

scales and the students’ relatively favorable attitude

before the training. The pretest attitude mean was

already high at 3.14, leaving less room for

improvement than the navigational knowledge

measure, which had a lower pretest mean of 13.00.

Thus, the results indicate that the observed pretest–

posttest change was particularly pronounced in

cognitive performance, while a meaningful positive

change was also observed in students’ attitudes.

These findings are consistent with Kolb’s [6]

Experiential Learning Theory, which emphasizes

learning through concrete experience, reflection,

conceptualization, and active application. The

improvement in both outcomes suggests that

opportunities to engage in authentic shipboard

activities may have provided students with

meaningful experiences through which they could

apply and reinforce previously acquired theoretical

knowledge in an operational context.

Nevertheless, the effect sizes should be interpreted

with caution. Because the study employed a one-group

790

pretest–posttest design without a comparison group,

the effect sizes describe the magnitude of the observed

change between the pretest and posttest rather than

providing definitive evidence that the onboard

training alone caused the improvement. Other factors,

including maturation, testing effects, continued

classroom instruction, and other academic experiences,

may have contributed to the observed changes.

Overall, the results demonstrate substantial

observed improvements in navigational knowledge

and a meaningful positive change in students’ attitudes

following the onboard navigational training. The

findings provide empirical support for the educational

value of structured experiential learning while

recognizing the methodological limitations of the

research design.

Table 8. Effect Sizes of Onboard Navigational Training on

Students’ Navigational Knowledge and Attitude

Variable

t-value

Cohen’s d z

Interpretation

Navigational Knowledge

-28.155

4.45

Very Large

Attitude Toward Onboard

-5.019

0.79

Large

Navigational Training

3.3 Thematic Analysis of Students’ Reflections on the

Onboard Navigational Training

The open-ended responses were analyzed using

thematic analysis based on Braun and Clarke [1]. The

analysis resulted in three major themes: (1) Integration

of Theoretical Knowledge and Practical Application,

(2) Development of Confidence and Professional

Readiness, and (3) Enhanced Safety Awareness and

Teamwork. These themes reflected recurring patterns

in the students’ descriptions of how the onboard

navigational training contributed to their

understanding of navigation, familiarity with

shipboard responsibilities, confidence, safety

awareness, communication, and teamwork.

The qualitative findings served as supplementary

evidence to the quantitative results. In particular,

students’ reflections provided contextual insight into

the observed increase in navigational knowledge from

a pretest mean of 13.00 to a posttest mean of 25.00 and

the increase in attitude from 3.14 to 3.60. The themes

therefore helped illustrate students’ perceptions of

how authentic shipboard experiences enabled them to

connect theoretical concepts with practical

navigational activities and recognize the importance of

professional responsibilities, safety, and teamwork.

3.4 Integration of Theoretical Knowledge and Practical

Application

The first theme reflects students’ perceptions that

onboard training provided opportunities to connect

classroom concepts with actual navigational activities.

Students referred to the practical application of

navigational concepts, bridge procedures, COLREGs,

radar, ECDIS, and other activities encountered during

shipboard operations.

The students’ reflections indicate that concepts

previously learned in the classroom became more

concrete when they were encountered in an actual

bridge environment. Rather than viewing navigational

concepts only as theoretical requirements, students

could observe and participate in activities in which

these concepts were applied under actual operational

conditions.

This finding provides contextual support for the

substantial increase observed in the students’

navigational knowledge from the pretest to the

posttest. The quantitative results showed an increase in

the mean score from 13.00 to 25.00, while the

qualitative responses indicated that students perceived

the onboard experience as helpful in understanding the

practical application of concepts learned in class.

The finding is consistent with Kolb’s [6]

Experiential Learning Theory, which emphasizes the

role of concrete experience, reflection,

conceptualization, and active application in the

learning process. It is also consistent with maritime

education research emphasizing the importance of

structured instruction, realistic training environments,

and appropriate assessment in developing maritime

and navigational competencies [10] [5].

Overall, this theme suggests that students

perceived the actual shipboard environment as an

important setting for connecting theoretical knowledge

with practical navigational activities.

3.5 Development of Confidence and Professional

Readiness

The second theme concerns students’ perceptions of

increased confidence and preparedness in performing

navigational and bridge-related responsibilities. The

responses reflected greater familiarity with bridge

operations and an increased appreciation of the

responsibilities associated with working in an actual

shipboard environment.

Students described the onboard experience as an

opportunity to become more familiar with the working

environment, procedures, and responsibilities

associated with navigation. Exposure to actual bridge

activities allowed them to observe how navigational

duties are performed and how different members of

the bridge team contribute to safe operations.

The students’ reflections also indicated that the

experience helped them recognize the importance of

discipline, attentiveness, responsibility, and proper

execution of assigned duties. These perceptions are

relevant to the quantitative finding that students’

attitudes toward onboard navigational training

increased from a mean of 3.14, interpreted as “High,”

to 3.60, interpreted as “Very High.”

The qualitative findings therefore provide

contextual support for the observed positive change in

students’ attitudes. However, the responses should be

interpreted as students’ perceptions of increased

confidence and readiness, rather than as direct

evidence that their professional competence or

performance had objectively increased.

The finding is consistent with research emphasizing

the role of realistic and collaborative maritime training

environments in supporting perceived skill

development and self-efficacy. Renganayagalu et al. [8]

found that characteristics of maritime simulation

environments can influence students’ self-efficacy and

perceived skill development. Similarly, experiential

learning emphasizes the importance of direct

791

engagement and reflection in developing learners’

understanding of professional practice [6].

Overall, this theme suggests that the onboard

training provided students with opportunities to

become more familiar with actual maritime

responsibilities and to perceive themselves as better

prepared for future shipboard duties.

3.6 Enhanced Safety Awareness and Teamwork

The third theme centers on students’ recognition of the

importance of safety, communication, coordination,

and teamwork during navigational operations. Their

reflections indicated that safe navigation involves not

only individual technical knowledge but also effective

communication and cooperation among members of

the bridge team.

Students recognized that bridge operations require

personnel to communicate clearly, coordinate their

actions, remain attentive to developing situations, and

follow established safety procedures. The onboard

training therefore provided students with

opportunities to appreciate the relationship between

individual responsibilities and the collective

performance of the bridge team.

This theme provides additional context for the

positive attitude results observed after the training.

The students’ posttest attitude mean increased to 3.60,

indicating a “Very High” level of attitude toward

onboard navigational training. The qualitative

responses suggest that students particularly

appreciated the importance of teamwork,

communication, and safety in actual shipboard

operations.

The finding is consistent with the emphasis placed

on teamwork and communication in maritime crew

resource management. Wahl and Kongsvik [12]

highlighted the importance of non-technical

competencies and crew resource management in

maritime operations, particularly in relation to

communication, coordination, decision-making, and

teamwork. These competencies are also consistent with

the broader competency requirements emphasized

within maritime education and training frameworks.

Overall, this theme indicates that students

perceived the onboard training as an opportunity to

better understand the importance of communication,

teamwork, and safety in supporting effective and safe

navigational operations.

3.7 Synthesis of the Qualitative Findings

The three themes collectively demonstrate that the

students perceived the onboard navigational training

as a meaningful learning experience that extended

classroom learning into an authentic shipboard

context. The first theme, Integration of Theoretical

Knowledge and Practical Application, emphasized the

connection between classroom concepts and actual

navigational activities. The second theme,

Development of Confidence and Professional

Readiness, reflected students’ perceptions of becoming

more familiar with bridge responsibilities and future

professional duties. The third theme, Enhanced Safety

Awareness and Teamwork, highlighted students’

recognition of the importance of communication,

coordination, and safety in actual maritime operations.

These qualitative findings complement the

quantitative results. The substantial increase in

navigational knowledge from a pretest mean of 13.00

to a posttest mean of 25.00 was supported contextually

by students’ reflections that actual shipboard activities

helped them understand and apply theoretical

concepts. Similarly, the increase in attitude from 3.14 to

3.60 was complemented by students’ perceptions of

greater familiarity with shipboard responsibilities,

confidence, safety awareness, and teamwork.

The qualitative findings therefore provide

contextual insight into how students perceived the

learning experience, while the quantitative findings

provide measurable evidence of changes in

navigational knowledge and attitude. The two forms of

evidence should be interpreted as complementary

rather than interchangeable. The quantitative results

establish the magnitude and statistical significance of

the observed pretest–posttest changes, whereas the

qualitative findings help explain the students’

experiences and perceptions associated with those

changes.

Taken together, the findings support the value of

authentic and structured onboard learning as a

complementary component of maritime education.

Consistent with the principles of experiential learning,

the onboard environment gave students opportunities

to encounter authentic maritime activities, connect

those experiences with previously acquired

knowledge, reflect on professional responsibilities, and

recognize the importance of applying technical and

non-technical competencies in actual shipboard

contexts [6]. However, because the qualitative

component was supplementary and based on students’

self-reported reflections, the themes should be

understood as contextual evidence of students’

perceptions rather than independent proof of

competency development.

4 CONCLUSIONS

1. The third-year BSMT students demonstrated a

marked improvement in navigational knowledge

following the onboard navigational training. The

mean score increased from 13.00 (SD = 2.19) in the

pretest, interpreted as “Failed,” to 25.00 (SD = 1.43)

in the posttest, interpreted as “Passed.” The

findings indicate that students demonstrated

substantially higher performance in the

navigational knowledge assessment after

participating in the structured onboard training

activities.

2. The students demonstrated a positive attitude

toward onboard navigational training before the

intervention, with a pretest mean of 3.14 (SD = 0.50)

interpreted as “High.” Following the training, the

mean increased to 3.60 (SD = 0.30), interpreted as

“Very High.” This indicates a positive shift in

students’ attitudes toward onboard navigational

learning, including their perceptions of navigation,

bridge watchkeeping, teamwork, safety, and

shipboard responsibilities.

792

3. A statistically significant difference was found

between the students’ pretest and posttest

navigational knowledge scores, t(39) = −28.155, p <

.001. The result indicates that students performed

significantly better in the posttest than in the pretest

following the onboard navigational training. Given

the absence of a comparison group, this finding

should be interpreted as evidence of a significant

pretest–posttest change rather than definitive proof

that the training alone caused the improvement.

4. A statistically significant difference was also found

between the students’ pretest and posttest attitude

scores, t(39) = −5.019, p < .001. The increase from a

“High” to a “Very High” level indicates a

significant positive change in students’ attitudes

toward onboard navigational training following

their shipboard learning experience. As with the

knowledge results, the finding represents an

observed pretest–posttest change and should not be

interpreted as establishing causality in the absence

of a control or comparison group.

5. The students demonstrated positive mean gains in

both measured outcomes following the onboard

navigational training. Navigational knowledge

increased by 12.00 points, from a pretest mean of

13.00 to a posttest mean of 25.00, while attitude

increased by 0.46, from 3.14 to 3.60. These positive

mean gains indicate improved navigational

knowledge and a favorable shift in reported

attitudes following the training.

6. The onboard navigational training was associated

with substantial improvements in both navigational

knowledge and students’ attitudes. Navigational

knowledge increased by 12.00 points, from a pretest

mean of 13.00 to a posttest mean of 25.00, with a

statistically significant difference, t(39) = −28.155, p

< .001, and a very large effect size (Cohen’s d = 4.45).

Students’ attitudes increased by 0.46, from a mean

of 3.14 to 3.60, with a statistically significant

difference, t(39) = −5.019, p < .001, and a large effect

size (Cohen’s d = 0.79). These findings provide

strong evidence of substantial observed

improvement following the training, although

causal conclusions should be made cautiously

because the study employed a one-group pretest–

posttest design without a comparison group.

7. The thematic analysis of the students’ open-ended

responses revealed three major themes: (1)

Integration of Theoretical Knowledge and Practical

Application, (2) Development of Confidence and

Professional Readiness, and (3) Enhanced Safety

Awareness and Teamwork. The reflections indicate

that students perceived the onboard training as an

opportunity to connect classroom knowledge with

actual navigational activities, become more familiar

with shipboard responsibilities, and recognize the

importance of safety, communication, and

teamwork in maritime operations. These qualitative

findings provide contextual support for the

quantitative results by illustrating how students

experienced and perceived the onboard training,

while remaining supplementary to the objective

measures of navigational knowledge and attitude.

REFERENCES

[1] Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in

psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–

101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

[2] Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the

behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

[3] Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design:

Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches

(5th ed.). SAGE Publications.

[4] International Maritime Organization. (2026). STCW

convention and STCW code: International convention on

standards of training, certification and watchkeeping for

seafarers. IMO.

[5] Kim, T.-E., Sharma, A., Bustgaard, M., Gyldensten, W. C.,

Nymoen, O. K., Tusher, H. M., & Nazir, S. (2021). The

continuum of simulator-based maritime training and

education. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs, 20(2), 135–

150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13437-021-00242-2

[6] Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the

source of learning and development. Prentice-Hall.

[7] Mallam, S. C., Nazir, S., & Renganayagalu, S. K. (2019).

Rethinking maritime education, training, and operations

in the digital era: Applications for emerging immersive

technologies. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering,

7(12), 428. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse7120428

[8] Renganayagalu, S. K., Mallam, S. C., Nazir, S., Ernstsen, J.,

& Haavardtun, P. (2019). Impact of simulation fidelity on

student self-efficacy and perceived skill development in

maritime training. TransNav, 13(3), 663–669.

https://doi.org/10.12716/1001.13.03.25

[9] Sellberg, C. (2018). From briefing, through scenario, to

debriefing: The maritime instructor’s work during

simulator-based training. Cognition, Technology &

Work, 20(1), 49–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-017-

0446-y

[10] Sellberg, C., Lindmark, O., & Rystedt, H. (2018).

Learning to navigate: The centrality of instructions and

assessments for developing students’ professional

competencies in simulator-based training. WMU Journal

of Maritime Affairs, 17, 249–265.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s13437-018-0139-2

[11] Wahl, A. M. (2020). Expanding the concept of simulator

fidelity: The use of technology and collaborative activities

in training maritime officers. Cognition, Technology &

Work, 22(1), 209–222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-019-

00549-4

[12] Wahl, A. M., & Kongsvik, T. (2018). Crew resource

management training in the maritime industry: A

literature review. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs,

17(3), 377–396. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13437-018-0150-7