573
1 INTRODUCTION
In1995,theUSGlobalPositioningSystem(GPS)was
declaredfullyoperational,supersedingitsforerunner,
Transit. It provides three‐dimensional fixes, with
globalcoverageandunparalleledaccuracy.Likewise,
the Soviet GLONASS (Global Navigation Satellite
System) was developed with similar coverage and
precision.Inthelast20yearswe
havewitnessedthe
evolutionofthesefirstsystemsandthelaunchofnew
ones, such as the European Galileo or the Chinese
BeiDousystems(Bonnor,2012).
Inconsequence,celestialnavigation,less accurate
and more complex than GPS, is no longer essential
andhas,withinonlytwodecades,becomeanancient
seafaringart,itschronometersandsextantsnowrelics
ofthepast.
In fact, Global Navigation Satellite Systems
(GNSS) and particularly GPS are currently the
primary source for plotting a ship’s position on the
highseas.Additionally,itisconnectedtovirtuallyall
navigationequipmentonthebridge.Thereisclearly
excessive
reliance upon a single source of electronic
information that, if it were to fail, could place the
ship’s safety at risk. Apart from GNSS receiver
malfunctionsandothervulnerabilitiesoftheonboard
systems,GNSScouldalsobeexposedtounintentional
ormaliciousinterference,resultinginpossibledenial
ofserviceover
largeareasor,evenworse,resultingin
the delivery of fake and misleading information
(Thomasetal.,2012;Grantetal.,2009).Governments
and industry are reacting to potential threats that
could affect position, navigation, and timing (PNT)
data reception due to unreliable or unavailable GPS
signals.Thereareimprovementsto
systemrobustness
and its augmentation through other complementary
Teaching Celestial Navigation in the Age of GNSS
I.Ibáñez
UniversityoftheBasqueCountry,Portugalete,Spain
ABSTRACT:Overthepasttwodecades,wehavewitnessedtheastoundingdevelopmentofGlobalNavigation
SatelliteSystems (GNSS). Celestial navigation has gradually been declining, displaced by the availability of
thesenew,accurate,andeasy‐to‐useelectronicsystems.Nonetheless,accordingtotheInternationalConvention
onStandardsofTraining,CertificationandWatchkeeping (STCW),deckofficersonboardmerchantshipsmust
havebeentrainedintheobservanceofcelestialbodiestoplottheship’spositionandtocalibratecompasserror.
It is a real challenge in the current context to which lecturers in nautical astronomy can respond
through
innovation in their teaching methods. A new approach to training students in celestial navigation at the
NauticalCollegeoftheUniversityoftheBasqueCountryisdiscussedinthispaper.Ithasalready achieved
promisingresultsincomparisonwiththetraditionalteachingmethodology,andisbothefficientandeffective.
The
adoptionofinstitutionalmeasuresisalsoproposedtoensurethatthecompetenceacquiredinthetraining
phaseisatalltimespresentthroughoutprofessionalpractice.
http://www.transnav.eu
the International Journal
on Marine Navigation
and Safety of Sea Transportation
Volume 12
Number 3
September 2018
DOI:10.12716/1001.12.03.18
574
terrestrial PNT services such as eLoran (Psiaki and
Humphreys,2016;Bartlettetal.,2015).
In this context, it is undeniable that having
alternatives to GNSS is very necessary. As far as
maritime navigation is concerned, following the
recommendationsoftheUSCoastGuard,afteraGPS
signal outage, it is vital “to remember to use all
available means for navigation and to maintain
proficiency so
you can still navigate should your
primary GPS fail” (USCG, 2016). Along the same
lines, increasing concerns over GPS hacking and
malfunctions have led the US Navy to reinstate
classesoncelestialnavigationinautumn2015forall
newrecruits(Alexander,2015).
Clearly, GNSS vulnerability implies a need for
alternative
meansofplottingapositionatsea,andthe
expertsagreethatcelestialnavigation,asitwasinthe
past, is still suitable for this purpose, as it does not
dependontheelectricalsupplynoritsdispositionis
at the mercy of another will that the own one. So,
despite
all opposition, nautical astronomy is an
obligatorysubjectfordeckofficersonboardmerchant
ships in compliance with the International Maritime
Organization (IMO) Convention on Standards of
Training,CertificationandWatchkeeping(STCW).As
amatteroffact,inthedeliberationsoftheIMOSub‐
Committee on Standards of Training and
Watchkeeping
(STW39,March2008),aproposalwas
made by Norway to delete the requirement of
celestialnavigationfromchapterIIoftheSTCWCode
(IMOSTW,2008a).Withoutreachinganyconclusion
in the discussion, the committee agreed to further
discussion of the matter at the STW 40, held in
November 2008.
The STW was then invited to
considersomeproposedamendmentstoChapterIIof
theSTCWCodesubmittedbyChina,whichsuggested
maintaining the mandatory requirement on
knowledge and skills with respect to celestial
navigation, but restricted to observations of the sun
and stars, to determine the ship’s position, while
improving the method for celestial navigation
calculation (electronic nautical almanac and celestial
navigation calculation software) (IMO STW, 2008b).
Eventually, the 2010 Manila Amendments to the
STCW Code maintained the ability to use celestial
bodies to determine the ship’s position as a
fundamentalpartofcompetency:Planandconducta
passage and
determine position, for ocean‐going
navigation.Inaccordance withtheSTCWCode(IMO,
2011), among other skills and abilities, an officer on
navigational watch should have the “Ability to use
celestial bodies to determine the shipʹs position and
compass errors”, in order to ensure safe passage.
Celestial navigation may
be omitted for the issue of
restricted certificates for service on near‐coastal
voyages.Inoceanicnavigationitisprimarilyusedas
abackuptosatellitesystems.
However, it is an undeniable fact that many
MerchantNavydeckofficersmakelittleornouseof
celestial navigation despite their training. This
situation is possibly due to an excessive reliance on
GNSS, combined with a perspective on celestial
navigation as an ancient, obsolete method of
positioningthatiscomplicatedtostudyand tedious
inpractice,achievinganaccuracyofonly1or2miles
(Peacock, 2011; Malkin, 2014). In the words of
a
studentfromtheacademicyear2010/11:
“I understand the importance of celestial
navigationtoday,butonboardcommercialvesselsit
is so rarely used that if I ever really needed it, the
truthisthatI’dproba blynotbeabletorecallathing.
That’swhyIwouldonlydevote
timetocriticalpoints
onthecelestialnavigationcourse”.
Thereisanevidentlackofconsistencybetweenthe
competences related to celestial navigation that
students are required to develop during their
instruction period and the ones required in the
current professional practice. Inevitably, this fact
conditionsthestudents’attitudetowards
thelearning
of the discipline. As Carson‐Jackson (2010) pointed
out,“adultstudents have a strongsenseofself,and
need to know why learning is required and how it
immediately affects their work. This need for
immediacy and relevancy is fundamental in
developingtraininginterventionsforadultlearners”.
However, apart
from the compliance with IMO’s
STCW, it is very difficult to find arguments to
convince students about why learning celestial
navigation is required in practice. Therefore,
addressingthissituationmustbetwofold.Ontheone
hand,teachingcelestialnavigationmustundoubtedly
adapt to these changing times, adjusting the
curriculumin
durationandcontents,strippingaway
complexity from the explanations of its foundations
andreducingthemethodsandproblemsexposed to
the minimum necessary. On the other hand,
institutional intervention is needed to ensure the
necessarycoherencebetweeneducationandpractice.
So,thispaperreportsanddiscussesaninnovative
approach to the
teaching of celestial navigation,
designedontheba sisofthesecriteriaandintendedto
facilitate practical learning of this matter. An
approachsuccessfullyappliedoverthepastfiveyears
ontheDegree of Navigation at the Nautical College
oftheUniversityoftheBasqueCountry.Someideas
about how institutional
support can be offered are
alsoputforwardintheconclusionschapter.
2 METHODOLOGY
The main purpose of this study is to explore the
influence of the teaching‐learning approach in the
celestial navigation course on students’ academic
performanceandperceptions.
Traditionally,thecelestialnavigationcourseatthe
Nautical College of
the University of the Basque
Countrywasdeliveredfocussingon transferring the
instructor’sknowledgetopassivestudents.Lecturing
whilerequiringstudentstobepassive,silent,isolated,
and in competition with each other; a system
commonlyreferredtoastheoldparadigmofteaching
(Jonsonetal.,2006).Theconstructionof
theEuropean
HigherEducationAreaseemedtheperfectoccasionto
transittowardsanewparadigm,which,accordingto
these authors, focuses attention to several aspects,
including:
Knowledge is discovered, constructed,
transformed,andextendedbystudents.
Students are active constructors of their own
knowledge.
Learning is a social enterprise in which students
needtointeractwiththeinstructorandclassmates.
575
Instructor effortisaimedatdeveloping student´s
competencies.
Education is a personal transaction among
studentsandbetweentheinstructorandstudents
astheyworktogether.
Alltheabovebesttakeplacewithinacooperative
context.
Teaching is assumed to be a complex application
of theory and research requiring considerable
instructor training and continuous refinement of
skillsandprocedures.
Details about the design and implementation of
thenewapproacharedepictedinsection3.Themain
features that distinguish the old paradigm from the
newone,
asappliedtothecelestialnavigationcourse,
areshowninTable1.
Table1. Main differences between the traditional and the
newteachingsystems
_______________________________________________
Traditional New
teachingteaching
approach approach
_______________________________________________
FocusonTeaching Learning
StudentsPassiveActive
NatureoflearningIndividual Cooperative
Academicyear(semester) 2(2)3(2)
Credits66ECTS
Totalteachingtime60hours60hours
(teacher)
TotallearningtimeUndetermined 150hours
(student)
TeachingmethodologyLecturesActive
learning
AssessmentFinalexam Continuous
assessment
_______________________________________________
Starting from the hypothesis of a strong
relationshipbetween the teaching‐learning strategies
and the academic performance of our students, the
aimofthisanalysisistwofold.Ontheonehand,we
wishtoverifywhethertheproposalandthedesigned
activities are effective for the acquisition of the
defined learning
outcomes. On the other hand, we
wish to confirm that the methodology influences
studentsʹinvolvementandfavourspositiveattitudes,
interest and motivation towards the learning of
celestialnavigation.
Some objective indicators and other measures of
student perceptions were used to measure the
effectivenessofthenewmethodologyimplementedin
the
celestial navigation course. In the preparationof
thiscomparison,theresultsobtainedoverthepast 5
yearsoftraditionalteaching(2006/07to2010/11)were
collated with the past 5 years in which the active
methodologieswereapplied(2012/13to2016/17).It
has to be pointed out that throughout the whole
period
thesamelecturerwastheuniqueteacherofthe
subject.
Information was gathered on all the students
enrolled in the celestial navigation course. Table 2
shows the size of the cohorts. Women were
representedallyears,rangingfrom13.6%to37.5%of
the cohorts, and averaging a 19.8% of the
students’
intake in the whole period. Gender‐specific results
were not observed, so they were not analysed
separately.
Asetofmainstandardindicatorswereselectedto
measure the course outcomes, namely: Success Rate
(SR),EfficiencyRate(ER),AttritionRate(ATTR)and
AttendanceRate(AR).Theyhavebeenappliedforthe
celestial navigation course, following the definition
given in the 2016 Spanish Official Catalogue of
UniversityIndicators(MECD,2016).
SRrepresentsthe percentageofregularattendees
achieving course competences and associated
learningoutcomesatthresholdstandardorabove.
ER represents the percentage of total enrolled
studentsthatpasses,achievingcoursecompetences
at
leastatthresholdlevel.
SRandERarebothnecessaryanditisimportant
to examine them together. It could be the case of
having a high SR and a low ER, which, if not
explained, would indicate that the teaching
performancewouldhavenotbeensosuccessful.
ATTRrefers
tothepercentageofstudentsenrolled
onespecificyearthat,havingfailed,doesnotregister
againinthenexttwoyears.
ARrepresentsthepercentageofenrolledstudents
thatattendsface‐to‐faceclassesonaregularbasis. It
provides an important piece of information as it is
posited that
class attendance is closely related to
academicachievement.
Studentperceptionsareoftheoutmostimportance
as they are primary drivers of the attitudes and
behaviours of our students, including those
associated with academic performance (Tudor et al.,
2010; Ferritto, 2016). A better understanding of how
studentsperceivetheircourseexperiencemay
inspire
educators to adjust the course planning and to
develop an environment that contributes to the
optimizationoftheiracademicoutcomes.
Table2.Numberofstudentsenrolledinthecelestialnavigationcourse(2006/07to2016/17)
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
TraditionalteachingapproachNewteachingapproach
06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Male 1931293642523131514
Female 3(13.6%) 6(16.2%) 9(23.7%) 9(20%) 6(12.5%) 3(37.5%) 8(25.8%) 4(23.5%) 4(21,1%) 4(22.2%)
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Total 2237384548831171918
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
576
The analysis of student perceptions took the
information in the standard questionnaire that all
studentsfollowingclassesfillinanonymouslyatthe
endofeachcourse.Inadditiontosomequestionson
their interest in the particular subject, its difficulty,
etc., students have to evaluate their instructors on a
five
‐pointLikert scale using a numberof statements
associated with teaching planning, teaching
methodology, teaching development, teacher
interaction with students and learning assessment.
This questionnaire is the controversial Student
Evaluation of Teaching (SET), the validity and
reliability of which at measuring instructional
effectivenesshasbeenwidelyquestioned(Spoorenet
al.,
2013).The specific 1‐5 rating categories that SET
usesfordatacollection,whereʹ1ʹisʹstronglydisagreeʹ
andʹ5ʹ isʹstrongly agreeʹ, permit their statistical
analysis. However, as these categories differ in
quality, not in quantity, an average calculation of
thesedatacan,forinstance,bequitemeaninglessand
misleading. Hence, the recommendation from
Hornstein (2017) to apply good judgement and
understanding in the analysis of such statistics.
Although the interpretations can be challenged on
conceptual and statistical grounds and are therefore
all but useless as instruments to measure teacher
performance, the results obtained from SET provide
instructorswith
thestudentopinionsonthestrengths
and weaknesses of their teaching practice. In this
sense, we have used SET data as feedback for the
improvement of our subsequent teaching, but
reviewing the data in the light of the comments
collectedintheportfoliosthatstudentshandinupon
completionofeach
coursepiece.
The results are shown and discuss in section 4.
Their analysis will, in turn, facilitate the decision‐
making process, inorderto continually improve the
course planning, detecting factors that prevent good
results.
3 DESIGNANDIMPLEMENTATIONOFTHE
NEWCELESTIALNAVIGATIONPROGRAMME
3.1 Opportunitytoimplementa
methodologicalchange
Theprocessofdesigningnewsyllabusestoadaptthe
curricula to the European Higher Education Area
(EHEA) ended with the phasing ‐in of the new
programmesintheacademicyear2010/11.TheEHEA
ismeanttoensuremorecomparable,compatibleand
coherenthighereducationsystemsinEurope,placing
the
emphasis on student learning. It is aimed at
greater enhancement of student involvement in self‐
studyandpersonallearning,forwhichpurposenew
teaching strategies are adopted where learning is
construed as a constructive‐as opposed to a
receptive‐process.
This changing context provided university
lecturers with the opportunity to
rethink their
activities. Ideally, this would have led to a general
cultural change in the universities that would have
moved from an educational model focused on
teaching towards a model focused on learning.
However,thechangehasbeenexclusivelyformalin
most Spanish universities and it has hardly been
practiced in
the classroom. When changes in the
teaching practice have occurred, they have usually
been facilitated by the voluntary involvement of
individualteachers.
Thetransitionintheteacher’srolefromlecturerto
facilitator can be a daunting experience as greater
effort is in practice required from them than with
otherforms
ofteaching(Savin‐Baden,2003;Irchaand
Balsom, 2005). In our college, traditional lecturing
wasnotreplacedinallsubjectsfollowing thisrevision
ofthecurriculum.Thedecisionwasatthediscretion
ofeachteacher.Navigationalclasseswerethefirstto
introduce the new methods, so one of the first
experiences
of active learning for students was
nauticalastronomy.
Introducing a radical change in the teaching‐
learningpracticeisfarfromeasy.Asamatteroffact,
achievingsuccessinthisexerciserequiresknowledge
and understanding and an ability to drive the
pedagogicaltransformation(BiggsandTang,2011).In
other words,
it requires training, perseverance, and
institutional support (Jonson et al., 2006; Fernández,
2003). In our case, corporate training was provided
throughtheUniversity’sEducationAdvisoryService
that offered ad hoc education, technical advice, and
support and monitoring throughout the whole
process.
3.2 Thenewprogramme
Inthedesignofthenew
programme,theselectionof
contentsanditssequencingwasbaseduponover25
yearsexperienceasalecturerof nauticalastronomy,
the previous knowledge of students, and the
evolution of maritime navigation. The instructional
methodology was oriented towards active learning,
cooperativework,andcontinuousassessment.
3.2.1 Contextand contents
Traditionally,
the entire teaching process has
focused on the transmission of knowledge and
informationfromteacherstostudents.Theaccounting
unitwasmeasuredintermsofthetimethatlecturers
dedicated to the teaching of a subject: 1 credit = 10
teachinghours.Thenewsyllabusesfocusonstudent
learning and the
system that is adopted (ECTS:
EuropeanCreditTransferandAccumulationSystem)
involves the measurement of the average student
work time needed to meet the objectives of the
programme, including lectures, individual study,
teamwork, seminars, problems, essays, projects,
internships, etc., as well as exam preparation and
examinationtimes and other assessment
activities: 1
credit=25/30hoursof work.IntheEHEA, 60ECTS
credits were allocated to the learning outcomes and
associatedworkloadofafull‐timeacademicyear,so
thatanaveragestudentisexpectedtodevotebetween
1500and1800hoursperyear(EuropeanCommission,
2015).IntheUniversity
oftheBasqueCountry1ECTS
creditisequalto25hours.
The 4‐year Bachelor’s Degree in Navigation
consists of 240 ECTS credits. The course module of
‘CelestialNavigation’istaughtinthesecondtermof
the third year, with a workload of 6 ECTS credits.
Then,undergraduatestudents
arematureenoughand
motivatedtofinishtheclassperiodasthefourthand
577
lastyearismainlydevotedtotheinternshipandthe
graduationproject.Studentscometothiscoursewith
relevantpriorknowledge on spherical trigonometry,
geodesy,andnavigation(deadreckoningandcoastal
navigation).
Thefoundationsofmoderncelestialnavigationare
rooted in developments that took place up until the
19
th
century.Verylittlehasbeendonesince,anditis
mainlyrelatedtotechnologicaldevelopmentsapplied
to the fabric of sextants and chronometers or the
availability of tables or calculators to ease the
calculations to obtain a fix. As mentioned above,
celestialnavigationisclearlyindeclinefollowingthe
development
ofGNSS.Asamatteroffact,theedition
ofmodern treaties orhandbooksis scarce, andmost
recent contributions continue to point in that
direction, suggesting the use of software for further
facilitationof the necessary computations(Vulfovich
andFogilev,2010;Peacock,2011;Bell,2013).Thedays
whencelestialnavigation
occupiedthelion’sshareof
the maritime navigation curriculum are definitely
over.Theperiodofstudyhasalreadybeenreducedto
6 ECTS credits (i.e. a mere 2.5% of the degree) and
withinthis time framestudents must grasp the core
conceptsofthesubjectandtheproceduresneededto
plot the position of a ship from the observance of
celestialbodies.
Reformulating the study programme, the main
issue lies in clearly defining the course learning
outcomes,andchoosingandsequencingthecontents
accordingly, ensuring both an adequate balance
betweentheoryandpracticeandanappropriatetime
spandevotedtoeach
element.
Guided by the STCW Code (IMO, 2011) and the
Model Course 7.03 (IMO, 1999), learning outcomes
wereenumerated(seeAppendix1),inordertocater
to the requirements of competence‐based training,
withthefollowingspecificcompetencesinmind:
1 Determine the position and the accuracy of the
resultantpositionplottedbycelestialobservations.
2 Calibratecompasserrorusingcelestialbodies.
Targeting the defined learning outcomes, the
contentswereorganizedasiftheywerethepiecesofa
puzzle,thus:
1 Do I understand the problem that celestial
navigationaddresses?
2 DoIhavethenecessaryknowledgeofnavigational
astronomy?
3 Do I know how to
obtain the coordinates of a
celestialbody,tabulatedintheNauticalAlmanac,
correspondingtothetimeofitssight?
4 DoIknowwhenandhowtotakeasight(angular
measurementwithasextant)andtodeterminethe
observedaltitudeofacelestialbody?
5 Can I specify the
exact Greenwich Mean Time
(GMT)attheinstantIobservedthecelestialbody,
byusingamarinechronometer?
6 Can I solve the navigational triangle for sight
reduction?
7 DoIunderstand the linesofposition(LOP)used
inmoderncelestialnavigation?
8 Can I perform the process of sight reduction
precisely and obtain a fix within commonly
accepted parameters of accuracy? Can I calculate
thecompasserrorusingcelestialbodies?
Thetermconsistsof15weeks.The6ECTScredits
assigned to the subject represent 150 hours of self‐
study and presential classes, of which 60, at 4
hours/week, are
presential. The estimated working
hoursthatanaveragestudentshoulddevotetoeach
‘pieceofthepuzzle’areshowninTable3.
Table 3 Planning of scheduled activities by puzzle piece,
with estimated private study in single student hours
(presentialclassroomhoursinbrackets)
Once the main question has been addressed and
the contents skilfully chosen, sequenced and time‐
spanned, attention should be focused on the main
innovation,whichreferstothepedagogicalapproach.
3.2.2 Newmethodologicalandassessmentstrategy
Aspiringtofulfilthelearningoutcomes,thecourse
is delivered seeking students’ active involvement
in
theirownlearning.As saidabove,thecoreelements
oftheprogrammeimplementationareactivelearning,
cooperativeworkandcontinuousassessment.
Thereisawidearrayofactivelearning techniques,
but all of them are based on the same pillars:
students’ engagement in the learning process by
performing meaningful learning
activities that are
also introduced into the classroom (Prince, 2004).
Following the model by Johnson et al. (2006), active
learning was adopted in combination with
cooperativelearning,wherestudentspursuecommon
goalsworkinginsmallgroups,andthatdiffersfrom
collaborative learning in the fact that it focuses on
cooperation
rather than in competition. Actually,
cooperative tea mwork is an essential ingredient in
mostdidacticstrategiesinwhichstudentsparticipate
actively (Prince, 2004). It has been proven that it
increases student achievement and creates positive
relationshipsbetweenstudents(Johnsonetal.,2006).
Infact,whenstudentsusesmall‐grouplearning,they
show
more favourable attitudes toward learning,
learn more, remember content for longer, develop
superior reasoning and critical thinking skills,
improvecommunicationability,andfeelgreaterself‐
confidence and acceptance from others (Springer et
al.,1999),abilitiesthatstudentstodaywillneedinthe
future to survive in the rapidly changing world
in
which we live. Continuous assessment rounds out
this constructive approach to learning, whose main
features were summarized by Sánchez (1993) as
follows:studentsshouldperceiveitasahelptolearn;
itmustbefullyintegratedintothelearningprocess;it
must indicate clearly to students their advances,
difficultiesand
needs;assessmentactivitiesmustdeal
with all aspects (conceptual, methodological and
578
attitudinal)inordertopromotemeaningfullearning;
it must include the teacher task, the classroom
atmosphereand,ingeneral,allaspectsthatinfluence
thelearningprocess.Thus,thedesignofappropriate
learningandassessmentactivitiesaroundsignificant
learningoutcomesisanessentialinthisinstructional
practice.
Inourcelestialnavigation
course,thestudentsare
invitedtoparticipate inaprojectplaying theroleof
thecrewmembersofacommercialvesselonanocean
voyage.Distributedinsmallgroupsof3or4 students,
they role play the deckofficer team of theshipina
poweroutagescenarioin
whichtheyhavetonavigate
the ship safely to the destination port using only
conventionalmethodsofnavigation.
Takingthisrealproblemofprofessionalpracticeas
a starting point, students work cooperatively in
teams. Guided by the teacher, the working groups
have to identify new knowledge, determining what
they know and
whatthey need to learn,in order to
complete their assignment. This methodology
promotes autonomous learning, and the team
members will have to share the tasks to advance,
assuming responsibility for the efficient work of the
group as well as for the development of their
individuallearning.
A special classroom
is used for face‐to‐face
lessons: the Lower Bridge, equipped with Wi‐Fi
access, devices, instruments and other materials
related to the subject, as well as with 5 large tables
wheregroupscanworkincomfortablesurroundings.
Ithas,inaddition,anexceptionallocationandaccess
toalargeterrace
withapanoramicviewovertheport
andtheriver.
Figure 1 shows a sample of the activities carried
outbytheworkinggroups,which,followingJohnson
et al. (2006) have been designed taking intoaccount
some essential elements: positive interdependence,
individual accountability, face‐to‐face promotive
interaction, social skills,
and group processing. An
example of the learning and assessment activities
designedtoacquirethelearningoutcomesrelatedto
thecorrectuseofsextantsisprovidedinAppendix2.
Figure1 Teamwork in different activities, during face‐to‐
faceclasses
The assessment of student learning must be
consistent with the methodology used for its
achievement.Weagreewith Garmendia etal.(2008)
that gradual assimilation and that significant, more
profound,andlesssuperficiallearningisneeded for
meaningful acquisition of course competences, for
whichpurposelearninghastobeonan
ongoingbasis
throughout the term. Hence, active learning goes
handinhandwithcontinuousassessment.
Since the academic year 2013/14, students of
celestialnavigationhaveformalizedtheirengagement
by signing a document, where they commit to
cooperativeworkingroups,attendingclassandout‐
of‐class meetings regularly, carrying out
duties
respectingtheagreeddeadlinesforthepreparationof
assignmentsandtheirsubmission,etc.
The groups have to perform the proposed tasks
andactivities detailedinthecorrespondingteaching
guides,inordertoobtainallpiecesofthepuzzle,each
of which is proportionally weighted in the final
degree.Asa
checkonindividualattainment,students
have to take only two written exams (at the end of
puzzlepieces2and8),witha totalweightof30%in
thefinalgrade.
Continuousevaluationisconstantthroughoutthe
term, primarily of a formative nature, as students
intermittently receive feedback on their
assignments
(deliverables) from the instructor, who provides
informationandappropriateguidanceoncompetence
acquisitionlevelsandsuggestsimprovementsintheir
learning. In addition, evaluation of the learning
process and individual achievement is done with
continuousevaluationsothatthefinalstudentgrade
canbegiven.
After completion of every puzzle piece,
students
are also asked to conduct self‐evaluation of the
learning outcomes that are acquired as well as to
assess the designed activities, identifying strengths
andareasforimprovement.
3.2.3 Studentworkload
Achieving the learning outcomes needs time and
efforton both sides of the teaching ‐learningpairing.
In the
active learning approach, on the one hand,
teachers have to design the course and during the
implementation they are expected to monitor the
student coursework and to evaluate it continuously.
Ontheotherhand,asustainedeffortinthefulfilment
oftasksandactivitiesisrequiredfromthegroupsof
students.
The study of a subject may be influenced by
severalfactors(Kolari etal.,2006).However,student
learning is very often predominantly influenced by
theevaluationstrategythat the instructor adopts. In
fact, research by Garmendia et al. (2008)
demonstratedthedecisiveinfluenceoftheevaluation
criteria. They not only
observed a strict parallelism
between the percentage for each aspect in the mark
andthepercentageoftimededicatedtoitsstudy,but
alsothatthedistributionofstudentworkloadsduring
the year is closely related to the evaluation system
thatisusedineachsubject.Thus,forexample,when
the
traditional evaluation system‐where the final
mark corresponds to the final exam‐ is applied,
studentsconcentratetheirstudytimeintothe weeks
leadinguptotakingthefinalexam.
Inthecelestialnavigationcourse,groupactivities
are weighed in the final grade according to the
estimatedtimerequiredfortheir
performanceandare
monitored and evaluated throughout the term with
theaimofimprovinglearning.
579
WhenplanningthecourseaccordingtotheECTS
system, one of the most complicated issues teachers
faceistoestimatethestudents’workloadandthusto
balancethecoursedemandswiththecreditunitsthat
aregained. As mentioned above, the6 ECTS credits
assignedtothecelestialnavigationcourse
correspond
to60hoursofface‐to‐faceactivityandto90hoursof
independent work. So, the total dedication of an
averagestudent to the subject must be 150 hours. It
hastobetakenintoaccountthatindividualstudents
donotlearnaloneincooperativelearning.Although
they
havetoperformtasksindividually,theyarepart
ofateam.Allmembersofthegroupmustacquirethe
learningobjectivesthataremarked,regardlessofthe
individualprogressofanyone.So,thegroupsformed
by3studentsaddatotalof450hourstoachievethe
objectivesofthe
course;andthegroupsof4students
addatotalof600hours.
Table 3 shows the estimated dedication of
individual students to every piece of the puzzle. In
Figure2,theweeklydistributionofthisestimationis
presentedincomparisonwiththededicationreported
bystudentsoverthepast
4academicyears.Students
were asked to keep a personal control sheet on a
voluntary basis every day. The information they
reported was considered reliable as students were
informed that the reward came from filling out the
formandtherewasnoneedtoexaggeratethefigures.
In fact, the maximum
absolute deviation from the
teacher’s estimation was 18.4 hours, and the global
averagedeviation3.3hours.Moreimportantly,Figure
2showsthat,asexpected,thestudentssustainedtheir
activity,distributingtheireffortthroughouttheterm,
fulfillingthepatternthattheteacherhadestimated.
Figure2.Weeklydistributionoftimedevotedtothesubject
bystudents,outsidetheclassroom.Years2013/14to2016/17
4 RESULTSANDDISCUSSION
Tomeasuretheeffectivenessofthenewmethodology
implemented in the celestial navigation course, the
results obtained over the past 5 years of traditional
teaching(2006/07to2010/11)werecomparedwiththe
past5yearsinwhichtheactivemethodologieswere
applied(2012/13to2016/17).
Studentsenrolled
inthecelestialnavigationcourse
composetheobservedpopulation,asshowninTable
2 disaggregated by gender and academic year.
However, it was not considered worth to
disaggregate the results as no significant gender‐
specific outcomes were observed. Due to the
repercussionthatitmayhaveontheinterpretationof
some results, it is also important to explain that the
uneven distribution of students in this period
basically obeys to two causes: first, the celestial
navigation course was formerly allocated in the
second year and now in the third year, and the
natural tendency is to a progressive decrease in the
number of students; second, in the traditional
methodology there was a higher percentage of
students who did not pass so their number was
graduallygrowing.
It has also to be pointed out that throughout the
whole period the same lecturer was the unique
teacher of the subject, so that instructional
effectivenessisnotaffectedbyva ryingteachingstaff
performances.
Objective metrics and other indicators of student
perceptionswereusedtomea s ure theeffectivenessof
thenewteachingmethodimplementedinthecelestial
navigation course. The results are discussed below.
This situation will, in turn, facilitate the decision‐
making process, inorder
to continually improve the
course planning, detecting factors that prevent good
results.
4.1 Courseoutcomes
The standard indicators selected to measure the
course outcomes have been introduced in section 2.
Theywerecalculatedusingthefollowingformulas:
SuccessRate:
.
SR 100
.
Num students gaining satisfactory marks
Num students in attendance
(1)
EfficiencyRate:
.
ER 100
.
Num students gaining satisfactory marks
Num enrolled students
(2)
AttritionRate:
. X+1 and X+2
ATTR 100
. X
Num students not enrolled or not attending years
Num students enrolled in year
(3)
AttendanceRate:
. 10%
AR 100
.
Num students missing lessthan of classes
Num enrolled Students
(4)
Figure 3 shows the relationship between the first
twoindicators(SRandER),andFigure4betweenthe
last two (AR and ATTR). It can be observed that
correlations between each pair of performance
indicators are statistically significant and of
considerablemagnitude.
580
Figure3. Success Rate and Efficiency Rate in the celestial
navigationcourse,years2006/07to2016/17
Figure4.AttritionRateandAttendanceRateinthecelestial
navigationcourse,years2006/07to2016/17
In the first place, the evolution of the indicators
proves a completely different behaviour depending
on the teaching‐learning methodology in use. Since
the first implementation of activelearning, it can be
seen that both the Success Rate and the Efficiency
Rate have both been growing significantly and
moving closer in
line with the Attendance Rate, the
behaviourofthelatterquiteunliketheAttritionRate.
In our view, students receiving the traditional
curriculumwerenotusedtodevotingsustainedeffort
to the subject and neither received continuous
feedback nor marks on their progress. As a
consequence, as the course went
ahead, as soon as
theyfelttheyhadnopossibilityofeasilypassingthe
subject, they gave up studying and stopped
attendancewellbeforetheendofthecourse.Thenew
programme, nonetheless, entails a sustained
workloadforstudentswhoreceivefeedbackontheir
progressandscorepointsthatwillmake
uptheirfinal
grade. As the course progresses, they feel their
continuouseffortsareworthwhile, sensing that final
approvalofthesubjectiswithintheirreach.Wereit
otherwise, the work done throughout the course
wouldbetonoavail.
Inaddition,thegoodprogressionthatthesuccess
rate showed
was surely favoured by the fact that
when students take the celestial navigation course,
they are already familiar with the methodology as
wellaswiththeteacher’sstyle,asitisalsoappliedin
the basic navigation course that the same teacher
deliversinthesecondyear.
Observed gaps between success
and efficiency
ratesinthelastperiodcanbeexplainedthroughthe
analysis of every individual dropout. Course
enrolment takes place in September, whereas it is
delivered along the second semester, starting by the
endofJanuary.Intheinterim,inthemajorityofthe
dropout cases, students’ personal circumstances
had
changed:eithertheyhadunexpectedlyfailedinbasic
subjects, or they had to deal with further family/job
responsibilities, thus they could not afford devoting
therequiredeffortintothiscourse.
Figure5. Percentage of enrolled students who pass the
subject in the first year and average marks obtained by
studentswhopassthesubject,years2006/07to2016/17
Finally, active learning has been consistently
associated with more favourable student results
(Prince, 2004; Freeman et al., 2014). Our experiences
confirm this fact, as not only is there a higher
percentage of students who follow the new celestial
navigation curriculum and pass it, compared to
students following the old curriculum, but
there is
also an increased percentage passing at the first
attempt. However, we have not noticed a clear
increase in the average mark obtained by students
whopass,untilthelasttwoacademicyears when it
was closer and surpassed the 70 points (out of 100)
barrier(seeFigure5).
4.2 Studentperceptions
As stated in section 2, students’ perceptions of their
educational experiences, although intrinsically
subjective, are of the outmost importance as they
influence academic performance. That is why they
should be taken into consideration in the process of
designingacourseprogramme.
Inourcase,theconcernsandopinions
ofstudents
weregatheredfromtheopinionsurveyonindividual
teachersadministeredtostudents atthe end of each
year(SET:StudentEvaluationofTeaching),fromtheir
reflections collected in the course portfolio and also
from informal meetings. Additionally, their
suggestions for improvement have proved to be an
indispensable tool
for the management of course
quality.
Inspiteofitsshortcomings,SETresultshavebeen
reviewed in combination with the reflections,
comments and suggestions that students voiced in
their portfolios. This feedback has shown to be an
important tool for the improvement of our
subsequentteaching.
581
Inthefirstplace,itshouldbepointedoutthatthe
percentageofenrolledstudentswhorespondedtothe
SETquestionnairewasmuchhigherinrecentyearsas
attendance rates in the final weeks have greatly
increased. However, any direct comparison may be
skewed, because the responses were more likely
to
come from students with better learning attitudes
while the traditional methodology was applied,
although most students have responded well since
the implementation of the new teaching‐learning
approach.
Figure6.Perceptionofthelevelofdifficultyandinitialand
final interest in the subject. Percentage of students, years
2007/08to2016/17
Regardless of the teaching methodology in use,
students perceived the subject matter of celestial
navigationasdifficultorverydifficult.However,this
perceptionlessened(thepercentagehasfallen below
80%) over the last academic year, so the trend will
have to be monitored in the future, as it may be
related
to different learning styles. The comparison
mayalsobeseeninFigure6betweentheinitialand
the final interest that the students said they felt
towards the subject. The final interest was always
lower than the initial interest before the new
curriculumwasimplementedandsincethattime,this
tendency is chiefly the opposite. Thus, it can be
concluded that the use of innovative learning
methodshasaclearimpactonstudentengagementas
theirattitudestowardsthesubjectimproved.
Table 4 shows the average set of scores in the 5
main areas of teacher performance rated by the
students
attending the celestial navigation course.
There was a marked decrease in the figures during
the transition, especially the 2013/14 academic year,
whichneatlyexpressstudentdissatisfactionwiththe
newlearningstrategies.
Table4. Average student ratings on a 1‐5 Likert scale of
teaching planning (TP), teaching methodology (TM),
teaching development (TD), teacher interaction with
students(IS)andlearningassessment(LA)
_______________________________________________
07/0808/0909/10 10/1112/1313/1414/1515/1616/17
_______________________________________________
TP 4,6 4,5 4,4 4,4 4,4 3,8 4,2 4,1 4,3
TM 4,5 4,3 4 4,2 3,4 3,7 3,8 4 4,2
TD 4,5 4,3 4 4,2 4 3,7 4 4,1 4,2
IS 4,6 4,3 4 4,4 4,2 3,6 3,9 4,1 4,2
LA 4,4 4,1 3,8 4,2 4 3,8 3,8 3,9 4,1
_______________________________________________
The reflections students wrote that year in their
portfolios were vital to understanding the causes of
theirdiscontentwith the new learning proposal. We
read,for instance:“Thetimededicatedto obtain the
necessary learning is much greater using this
methodology,thanwiththetraditional one.Itisnot
worthit”;
“Iwouldremovehomework. There is too
much”.
There were also positive remarks: “Continuous
evaluationrequiresadaily worksothat ifyoufulfil
your compromise you arrive at the end with much
workdoneandconceptswellsettled”;“Iamalways
aware of the acquired learning and of my
progress.
Themethodologyhasassistedmelittlebylittle”.
Thesekindsofconsiderationshelpedustoidentify
thecriticalfactorsonwhichtofocusourefforts.Inthe
subsequent years we made some improvements,
mainly by means of reducing the number of
deliverables, reinforcing the teamwork, and
highlighting the good outcomes
that the innovative
approach produced. As a consequence, the student
ratings openly recovered, displaying a higher
satisfactionwith theirperceivedlearningexperience.
Assomestudentsofthe2016/17cohortsumma rized:
“Teamwork has been real. We have demonstrated
extraordinary communication skills. I feel that all
team members collaborated in getting everyone
to
achievethelearning objectives. As a result, we have
notonlyimprovedourpersonalrelationship,butour
satisfactionseeingthegoodresultshasalsoservedas
motivation and we have gained confidence in our
workasateam”;“Ifoundmyselfverycomfortablein
classandwithmyteammates.With
thismethodology
weworkinagroup with instruments and materials
related to the subject, we solve practical cases, etc.,
whichmakesthestayinclassmuchmoreproductive
andenjoyable”.
Yet,ifwelistentoothervoices,weseethatthereis
still room for improvement: “Generally speaking, I
liked the methodology adopted in this subject.
However,itisasubjectthatrequiresalotofpersonal
andcollectivework,whichcanbeverytiring.Inmy
case, I believe that if it were not for the work done
alongthesemesteritwouldhavebeenimpossiblefor
meto
passitjustbyworkingallatonceattheendof
thecourse”.
Infact,researchonSETscoreshasconcludedthat
students dislike expending effort, an attitude that is
reflected in their evaluations (Braga et al., 2014).
However, in these cases, student performance tends
to be better, because
the instructor has required
students to expend significant effort in order to
achievebettergrades.
5 CONCLUSIONS
The availability of new, reliable and precise satellite
navigationsystemshas relegated traditional celestial
navigation to serve as a mere back‐up method for
positioning at sea during oceanic passage. These
changeshaveentailed
theneedtocompletelyupdate
thecurricularprogrammeandtheassociatedteaching
methodology. They have been introduced with
institutional support at the Nautical College of the
UniversityoftheBasqueCountry,makingthemostof
the opportunity provided by the construction of the
EHEA. In this paper, the impact of
the new
pedagogical approach on studentsʹ performance and
582
perceptionshasbeenevaluated.Theresultshavebeen
compared with those obtained in previous years
whentraditionalmethodologywasused.
Objective indicators of students’ performance
showthathigherachievementisclearlyrelatedtothe
useofinnovativeteachingstrategies.Inourview,the
keyelementforthespectaculargrowththat
hasbeen
experiencedisthesustainedworkthatthegroupsof
studentsperformthroughoutthecourse.
The use of cooperative work and innovative
teaching‐learning methods also has other positive
effects. On the one hand, in addition to specific
competences, students develop key skills in areas
such as communication, working
with others or
autonomous learning. On the other hand, the
engagement and commitment of students who now
show a better attitude towards celestial navigation
hasimprovedandisbeingconsolidatedoverthepast
fewyears.
However, despite students reporting their
awareness of the advantages derived from the
methodologyinuse,they
arenotcompletelysatisfied
withtheirlearningexperience astherequiredamount
ofsustainedworkisconsiderablytime‐consuming.At
first, this had a negative impact on the student
evaluationofteaching,butSETscoreshaveincreased
lately as a consequence of having adopted
progressivemeasures.
We are conscious that
this study has some
limitations, the main of which are, firstly, that the
overall course effectiveness has been measured by
using standard indicators of academic performance;
and,secondly,thatthecoursestructureandlearning
strategies have been tailored to our instructional
needs, circumstances, curriculum and students, and
its implementation is heavily
dependent on
instructor`s motivation, commitment and ability to
facilitatetheteaching‐learningprocess.Hence,further
research would be required to measure the course
effectiveness regarding the achievement of other
relevant learning outcomes that active learning
methods promote, such as critical thinking, problem
solving,socialskills,cooperativeteamwork,etc.;and
some
others closely related to maritime navigation,
such as the navigators’ situational awareness and
situation assessment, their ability to respond to a
criticalsituation,etc.
Further work could also be carried out, in
cooperation with teaching staff from other Maritime
Education and Training (MET) Institutions, in order
to design a specific IMO
Model Course and/or to
develop new training material s, aiming to assist
teachers in organising and delivering the celestial
navigationcourse.
Last but not least, in addition to adjustments in
teaching planning to new times, celestial navigation
teachers face the challenge of teaching a subject
conceived as difficult and even as
obsolete. In our
view, the proposed approach is well suited to this
purpose, as it contributes to heightened interest
amongstudentsandnotablyimprovestheiracademic
performance. However, once students finish their
training period, they will most likely abandon the
sightreductionpracticetofixtheships’position,asit
is
notstandardpracticeonboardavessel.
Wedonotknowforhowlongcelestialnavigation
will be a requirement for deck officers. In the
meantime,inordertoguaranteethattheircontinued
mastery of this competence while performing their
professional duties, specific institutional support is
required.Inthissense,
ithastobetakenintoaccount
that the educational and the professional fields are
alike, and the same principle applies: the way in
which they are assessed/inspected determines what
andhowtheystudy/performtheirduties.
Weforwardsomeideasinthisrespecttoopenthe
discussion: 1) Given that Vetting
and Port State
Control inspections affect the preparation of deck
officers,theycouldpayattentiontoofficerproficiency
in nautical astronomy; 2) The IMO should also
consider making the validity of a pass in celestial
navigationcertifiedbyanapprovedMETInstitution
dependentonrefreshercoursesafterafewyears
from
itsdateofissue.Thiscouldbedonebyestablishinga
special endorsement or certificate of proficiency in
celestial navigation for all officers in charge of the
watchonboardvesselsengagedinoceanicvoyages.
REFERENCES
AlexanderH(2015)USnavyreturnstocelestialnavigation
amid fears of computer hack. The Telegraph.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northame
rica/usa/11931403/US‐navy‐returns‐to‐celestial‐
navigation‐amid‐fears‐of‐computer‐hack.html. Accessed
9November2015.
BartlettS,OffermansG,ShueC(2015)EnhancedLoran. A
wide‐Area Multi‐application PNT resiliency solution.
GPSWorld26:58
‐64.
Bell S (2013) The future of celestial navigation: A British
viewpoint. Navigation and Timing 1730‐2030. From
GreenwichtoSpace,WashingtonD.C.
Biggs JB, Tang C (2011) Teaching for Quality Learning at
University: What the Student Does, 4th edn. McGraw‐
HillEducation,Maidenhead.
Bonnor N (2012) A Brief History
of Global Navigation
SatelliteSystems.JNavig65:1‐14.
Braga M, Paccagnella M, Pellizzari M (2014) Evaluating
students’ evaluations of professors. Econ Educ Rev
41:71‐88.
Carson‐Jackson J (2010) A Simulation Instructorʹs
Handbook. The learning game. The Nautical Institute,
London.
European Commission (2015) ECTS Users’ Guide. EC
Publications,
Luxembourg.
Fernández A (2003) Formación pedagógica y desarrollo
profesionaldelosprofesoresdeuniversidad:análisisde
lasdiferentesestrategias.RevEduc331:171‐197.
Ferritto VR (2016) Maritime education factors and
presenteeism:acomparativequantitativestudy.WMUJ
MaritAff15:353‐380.
FreemanS,EddySL,McDonoughM,SmithMK,Okoroafor
N,
Jordt H, Wenderoth MP (2014) Active learning
increases student performance in science, engineering,
andmathematics.ProcNatlAcadSci111:8410‐8415.
Garmendia M, Guisasola J, Barragués JI, Zuza K (2008)
Estimate of students’ workload and the impact of the
evaluationsystemonstudents’dedicationtostudyinga
subjectinfirst‐
yearengineeringcourses.EurJEngEduc
33:463‐470.
GrantA,WilliamsP,WardN, BaskerS(2009)GPSjamming
andtheimpactonmaritimenavigation.JNavig62:173‐
187.
583
HornsteinHA (2017)Studentevaluationsofteachingare
an inadequate assessment tool for evaluating faculty
performance.CogentEduc4:1304016.
IMO (1999) Model Course 7.03. Officer in charge of a
navigational watch. International Maritime
Organisation,London.
IMO STCW (2011) International Convention on Standards
of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for
Seafarers, STCW Convention and STCW
Code,
including 2010 Manila Amendments. International
MaritimeOrganisation,London.
IMOSTW(2008a)Sub‐CommitteeonStandardsofTraining
and Watchkeeping 39th session, Agenda item 12.
http://www.mpa.gov.sg/web/wcm/connect/www/927ed
8bd‐16f5‐49be‐85bc‐980b6d53b022/stw39‐
12.pdf?MOD=AJPERESAccessed10March2017.
IMOSTW(2008b)Sub‐CommitteeonStandardsofTraining
and Watchkeeping 40th session, Agenda item
7.2.
http://www.sjofartsverket.se/pages/16508/40‐7‐48.pdf
Accessed10March2017.
Ircha M.C, Balsom MG (2005) Educational Technology:
EnhancingPortTraining.WMUJMaritAff4:211‐225.
Jonson DW, Johnson R, Smith H (2006) Active Learning:
Cooperation in the college classroom, 3th edn.
InteractionBookCompany,Edina.
Kolari S, Savander‐Ranne C, Viskari EL
(2006) Do our
engineeringstudentsspendenoughtimestudying?EurJ
EngEduc31(5):499‐508.
Malkin R (2014) Understanding the accuracy of astro
navigation.JNavig67:63‐81.
MECD(2016)Catálogooficialdeindicadoresuniversitarios.
Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte, Comisión
de Estadística e Información Universitaria.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&sou
rce=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjkyv_so
OnaAhWD2lMKHUNiAWsQFgguMAA&url=https%3A
%2F%2Fwww.mecd.gob.es%2Fservicios‐al‐
ciudadano‐
mecd%2Fdms%2Fmecd%2Fservicios‐al‐ciudadano‐
mecd%2Festadisticas%2Feducacion%2Funiversitaria%2
FCatalogo‐Oficial‐de‐Indicadores‐Universitarios‐
2016.doc&usg=AOvVaw1yVs2z1RmMpbWVD‐33F4hs
Accessed15September2017.
PeacockA(2011)AstroNavigation.TheNauticalInstitute,
London.
PrinceM(2004)Doesactivelearningwork?Areviewofthe
research.JEngEduc93(3):223‐231.
Psiaki ML, Humphreys TE (2016) GNSS spoofing and
detection.ProcIEEE104(6):1258‐1270.
Sánchez MA (1993) Assessment in Physics as a
tool for
learning.In:LijnsePL(ed)EuropeanResearchinScience
Education, Proceedings of the first ESERA Summer
School.ESERA,pp.228‐232.
Savin‐BadenM(2003)Disciplinarydifferencesormodesof
curriculumpractice? BiochemBiol Mol Educ31(5):338‐
343.
SpoorenP,BrockxB,Mortelmans D(2013)Onthevalidity
of student evaluation of teaching: The state of the art.
RevEducRes83:598‐642.
Springer L, Stanne ME, Donovan SS (1999) Effectsof
small‐grouplearningonundergraduatesin
science, mathematics, engineering,andtechnology:
Ameta‐analysis.RevEducRes69:21‐51.
ThomasM,NortonJ,JonesA,HopperA,
WardN,Cannon
P, Ackroyd N, Cruddace P, Unwin M (2011) Global
NavigationSpace Systems:reliance andvulnerabilities.
TheRoyalAcademyofEngineering,London.
TudorJ,PenlingtonR,McDowellL(2010)Perceptionsand
their influences on approaches to learning. Eng Educ
5(2):69‐79
USCG (2016) GNSS. Trust, but verify report
disruptions
immediately. Alert 1/16.
http://www.dco.uscg.mil/Portals/9/DCO%20Documents/
5p/CG‐5PC/INV/Alerts/0116.pdf. Accessed 10 March
2017.
Vulfovich B, Fogilev V (2010) New ideas for celestial
navigationinthethirdmillennium.JNavig63:373‐378.
APPENDIX1.CELESTIALNAVIGATION:
COMPETENCESANDLEARNINGOUTCOMES.
_______________________________________________
Competence1.Determinepositionandtheaccuracyof
resultantpositionfixbycelestialobservations
_______________________________________________
Learningoutcomes:
_______________________________________________
1.1.Thoroughknowledgeoftheastronomicalgeographic
coordinatesystem.
1.2.Understandingofthegeneralproblemsolvedby
celestialnavigation.
1.3.Adequateknowledgeandpracticalmasteryofthe
elementsofnavigationalastronomy(navigationalheavenly
bodies,Earthmovements,celestialcoordinatesystems,PZX
triangle,apparentdailymotionofstars,time,etc.)as
requiredto
supportthenextlearningoutcomes.
1.4.Practicalknowledgeandproficiencyintheoperationof
thenecessaryinstruments(sextant,chronometer)and
publications(nauticalalmanac,Pub.No.249).
1.5.SolutionofPZXtriangleforaltitudeandazimuth,and
fordeclinationandlocalhourangle.
1.6.Identificationofobservedheavenlybodies.
1.7.Measurement
ofobserver’slatitudebyobserved
altitudeofPolarisandsightstakenforthemeridianpassage
oftheSun.
1.8.Understandingandplottingofastronomicalposition
lines.
1.9.Planning,takingandreductionofaltitudesights.
1.10.Abilitytodeterminetheshipʹspositionusing
astronomicalpositionlinesbothduringthedayand
inthe
twilights.
1.11.Securingthatthefixobtainedbycelestialobservations
iswithinacceptedaccuracylevels.
_______________________________________________
Competence2.Calibratethecompasserrorusingcelestial
bodies.
_______________________________________________
Learningoutcomes:
_______________________________________________
2.1.Abilitytodetermineerrorsofthemagneticandgyro‐
compassesusingcelestialmeans,andtoallowforsuch
errors.
2.2.AbilitytotakeSunrise/Sunsetcompasschecks.
2.3.Abilitytocheckforcompasserrorbyobservinga
compassbearingofPolaris.
_______________________________________________
584
APPENDIX2.Learningandassessmentactivitiesrelatedto
thetechnicalmasteryofsextants(anexcerptfromthe
teachingguide).
_______________________________________________
SEXTANT
_______________________________________________
DoIknowwhenandhowtotakea
sight and to determine the observed altitude of a
celestialbody?
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
Learningoutcomes:
_______________________________________________
1.4.Practicalknowledgeandproficiencyintheoperationof
thenecessaryinstruments(sextant,chronometer)and
publications(nauticalalmanac,Pub.No.249).
_______________________________________________
LEARNINGACTIVITIES
_______________________________________________
Objectives:
_______________________________________________
Correctlyadjustsextantforadjustableerrors.
Determinecorrectedreadingofthesextantaltitudeof
celestialbodies.
Properlyperformtheobservationprocedure.
_______________________________________________
Materials:
_______________________________________________
18sextants
2panels(dayandtwilight)
Terrace
Planetarium
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
ActivityDuration
_______________________________________________
Sextantadjustment0.5h
Sextantreading0.5h
Observationprocedure 1h
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
ASSESSMENTACTIVITIES
_______________________________________________
EvidenceEvaluation
Group Individual Group Individual
_______________________________________________
Portfolioxx
Videoxx x
Self‐evaluationxx
_______________________________________________
