663

1 INTRODUCTION

Simulatorsplayapivotalroleintrainingofpersonnel

inmostoftoday’ssafetycriticaldomains.Being one

suchdomain,maritimeindustryhaslongbeenrelying

onsimulatorsfortrainingitscrew(Hjelmervik,Nazir,

&Myhrvold,2018).MaritimeEducationandTraining

(MET) has traditionally utilized a combination of



theoretical education and practical, hands‐on

experience at sea.METs curriculum follows both

theory‐based (i.e. classroom, textbook, theory

education) and practice‐based (hands‐on via (i)

simulators and (ii) at‐sea) education. With the

convenience of maritime simulators, increasingly

morepractice‐orientedtrainingisoccurringinbridge

and machine

room simulators (Nazir, Øvergård, &

Yang,2015).StandardsofTraining,Certificationand

Watchkeeping(STCW)approvestheuseofsimulator

that are in compliance Section A‐I/12 as a substitute

foron‐boardtraining(STCW,2011).

Whetheritissimulationortrainingon‐the‐job,the

keyoutcomeexpectedfromtrainingis

thetransferof

skills from training environment to the real work

environment. On‐the‐job training has its limitations

whenitcomes totrainingfor demandingoperations

due to the safety implications and associated costs.

Simulators bypass these limitations, as they are safe

and cost‐effective way to acquire skills.

Simulators

allow students to make errors and learn from their

mistakesinacontrolledenvironment,freefromreal‐

world consequences (Salas, Bowers, & Rhodenizer,

Impact of Simulation Fidelity on Student Sel

-efficacy

and Perceived Skill Development in Maritime Training

S.K.Renganayagalu

UniversityofSoutheastNorway,Borre,Norway

InstituteforEnergyTechnology,Halden,Norway

S.C.Mallam,S.Nazir,J.Ernstsen&P.Haavardtun

UniversityofSoutheastNorway,Borre,Norway

ABSTRACT:Maritimeeducationandtraining(MET)hasalongtraditionofusingsimulatortrainingtodevelop

competentseafarersandrelevantseafaringskills.Inasafetycriticaldomainlikemaritimeindustry,simulators

provide opportunities to acquire technical, procedural and operational skills without the risks and expense



associated with on‐the‐job training. In such training, computer‐generated simulations and simulators with

higherrealismareinferredtobettertrainingoutcomes.Thisrealism,ortheextenttowhichsimulatorsreplicate

theexperience of areal workenvironment,isreferred to asthe “fidelity” of a simulator. As the

simulation

technologydevelops,themaritimeindustryadaptstomoreadvanced,higherfidelitysimulators.However, the

cost of a simulator generally increases with increasing  fidelity, and thus practical and economic constraints

mustbeconsidered. Inthispaper,weinvestigatedtwotypesofsimulatorsonperceivedskilldevelopmentof

thestudentsatengine

roomsimulationtraining.Wecomparedtheself‐efficacylevelsof11secondyearmarine

engineering students and their perceived skill development between two different fidelity engine room

simulators. The result suggests that students have higher motivation and prefer to train with immersive

trainingsimulatorscomparedtothetraditionaltraining.This

articleaimstoaddtoexistingknowledgeonthe

influenceoffidelityofsimulatorsintrainingeffectivenessinmaritimeeducationandtraining.



http://www.transnav.eu

the International Journal

on Marine Navigation

and Safety of Sea Transportation

Volume 13

Number 3

September 2019

DOI:10.12716/1001.13.03.25

664

1998).This cost efficient and safe environment

where students learn and develop skills through

practice is the key reason to use simulators in the

MET. Simulators are designed to reproduce the

aspectsfromtherealworkingenvironment,anditis

generallyassumedthattheeffectivenessoftransferis

mainly due

 to the fidelity, or level of realism of

simulator.Thiscanvaryfromreplicationofapartof

thesystemoftheworkenvironmentinisolation,e.g.

tasktrainers,allthewaytotherecreationofthewhole

workingenvironment,e.g.fullscopebridgesimulator

(Veritas,2011a).

Simulators are often

categorized as low, medium

and high fidelity systems (Veritas, 2011b). Ideally,

simulatorsshouldreplicatethelookandfunctionsof

the real environment. However, the cost of the

simulatorsalsoincreaseswiththefidelity.Thegeneral

goalofthesimulatoristokeepthetrainingcostlow

while extracting maximum training effect

 from the

system.Forthisreason,maritimeschoolsandtraining

facilitieshaveseverallowfidelitysimulatorsandfew

high fidelity simulators. Low fidelity simulators are

used in the initial learning stages to familiarize and

train basic skills while high‐fidelity simulators are

used in the later stages of training in

order to train

advancedtechnical and non‐technical skills. Theuse

oflowvshighfidelitysimulatorinMETisbasedon

theStructureofObservedLearningOutcome(SOLO)

taxonomymodel.Inlevels1,2and3 theuseoflow

fidelityisidealforlearning.Studentslearnthebasics

and

starttocombinedifferentaspects.Whenstudents

enterlevel4theneedformorecomplex systems  are

requiredin order to combine evenmore aspects but

alsoinordertomakethesurroundingsasrealisticas

possible. However, this current education model is

being challenged by the proliferation of Virtual

Reality(VR)technologyinsimulators.

With the introduction of advanced and cost‐

effective VR Head Mounted Displays (HMDs),

simulators based on VR technology now could

provideveryhighrealismofavirtualenvironmentat

a relatively low cost compared to traditional

simulators.Inrecentyears,immersiveVRsimulators

havebeendeveloped

andareincreasinglyappliedin

variousfields.VR’sabilitytoprovidehighimmersion

at a low cost has many advantages over traditional

simulatorsandhaspotentialforsignificantimpacton

future education and training in the maritime

industry. Therefore, the current study provides a

relevant and timely comparison of two

simulator

concepts: Desktop‐based and immersive VR based

simulators by investigating the relationship between

the simulator types, student self‐efficacy and

perceived skill development related to advanced

MET.

1.1 Aimofthestudy

The aim of this study is to compare the student’s

perception of self‐efficacy and skill development

following

participationinsimulationexercisesintwo

simulatorswithdifferentlevelsoffidelity.Following

research questions concerning simulator usage in

marineengineeringeducationwereposed:

 What are the perceptions of students towards

simulatortrainingbasedonVRtechnology?

 Whatarethedifferencesinperceivedself‐efficacy

between students engaging in training exercises

usingsimulatorsofdifferingfidelities?

 Whatarethedifferencesbetweentheeffectiveness

ofthesimulatorsbasedondesktopandVRHMD

inperceivedskilldevelopment?

These questions are addressed through an

empiricalstudycomparingtheVRanddesktop‐based

engineroomsimulatorprototypes.

2 BACKGROUND

In this section, some of the key concepts behind

simulator

fidelity, VR and the relationship between

simulator fidelity and training effectiveness are

discussed.Inaddition,thetheorybehindself‐reported

measuresusedinthestudyaredescribed.

2.1 Simulatorfidelity

Fidelityisaconceptthatrendersthedegreeofrealism

of simulator or simulations (Noble, 2002). Liu et al.

definesthe

simulationfidelityas“thedegreetowhich

device can replicate actual environment, or how

“real”thesimulationappearsandfeels”(Alessi,1988;

Liu,Macchiarella,&Vincenzi,2008).Thisfidelity,or

realism,ofsimulatorshave astrongemphasis in the

developmentandclassificationofsimulators(Veritas,

2011a).Theconnectionbetweentraining

transferand

fidelity of simulator is grounded in the theories of

identical elements (Thorndike, 1913) and common

elements(Thorndike,1935).AccordingtoThorndike’s

theories,thetransferofskillsoccursfromsimulators

to the operational environment when the simulators

and operational environment share common

elements. With this argument, in order to maximize



transfer, one should increase the common elements

between the simulators and the operational

environment. Following this concept, simulator

developers and training schools emphasize high

simulatorfidelityformorerealistictraining.



Figure1. Relationship between degree of fidelity and

learning for novice, experienced learners, and expert

learners.(Rieber,1994,p.244)

The ‘fidelity’ of a simulator could further be

classifiedasphysicalandfunctionalfidelity.Physical

fidelityreferstotheappearance,soundandfeelofthe

simulator to operational environment. Functional

fidelity refers to the degree of behavior of the

665

simulator to the real operations (Hamstra, Brydges,

Hatala, Zendejas, & Cook, 2014). Historically, the

focusonsimulatordevelopmenthasbeenonattaining

the highest physical fidelity. This is based on the

assumption that maximum training transfer occurs

with highest realism of simulators (Dahlstrom,

Dekker,VanWinsen,&Nyce,2009).Researchers

have

previously indicated that certain aspects of fidelity

contributes more to skill transfer than other

(Gerathewohl, 1969). Many argue that it is the

functional fidelity of the simulator that is more

important than physical  fidelity (Kraiger, Ford, &

Salas,1993;Sharma,Boet,Kitto,&Reeves,2011).The

motion platforms for

the bridge simulator is an

example from the maritime industry. Compared to

theirpopularity10‐15yearsago,theyareseldomused

nowintrainingfacilitiesduetotheircomplexityand

costwithminimaltrainingbenefitsoverfixedbridge

simulators.

2.2 Simulatorfidelityandlearning

The educational value of the simulators

 is well

established in many studies (Roenker, Cissell, Ball,

Wadley, & Edwards, 2003; Sturm et al., 2008).

However,therelationshipbetweensimulatorfidelity

and learning is still an ongoing research. There are

studiesthathavefoundbetterlearningoutcomeswith

high fidelity simulators (Allen, Park, Cook, &

Fiorentino,2007;Crofts

etal.,2006;Gradyetal.,2008).

However, there are also studies that found no

correlation between simulator fidelity and learning

outcomes(ChaLee,GustavoA.Rincon,GregMeyer,

TobiasHollerer,&Bowman, 2013;Norman,Dore, &

Grierson,2012).These contradictoryresultscould be

duetotheinterdependencyofthedegree

ofsimulator

fidelityandthelearningstagesofthelearner(Noble,

2002).Alessi hypotheses that there isa certain point

beyond which additional simulator fidelity reduces

therateoflearning(Alessi,1988).Alessifurtherstates

that the degree of fidelity on a computerized

simulationexperience shouldmatchthegoaland

the

training stage of the learner. He categorized the

learning stages in computerized simulations as

presentation, guidance, practice, and assessment.

Assuming these learning stages are increasingly

demanding,each stageof instruction shouldpresent

increasing degrees of simulation fidelity (Rieber,

1994). The literature on simulator fidelity and

learningoutcomegenerallycometo

aconclusionthat

the fidelity of the simulator should increase as the

learningstageofthestudentincreases.However,the

exactdegreeofsimulatorfidelityforeffectivelearning

ineachstageisstillhardtodefine.

2.3 Immersion,presenceandvirtualreality

ImmersionandPresencearethekeyconceptsused

for

describing VR. Immersion is the objective level of

sensory fidelity provided by VR system (Doug A.

Bowman&McMahan,2007).Itistheextenttowhich

theVRsystemarecapableofdeliveringaninclusive,

extensive,surroundingandvividillusionofrealityto

thesensesofahumanparticipant(Doug

A.Bowman

&McMahan,2007).Immersioncouldbeincreasedor

reduced by altering the specification of the system.

Presenceisthe“thesubjectiveexperienceofbeingin

oneplacewhenoneisphysicallyinanother”(Witmer

& Singer, 1998). High presence means the user has

very little or no disbelief

in the virtual environment

they are experiencing. Immersion of a VR system is

comparabletothe physical fidelityof the simulators

as both immersion and physical fidelity could be

objectivelymeasured.SincetheenvironmentinVRis

fully digital it is relatively cost‐efficient and

straightforward to achieve high photorealism

compared

tothetraditionalsimulators.

2.4 Self‐efficacy

Measuringthelearningoutcomeiskeyforcomparing

theeffectivenessoftwodifferentlearningstrategies or

tools. Students’ overall perception of their learning

and their perceived self‐confidence are used as an

indicator for learning outcomes. Kraiger et al.

categorizes the learning outcome

 from training  into

three categories: Cognitive, Skill based and affective

(see Figure 2) (Kraiger et al., 1993). So, the

measurement of training outcome should also be

multidimensional. i.e. changes in declarative

knowledge, skilled behavior and self‐efficacy for

transfer should be measured (Salas, Tannenbaum,

Kraiger,&Smith‐Jentsch,2012).



Figure2. Classification of learning outcome (Kraiger et al.

1993,p.312)

Astudent’sperceivedself‐efficacyisbelievedtobe

influential on the student’s level of performance,

choice of tasks, and the amount of effort put into

performing those tasks. Self‐efficacy theory

established by Bandura (1977, 1986), concerns

individualsʹ perception of self‐confidence to

successfullycompleteatask.Thetheoryproposes

that

individualsʹ behavior is determined through

continuous interaction among cognitive, behavioral,

and environmental factors. Increasing student’s

perception of self‐efficacy improves their critical

thinking, communication, and spirit of inquiry,  thus

developing them as more competent practitioners.

Self‐efficacy,acquiredbeforeorduringtraining,leads

to more motivation to learn and

better learning

outcomes(Salasetal.,2012).Whileusingself‐efficacy

asameasureoftrainingoneshouldalsobeawarethat

a person’s perceived self‐confidence can also be

subjected to false estimation where the ignorant

overestimatetheirabilityandperformance(Dunning,

Johnson,Ehrlinger,&Kruger,2003).

666

2.5 Self‐assessingskilldevelopment

Self‐assessing one’s performance is difficult. It is

when students make judgments about their own

performance (Boud & Falchikov, 1989). There are

numerousfactorsthatinfluencestheassessment.For

instance,priorexperiencesandknowledge(Manita,et

al.,2015)andemotions (Fredrickson,2001;Vanlessen

Raedt, Koster

 and Pourtois, 2016) are repeatedly

foundtoinfluencehowweperceivetheworldaround

us. In fact, it has been found that inducing positive

emotions on the student increases the student’s

perception of their own skill development (Um,

HaywardandHomer,2012).

Empirical examinations have found that students

tend to

either over‐estimate or under‐estimate their

performance relative to the instructor’s evaluation

(Boud&Falchikov,1989).However,ifself‐assessment

is correctly implemented, it can promote intrinsic

motivation and a more meaningful learning

experience(McMillan&Hearn,2008).However,there

has been less attention to how students self‐assess

their

performancewhileimmersedinavirtualworld.

3 METHOD

3.1 Experimentsetup

The study was conducted with the engine room

simulator (M11‐ CNTNR) delivered by Kongsberg

Digital(KDI). Thesimulator provides aplatform for

simulatedinteractions between the user and various

systems and instruments in the engine room. The

simulation

isvisualizedinbothprocessdiagramsand

three‐dimensional (3D) scene image viewed on a

computerscreen(Desktop)orHMD(ImmersiveVR).

It enables the users to interact and perform va rious

engineroomoperationsandtasksvirtually.InVR,the

virtualsceneisupdatedcontinuouslyaccordingtothe

headpositionof

theuserwhiletheuserhastorotate

thesceneusingajoystickinthedesktopsimulatorto

lookaround.



Figure3.Experimentalprocedure

Both the VR and desktop simulators (See figures

and6)wererunbyDellAlienwarelaptop(Graphics

Card: GTX1080; Processor: Intel i7‐7820HK @ 2.90

gHz;RAM:16GB).TheVRsimulatorisconnectedto

HTC Vive HMD and hand controllers (Resolution:

1080x1200 per eye; Refresh Rate: 90 Hz; FOV: 110°).



ThedesktopsystemwasconnectedtoaDellU2717D

monitor (Size: 68.47cm; Resolution: 2560x1440;

ResponseTime:8.0msG2G;RefreshRate:60Hz)with

Xboxgamecontroller.

3.2 Participants

Atotalof11students(averageage:25.2,SD:8.6)from

thesecond‐yearmarineengineeringclassparticipated

in thestudy on a

voluntary basis. All 11 were male

participants and 3 of the participants had prior

onboard experience (average: 1.33 years). 5  of the

participants had previously heard about VR

technologybutnone werefamiliarwith theconcept.

All 11 participants had experience playing video

gameswith theirfamiliarity ofvideo gamesranging



frommoderatetoextreme.Astheparticipantsneeded

a fundamental theoretical knowledge for operating

engine room simulators (e.g. identify different

components and their purposes), the second‐year

marine engineering students  were recognized as the

targetpopulationforthestudy.

3.3 Experimentprocedure

Aquasi‐experimentaldesignwasusedforthe

study.

A non‐probability, convenience sampling was

obtained from the second‐year marine engineering

studentsenrolledinaUniversitylocatedinNorway.

Thiswasacomparisonstudybetweentwosimulator

training modalities: simulation training  based on

immersive VR and simulation training based on

Desktop computer. The experimental task was to

familiarize

andlearntooperatethefueloilseparator

and Fresh water generator in the engine room

simulator. The experiment started with an informed

consentform that explained the study and its goals.

Before the study began participants were briefed

about their rights and data protection protocols. In

addition,the hardware

usedin the experiment were

explained. After the initial presentation, a pretest

questionnaire with demographic information and

participantsfamiliaritywithVRand3Dgameswere

collected. There were two trial runs for each

participant, 1 for VR and 1 for desktop simulator

prototype.



Figure5.EngineroomsimulatorinDesktop

667



Figure6.EngineroomsimulatorinVR

Participantswerefirstintroducedtothesimulator

for 10 mins to familiarize and train with the

simulator,system,controlsandinteraction.Thenthey

weregivenatasktoperforminthesimulator.While

they performed the task in the simulator various

performancemeasureswererecorded.Feedbackfrom

the participants were collected

 post task. After a

break, the experiment procedure (see figure 3) was

repeated with the same participant for the other

simulator. Two different tasks and counterbalancing

wereusedtoavoidthelearningeffect.Withinsubject

designwasadaptedforthestudyinordertoincrease

thedatasamplesandstatistical

power.

3.4 Measurements

A post‐test questionnaire was presented to

participants after the test run. The questionnaire

comprised of 14 items. 12 of which were used to

assess the perceived usefulness, ease of use and

usability of the simulator systems. Remaining two

itemsweretomeasuretheself‐efficacyofthe

students

adapted from the Bandura’s guide for self‐efficacy

scales(Bandura,2006).Aseven‐pointLikert‐likescale

wasdevelopedwiththefollowingitemsbasedupon

technologyacceptancemodel(Venkatesh,2000),

1 Forperceivedusefulness

 Using the simulator improves my learning

performance.

 Usingthesimulator enhancesmy effectivenessin

mylearning.

 Ifindthesimulatortobeusefulinmyeducation.

2 Forperceivedeaseofuse

 My interaction with the simulator is clear and

understandable.

 Interacting with the simulator does not require a

lotofmymentaleffort.

 Ifindthesimulatortobeeasytouse.

 IfinditeasytogetthesimulatortodowhatIwant

ittodo.

3 Forperceivedenjoyment

 Ifindusingthesimulatortobeenjoyable

 The actual process of using the simulator is

pleasant.

 Ihavefunusingthesimulator.

Inaddition,followingtwoquestionswereaskedin

a semi‐structured interview: “What were the most

importantaspect of the simulation experience?” and

“How could this simulation experience be

improved?” to further garner more information to

improvethesimulators.

4 RESULTS

Theanalysisof

Likertlikescaledatawascarriedout

tocomparetheuseracceptanceofthenewsimulator

prototypes.Figures6and7showsthatmajorityofthe

students perceived both VR and Desktop simulators

to be useful, easy to use and valuable for their

education.Apaired,twotailt‐testwas

carriedoutto

measurethedifferencebetweenthegroups.Question

number 4 and 11 had p‐value less than 0,05. There

was no significant difference between the VR and

desktop group for the other 12 items in the

questionnaire.

Table1.Self‐efficacyscores

_______________________________________________

VRDesktop

MeanSt.Dev MeanSt.Dev

_______________________________________________

Icanidentifyandmanipulate80,4521,73 80,9115,14

thedifferentcomponents

inthesimulator



Icanperformthegiventask  64,0921,77 67,1818,85

inreallifeasofnow

_______________________________________________



The results from the self‐efficacy scale are

provided in Table 1. The mean and standard

deviationaresimilarforboththegroups.Thescores

indicate that students became quickly familiar with

boththesimulatorsandtheirinteractions.Thelackof

onboard experience reflected in the relatively low

score

inthequestionaboutperformingthetaskinreal

life.Allparticipantsinthestudyagreedthattraining

usingboththesimulatorsbeingrealistic.



Figure6.Post‐testquestionnairefordesktopsimulator



Figure7.Post‐testquestionnaireforVRsimulator

668

5 DISCUSSION

In this study we compared the VR and desktop

versions of the machine room simulator of a ship.

Although the underlying physical model of the

simulation is the same, the simulators provide

different FOV and interaction. Our hypothesis was

thattheimmersiveVRsimulator wouldhavehigher

perceived

 self‐efficacy and skill development than

desktopsimulator.InVRthevirtua l sceneisupdated

continuously according to the head position of the

user while the user has to rotate the scene  using a

joystickinthedesktopsimulator.Theinteractionsare

also more natural in VR as the users

have direct

manipulationofobjectsthroughahandheldcontroller

compared to joystick‐based interaction in desktop

simulator. However, our hypothesis was not

supportedbythefindings.Thelackoffamiliaritywith

VR and limitations in the VR simulator prototype

couldbea reasonforthis.Ourobservationsandexit

interviewswith

someoftheparticipantsrevealedthat

theystruggledtoreadsmallerlabelsandtagsinVR

simulator due to the resolution and font size.

According to those participants, although the

experiencewasimmersiveinVR,itwasannoyingto

not being able to read the labels. Regardless of this

short

coming, all participants found both the

simulators pleasant to use. Even without prior

familiarity with the VR concept, students found the

interaction in VR to be better than Desktop

simulators.

User acceptance is an important factor for

successfully adapting new technology in education.

Sincetheperceivedusefulnessscorewasveryhigh

for

VR simulator which is one of the key drivers for

technology acceptance among users. Another

important factor influencing user acceptance and

learningistheintrinsicmotivation.Inourstudy,the

students perceived the VR simulators to be more

enjoyableandfuntouseandlearn.Thisconfirmsour

findings

fromthepreviousdatacollection(Mallamet

al., 2019). VR simulators offer multiple advantages.

Theyarecompactandcosteffective,stillprovidevery

highrealismandfidelityofsimulations.VRmotivates

thestudentstolearnandwillbeeasilyaccessiblethan

traditionalsimulators.

The qualitative analysis of the notes from the



student’s exit interview provided additional insights

intopotentialuser’sperceptions.Usercommentsalso

indicated that being immersed in the VR simulator

providedthemtheopportunitytounderstandthesize

and layout of the engine room. This is particularly

important as most of the maritime students lack  on

boardexperienceprior

tothestartoftheireducation.

VR simulators will enable them to experience and

preparethemforthelifeonboard.

6 CONCLUSIONANDFUTUREWORK

The study participants found both the desktop and

VRsimulatorstobeusefulfortheirskilldevelopment.

Thetechnologyacceptancewasveryhighamongthe

participants

 for the new VR simulator. Participants

reported that the immersive simulations provided

realistic feel of being in the engine room and it

positively affected their self‐efficacy and perceived

skill development. It was observed that some

participantsstruggledtointeractwithsystemsinVR

simulatorsassomecomponentlabelswere

difficultto

read due to limitation of HMD resolution. This is a

limitation for VR to be successfully adapted for

simulatortraining,butthiswillimprovewithhigher

resolutionVRheadsetsinfuture.

Simulators based on immersive VR are an

innovativeandpowerfultoolformaritimeeducation.

In order to utilize

 them to their fullest potential, a

constantdialoguemustbeheldbetweenthesimulator

instructors, developers, researchers and students to

continuallyimprovethem.Furtherstudiesontraining

transfer, knowledge/skill retention, long term effects

of prolonged usage of VR simulators should be

conducted.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The first three authors would like to thank the Research

Council of Norway for financial support of the research

project Innovating Maritime Training Simulators using

Virtual and Augmented Reality, InnoTraining (project

number:269424).

REFERENCES

Alessi, S.  M. (1988). Fidelity in the design of instructional

simulations.Journalofcomputer‐basedinstruction.

Allen, R. W., Park, G. D., Cook, M. L., & Fiorentino, D.

(2007). The effect of driving simulator fidelity on

trainingeffectiveness.DSCNorthAmerica.

Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self‐efficacy

scales.

Self‐efficacybeliefsofadolescents,5(1),307‐337.

Boud, D., & Falchikov, N. (1989). Quantitative studies of

student self‐assessment in higher education: A critical

analysisoffindings.Highereducation,18(5),529‐549.

ChaLee,Gustavo A.Rincon,GregMeyer,TobiasHollerer,

&Bowman,D.A.(2013).Theeffects

ofvisualrealismon

searchtasksinmixedrealitysimulation.

Crofts, J. F., Bartlett, C., Ellis, D., Hunt, L. P., Fox, R., &

Draycott, T. J. (2006). Training for shoulder dystocia: a

trial of simulation using low‐fidelity and high‐fidelity

mannequins.ObstetricsGynecology,108(6),1477‐1485.

Dahlstrom, N., Dekker,

S., Van Winsen, R., & Nyce, J.

(2009). Fidelity and validity of simulator training.

heoreticalIssuesinErgonomicsScience,10(4),305‐314.

Doug A. Bowman, & McMahan, R. P. (2007). Virtual

Reality‐ How Much Immersion Is Enough? Computer,

40(7),36‐42.

Dunning,D.,Johnson,K.,Ehrlinger,J.,&Kruger,J.

(2003).

Why people fail to recognize their own incompetence.

Currentdirectionsinpsychologicalscience,12(3),83‐87.

Gerathewohl, S. J. (1969). Fidelity of Simulation and

TransferofTraining‐A  Review of the Problem. Federal

AviationAdministrationOfficeofAviationMedicineReport. 

Grady,J.L.,Kehrer,R.G.,Trusty,C.

E.,Entin,E.B.,Entin,

E. E., & Brunye, T. T. (2008). Learning nursing

procedures: The influence of simulator fidelity and

student gender on teaching effectiveness. Journal of

NursingEducation,47(9),403‐408.

Hamstra,S.J.,Brydges,R.,Hatala,R.,Zendejas,B.,&Cook,

D.A.(2014).Reconsideringfidelityin

simulation‐based

training.AcademicMedicine,89(3),387‐392.

Hjelmervik,K.,Nazir,S.,&Myhrvold,A.(2018).Simulator

training for maritime complex tasks: an experimental

669

study. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs.

doi:10.1007/s13437‐017‐0133‐0

Kraiger, K., Ford, J. K., & Salas, E. (1993). Application of

cognitive,skill‐based,andaffectivetheories of learning

outcomestonewmethodsoftrainingevaluation.Journal

ofappliedpsychology,78(2),311.

Liu, D., Macchiarella, N. D., & Vincenzi, D.

 A. (2008).

Simulationfidelity.Human factors in simulation training,

61‐73.

Mallam,S.C.,Nazir,S.,Renganayagalu,S.K.,Ernstsen,J.,

Veie,S.,&Edwinson,A.E.(2019). DesignofExperiment

Comparing Users of Virtual Reality Head‐Mounted

Displays and Desktop Computers. Congress of the

InternationalErgonomicsAssociation,Springer,Cham.

,240‐

249.

McMillan,J.H.,&Hearn,J.(2008).Studentself‐assessment:

The key to stronger student motivation and higher

achievement.EducationalHorizons,87(1),40‐49.

Nazir, S., Øvergård, K. I., & Yang, Z. (2015). Towards

effective training for process and maritime industries.

ProcediaManufacturing,3,1519‐1526.

Noble,

 C. (2002). The relationship between fidelity and

learninginaviationtrainingandassessment.

Norman, G., Dore, K., & Grierson, L. (2012). The minimal

relationshipbetweensimulationfidelityandtransferof

learning.Medicaleducation,46(7), 636‐647.

Rieber,L.P.(1994).Computersgraphicsandlearning:Brown&

BenchmarkPub.

Roenker,

D.L.,Cissell,G.M.,Ball,K.K., Wadley,V.G.,&

Edwards, J. D. (2003). Speed‐of‐processing and driving

simulator training result in improved driving

performance.HumanFactors,45(2),218‐233.

Salas,E., Bowers, C. A.,&Rhodenizer,L.  (1998). It Is Not

How Much You Have but

How You Use It:Toward a

RationalUseofSimulationtoSupportAviationTraining.

TheInternationalJournalofAviationPsychology,8(3),197‐

208.

Salas,E.,Tannenbaum,S.I.,Kraiger,K., &Smith‐Jentsch,K.

A. (2012). The science of training and development in

organizations: What matters in practice. Psychological

scienceinthe

publicinterest,13(2),74‐101.

Sharma, S., Boet, S., Kitto,  S., & Reeves, S. (2011).

Interprofessional simulated learning: the need for

‘sociologicalfidelity’.In:Taylor&Francis.

STCW,I.(2011). International Convention on Standards of

Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for

Seafarers,(STCW) 1978, as amended in 1995/2010.

nternationalMaritimeOrganisation,London,

UK.

Sturm, L. P., Windsor, J. A., Cosman, P. H., Cregan, P.,

Hewett, P. J., & Maddern, G. J. (2008). A systematic

review of skills transfer after surgical simulation

training.AnnalsofSurgery,248(2),166‐179.

Thorndike, E. L. (1913). Educational psychology (Vol. 2):

Teacherscollege,Columbiauniversity.

Thorndike,E.

L.(1935).Thepsychologyofwants,interests

andattitudes.

Venkatesh,V.(2000).Determinantsofperceivedeaseofuse:

Integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion

into the technology acceptance model. Information

systemsresearch,11(4),342‐365.

Veritas,D.N.(2011a).Maritimesimulatorsystems.In.

Veritas, D. N. (2011b). Standard for certification

 No. 2.14

maritime simulator systems october 2007. Retrieved from

https://rules.dnvgl.com/docs/pdf/DNV/stdcert/2011‐

01/Standard2‐14.pdf

Witmer,B.G.,&Singer,M.J. (1998).Measuringpresencein

virtual environments: A presence questionnaire.

Presence,7(3),225‐240.

