869
1 INTRODUCTION
“The International Regulations for Preventing Collisions
at Sea (hereinafter the COLREGs) are a number of
international regulations adopted in order to prevent
collisionsofvessels.TheCOLREGsalsoincludeanumber
of actions that have to be taken in the collision risk
situations” (Kuwata, 2014). The rules apply
to all
vesselsuponthehighseasandinallwatersconnected
tothehighseasandnavigablebyseagoingvessels.
The analysis has shown that at least 56% of sea
collisionshavebeentheresultofnotcomplyingwith
theCOLREGs(SmierzchalskiandMichalewicz,2000).
This fact was also confirmed by the research
published in 2015, proving that the most common
reasonsoftankercollisionsareneglecttocomplywith
the
COLREGs and lack of knowledge of the
COLREGs(Uğurluetal.,2015).
The research on the most common reasons of
tanker collisions, indicates that collisions usually
occurwhennotcomplyingwiththefollowingRules:5
(Look – out), 7 (Risk of collision), 6 (Safe speed), 34
(Manoeuvring and warning
signals), 8 (Action to
avoidcollision),14(Head–onsituation),19(Conduct
of vessels in restricted visibility) and 35 (Sound
signals in restricted visibility) (IMO, 2009). The
similar results were also identified in the research
(Mohovićetal.,2016)conductedin2016accordingto
whichthemostdifficultRulesto
understandareRule
6,Rule10,Rule13,Rule14,Rule17,Rule18andRule
19.
Therefore,thequestionswhatarethemainreasons
for such results and whether the structure of
educational system has any effect on understanding
the COLREGs arise. That is, does the practical
experienceon
boardshipofstudents,whocomefrom
countriespractisingthe“sandwichsystem”,haveany
effectonknowingandunderstandingtheCOLREGs?
Difficulties in Understanding the COLREGs among the
Students from Different Systems of Education for
Seafarers
D.Ivanišević&A.Gundić
UniversityofZadar,Zadar,Croatia
Đ.Mohović
UniversityofRijeka,Rijeka,Croatia
ABSTRACT: The paper shows the results of the research conducted in order to analyse the differences in
understandingtheInternationalRegulationsforPreventingCollisionsatSeaamongthestudentsincountries
practisingtwodifferentsystemsofeducationforseafarers:theso‐called“sandwichsystem”andthe
continuing
system. Methods of learning as well as their effect on understanding the International Regulations for
PreventingCollisionsatSeaandstudents’opinionsonefficientmethodsoflearninghavealsobeenanalysed.
Furthermore,theproblemstheteachersarefacinghavebeenidentified.Measuresfortheimprovementofthe
systemhave
beenproposedaswell.
http://www.transnav.eu
the International Journal
on Marine Navigation
and Safety of Sea Transportation
Volume 13
Number 4
December 2019
DOI:10.12716/1001.13.04.21
870
2 RESEARCHMETHODS
The research was conducted, in four countries,
members of the European Union: Spain, Latvia,
Croatia and Slovenia, in 2014/2015 and 2015/2016
academicyears.Therewere261studentsparticipating
intheresearchdividedintwogroups:
students, part of the “sandwich system” with
navigationexperience;
students, part of the continuing system without
navigationexperience.
Theagerangeofthestudentswasfrom19to42,
and79%ofthemwerebetween19and22(Figure1).

Figure1.Ageoftheparticipants.
Countries, participants in the research, have
differenteducationalsystemsforseafarers.Spainand
Latvia practise the so‐called “sandwich system”,
whereasCroatiaandSloveniapractisethecontinuing
system. Both educational systems have one thing in
common. They both meet the standards and
minimum conditions of International Convention on
Standards of Training,
Certification and
WatchkeepingforSeafarers(STCWConvention).
The“sandwichsystem”combinesboth,mastering
theoretical knowledge as well as navigation
experience,whichisusuallydividedintwosemesters
and lasts from six months to one year. In this way,
apart from theoretical knowledge students acquire
practical knowledge that facilitates mastering the
curriculumthroughtheeducationalsystem.
The continuing system includes three levels of
educationthatgenerallylastfromthreetoeightyears,
theundergraduate,graduateandpostgraduatelevel.
The undergraduate level usually comprises all
contentsprescribedbytheSCTWConventionthatare
needed to achieve the highest ranks in maritime
industry. After
the undergraduate level, students
havetoundertakeone‐yearcadetship.
The research is divided in threeparts and,along
withthe students, the participantswere the teachers
who teach theoretical and practical part of the
COLREGs.
Thefirstpartoftheresearchanalysestheanswers
ofthestudentswhohave
passedtheCOLREGsexam
andwhohaveattendedthelectures.Thescopewasto
identify the Rules that are the most difficult to
understandaswellastoidentifytheonesthestudents
thinktheydonotunderstand.Aspecialattentionwas
giventothedifferencesamongthe students ofthese
twoeducationalsystems.
The second part of the research analyses the
methodsoflearningthat students considerto be the
mostadequatetoperformtheCOLREGslectures.
Thethirdpartoftheresearchreferstotheanalyses
ofopinionsofteacherswhoteachtheCOLREGs.The
scopewastoidentify
theproblemstheteacherscome
across while teaching and evaluating the students’
knowledge.
Forthepurposesofthisresearch,theauthorshave
usedtwoquestionnaires,oneofwhichisapartofthe
European project called Avoiding Collision at Sea
whose holder is the Faculty of Maritime Studies in
Rijeka, whereas
the second one was made by the
authorsthemselves.
3 THEANALYSISOFTHERESULTS
3.1 Thestudentsself‐assessmentandtheanalysisof
understandingtheCOLREGs
The analysis of understanding the COLREGs was
based on the students self‐assessment. The analysed
answers give the approximate assessment of
understanding the
COLREGs among students who
are part of the “sandwich system” as well as of the
continuing system. The questions were self‐
assessmentbasedandtheresultshaveshownthatthe
RulesthatarethehardesttounderstandareRules8,
9,10,18and19(Figure2‐3).
Figure2. Self‐assessment of understanding the COLREGs
amongstudentswhoarepartofthecontinuingsystem.
Figure3. Self‐assessment of understanding the COLREGs
amongstudentswhoarepartofthe“sandwichsystem”.
Afteranalysingthequestionsthattestedstudents’
knowledge, it was found out that students who are
part of the continuing system have the greatest
871
troubleinmasteringtheRules3,6,10,13,14,15and
19.Inotherwords,lessthan50%ofthestudentsgave
thecorrectanswerstothesequestions.
Afteranalysingthequestionsthattestedstudents’
knowledge, it was found out that students who are
part of the “sandwich system”
have the greatest
troubleinmasteringtheRules1,3,6,9,10,13,14,17,
18and19.Thatis,lessthan50%ofthestudentsgave
thecorrectanswerstothesequestions.
Thecomparisonofthestudents’answersto both,
self‐assessment based questions and the questions
that
tested their knowledge has shown a certain
disproportion, (Figure 4‐5), especially among the
studentswhoarepartofthecontinuingsystem.

Figure4. Disproportion between self‐assessment and
knowledge among the students who are part of the
continuingsystem.
Figure5. Disproportion between self‐assessment and
knowledge among the students who are part of the
“sandwichsystem”.
It has been identified that overlapping exists in
only two out of 19 analysed Rules. In other words,
studentswhoarepartofthecontinuingsystemthink
that only two rules are problema tic to understand:
Rule 10 and Rule 19. As far as the answers of the
studentswho are part
of the “sandwichsystem” are
concerned, the overlapping was noticed with the
followingRules:6,9,10,13,17,18and19.
Itcanbeconcludedthatthestudentsonlypartially
understand what Rules are really the problematic
ones. It is also important to emphasise that the
percentage of students
who passed this exam at the
respectivefacultieswas75to90%.
Afterathoroughanalysisoftheanswersthatrefer
to students’ knowledge, it was found out that both
groupsofstudentshaveproblemswithmasteringthe
followingproblematicRules:3(Generaldefinitions),6
(Safe speed), 10 (Traffic separation schemes),
13
(Sailing vessels), 14 (Head‐on situations) and 19
(Conductof vessels in restricted visibility).As faras
someRulesareconcerned,namelyRules6,10and19,
theauthorsthinkthattheyarenotwrittenadequately.
Therefore,they are more difficult for the studentsto
understand. The authors will
try to explain the
reasonswhytheyaresodifficulttounderstand.
TheconceptofsafespeedwhenapplyingtheRule
6canbeveryproblematicboth,duringthestudents’
training and in practice when navigating restricted
areas like channels, traffic separation schemes,
accessestoportsetc.Insuchsituations,the
officerof
thewatchcanmakeamistakewhendeterminingthe
safe speed since he predicts the hypothetic
manoeuvres of other vessel/s. Therefore, the authors
think that the defined maximum safe speed (in
numbers)would bemuchmoreappropriateinsome
situationsandforvesselsofdifferentsizes.
As far
as the Rule 19 (Conduct of vessels in
restrictedvisibility)isconcerned,phrasessuchas“so
far as possible” or “apparently” allow different
interpretationofboth,theruleitselfandapartofit.
When referring to the Rule 10(Traffic separation
schemes),evenitsbeginningcanbeconfusingtothe
students:
“(a). This Rule applies to traffic separation
schemes adopted by the Organization and does not
relieve any vessel of her obligationunder any other
rule”
TheRulegoesasfollows:
“(i).Avesselengagedinfishingshallnotimpede
thepassageofanyvesselfollowingatrafficlane.
(j).
A vessel of less than 20 metres in length or a
sailingvessel shallnot impede the safepassage of a
power‐drivenvesselfollowingatrafficlane.”
Thestudentsdonotoftenknowhowtodetermine
reciprocal obligations of vessels when reading this
Rule, which is because of all the
above‐mentioned
reasons. This opinion is confirmed by the fact that
Rule10isoneofthemostmisinterpretedones.
In addition, it is necessary to emphasize the
importance of translation of the COLREGs from
English language to respective mother tongues or
officiallanguagesofthecourses.Misinterpretationof
translation
canadditionallyconfusethestudents.
3.2 Theanalysisofmethodsoflearning
Inthispartof the research analysis, theauthorswill
discussstudents’answersreferringtothemethodsof
learningtheCOLREGs.Thefollowingmethodswere
analysed:classroom teaching with teacher’s
explanationofeachrule,selfe‐learning,learningthe
COLREGs using naviga tion simulator, learning the
COLREGs using real‐life or prepared scenarios e.g.
animations, online learning in a group, distance
learning‐in a group and practical training on board.
Theanswerswererankedasfollows:thelowestfigure
stands for the most efficient method of learning the
COLREGs
whereas the highest figure stands for the
leastefficientone(Figure6‐7).
872

Figure6.Analysisoftheopiniononmethodsoflearningthe
COLREGs among the students who are part of the
continuingsystem.

Figure7.Analysisoftheopiniononmethodsoflearningthe
COLREGs among the students who are part of the
“sandwichsystem”.
The analysis has shown that both groups of
students think that self e‐learning is an efficient
methodof learning. However, theproblem with self
e‐learningisthefactthatIMOModelCoursedefines
theprecisenumberoforganisedcoursesanddoesnot
takeintoconsiderationthehoursthe students
spend
individually to master the curriculum. That is why
the changes of the IMO Model Course, that would
definethetopicsthatrequirethestudents’attendance,
andthetopicsthatwouldbedealtwiththroughselfe‐
learning,wouldfacilitatemasteringthecurriculum.
It is interesting to notice that both
groups of
students think that practical training on board and
using navigation simulator in training are less
efficient methods of learning. Using a simulator has
recently become an unavoidable method of learning
in all high‐risk professions like in navigation,
medicineandaviation.Italsohasapositiveeffecton
developing
team‐work skills. Overall, the question
why do students consider using the navigation
simulatorasalessefficientmethodoflearning,arises.
According to the authors, the reason for such an
opinion is the inadequate number of hours planned
for the simulator training. Consequently, it leads to
the inadequate use
of the one. Furthermore, the
research has shown that students with practica l
training on board do not understand the Rules any
better.Thepossiblereasonforsuchasituationcould
bethefactthattheCOLREGsareneitherstudiednor
appliedanalyticallyonboardship.Theofficerofthe
watch relies
mostly on his experience and/or his
alreadyexistentknowledgeoftheCOLREGs.Besides,
knowledge of the COLREGs is rarely assessed in
everyday life, so the correct usage of theoretical
knowledgevariesfromcasetocase.
The comparison of the results of this research to
the research conducted among the high
school
students (Zekić et al., 2015) shows a difference in
opinionandattitudetowardslearningtheCOLREGs.
That is, high school students consider practical
trainingonboardandusingnavigationsimulator,the
mosteffectivemethodsoflearningtheCOLREGs.
3.3 Opinionoftheteacher
Thescopeoftheresearchreferringto
theopinionsof
the teachers who teach the COLREGs has been to
identifytheproblemstheycomeacrosswhileteaching
and assessing knowledge. According to them, the
number of hours needed to teach the COLREGs
properly, as planned by the curriculum, is not
enough.Moreover,theydo nothaveenough
timeto
analyse sea collisions whose cause is lack of
knowledgeoftheCOLREGs.
Theteachersemphasisethatmoretimeshouldbe
given to training on simulator, especially to
familiarizingthestudentswiththesimulator.
Besides, some teachers who are part of the
“sandwichsystem”thinkthattheCOLREGshavenot
been written in the appropriate way and they are
difficult to understand. They do not have enough
materials especially for the adequate e‐learning
programme. The Rules should be concise,
unambiguousand very clear without anypossibility
ofmisinterpretation.
Furthermore,oneoftheproblems,accordingtothe
teachers, is the
insufficient independent work of the
students. Table 1 shows methods of learning the
teachersuseintheteachingprocess.
Table1.Methodsoflearningtheteachersuse
_______________________________________________
Methodsoflearning Barcelona Latvia Croatia Slovenia
_______________________________________________
SimulatorYES YES YES YES
CBTModuleNO NO YES YES
Videomaterials YES YES YES YES
Lightsandsound NO NO YES YES
signalsprogramme
E‐learningNO NO YES YES
programme
_______________________________________________
4 CONCLUSION
Theresultsoftheresearchhaveshownthatthereisa
differenceinunderstandingtheCOLREGsamongthe
students who have attended the course but are
without any navigation experience, and those who
have also attended the course but have 6 months to
oneyearexperience in navigation.
The authors have
come to the conclusion that the practical experience
on board ship of students, who come from the
countries that practice the “sandwich system”, does
not have any influence on their knowledge or
understanding of the COLREGs. That is, students
873
with practical experience mostly do not understand
the Rules any better, than those without any
experience.
Moreover, it has been confirmedthat students of
both educational systems have problems with
understanding almost the same Rules. These results
coincidewiththeresultsofotherresearchesdoneon
this topic. The problem
is that some Rules and/or
parts of some Rules belong more to the descriptive
thandeterministic category (e.g. safe speed, reduced
visibility etc.), and some Rules, such as the Rule 10,
cannot be understood at all or are misinterpreted.
Theaforementionedreportsandresultscoincidewith
theauthors’opinionswho
thinkthatsomeRuleshave
notbeenadequatelywrittenandareverydifficultto
understand.Furthermore,aspecialattentionhastobe
given to translation of the COLREGs from English
languageto officiallanguagesofthecourses,thatis,
to the materials and literature available to the
students in their respective
mother tongues. In that
way,thepossibilityofmisinterpretationoftheRules,
duetotheinadequatetranslation,couldbeavoided.
It is necessary to emphasize that both, students
and teachers think that self e‐learning is a very
efficient method of learning, although teachers
emphasise that they do not have
a satisfactory e‐
learning programme. In addition, the IMO Model
Course, which only partially recognises this type of
learning,hasposedanotherproblemforteachersand
students.
The authors think that it is necessaryto improve
learningtheCOLREGsbyusingnavigationsimulator.
Itisnecessarytoincreasethenumberof
hoursneeded
tofamiliarizethestudentswiththesimulator,withits
restrictions, possibilities, and, finally, its adequate
usage.
REFERENCES
IMO. 2009. Global Integrated Shipping Information System.
IMO web page. Accessed October 19.
http://gisis.imo.org/Public/Default.aspx
Mohović,Dj.,Mohović,R.and Barić,M. 2016.Deficiencies
inLearningCOLREGsandNewTeachingMethodology
for Nautical Engineering Students and Seafarers in
Lifelong Learning Programs, The Journal of Navigation,
69,765‐776.
SmierzchalskiRandMichalewiczZ.2000.Modellingofship
trajectory in collision situations by an evolutionary
algorithm.IEEETransEvolComput,4(3),227–241.
Uğurlu,Ö.,Köse,E.,Yı ldırım,U.andYüksekyıldız,E..2015.
ʺMarineaccidentanalysisforcollisionandgroundingin
oil tanker
using FTA method.ʺ Maritime Policy &
Management,42.2,163‐185.
Yoshiaki, K., Wolf, M.T. Zarzhitsky, D. and Huntsberger,
T.L. 2014.ʺSafe maritime autonomous navigation with
colregs,usingvelocityobstacles.ʺIEEEJournalofOceanic
Engineering,39.1,110‐119.
Zekić,A., Mohović,Đ.and Mohović,R.2015.ʺAnalysisof
thelevelofknowledgeandunderstandingofregulations
for preventing collisions at sea.ʺ Pomorstvo: Scientific
JournalofMaritimeResearch,29.2,143‐149.