101
1 INTRODUCTION
As an island nation, Japan has the challenge of
securing a continual supply of mariners to ensure
stable marine transport. As shown in Figure 1, there
were more than 50,000 ocean mariners in the 1970s,
but by 2017, this number had dropped to about 2,200
[22]. Japan depends on foreign resources. The country
has done as much as possible to train and secure
mariners from the viewpoint of security since before
the Second World War. By the 1940s, awareness of the
issue of a maritime specialist shortage was pointed
out by maritime transportation companies in
Japan[13]. Based on this awareness, the Japanese
government included “the familiarization of maritime
ideology” in its legislative system, and continues
ocean and marine industry awareness activities for
young people. Nevertheless, young people’s
understanding of the occupation of mariners has not
improved, and the demand for human resources is not
currently being met.
To spread awareness of the ocean and marine-
related occupations among young people, cooperation
with elementary, junior high, and senior high schools
is needed. The national education system in Japan is
sorted into three sections by the School Education Act:
elementary education focusing on elementary schools,
secondary education focusing on junior and senior
high schools, and the higher education system that
focuses on universities. Japan’s national formal
education system has formulated the General Policies
Regarding Curriculum Formulation for school
classification based on the School Education Act.
Furthermore, based on the General Policies Regarding
Curriculum Formulation, publishing companies
create textbooks, which are then published after being
reviewed by the Ministry of Education, Culture,
Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT). Each school
Case Study of Compare Maritime and Ocean
Educational Style for under MET
T. Takimoto
Future Quest Inc., Japan
ABSTRACT: As an island nation, the topic of training and sending out seafarers is a present challenge in Japan.
Awareness activities for elementary, junior high, and senior high school students are essential for securing
future mariner job candidates. In this study, we conducted maritime and marine educational methods using
various procedures to raise awareness about previous maritime industries. We also brought in maritime
specialists for junior high school students who will be continuing to maritime educational institutions, and
conducted a comparative study of the results. In this study, we compared three types of educational content:
lectures on leadership techniques, observational field trips, and hands-on lessons. The results showed that
students had the highest interest in the hands-on lessons, followed by observational field trips, then finally the
lectures. These results demonstrated that when creating class content for maritime and marine education, this
should be adapted to the identity of the young people who are to receive that education.
http://www.transnav.eu
the International Journal
on Marine Navigation
and Safety of Sea Transportation
Volume 15
Number 1
March 2021
DOI: 10.12716/1001.15.01.09
102
selects textbooks based on the teaching plans of the
teachers in charge of the lessons.
Figure 1. Shift in the Number of Japanese Mariners [22]
Figure2 Current estimated global supply and demand of
Mariners [3]
On December 12, 2016, the MEXT Central Council
for Education issued a report to the minister of MEXT
on creating new general policies regarding curriculum
formulation. The new general policies regarding
curriculum formulation included many marine-
related keywords based on strong demands from the
marine industry and marine-related organizations. In
the future, as specific textbooks and educational
content are created, the challenge will be to establish
effective educational instruction methods [21] and
content that facilitate young people’s (especially
junior high school students) active interest in the
ocean.
The feature of experience-based learning is that the
experience of the students occupies core place in all
considerations of teaching and learning. In this case,
the rationale for career education is linked to the
current transformations in the concepts and structures
of lifestyle and of career, and the need to enable
individuals to construct their career [1]. So, students
need fields to analyze their experience by reflecting,
evaluating and reconstructing, experience in order to
draw meaning from it in the light of prior experience.
These reviews of their experience may lead to further
action [5].
Going forward, an important societal challenge
will be to create a system and study the specific
instructional methods through the educational
efficacy of the contents as ocean-related education is
carried out as part of formal education. This study
compares the following instruction methods related to
the ocean conducted in junior high schools: lecture
education content, observatory education content, and
hands-on education content.
2 EDUCATION’S CAREER DESIGN
IMPLICATIONS
According to the Shannon-Weaver communication
model, for a sender to smoothly transmit information
to a receiver, the sender must transmit the information
in a way aligned with the receiver’s reception ability
and interest [25]. The information receiver’s interest
plays a part in their advantages and disadvantages, or
something that responds to their ability to receive.
Considering educational activities as communication,
instructors as senders of information need to provide
educational content in a form that is easy for students
as information receivers to understand. In this context,
career design emerges as an issue in which students
have a great deal of interest. For example, junior high
school students form their own careers gradually,
considering future plans to continue to high school or
university, or to search for jobs. Therefore, students
have an interest in information about their next place
of education as part of preparing for career formation
and determining what they must do to orient
themselves for their next level of education or
employment (bibliographic data). It is essential that
educational content makes it easy for these students to
create a mental image of the information related to
their interests [20]. Watts suggests for career
education is linked to the current transformations in
the structures of work and of career, and the need to
enable individuals not to choose but to construct their
career. He approached to compare current career
education in European countries based on as timing,
content, method, models of delivery, progression and
assessment [1]. Parisa's approached to compare for
problem-based learning and lecture-based learning in
the education styles of medical students. The students
compared that were divided into problem-based
learning group and lecture-based learning group by
simple randomization. Students preferred problem-
based learning over lecture-based learning, because of
motivation, a higher performance of education.
However, the difference was not statistically
significant [19].
Educational content can be classified by approach as
follows: hands-on content that requires student
independence, observational content located between
being independent and objective, and lecture content
that is objective. Thus, we conducted a survey study
of young people’s orientations according to education
format.
3 CONDUCTING MODEL LESSONS
For this survey, we conducted model lessons for four
junior high school classes (4crass at random in Kobe
city, 142 students in total). The model lessons were 50-
minute blocks of time per class, and included hands-
on, observational, and lecture content. After the
103
lesson, the students were asked to complete a survey
on the hands-on, observational, and lecture content.
The lesson was configured to include a “ship-
handling simulator experience” in which several
students were given roles in a squad as the hands-on
content, “career design panel discussions “as the
observational content, and “topics learned in maritime
education institutions” as the lecture content.
After data collection, the statistical analysis was
single liner regression using STATA 13.0 software.
Differences were statistically significant if the P value
was less than 0.05. Also, the survey items included a
five-point evaluation scale for students to compare
each educational format so that we could determine
which obtained the most interest among the hands-on,
observational, and lecture content sections.
4 RESULTS
This survey was conducted based on four items. The
responses to each question were as follows:
4.1 Educational Content Orientation (Lecture Type
versus Hands-On Type)
The following five-point scale was used to determine
whether there was more interest in the lecture-type or
hands-on educational content: “Prefer Lecture,”
“Somewhat Prefer Lecture,” “No Preference,”
“Somewhat Prefer Hands-On,” “Prefer Hands-On.”
Of the 142 students, 1 response was incomplete
among the 141 responses collected. The number of
replies for this question was as follows: “Prefer
Lecture”(3), “Somewhat Prefer Lecture” (6), “No
Preference” (19), “Somewhat Prefer Hands-On” (30),
and “Prefer Hands-On”(83). Comparing the lecture
and hands-on content, 9 students were oriented
toward the lecture type (6.4%), 113 toward the hands-
on type (80.1%), and 19 students had no preference
(13.5％). This shows that the hands-on educational
content was preferred 12.6 times more than the lecture
educational content. Figure 3 provides the survey
results by class.
Figure 3. Comparison: Lecture Type versus Hands-On Type
4.2 Educational Content Orientation (Lecture Type
versus Observational Type)
The next question was measured on the following
five-point scale to determine whether there was more
interest in the lecture-type educational content or
observational educational content: “Prefer Lecture,”
“Somewhat Prefer Lecture,” “No Preference,”
“Somewhat Prefer Observation,” and “Prefer
Observation.”
Of the 142 students, 3 responses were incomplete
among the 139 responses collected. The number of
replies for this question was as follows: “Prefer
Lecture” (7), “Somewhat Prefer Lecture” (10), “No
Preference” (21), “Somewhat Prefer Observation” (21),
and “Prefer Observation” (69). Comparing the lecture
and observational content, 17 students were oriented
toward the lecture type (12.2%), 101 students toward
the observational type (72.7%), and 21 students had no
preference (15.1%). This shows that the observational
educational content had 5.9 times more support than
the lecture educational content. Figure 4 provides the
survey results by class.
Figure 4. Comparison: Lecture Type versus Observational
Type
4.3 Educational Content Orientation (Hands-On Type
versus Observational Type)
The next question was measured on the following
five-point scale to determine whether there was more
interest in the hands-on type educational content or
observational educational content: “Prefer Hands-
On,” “Somewhat Prefer Hands-On,” “No Preference,”
“Somewhat Prefer Observation,” and “Prefer
Observation.”
Of the 142 students, 3 responses were incomplete
among the 139 responses collected. The number of
replies for this question was as follows: “Prefer
Hands-On” (57), “Somewhat Prefer Hands-On” (34),
“No Preference” (24), “Somewhat Prefer Observation”
(9), and “Prefer Observation” (15). Comparing the
hands-on and observational content, 91 students were
oriented toward the hands-on type (65.5%), 24 toward
the observational type (17.3%), and 24 students had no
preference (17.3%). This shows that the hands-on
educational content had 3.8 times more support than
the observational educational content. Figure 5
provides the survey results by class.
104
Figure 5. Comparison: Hands-On Type versus
Observational Type
4.4 Extraction and Comparison of Each Lesson Type
These data comparison, the statistical analysis was
single liner regression between “Lecture Type and
Hands-On Type”, “Lecture Type and Observational
Type” and “Hands-On Type and Observational
Type”.
Figure6 plotted comparison data “Lecture Type
and Hands-On Type” versus “Lecture Type and
Observational Type”. These statics result put on
Table1 and Table2. In this result, parameter are
correlation coefficient 0.353, t value 5.34 and P value
0. The difference was statistically significant.
Figure7 plotted comparison data “Lecture Type
and Observational Type” versus “Hands-On Type and
Observational Type”. These statics result put on
Table3 and Table4. In this result, parameter are
correlation coefficient -0.04, t value -0.54 and P value
0.589. It did not find correlation form this difference.
Figure8 plotted comparison data “Lecture Type
and Hands-On Type” versus “Hands-On Type and
Observational Type”. These statics result put on
Table5 and Table6. In this result, parameter are
correlation coefficient -0.18, t value -2.9 and P value
0.004. It did not find enough correlation form this
difference.
Based on the results of the comparison of each
lesson type in questions 1 through 3, we extracted the
number of people for each lesson type after excluding
the “No Preference” responses. The results indicated
that 26 students from all classes preferred the “lecture
type lesson,” 204 students from all classes the “hands-
on type lesson,” and 125 students from all classes the
“observational type lesson.” Furthermore, converting
the number of responses for each lesson into
orientation rates based on the number of students,
9.2% of all classes preferred the “lecture type lesson,”
71.8% the “hands-on type lesson,” 44.0% the
“observational type lesson,” and 23.5% had “no
preference.” Figure 5 is a histogram according to
educational content, and Figure 6 shows a radar chart
of the orientation rates for the educational content.
Table 1. Liner regression: “Lecture Type and Hands-On
Type” versus “Lecture Type and Observational Type”
Table 2. Result: “Lecture Type and Hands-On Type” versus
“Lecture Type and Observational Type”
Table 3. Liner regression: “Lecture Type and Observational
Type” versus “Hands-On Type and Observational Type”
Table 4. Result “Lecture Type and Observational Type”
versus “Hands-On Type and Observational Type”
Table 5. Liner regression: “Lecture Type and Hands-On
Type” versus “Hands-On Type and Observational Type”
Table 6. Result “Lecture Type and Hands-On Type” versus
“Hands-On Type and Observational Type”
105
1
2
3
4
5
Lec_and_Hans
1 2 3 4 5
Lec_and_Obs
Y = 0.35x + 2.87
Figure 6. Scatter plot: “Lecture Type and Hands-On Type”
versus “Lecture Type and Observational Type”
1
2
3
4
5
Lec_and_Obs
1 2 3 4 5
Hans_and_Obs
Y = -0.04x + 4.13
Figure 7. Scatter plot: “Lecture Type and Observational
Type” versus “Hands-On Type and Observational Type”
1
2
3
4
5
Lec_and_Hans
1 2 3 4 5
Hans_and_Obs
Y = -0.18x + 4.71
Figure 8. Scatter plot: “Lecture Type and Hands-On Type”
versus “Hands-On Type and Observational Type”
Figure 6. Extractions of Each Lesson Type
Figure 7. Comparison of Young People’s Orientation
Toward Content
5 DISCUSSION
We consider the results of the model lessons
according to the hypotheses. Question 1 shows
students’ orientation toward lecture-type and hands-
on-type educational content based on the model
lesson. The hypothesis was that students would take
106
greater interest in the hands-on educational content,
which required more independence, than the lecture
educational content, which was more indirect. As
mentioned in section 4.1, the hands-on educational
content had 12.6 times more support than the lecture
educational content, showing that hands-on
educational content may yield better educational
results than lecture educational content. It is
speculated that this refers especially to content that
acts on students’ independence by having them
experience the handling of a ship after forming squads
and distributing roles.
Question 2 shows students’ orientation toward
lecture-type educational content and observational-
type educational content. The hypothesis was that
students would take a greater interest in the
observational content, which required independence,
than in the lecture content. As mentioned in section
4.2, the results showed that the observational content
had 5.9 times more support than the lecture content,
showing that the junior high school students were
more interested in the observational content than the
lecture content. It is speculated that this especially
refers to content that acts on students’ independence
by having role models in the form of university
students as career design examples. Furthermore, it is
thought that using university students as lecturers
stimulated students’ independence in thinking about
more familiar issues.
Question 3 shows students’ orientation toward
hands-on content and observational content. While
both types of educational content require students’
independence, the hypothesis was that the junior high
school students would be more interested in the more
strongly independent hands-on educational content
than in the observational content. As mentioned in
section 4.3, the hands-on educational content had 3.8
times more support than the observational content.
This shows that junior high school students were
more interested in the hands-on educational content
than in the observational content. It is speculated that
the hands-on content demonstrated a stronger
orientation than the observational content, because it
allowed students to directly internalize examples.
The number of people oriented toward each type
of content is shown in Figure 6, and the relative rate of
orientation in Figure 7. According to these results,
interest in maritime educational content was oriented
in the following order from highest to lowest:
“Hands-On Content” (71.8%), “Observational
Content” (44.0%), and “Lecture Content” (9.2%). With
an eight-fold difference in interest level between
“Hands-On Content” and “Lecture Content,” it was
clear that there was great interest in content that
emphasized students’ own independence.
“Lecture Type and Hands-On Type” versus
“Lecture Type and Observational Type” difference
was statistically significant in statical comparison
results. This means, young people be able to have
motivate to learning styles: “Hands-On Type “and
“Observational style” more than “Lecture style”, in
marine sector. Also, these results were able to confirm
Parisa’s result that students preferred problem-based
learning over lecture-based learning [19].
Based on these results, regarding educational
content on maritime and marine topics for young
people, junior high school students supported the
content in the order of ““hands-on”“ followed by
““observational”“ and ““lecture”“ type educational
content. Here, the educational content supported was
highly effective learning material based on student
independence.
6 CONCLUSIONS
In particular, who highlighted using university
students when conducting these model lessons,
pointed out the importance of role models for career
design. As students design their careers, the
conditions in which they make decisions can quickly
change. By reducing the age gap between students
and instructors, the instructors understand students’
conditions, and are thus able to provide content that
encourages student independence [26].
Maritime and marine education, which has until
now been conducted through guest lectures by
experienced captains or industry group officials, often
has difficulty engaging the young people mind to
career design, and consequently, has not yielded
adequate results.
Brent suggests simulations, and other experience-
based instructional methods have had a substantial
impact on many problems of traditional instructional
methods [4]. By conducting such empirical
verification research, more effective and efficient
marine education for young people will be possible.
The sustained development of marine stakeholder
is a worldwide issue not limited to some countries
and sectors. To secure the continued supply of marine
stakeholder, activities to increase awareness of the
ocean and marine industries are important for
SDGs(Sustainable Development Goals) too. Thus, it
is important to establish impactive “Hands-on” and
“Observation” style educational content that easily
earns their interest.
In the future, incorporates more maritime and
marine education into basic education, it will be an
urgent challenge to make a wide range of marine-
related affairs easy for young people to understand.
Going forward, it will be important to keep studying
the content, coordinating methods, and specific
instructional methods that lectors can use.
REFERENCES
1. G. Watts, Career Education for Young People: Rationale
and Provision in the UK and Other European
Countries,International Journal for Educational and
Vocational Guidance volume 1, pages209–222(2001),
2001
2. Andresen, L., Boud, D., Cohen, R., Experience-based
learning, Understanding Adult Education and
Training (pp.225-239), Routledge, 2000
3. BIMCO, BIMCO/ICS MANPOWER REPORT2015, ICS,
2015
4. Brent D. R., Simulations, Games, and Experience-Based
Learning: The Quest for a New Paradigm for Teaching
107
and Learning, Simulation & Gaming 30(4):498-
505,SAGE Publications, 1999
5. Brown, B. L., Applying Constructivism in Vocational and
Career Education. Information Series No. 378., Center
on Education and Training for Employment, ERIC
Publications, 1998
6. Charles C Bonwell, Active learning: creating excitement
in the classroom, Washington, D.C. : School of
Education and Human Development, George
Washington University, 1991
7. Barnes, D., Active Learning. (Leeds, University of Leeds
TVEI Support Project)., 1989
8. J. Corpus, McClintic-Gilbert, S. Megan, Hayenga, O.
Amynta, Within-Year Changes in Children's Intrinsic
and Extrinsic Motivational Orientations: Contextual
Predictors and Academic Outcomes Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 34 (2), pp. 154-166, 2009
9. E.L. Deci, R. Koestner, R.M. Ryan, Extrinsic rewards and
intrinsic motivation in education: Reconsidered once
again, Review of Educational Research, 71 (1), pp. 1-
27, 2001
10. E.L. Deci, R. Koestner, R.M. Ryan, A Meta-Analytic
Review of Experiments Examining the Effects of
Extrinsic Rewards on Intrinsic Motivation,
Psychological Bulletin, 125 (6), pp. 627-668, 1999
11. Entwistle, N. J & J. D, Thompson, Motivation and
Study Habits, Wilson, Higher Education, Vol. 3, No. 4,
pp. 379-390, 1979
12. Hill, J. M. M., The transition from school to work.
London: Tavistock., 1969
13. Katsumi Yamagata, Wartime shipping control theory,
Tatsuuma Marine Memorial Foundation,
1944[14]Keller, J. M. & Burkman, E., Motivation
principles, in: M. Fleming & W. H. Levie (Eds)
Instructional message design: principles from the
behavioral and cognitive sciences.,1993
14. Lairio, M., & Puukari, S., Working life familiarization
in elementary and secondary schools. Paper delivered
at the International Careers Guidance Conference,
Warwick, UK.,1999
15. Law, B., A career-learning theory. In A. G. Watts, B.
Law, J. Killeen, J. M. Kidd & R. Hawthorn (Eds.),
Rethinking careers education and guidance: theory,
policy and practice (pp. 46–71). London: Routledge.,
1996
16. Law, B., Recording achievement and action planning.
In A. G. Watts, B. Law, J. Killeen, J. M. Kidd & R.
Hawthorn (Eds.), Rethinking careers education and
guidance: theory, policy and practice (pp. 247–268).
London: Routledge., 1996
17. Meyers, C., Promoting Active Learning: Strategies for
the College Classroom, Jossey-Bass Press, 1993
18. Parisa. K., Mansour S., Saeideh M., Akefeh A., Reza H.
F., Comparison of Problem-based Learning With
Lecture-based Learning, Iranian Red Crescent Medical
Journal 16(5):e5186, Kowsar Medical Institute, 2014
19. Shigeru Sugiyama, Yoshihito Tsuji, The effect of active
learning for university students, The Review of liberal
arts - Otaru University of Commerce 127, 61-74, 2014
20. Shinichi Mizokami, Arrangement of curriculum
concepts and points to view the curriculum: toward
consideration of active learning, Kyoto University
researches in higher education 12, 153-162, 2006
21. The Japanese Shipowners' Association (2018),
Handbook for Shipping Statics in 2018, The Japanese
Shipowners' Association, 2018
22. Watts, A. G., Experience-based learning about work. In
A. G. Watts, B. Law, J. Killeen, J. M. Kidd & R.
Hawthorn (Eds.), Rethinking careers education and
guidance: theory, policy and practice (pp. 233–246).
London: Routledge., 1996
23. Watts, A. G., Some international comparisons. In A.
Miller, A. G. Watts & I. Jamieson (Eds.), Rethinking
work experience (pp. 39–54). London: Falmer., 1991
24. Weaver, Warren: 'Recent Contributions to the
Mathematical Theory of Communication'. In Shannon
& Weaver op.cit, 1949
25. Yoichi Furuno,”Key point” and “Difficulty” in Career
design, Works Institute, 1999
