59
1 INTRODUCTION
Throughout the global spread of the COVID-19 virus
(scientifically referred to as the severe acute
respiratory syndrome–coronavirus 2 or SARS-CoV-2),
educational institutions have scrambled to find new
methods and approaches for enabling the
uninterrupted delivery of education across varying
degrees of lockdown and social distancing protocols.
The partial or full lockdown of societies and new
social interaction protocols are changing cultural
norms in the effort to prevent the spread of the
COVID-19 virus. These measures have had significant
consequences for Maritime Education and Training
(MET) stakeholders and the maritime industry as a
whole. Results from a recent survey conducted by
International Association of Maritime Universities
(IAMU) have reported that 93% of its member
universities are affected to their normal education
activities [22]. The pandemic has forced them to look
into alternative ways of delivering their educational
content [3]. For MET facilities, teachers and students,
this has meant a departure from the typical
deployment of education and training methods due
to: (1) fully closed and/or restricted access to physical
facilities (e.g. classrooms, simulators and other
facilities); (2) physical gatherings and interpersonal
interaction of large numbers of students, teachers and
staff in close proximity have become a public health
risk; (3) typical MET facilities and training programs
were not designed or have taken into account the
requirements for recent social distancing protocols; or
Maritime Education and Training in the COVID-19 Era
and Beyond
S.K. Renganayagalu
1,2
, S.C. Mallam
1
& M. Hernes
1
1
University of South-Eastern Norway, Borre, Norway
2
Institute for Energy Technology, Halden, Norway
ABSTRACT: The rapid global spread of COVID–19 has created numerous challenges for educational
organizations of all levels around the world. Maritime Education and Training (MET) institutions are no
exception and have faced major disruptions from the pandemic. Differing technological and organizational
solutions have had to be quickly adapted in short timeframes in order to fill gaps and ensure continued teaching
and learning. Although online education is nothing new, COVID-19 has accelerated the necessity for distributed
learning, digital tools and infrastructure needed to not only cope, but excel in the restructuring of MET. In this
article we present our experiences from the blended course offered to maritime bachelor students at our
university in Norway through a case study. The findings from the study have revealed that although blended
learning has helped continued education during the pandemic, it still has to overcome general as well as MET
specific challenges to be successful in future. Considering the impact and challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic
on MET, we further discuss the short-term responses and possible long-term solutions that can contribute to
uninterrupted, high-quality learning for future MET. The use of emerging technologies for education, such as
virtual reality (VR) and web-based training simulators, are likely to play an essential role in the future direction
of MET.
http://www.transnav.eu
the International Journal
on Marine Navigation
and Safety of Sea Transportation
Volume 16
Number 1
March 2022
DOI: 10.12716/1001.16.01.06
60
(4) staying home for work and study has been
generally advised and recommended in order to
adhere to evolving social distancing protocols and to
reduce opportunities for infection. These challenges
introduced by the rapid spread of COVID-19 have
accelerated the need for innovative education and
training solutions.
Among the many challenges imposed by the
COVID-19 pandemic are shifts in how educational
content is delivered, with a migration away from the
traditional in-classroom experience to more
technology-based virtual learning experiences. Prior
to the global spread of COVID-19, MET was already
transitioning towards an increased use of digitalized
solutions, such as e-learning, for new students and
cadets looking to enter the industry, but also for
professional training and re-training across the
maritime domain. Due to the inherent nature of the
profession, seafarers cannot participate in classroom
teaching for continued education and training as
easily as personnel in centralized shore-based
professions. Information Communication
Technologies (ICT) have created new opportunities to
extend the learning and training environment.
Whether to onboard ships or other marine structures,
which may be located in remote, physically
inaccessible environments, or to the trainee’s own
home, eliminating the need for travel and its
associated resources. Because of this, blended learning
approaches were adapted to enhance the accessibility
of training material for remote training. For example,
trainees attend a blended learning course starting with
traditional classroom teaching followed by individual
study using digital material and a web-based learning
environment [17, 25].
The proliferation of the pandemic has forced the
maritime domain and MET to adapt sooner than
planned or anticipated, fast-tracking many solutions
which were already in development or used, though
to a lesser degree, prior to 2020. For example,
differing approaches under investigation, and in use,
in the education and training of maritime trainees
inherently employ social distancing practices, such as
e-learning and online assessment [6, 26, 41], remote
simulator training [7] and Virtual Reality-based
simulators [34]. There are also efforts within maritime
education community to have joint simulation
learning platform available to connect different
maritime education and training providers [16]. In a
previous, pre-COVID-19 published article the authors
reviewed the applications of immersive technologies,
such as virtual and augmented reality in MET and
discussed the advantages of distributed, remote
training through them [28]. Utilization of these remote
training methodologies using emergent technologies
has become more important now than ever before.
Typical remote training methods can range from
relatively basic audio and video-based
communication, lecturing and online learning portals
to more advanced web-based 3D and VR-based
simulators with real-time interactions and
communication [3].
Considering the above, a transformative change of
the current maritime educational approach is
inevitable and necessary. It is important now that all
stakeholders of MET, including training institutions,
maritime policy makers and curriculum planners,
from basic training to specialized courses, must
critically reflect on the present situation and make
appropriate decisions about shaping the future of
MET. In this article, we present an interim solution we
adopted for teaching for a bachelor’s course and
results from the case study towards students’
perception of the solution. We also discuss specific
challenges of COVID-19 in relation to MET and
explore different alternatives for uninterrupted
delivery of MET. For this, we consider the concept of
technology-supported distance learning as a plausible
solution and discuss the future pedagogical and
infrastructure requirements from MET facilities,
teachers, and student’s perspective. This is relevant
not only for mitigating the effects of COVID-19 or
other future small or large-scale pandemics on our
educational system, but for the organization and
deployment of future education as a whole.
2 BACKGROUND
2.1 The Impact of COVID-19
The COVID-19 pandemic has had an enormous
impact on the global education sector and has created
significant challenges for the higher education
community. It has caused schools and universities to
close, either fully or partially, due to local, regional,
national and international lockdowns to varying
degrees and durations. Social distancing and self-
isolation measures implemented to slow the virus
spread have included closing of schools and
universities by reorganizing teaching and learning
activities from remote locations, such as one’s home,
for both teachers and students. In many countries, at
least with those of adequate network infrastructure,
the immediate response to the need to close the
physical campuses of higher education institutions
was to rely as much as possible on distance learning
[49]. Moving all teaching and learning activities online
has created various immediate challenges, such as
technical (internet availability, bandwidth quality,
device availability and compatibility, etc.), individual
(digital competence, motivation, etc.), social [40] and
pedagogical challenges [27]. COVID-19 has required
higher education institutions to reimagine how they
deliver learning experiences to their students and
required utilization of technology to deliver
continued education. It is too early to predict the
long-term effects, however relying on Educational
Technology and online infrastructure appears to be a
viable option for educational institutions. This
however brings unique challenges for MET where
access to educational tools and infrastructure, such as
training simulators are imperative for knowledge
acquisition and an integral part of the seafarer
education and training [36].
2.2 Roles of education institutes in MET
Historically, the maritime industry has relied upon
apprenticeship and informal, unstructured learning
gained through experience onboard ships as the
61
means of acquiring maritime competencies for its
workforce [29]. This apprenticeship model promoted
learning skills and knowledge acquisition in the social
and functional context. With the introduction and
adaptation of Standards of Training, Certification and
Watchkeeping (STCW) convention amongst most
maritime nations in 1978, MET has transformed from
the informal apprenticeship model to a more formal,
structured and internationally unified education with
defined learning outcomes for certification and
promotion [39, 48]. With the adaptation of the STCW,
school-based vocational education has become the
standard for MET.
The STCW advocates a combination of traditional
schooling and on-the-job training for MET. METs
curriculum now follows both theory-based education
(i.e., classroom, textbook, theory) and practice-based
education (i.e., hands-on experience via (i) simulators
and (ii) at-sea). The content and learning outcomes of
MET have evolved over the years, but education and
training seafarers revolves around a combination of (i)
theoretical knowledge, typically gained through
traditional lectures, studying and testing; (ii) practical
experience and training, gained through simulator
training and real-world practical experience at sea
[39].
Figure 1. Students training in maritime simulators (Image
copyright: USN)
2.3 Simulators in maritime education
Simulators have evolved to become an increasingly
integral part of MET and seafarer certification since
they were first introduced in the 1950s [36].
Simulators have been utilized to fulfil the need for
training students and professionals for safety critical
work tasks. Early bridge simulators were used for
training technical skills, such as radar plotting,
passage planning and basic ship-handling [19]. Engine
Room simulators were first introduced in the 1980s,
followed by cargo control room simulators for other
ship operations and cargo handling training [18].
Today, simulators are used across various aspects of
the maritime industry for training, from teaching
technical skills for bridge and engine operations, fire
safety and emergency response, crane and winch
operations, cargo handling, to non-technical skills,
such as bridge and crew resource management
training [45]. In addition, simulators are used for the
training of highly specialized operations, such as
dynamic positioning and anchor handling for offshore
operations. Simulators bypass the safety implications
and associated costs of on-the-job training and
provide the benefits of repetitive learning in a
realistic, safe and controlled environment [20, 35, 47].
MET simulators have varying levels of fidelity and
technical sophistication, ranging from small single
equipment task trainers to full mission engine room
and 360-degree view bridge simulators integrating
simulation software with realistic physics engines,
real-world equipment hardware and recreated wave
motions, as experienced at sea [43]. The importance of
simulators for MET is well recognized by the IMO
and the role of simulator is incorporated in the STCW
(STCW/95) and its subsequent amendments [39].
3 MET AND COVID-19: ISSUES AND SOLUTIONS
The closing down of physical education and training
locations due to COVID-19 and the implementation of
strict infection control measures, such as limited
physical access to onsite facilities and avoiding shared
equipment usage, have limited the opportunities for
the students and teachers to utilize traditional MET
infrastructure. With simulators being integral to MET,
access challenges to these facilities have significant
consequences on how education and training is
deployed, and ultimately the learning outcomes of
students. This is also one of the unique challenges of
distance education for MET, as it is requisite for the
students to gain hands-on knowledge and skills from
these learning tools, such as traditional training
simulators which are typically only accessed in
centralized facilities.
3.1 Online learning
The immediate response to the COVID-19 pandemic is
the increased adoption of online technologies that are
available for education. One of the most affordable
and quick solutions was to utilize existing ICT
solutions, adapt online platforms, and Video
Conferencing Systems (VCS) for delivering lectures.
COVID-19 developed and spread at a time when the
education sector could more easily and effectively
adapt to the demands of societal lockdowns and
physical distancing than at any point in previous
decades. IT infrastructure, digital communication,
video conferencing systems, online learning
management platforms have all been previously
integrated into post-secondary and professional
education culture for many years. Thus, the transition
from traditional post-secondary and professional
educational paradigms of physical presence of both
instructor(s) and student(s), or a blend of physical and
digital solutions, was arguably easier and more
successful for all parties due to the already established
technological infrastructure and collective experience
of using such systems by the community. This is
particularly evident if contrasted with a similar
hypothetical global event or outbreak of the
magnitude of COVID-19 occurring even a decade
previously, let alone pre-2000.
Online learning emerged in the 1990’s and has
since proliferated as a disruptive pedagogic tool that
challenged the then “norms” of traditional education
paradigms [1]. Although e-learning and online
platforms for pedagogical applications have been
utilized for over twenty years, the traditional model
for education of in-class and on-campus pedagogic
activities endures. Whether lectures, workshops,
62
laboratory sessions or group work, involving physical
face-to-face instructor-student interactions, and peer
student-student interactions continued to be the norm
throughout the 21st century. Online students enjoy
benefits of learning at their own pace and the
flexibility of learning from distance and it
accommodates students from far away to participate
in the learning activities. This is because online
learning provides an opportunity for asynchronous
learning. Asynchronous learning is learning where
students and teachers are not bound to a specific place
and time [21]. At the same time, online learning has
some disadvantages compared to traditional learning.
This includes the lower efficiency of the learning
process due to lack of direct contact and the
impossibility of applying a personal approach of
teaching to each student [42]. Hrastinski [21] further
states that students might feel isolated during online
learning and not part of a social learning group,
which is crucial for collaboration and learning.
However, with events such as the COVID-19
pandemic, online learning becomes an important
driver for success. Despite the limitations of online
learning, such as slow learning outcomes, difficulty in
seeking advice from teachers, and collaboration
challenges, online learning is one of the most viable
options for continuing education considering the
current situation.
Many MET institutions have utilized online
platforms for continuing the learning during
lockdown. Online learning is categorized into two
types: asynchronous and synchronous learning
(Figure 2). Asynchronous are self-paced online
learning methods that are the most common e-
learning methods, such as the MOOC. Material for
asynchronous learning include digital reading
materials, lecture slides, and video recordings of the
lectures. Online learning management platforms are
utilized to distribute the learning material and
communication platforms, such as email, messaging,
social media are utilized for keep the communication
going. Synchronous on the other hand is commonly
supported by media such as webinars, video
conferencing and live chat. Live lecturing, through
online platforms offers the opportunity for instant
communication between the lecturer and student, as
in a live classroom lecture.
Figure 2. Online learning in MET
3.2 Blended learning
When the online educational materials and
opportunities for interaction online are combined
with traditional place-based classroom methods, it
solves many of the problems related to online
learning. This pedagogical approach is called blended
learning (BL). Blended learning requires the physical
presence of both teacher and student at some part of
the course, while the rest of the course have the
convenience and flexibility of the online knowledge
delivery.
4 BLENDED LEARNING COURSE IN MET: A
CASE STUDY
4.1 Navigation passage planning, bridge organisation and
communication course
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic related lockdowns, a
blended course approach was implemented for some
of the courses at the Bachelor of Nautical Science
degree at our university located in the south-eastern
part of Norway. One such course is the Navigation
passage planning, bridge organisation and
communication course, taught in the fourth of six
semesters. The course module covers the Global
Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS) and
serves to extend the students’ knowledge,
understanding, and proficiency in Maritime Mobile
Radio and Satellite Communication.
The course is required for certification as a GMDSS
radio operator and a prerequisite to get a General
Operator Certificate (GOC), which is mandatory
before applying for a STCW Deck Officer Certificate.
The duration of the course is one semester: 14
weeks with two school hours face-to-face classroom
lectures and four hours (45 minutes) practical training
using communications simulator or real-life radio and
satellite equipment with instructor present in both
sections.
To achieve the Telenor’s subject plan
recommendation of 100 working hours for the course,
70-80 % attendance was set as mandatory for the final
GOC-exam. The activities taken into use in this course
are videos, quizzes, scenarios, problem-based
learning, role-plays, simulator training, and drills on
real equipment.
The Learning Management System – the university
uses a learning management system (LMS) called
Canvas. The Canvas LMS enables teachers and
students to communicate and offers a wide variety of
options to enhance the teaching and learning process.
External Videos - In the Canvas modules, links for
YouTube videos introducing subject matters were
shared to get students “connected” onto the context
before the lectures starts.
Quizzes – each module of the course was ended
with quizzes covering the subject matter. The quizzes
were designed to activate the students by working
individually or in groups. The immediate score after
answering the quiz give self-assessment, feedback on
satisfactory achievement of the learning outcomes.
During the COVID-19, peers worked with the quizzes
63
digitally using the digital meeting program Zoom.
Dividing the class into breakout rooms with set bridge
teams, students prepared for a compulsory Telenor
part exam.
Instruction videos – subject responsible teachers at
the university produced instruction videos that are
available at Canvas. The instruction videos were
produced first in 2015. This was followed with three
new versions in April 2021, due to the upgrading of
the fixed radio and satellite equipment. The videos
give short and practical descriptions in how to solve
tasks as GOC operator.
Problem based learning- Each practical training
session in the Radiolab consists of working to figure
out how to solve problems.
Simulator training- Using the simulator students
learn communication procedures and familiarize
themselves with the radio and satellite equipment. To
do drills helps remembering actions and procedures,
as to practice SAR- exercises on VHF or Inmarsat C on
the simulator.
Real life equipment training- Using real life VHF,
MF, HF equipment students can communicate outside
the campus, doing weekly procedures as radio check
with Coastal Radio South, sending e-mails from
Inmarsat C or Iridium satellite equipment,
communicate with ships in vicinity to do radio checks.
Having three fully equipped radio bridges students
get training on how to familiarize when embarking
new vessels later in their career. The ability to
interpret technical diagrams and to recognize the
schemes physically in the radio is part of the training.
The students also communicate in-between the radio
stations at campus, knowing outsiders can hear the
communication gives an extra fidelity and nerve into
the drill. A “bridge” with a remote alarm panel, silent
alarm (SSAS) an ECDIS and AIS shows the
interconnectedness between different equipment as
the GNSS, AIS and VHF. Switching between the
different power sources – batteries or ship main or
emergency generator are to be practiced real life.
Using scenarios and role play - While preparing
for the oral practical exam, students play the role of
the internal, external sensors and the candidate giving
peer assessment reviews.
Constructive alignment- The course design focus
on the importance of constructive alignment [4]. To
highlight the connection between teaching, student
activities) during the course (giving formative
assessment) and the final exam (the summative
assessment).
4.2 Study
The purpose of this case study was to investigate
whether increased BL due to the COVID-19
restrictions had satisfactory effects on student
learning. The study seeks to identify elements of BL
that worked and elements that were not perceived
satisfactory by the students and teachers. BL is not a
singular phenomenon but rather a combination of
methods using technology and effective face-to-face
teaching and learning strategies. In this case, the BL
had to be adapted for remote learning while campus
has been closed to stop the spread of COVID-19
pandemic. Although better than stoppage of teaching
and learning during the lock down, investigating the
effectiveness of the BL approach and sharing the
experiences from the blended teaching will be useful
for future development of such courses. With these
nuances under consideration, we aim to answer three
main research questions:
− RQ1.What effect, if any, does an increase in the
degree of BL implementation during COVID-19
pandemic have on student learning on the bachelor
level maritime course?
− RQ2.What aspects of BL are perceived as most
effective by students?
− RQ3.What aspect of the BL are perceived as least
effective by the students and teachers?
A qualitative case study approach was adopted to
answer the research questions. We gathered the
experiences of the students in the transformed
maritime communication course under the COVID-19
pandemic and explored the potential impact of
different instructional decisions (such as online
communication synchrony, flipped approach, digital
technologies used) on the perceived satisfaction of the
students enrolled in the bachelor of nautical science
degree. A seven-point Likert like scale (see appendix)
was used to gather student perceptions post the final
examination regarding the flexibility, quality of the
course, learner satisfaction and appropriateness of the
technology used in the course followed by a short
interview.
4.3 Results/Findings
Data was collected from a total of 35 students (32 male
and 3 female students, mean age: 24.1, SD 3.92) who
participated in the course. The results from the
questionnaire are presented below,
4.3.1 BL course flexibility
When it comes to the flexibility of the course,
students agreed that the blended format course
allowed them to arrange their work more effectively
save more time for other activities (Q1, Q3 and Q6).
However, they didn’t agree that the advantages of the
course outweighed the disadvantages (Q2).
Table 1. Responses on BL course flexibility
_______________________________________________
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8
_______________________________________________
Mean 4.1 3.1 4.7 3.2 4.1 4.7
3.2 2.8
StDv 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.5
1.6 1.1
Median 5.0 3.7 5.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
3.3 3.0
_______________________________________________
4.3.2 BL course quality
When it comes to the quality of the course,
majority of the students agreed that the quality of the
course was unaffected by the blended format (Q11).
At the same time there was huge variance observed in
the responses of the students.
64
Table 2. Responses on BL course quality
_______________________________________________
Q9 Q10 Q11
_______________________________________________
Mean 3.6 3.0 4.6
StDv 1.5 1.4 1.7
Median 4.2 3.1 5.0
_______________________________________________
4.3.3 Perceived learner satisfaction and Technology
appropriateness
When it comes to satisfaction, the students could
neither agree nor disagree on the decision to choosing
the course in the blended format (Q12, Q16). This is
mainly because there wasn’t an option since it was
forced due to the COVID-19 situation. However, they
agreed that it served their needs well (Q14)
considering the situation. Also, there was a general
disagreement when it comes to choosing the course in
the blended format voluntarily (Q13, Q15). At the
same time there was a high agreement between the
students regarding the technology used for
knowledge delivery (Q17).
Table 3. Responses on learner satisfaction and tech.
appropriateness
_______________________________________________
Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17
_______________________________________________
Mean 3.4 2.8 4.8 2.9 3.7 5.77
StDv 1.5 1.1 1.6 1.3 1.5 1.31
Median 3.8 3.1 5.0 3.0 4.0 6
_______________________________________________
The results show some clear trends in student
perceptions about different aspects of the blended
course format. The subsequent interview provided
further insight into these responses. For example,
students like the flexibility the BL course offers, but
there were also high individual differences noticed in
the responses. Some students enjoyed the comfort of
learning from anywhere while some missed the
structured learning opportunities at the classroom.
The individual characteristics of the students should
be considered for gaining further insight.
Almost all interviewed students agreed to the
importance of the course and quality of the teaching
provided. The main factors that affected the response
score were students didn’t like watching theoretical
lectures provided online and the lack of opportunities
for hands-on exercises.
It was clear from the interviews that the most
effective aspects of the course were practical exercise
performed at the lab and the least effective aspects
were theoretical lecture provided online. Many
students complained about the isolation during online
lecture and lack of peer interaction and
communication with the teacher during the lecture.
Overall, the findings revealed that the students had a
mixed experience with the BL course offered.
5 THE FUTURE OF MET: COVID-19 AND BEYOND
The case study confirmed that one of the major
challenges for MET is to replicate the experience of
simulator and on-the-job training while practicing
social distancing. Currently available technologies,
such as e-learning, online lectures, videos are utilized
as a quick solution for continuing education. For the
theoretical aspects of MET, these solutions would be
adequate if implemented properly. However, the
practice-based curriculum of MET will be impossible
to provide online with these existing technologies.
Keeping this in mind, we consider different scenarios
for continuing MET in the future and associated
challenges with each of scenarios, whether in its
traditional, digital or BL approaches. Figure 3
presents a spectrum of knowledge delivery methods
in MET. Before the pandemic, knowledge delivery
and practices were performed in physical classrooms
and shared simulators facilities. In addition, Learning
Management Systems (LMS) were widely used in
higher education institutes for distributing materials,
scheduling, monitoring, reporting learning activities,
and for communication between students and
teachers. COVID-19 forced the educational institutes
to move the physical classrooms to online through
video lecturing where possible. However, due the
nature of the curriculum, several courses and
programs may find video lecturing inadequate for
many learning objectives. This has led some schools to
start utilizing web-based simulators for remote
practical exercises for teaching during the pandemic
[44]. At the same time the efficacy of web-based
simulators for training and assessment is yet to be
proven. The following sections discuss the possible
future scenarios for the MET.
Figure 3. Spectrum of MET knowledge delivery methods
pre and post COVID-19
5.1 Shared training facilities
The most immediate solution is the reopening of
educational institutions and simulator training
facilities for students with new usage protocols. Local
regions and nations that have successfully contained
the virus spread have begun to reopen educational
institutions already. For MET institutions, this means
following strict hygiene practices and using personal
protective equipment (PPE), limiting users of the
facilities in any given time and maintaining social
distancing protocols. For example, reducing the size
of practical classes is carried out by scheduling more
sessions with a smaller number of students. This
solution requires increased resources from the
institution, in the form of increased human resources
for teaching (i.e., more teachers and/or teaching and
administration hours) and facility cleaning (i.e. more
custodians and/or custodian hours), as well as for
consumable PPE and disinfectant products (e.g.
disposable masks, gloves, hand and surface
65
disinfectant, etc.). However, these solutions are only
feasible if the facility and region in question is capable
of implementing such practices both from a regional
or national governance perspective, as well as the
practical resources and capabilities of an institution’s
budget. Furthermore, a new local or national outbreak
around the location of the training facility could push
the institutions back into lockdown. Thus, adopting a
modified pre-pandemic approach to MET, although
feasible in some situations, is not the most resilient
option.
5.2 Technology-assisted distance learning
The term “technology-rich learning environments”
refers to settings in which teachers and students use
technologies for various educational purposes and
applications [9]. The previous two decades saw MET
institutions integrating net-based learning solutions
into the teaching both in campus-based as well as the
blended learning courses. The Internet, as an
education medium, has enabled new ways for
teachers, students and administrators to share
information, resources and communicate, creating
new ecosystems in how education is designed,
deployed and utilized by all parties. The concept of
distance learning today refers predominantly to the
use of web-based online learning. Emerging ICT
solutions have become highly attractive for distance
teaching as they offer solutions to the several barriers
in traditional distance learning. For example, they
have the potential to reduce the loneliness of scattered
students by providing social interaction with teachers
and peers; to provide easy access to libraries and other
information resources which was difficult before; and
to update the study materials regularly [15]. With
these solutions, digitalised distance learning is more
relevant for the MET, and education in general, now
than ever before. If we consider the models of
technology-rich learning environments in higher
education put forth by Fossland [10], the learning
settings at MET utilised both “campus models” and
“blended models II” pre-COVID-19 (see Figure 4).
COVID-19-related restrictions have directed the
synchronous campus model to blended model I,
which predominantly consisted of online lectures and
delivery of educational content. However, in order to
be fully independent of physical location constraints
and any future external forces and restrictions
imposed by local, regional or global events, MET must
consider increasingly organizing courses and
programs towards blended and online models. As
seen throughout 2020 and into 2021, MET institutions
and programs scrambled to reorganize ongoing future
educational programs towards these models in order
to cope in the short term. However, as we move
forward, both the technological infrastructure and
resources, as well as human resources and skills (e.g.
students, teachers, administrators, etc.) must have
inherent flexibility and resilience in order to adapt to
evolving situations which require differing models of
educational deployment.
Synchronous
Asynchronous
DistributedSame location
CAMPUS MODELS
• Digital technology used
in campus
ONLINE MODELS
• Full net-based learning
• Traditional e-learning, eg. MOOC
BLENDED MODELS I
• Live distance learning
BLENDED MODELS II
• Combination of online
and physical
environments
Pre-COVID-19 MET
Shift in MET learning models
Figure 4. Models of technology-rich learning settings [10]
Paulsen [32] proposed the jigsaw model to define
the 4 differing systems that are required to work
together in order to support effective online learning
(See Figure 5): (i) Content Creation Tools (CCT) are
used by course designers and teachers to create the
content in online education courses; (ii) Learning
Management Systems (LMS) are web-based software
packages that enable administration, documentation,
tracking, reporting, automation and delivery of
educational courses, training programs, or learning
and development programs (iii) Student Management
Systems (SMS) for the management of information
about entities, such as students, faculty, courses,
applications, admissions, payment, exams, and
grades; and (iv) The Accounting Systems (AS) record
the economic transactions between the stakeholders of
online education.
Figure 5. The jigsaw model for online learning [32]
The scope of this article focuses on the impact of
technology on CCT and LMS. As emerging individual
technologies evolve to change how education is
delivered to students (through the LMS), so to do they
affect how classes, courses and programs are
organized and deployed by teachers (through the
CCT). In the efforts to redesign teaching and learning,
MET must balance and align curriculum, instruction,
and assessment with the instructional technology
features and the mediums employed. As an increasing
array of technological solutions become available,
creating new opportunities for both in-person and
distance learning requires that these components be
synchronized and evaluated with particular attention
paid to the educational objectives and principles of
learning [13]. Technology capabilities are now
allowing traditional education and MET LMS, such as
online platforms for file sharing, video lecturing,
student-student and student-instructor interaction, to
more sophisticated web-based simulators and Virtual
Reality (VR) applications for individual and team
training exercises [30]. This is enabling new
opportunities for blended models and online models.
66
5.3 Use of emergent technologies
As previously discussed, MET requires more
advanced online models for successful distance
education. Considering the unique challenges of MET,
we explore the emerging technologies that could hold
the key for future learning in MET post COVID-19.
Emerging technologies extends the possibilities for
online learning and continues to propel the
transformation of distance education [23]. Therefore,
technologies such as cloud computing, web-based
simulators, VR, artificial intelligence (AI) could play
significant role in shaping future MET.
5.3.1 Cloud computing and web-based simulators
Foster, Zhao, Raicu, and Lu [11] define cloud
computing as “A large scale distributed paradigm
driven by economies of scale, in which a pool of
abstracted, virtualized, dynamically scalable,
managed computing power, storage, platforms and
services are delivered on demand to external
customers over the internet ” . In the maritime
context, web ‐ based simulator for MET is the
software package accessible through online, either
cloud based or downloadable, which allows students
to interact and practice maritime equipment, tools and
systems with specified level of reality [38].
Figure 6. Continuum of simulator development, adapted
from Muirhead [31]
Figure 6 illustrates the continuum of simulator
development ranging from PC-based part task
trainers to full-mission training simulators with
increasing sophistication and training capabilities.
Muirhead [31] proposed web-based simulation
centers as the next step in the continuum where
students could access simulator training programs
and exercises from home, from ships or training
facilities. These web-based simulators have reached
the technological feasibility now with cloud
computing and faster internet access. However, web-
based simulators can work as a remote single task
trainer or at best as a multitask trainer but incapable
of providing the immersive training capabilities of full
mission simulators. Interactive 3D simulations, both
desktop PC and VR-based could fill this gap and
provide realistic training opportunities remotely.
Thus, they are befitting candidate for the next step in
the continuum of simulator development.
5.3.2 Virtual Reality simulations (portable/home VR)
A recent report on the outlook of Teaching and
Learning highlight how emergent technology has the
potential to transform future provision of higher
education [5]. There are two main envisioned changes
for the future education: Extended Reality (XR) and
Adaptive Learning (AL). XR covers a wide range of
technologies with a real environments at one end of
the continuum and immersive virtual environments at
the other end. XR includes Virtual reality (VR),
Augmented reality (AR) or any computer generated
reality [50]. XR provides students with learning
experiences that either blends physical and virtual
elements (AR) or provides a totally virtual immersive
experience (VR). Among the XR technologies, VR is
particularly interesting for technology-assisted
distance learning for MET. VR has long been
considered to have immense benefits for education
[8], especially in the field of training with simulators,
due to its ability to provide immersive, authentic
training experiences [33]. The immersive experience
from VR has the intention to replicate a real-life
experience. Most commonly, this is achieved through
the use of a head-mounted display (HMD) that covers
part of the face, have one display each for an eye and
simulates stereoscopic depth perception by presenting
slightly different views of the virtual world to each
eye, and by using sensors to track head and body
motion to simulate movements in the virtual
environment. With recent advances in VR technology,
especially regarding head-mounted displays (HMDs),
the interest of using VR HMDs to supplement
traditional training simulators has increased [12].
With the introduction of advanced and cost-
effective VR HMDs, VR technology promises to offer
high quality, immersive simulations at a relatively
low cost compared to traditional simulators. The
latest generation of VR technologies have lowered the
threshold for consumers, offering low latency, high
resolution displays, powerful computing and
graphical processors available in a compact, portable
package with price-points for a VR system at
hundreds of dollars, as opposed to several thousand
only a few years ago. It is still a significant cost of
investment for the majority of households around the
world but for professional training contexts the
technology has become more accessible than ever
before. This makes it now possible for having more
realistic and accurate virtual simulation experiences
remote to the training campuses [28].
5.3.3 Adaptive Learning
Adaptive Learning (AL) is considered as the next
stage of computer assisted training as AL systems
have the ability to provide students with immediate
assistance and resources specific to their learning
needs, and relevant feedback [46]. Computer assisted
training in general offers benefits for the students to
review the delivered topics in the classroom and self-
assessment of their own achievement as well as better
assessment opportunities for teachers. AL takes this
one step further and is based on the idea of adapting
the learning methods to the learning styles of the
students [24]. It is a data driven technique to provide
personalised learning to the students. AL systems
dynamically adjust the training content to individual
67
student’s knowledge and performance levels,
providing it in a fitting order that students require at
specific points in time to make progress. It employs
artificial intelligence (AI) and learning analytics
through algorithms, assessments, student feedback,
instructor adjustments/interventions, and various
media to deliver the learning contents to students [2].
The utilization of artificial intelligence creates
teaching “agents” that adaptively interact with
students and offer learning content and feedback
through sounds, voice and text. Learning analytics
gathers information about the learning outcome of the
students and inform the individual and group
progress to the students as well as the educators.
In order to be effective, the future MET should not
just rely on the developing learning materials and
make them available online for students like in
traditional e-learning. For an effective training
process, knowledge materials should be tailored to
various characteristics of the learner, such as specific
goals, preferences, knowledge, and learning style, so
that appropriate teaching strategies can be used. The
goal of the AL is exactly this, and therefore the future
MET could benefit considerably by properly applying
AL techniques not just in distance learning but also in
classroom-based education.
6 CHALLENGES FOR THE TECHNOLOGY-
ASSISTED DISTANCE LEARNING IN MET
We have discussed the current response to the
pandemic and several potential future scenarios of the
use of relatively ubiquitous and emergent
technologies for MET applications. At the same time,
it is important to consider the challenges of
successfully implementing these solutions. As the
maritime domain and MET community is highly
international with diverse cultures and resources, a
one size fits-all approach is rarely appropriate. In
particular, differences exist between seafaring nations
with regards to resources and technological
infrastructure and access, whether at home, in land-
based educational facilities or at sea. Access to basic
personal computers and a reliable network connection
with appropriate bandwidth can be challenging, and
thus a potential fundamental barrier for distance
learning in its modern form. Just as access to
traditional advanced full mission simulators and
educational facilities are a barrier for completing one’s
education and training, lack of access to basic IT
infrastructure can create inequalities for opportunities
in online educational models from the individual to
the MET facility.
6.1 Techno-Pedagogical skills for students and teachers
Techno-pedagogical skills are the skills needed for
using technology for pedagogical reasons and the
competence to integrate technology into teaching. As
the education move towards online, it is important to
ensure that the teachers and students have the
necessary technology skills. The current generation of
students (millennials and post-millennials) are
increasingly comfortable in adoption of technology
and generally confident in using computers, internet
and software programs [14]. However, one should not
assume that all students have the necessary
technology skills for learning and are comfortable
using them. It is also likely to have older students
other than millennials and post-millennials especially
in the continuing education. Thus, it is important to
ensure that the students have adequate digital literacy
before commencing the technology-assisted distance
learning.
Teachers play a key role in the education process
by providing reinforcement and expert knowledge to
facilitate students, and their specific needs,
throughout the learning process. Especially in MET,
the direct interaction between the instructor and
student within simulator-based training is an
important aspect for developing student knowledge,
providing feedback through verbal cues and physical
gestures [37].
One of the biggest challenges for successful
implementation of technology assisted distance
learning in MET is faculty adoption of technology. It
is yet to be seen how teachers, who were once mostly
accustomed to the physical classroom and face to face
interaction, are moving forward to adopt new
methods of e-teaching and e-learning. Muirhead [31]
argue that MET institutions in general have failed to
equip the teachers with the didactics training
necessary for using new technology in the classroom
or laboratory in an effective manner and many
students have greater computer skills and knowledge
than many of their teachers. This is a key issue and
inhibits the more widespread understanding and use
of ICT and simulation in the MET learning
environment [31]. This is only expected to get worse
as the learning environment moves further online and
more sophisticated technology such as VR is
introduced to MET. The first step to driving adaption
of a novel educational tool is to have the faculty
involved in the process and continuous collaboration
with them. We propose that strong faculty
engagement, early on, would motivate educators to
stay involved and advocate for the integration of
technology assisted distance learning into MET.
7 CONCLUSION
The COVID-19 pandemic has been a major disruption
for MET across the world. It is crucial that the
maritime educational community learns from its own
experiences, share its best practices and also look to
other domains for how they handle the crisis to
implement practical solutions for uninterrupted
education. We have shared our experience with a
blended learning approach we adopted for continued
education and discussed potential future scenarios for
MET. Technology has been utilized and quickly
adapted in an attempt to maintain teaching and
learning in the short-term, however, longer term
solutions and understanding of its impacts must be
developed to optimally organize and deploy future
MET. The world has been forced to adapt together in
the following period like never before in this highly
interconnected and globalized society. Thus, we are
learning, making mistakes, and adapting together.
The future of MET will likely look very different than
68
it did in pre-COVID-19 world. There are important
benefits to this change but there are significant
challenges that need to be addressed if the future and
continuing use of technology in maritime education is
to be effective, resilient and have a positive impact on
students, educators and the maritime domain as a
whole.
REFERENCES
1. Anderson, J.R.: Acquisition of cognitive skill.
Psychological Review. 89, 4, 369–406 (1982).
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.89.4.369.
2. Atkinson, S.P.: Adaptive Learning and Learning
Analytics: a new learning design paradigm. BPP
Working Papers. (2015).
3. Bertram, V., Plowman, T.: Digital training solutions in
the maritime context: Options and costs. Maritime
Technology and Research. 2, 2, 52–68 (2020).
https://doi.org/10.33175/mtr.2020.190782.
4. Biggs, J., Tang, C.: Teaching for Quality Learning at
University. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill Education (2011).
5. Brown, M. et al.: 2020 Educause Horizon Report
Teaching and Learning Edition. EDUCAUSE (2020).
6. Chen, X. et al.: The Application of E-learning in
Maritime Education and Training in China. TransNav,
the International Journal on Marine Navigation and
Safety of Sea Transportation. 11, 2, 349–354 (2017).
https://doi.org/10.12716/1001.11.02.19.
7. Costa, N. et al.: Testing Proof of Concept of a Web-Based
Ship Manoeuvring Training Tool in the Classroom. In:
Proceedings of Ergoship. (2019).
8. Dalgarno, B., Lee, M.J.W.: What are the learning
affordances of 3-D virtual environments? British Journal
of Educational Technology. 41, 1, 10–32 (2010).
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01038.x.
9. Damşa, C. et al.: Quality in Norwegian Higher
Education: A review of research on aspects affecting
student learning. NIFU (2015).
10. Fossland, T.: Moving beyond learning in net-based
higher education? In: Fossland, T. et al. (eds.) Academic
Bildung in Net-based Higher Education. Routledge,
London (2015).
11. Foster, I. et al.: Cloud Computing and Grid Computing
360-Degree Compared. In: 2008 Grid Computing
Environments Workshop. pp. 1–10 (2008).
https://doi.org/10.1109/GCE.2008.4738445.
12. Freina, L., Ott, M.: A Literature Review on Immersive
Virtual Reality in Education: State Of The Art and
Perspectives. Presented at the eLearning and Software
for Education (eLSE) , Bucharest (Romania) April 1
(2015).
13. Garrick, R. et al.: Creating Technology Rich Learning
Environments for the Classroom. In: Wankel, C. and
Blessinger, P. (eds.) Increasing Student Engagement and
Retention Using Classroom Technologies: Classroom
Response Systems and Mediated Discourse
Technologies. pp. 263–306 Emerald Group Publishing
Limited (2013). https://doi.org/10.1108/S2044-
9968(2013)000006E012.
14. Groff, J.: Technology-rich innovative learning
environments. , OCED CERI Innovative Learning
Environment project (2013).
15. Guri-Rosenblit, S.: Distance Education in the Digital
Age: Common Misconceptions and Challenging Tasks.
Journal of Distance Education. 23, 105–122 (2009).
16. Haavardtun, P. et al.: Using Virtual Worlds as an
Integrated Part of Virtual Distance Learning (VDL)
Networks in Simulator-Based Education. In: Nazir, S. et
al. (eds.) Advances in Human Factors in Training,
Education, and Learning Sciences. pp. 276–282 Springer
International Publishing, Cham (2020).
17. Haiyan, Y.: Blended Learning Will Be Applicable in
Maritime Education and Training. Journal of Shipping
and Ocean Engineering. 6, 31–34 (2016).
https://doi.org/10.17265/2159-5879/2016.01.004.
18. Hanzu-Pazara, R. et al.: Reducing of maritime accidents
caused by human factors using simulators in training
process. Journal of Maritime Research. 5, 1, 3–18 (2008).
19. Hensen, H.: Ship bridge simulators: a project handbook.
Nautical Institute, London (1999).
20. Hjelmervik, K. et al.: Simulator training for maritime
complex tasks: an experimental study. WMU Journal of
Maritime Affairs. 17, 1, 17–30 (2018).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13437-017-0133-0.
21. Hrastinski, S.: Asynchronous and Synchronous E-
Learning. Educause quarterly. 31, 4, 51–55 (2008).
22. IAMU: Summary results of the survey on the impact of
and response to COVID-19 by IAMU member
universities. (2020).
23. Johnson, S.D., Aragon, S.R.: An instructional strategy
framework for online learning environments. New
Directions for Adult and Continuing Education. 2003,
100, 31–43 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.117.
24. Jones, V., Jo, J.: Ubiquitous learning environment: An
adaptive teaching system using ubiquitous technology.
In: Beyond the comfort zone: Proceedings of the 21st
ASCILITE Conference. (2004).
25. Karkama, M., Helminen, R.: Online Learning for On-
Board Training Officers. In: Advanced Learning
Technologies, IEEE International Conference on. p. 280
IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA, USA (2003).
https://doi.org/10.1109/ICALT.2003.1215083.
26. Kitada, M. et al.: Learning theories meet virtual
classroom technologies: understanding new educational
opportunities in maritime education and training. In:
Global perspectives in MET: Towards Sustainable,
Green and Integrated Maritime Transport. (2019).
27. König, J. et al.: Adapting to online teaching during
COVID-19 school closure: teacher education and teacher
competence effects among early career teachers in
Germany. null. 43, 4, 608–622 (2020).
https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2020.1809650.
28. Mallam, S.C. et al.: Rethinking Maritime Education,
Training, and Operations in the Digital Era:
Applications for Emerging Immersive Technologies.
Journal of Marine Science and Engineering. 7, 12, (2019).
https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse7120428.
29. Manuel, M.E.: Vocational and academic approaches to
maritime education and training (MET): Trends,
challenges and opportunities. WMU Journal of Maritime
Affairs. 16, 3, 473–483 (2017).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13437-017-0130-3.
30. Markopoulos, E. et al.: Maritime Safety Education with
VR Technology (MarSEVR). In: 2019 10th IEEE
International Conference on Cognitive
Infocommunications (CogInfoCom). pp. 283–288 (2019).
https://doi.org/10.1109/CogInfoCom47531.2019.9089997.
31. Muirhead, P.M.P.: New technology and maritime
training in the 21st century: Implications and solutions
for MET institutions. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs.
3, 2, 139–158 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03195056.
32. Paulsen, M.F.: Online Education Systems: Discussion
and Definition of Terms. NKI distance education. 202, 1–
8 (2002).
33. Psotka, J.: Immersive training systems: Virtual reality
and education and training. Instructional Science. 23,
5/6, 405–431 (1995).
34. Renganayagalu, S.K. et al.: Impact of Simulation Fidelity
on Student Self-efficacy and Perceived Skill
Development in Maritime Training. TransNav, the
International Journal on Marine Navigation and Safety
of Sea Transportation. 13, 3, 663–669 (2019).
https://doi.org/10.12716/1001.13.03.25.
35. Salas, E. et al.: It Is Not How Much You Have but How
You Use It: Toward a Rational Use of Simulation to
69
Support Aviation Training. null. 8, 3, 197–208 (1998).
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327108ijap0803_2.
36. Sellberg, C.: Simulators in bridge operations training
and assessment: a systematic review and qualitative
synthesis. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs. 16, 2, 247–
263 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13437-016-0114-8.
37. Sellberg, C., Lundin, M.: Tasks and instructions on the
simulated bridge: Discourses of temporality in maritime
training. Discourse Studies. 20, 2, 289–305 (2018).
https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445617734956.
38. Sokolov, S. et al.: Compliance with Legal Aspects of the
Applying of e-Learning in the Training of Seafarers.
TransNav, the International Journal on Marine
Navigation and Safety of Sea Transportation. 11, 3, 457–
460 (2017). https://doi.org/10.12716/1001.11.03.10.
39. STCW: International Convention on Standards of
Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for
Seafarers,(STCW) 1978, as amended in 1995/2010.
International Maritime Organisation, London, UK.
(2011).
40. The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health: Pandemic school
closures: risks and opportunities. The Lancet Child &
Adolescent Health. 4, 5, 341 (2020).
https://doi.org/10.1016/S2352-4642(20)30105-X.
41. Vagle, C. et al.: Towards Improving e-Learning
Platforms for Professional Education. In: Proceedings of
the 50th Nordic Human Factors and Ergonomics Society
Conference (NES 2019, DENMARK. (2019).
42. Vassileva, D.: Adaptive E-learning Content Design and
Delivery Based on Learning Styles and Knowledge
Level. Serdica Journal of Computing. 6, 207–252 (2012).
43. Veritas, D.N.: Standard for certification No. 2.14
maritime simulator systems. Det Norske Veritas (DNV)
Standards for Certification. (2011).
44. Voith, A.: Maritime schools embracing digital tools for
learning and training,
https://www.kongsberg.com/digital/resources/stories/20
20/4/maritime-schools-embracing-digital-tools-for-
learning-and-training/, last accessed 2022/03/10.
45. Wahl, A.M.: Expanding the concept of simulator fidelity:
the use of technology and collaborative activities in
training maritime officers. Cognition, Technology &
Work. 22, 1, 209–222 (2020).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-019-00549-4.
46. Walkington, C.A.: Using Adaptive Learning
Technologies to Personalize Instruction to Student
Interests: The Impact of Relevant Contexts on
Performance and Learning Outcomes. Journal of
Educational Psychology. 105, 4, 932–945 (2013).
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031882.
47. Weintrit, A., Neumann, T.: Advances in marine
navigation and safety of sea transportation.
Introduction. Advances in Marine Navigation and
Safety of Sea Transportation - 13th International
Conference on Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea
Transportation, TransNav 2019. 1 (2019).
48. Weintrit, A., Neumann, T.: STCW, maritime education
and training (MET), human resources and crew
manning, maritime policy, logistics and economic
matters. Introduction. Marine Navigation and Safety of
Sea Transportation: STCW, Maritime Education and
Training (MET), Human Resources and Crew Manning,
Maritime Policy, Logistics and Economic Matters. 9–10
(2013).
49. World Bank: The COVID-19 Crisis Response:
Supporting Tertiary Education for Continuity,
Adaptation, and Innovation. World Bank, Washington,
DC (2020). https://doi.org/10.1596/34571.
50. Yachina, N.P. et al.: Mixed Objective-Virtual Reality:
Theoretical Analysis of Basic Characteristics of Modern
Education. INT ELECT J MATH ED. 11, 1, 271–278
(2016).
APPENDIX
Questionnaire
Q1
Taking this class in the blended format allowed me to
arrange my work for the class more effectively.
Q2
The advantages of taking this class in the blended
format outweighed any disadvantages
Q3
Taking this class in the blended format allowed me to
spend more time on non-related activities
Q4
There were no serious disadvantages to taking this
class in the blended format
Q5
Taking this class in the blended format allowed me to
arrange my work schedule more effectively
Q6
Taking this class in the blended format saved me a lot
of time commuting to class
Q7
Taking this class in the blended format allowed me to
take a class I would otherwise have to miss
Q8
Taking this class in the blended format should allow
me to finish my degree more quickly
Q9
Conducting the course in the blended format
improved the quality of the course compared to other
courses.
Q10
The quality of the course compared favourably to my
other courses
Q11
I feel the quality of the course I took was largely
unaffected by conducting it in the blended format.
Q12
I am satisfied with my decision to take this course in
the blended format
Q13
If I had an opportunity to take another course in the
blended format, I would gladly do so
Q14
I feel that this course served my needs well
Q15
I will take as many courses in the blended format as I
can
Q16
Conducting the course in the blended format made it
more difficult than other courses I have taken
Q17
The technology used in this course were appropriate
for performing the tasks required.
Perceived Learner satisfaction
Technology appropriateness
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Strongly
agree
Blended learning course flexibility
Blended learning course quality
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Somewhat
agree
Agree
