381
1 INTRODUCTION
In maritime education and training, knowledge and
skill transfer isachieved through classroom training
and practical shipboard training. Lectures are
generally given in the classroom. To achieve the
desiredeffects,exerciseassignmentsandexperiments
are combined. Trainees perform actual shipboard
training independently, which is thought to be an
active learning method. Compared with a lecture in
which students passively listen to the speaker,
practical shipboard training is thought to be more
effective. Although actual shipboard training is
effective,simplepracticeofthecoursecontentisnot
sufficient on its own. Students must also perform
tasks that have been
taught or decided upon within
thepracticalsession.Furthermore,effectivetrainingis
important for active thinking and problem solving
skills.
It found that anchoring training on a training
voyage has a significant effect on the acquisition of
shiphandlingskills.(Kashimaetal.(2001))Itfound
that anchoring training also helps students develop
activethinkingandproblem solving skills.(Kunieda
etal.(2018))Thefollowingstepswereinvolvedinthis
study.
1 The effects of each studentʹs training were
collectedfrominstructorresponsestorubrics.
2 Subjective feedback from instructors and trainees
was examined to find improvements to the
trainingregime.
3 Improvement in overall ship handling skills was
examined in terms of how anchor training
improvesinformationtransferacross
domains.
Study on Effective Maritime Training through the
Anchoring Training
Y.Kunieda,K.Murai&H.Kashima
TokyoUniversityofMarineScienceandTechnology,Tokyo,Japan
M.Sugawara
J
apanAgencyofMaritimeEducationandTrainingforSeafarers,Tokyo,Japan
ABSTRACT:Anchoringexercisesonatrainingshiphaveasignificanteffectontheacquisitionofshiphandling
skills.Furthermore,suchtrainingisalsoeffectiveforthedevelopmentofcriticalthinkingandproblemsolving.
Theauthorsinvestigatedthistopictodevelop
effectivetrainingmethodsforanchoringexercises.Wecreateda
rubricforanchortraining,andtheinstructorevaluatedtraineesbasedontherubricitems.Theserubricswere
effectiveforjudgingtraineeperformance.Theeffectofdialogueingroupworkwasshownbycommentsfrom
instructorsandthetrainees.Grouppresentationswere
alsoevaluatedviastudentcomments.Afterconducting
theanchoringtraininginnativelanguageinthespring,thesameexercisewasconductedinEnglishinthefall.
OnlyEnglishinstructionswereofferedduringthetrainingexerciseinthefirstyear(2016).Inthesecondyear
(2017),studentstookabriefe‐learning
courseinEnglishaboutanchoringbeforeattemptingthesecondexercise
inEnglish.Accordingtoinstructorevaluations,thesecondsessionin2017sawamuchgreaterimprovementin
trainee performance than did the second session in 2016. English practice in the e‐learning course allowed
studentstofocusmoreonpractising
thetechniquestheyhadlearnedpreviouslywhenperformingthesecond
trainingexerciseinEnglish.
http://www.transnav.eu
the International Journal
on Marine Navigation
and Safety of Sea Transportation
Volume 13
Number 2
June 2019
DOI:10.12716/1001.13.02.15
382
2 ANCHORINGTRAINING
Anchoring training is a suitable exercise for the
improvement of ship handling. In this training,
student teams practice without instructor assistance.
First, the students heave up the anchor and sail a
planned route. Then, after passing planned
waypoints, the students drop anchor at the planned
anchorage.The
trainingexerciseisperformedinfour‐
personteams.Eachteamhasonestudentintheroleof
captain (ROC), one as first officer (RO1O), one as
third officer (RO3O) and another as quartermaster
(ROQ). Because the training is carried out in teams,
the group work involves peer‐to‐peer learning.
(Mochizuki(2013))Thestepsofthisexercisearelisted
below:
1 TheROCtakestheleadandformsthenavigation
plan. This active student planning of the ship
handling provides a leadership improvement
opportunityfortheROC.Meanwhile,astheROC
explains the navigation plan to his or her team‐
mates
and instructors, and corrects the plan
accordingtotheirfeedback,opportunitiesforpeer
learning arise. (Mochizuki (2013)) After revising
the ship handling plan, the ROC briefs the team
membersandinstructors.
2 TheROCpositionshisor her crew when leaving
theanchorage.Heorshethencallsonthe
RO3Oto
startthegeneralservicepumpforhaulingupthe
anchorchains,directsthepreparationofthemain
engine,anddirectsthehaulingupoftheanchor.
3 When the anchor is aweigh, the ROC directs the
ship on a predetermined course using the main
engine and rudder. Then, the
ROC corrects the
course appropriately so that the planned route is
followed. The ship passes two scheduled
waypointsandnavigatesthepredeterminedroute.
4 The ROC slows the main engine, adjusting the
course.Heorshethenstopstheship,applyingthe
main engine to sternway, to drop anchor at
the
plannedanchorage.
5 The ROC drops the anchor at the planned
anchorage,letsoutcablesofpredeterminedlength,
and stops the main engine. He or she then
dismissestheanchoringstation.
6 The students carry out a self‐evaluation using a
rubric shortly after the end of the exercise. The
rubric evaluation list that the instructors and
studentsusedcontained the following nine items
and the items were evaluated with a four‐level
indicator:
Procedureforheaving‐upanchor
Coursesetting
Look‐out
Give‐wayorstand‐onshiphandling
Positionfixingandanchoringposition
Anchoringprocedure
Gradualspeeddecrease
Bridge resource management (BRM) / bridge
teammanagement(BTM)
Overalltraining
7 After the exercise, each group discusses their
performance.ROCpresentstoallthemembersthe
contents discussed in the team, and the other
studentslistentothepresentation.Indoing
so,the
studentsconsiderarangeofissuesandengagein
active thinking. Strong points and points for
improvement in training performance are
discussed within each team. Then, the content
discussed by each team is presented to the other
teams.Atthesametime,theinstructorsʹcomments
ontheteamsʹ
performancebasedontheevaluation
rubricareshowed.
8 Students reflect on and suggest improvements to
therubricusedintheself‐evaluation.
3 RESULTS
67third‐yearstudentsintheundergraduatemaritime
system engineering course at Tokyo University of
Marine Science and Technology performed the
anchoringexerciseinJapanesein
May2016.Thesame
studentsrepeatedthe exerciseinOctober using only
English. 67 more third‐year students undertook the
same sequence of exercises in May and October of
2017.Theplannedrouteandanexampleofanactual
course taken by one of the ships are illustrated in
Figure
1.
Figure1.Plannedrouteandtrainingtrack.
3.1 Instructors’evaluationresultsande‐learningof
MaritimeEnglish
In the anchoring exercise, two instructors who are
experienced in captaining a large training ship
evaluated the trainees using a rubric. In the rubric,
eachitemis ratedfrom1to4,4 indicating excellent
performance. The average evaluation scores of
two
instructorspereachitemforeachsession areshown
inTable1.AnchoringtraininginMay2016isshown
as ‘2016 (1)’, anchoring training in October 2016 is
shownas‘2016(2)’,anchoringtraininginMay2017is
shownas’2017(1)’,andanchoringtraininginOctober
2017is
shownas‘2017(2)’.Theaveragerubricscores
fromallfourtrainingsessionsareshowninFigure2.
383
Table1. Instructorsʹ average evaluation scores for each
session
_______________________________________________
No. EvaluationItem AverageEvaluationScore
_________________________
2016 2016 2017 2017
(1) (2) (1) (2)
_______________________________________________
1 Procedureforheaving‐up2.91 2.94 3.13 3.71
anchor
2 Look‐out1.84 2.06 2.19 2.64
3 Coursesetting1.75 2.50 2.00 2.36
4 Give‐wayorstand‐on 1.84 2.31 2.28 2.86
shiphandling
5 Positionfixingand 2.19 2.81 2.25 2.36
anchoringposition
6 Anchoringprocedure
2.63 2.75 3.03 3.14
7 Gradualspeeddecrease 2.44 2.38 2.72 3.43
8 BRM/BTM1.97 2.38 2.44 3.43
9 Thewholeofthetraining1.84 2.44 2.19 3.43
10Average2.16 2.51 2.47 3.04
_______________________________________________
Figure2.Averagevalueofeachevaluationitem
According to Table 1 and Figure 2, the highest‐
evaluated items were ‘Procedure for heaving‐up
anchor’, ‘Anchoring procedure’ and ‘Gradual speed
decrease.’ On the other hand, the items ‘course
setting’, ‘look‐out’ and ‘give‐way or stand‐on ship
handling’wererelativelylow.
Theaveragevaluesofallevaluationitems
foreach
year and each session are shown in Fig. 3. Fig. 3
shows that the second session wasrated better than
thefirstinboth2016and2017.Agreaterincreasein
scores occurred over the two sessions in 2017; the
session scores were different by 16.3% in 2016,
and
differedby23.1%in2017.BasedontheresultofFtest
of two specimens, t test assumed to be equal
distributionwasperformed.Asaresult,itwasp>0.05
in 2016. On the other hand, it is p< 0.05 and the
significantdifferencewasshownin2017.
Figure3.Theaveragevalueofallevaluationitemsin2016
and2017
The evaluation score of BRM/BTM in 2016 and
2017areshowninFigure4.
Figure4.EvaluationscoresofBRM/BTMin2016and2017
Figure4showsthatevaluationscoresimprovedby
40.7% in 2017, while the increase in performance in
2016was20.6%.Andconcerningtheresultofttest,it
was p<0.05 in 2016, and was p<0.01 in 2017. The
significant difference was shown for both years and
especially2017wereremarkable.
The
first anchoring exercise in May was carried
out in Japanese, and the second exercise in October
wasconductedinEnglish,inbothyears.Weexpected
that trainees would find the English‐language
exercise more difficult. The trainees filled out a
questionnaire about the difficulty of performing the
exercise in English
to assess this expectation. The
resultsofthe questionnaireareshowninFig. 5.The
uppergraphshows results from 2016 and the lower
①
Procedureforheaving‐upanchor
②
Lookout
③
Coursesetting
④
Give‐wayorstand‐onshiphandling
⑤
Positionfixingandanchoringposition
⑥
Anchoringprocedure
⑦
Gradualspeeddecrease
⑧
BRM/BTM
⑨
Thewholeofthetraining
points
points
*
*：p<0.05
,
**：p<0.01
**
384
graphshowsresultsfrom2017.Thestudentsin2017.
Thosewhoansweredfeltitastheburdenverymuch
fromthefiguretendedtofindEnglish‐languagetobe
lessofaburden.
Figure5.FeedbackabouttheburdenoftraininginEnglish
Only English worksheets about the anchoring
trainingwere distributed to the trainees in2016.On
the other hand, trainees completed an e‐learning
course about the anchoring training beforehand in
2017,andtraineesneededtoscore90%ormoreofon
an examination before undertaking the shipboard
exercise. The trainees in
2017 were therefore more
prepared to undertake the exercise in English. As a
result, an instructor commented in 2017 that the
traineesdidnotstrugglewithEnglishasmuchasthey
didin2016.
3.2 Instructorcomments
The instructors’ comments written in the comments
fieldoftheevaluationlistinclude
technicalandnon‐
technicalcontent;somearelistedbelow:
Technicalcomments:
1 Understanding of the procedure of hauling the
anchorupwasinsufficientandtherewaswasted
time.
2 Theuseofbowandsternmarkswasinsufficient,
and the course setting was not appropriately
completed.
3 Inonecase,the
passingdistancefromfishingboat
wastoosmall.
4 Because there was too much focus on a single
detail,thewholecouldnotbegrasped.
5 Because the trainee was not able to understand
terms such as ‘distance to new course’ or ‘wheel
overpoint’,steeringwassometimeslate.
6
Because the trainee’s grasp of the ship’s position
wasinsufficient,theslowdownwaslate.
Thetechnicalfieldsincluded:
1 Contentabouttheship’smanoeuvring
2 Contentabouttheship‐handlingforgivingwayto
othervessels
3 Contentabouttheship’spositioning
The following comments were of a non‐technical
nature.
1 Trainees’ understanding of the planning for ship
handlingwassound,becausetheplanningprocess
wasdiscussedandrecreatedmanytimes.
2 Because the prior preparation was sufficient, the
procedures for hauling up the anchor and for
anchoringwereexecutedwell.
3 Because role playing before the exercise and
visualisation
training were inadequate, trainees’
reactions to unpredictable situations were
insufficient.
4 Because the reports to the ROC were time‐
consuming, the trainees in the ROC did not
sufficientlygraspthem.
5 Although the trainee in the ROC depended too
much on the trainee navigation officer, he or she
remainedawareof
teammanagement.
6 Thetraineebecametoostressedtounderstandthe
appropriateactiontotake.
Non‐technical fields in the feedback report
included:
1 Theeffectsofgroupwork
2 Theeffectsofpriortraining
3 Managementofresourcesandteamwork
3.3 Traineecomments
Trainee comments were organised into positive
feedback about the exercise and suggestions for
improvement.Themostfrequentcommentsarelisted
below:
1 Other groups’ feedback could be heard, so we
wereabletousethesepointstoimproveourown
ship‐handling.
2 Because we formed the navigation plan
independently, and we had the opportunity to
perform
it, we learned about all aspects of ship‐
handling.
3 Each of us trained responsibly within a small
group.
4 Discussion about navigation planning within our
groupwaseffective.
5 Understandingwasdeepenedbytheindependent
thinkingintheexercise.
6 Wecooperatedwellwithourteam‐matesbecause
of
theclearlydefinedroles.
Traineesgavemanycommentsthatwerepositive
abouttheexercise.
The following comments were the main
improvementssuggestedbytrainees:
1 Theinfluenceofwindandcurrentcouldhavebeen
takenintoaccountbetter.
2 Ilookedoutinalldirections,withoutfocussingon
anyonething.
3 I learned to perform the look‐out and report
according to the intentions of the trainee in the
ROC.
4 I should achieve ship positioning and make
positioningreportsmorequickly.
5 Targets could be better understood in advance
usingachart.
6 Persons in other roles gave information
to the
traineeintheROCeffectively.
7 Thecaptaintraineeneedstokeepallaspectsofthe
exerciseinmind.
2017
2016
385
Non‐technical improvements, such as advance
preparation and sharper mental attitude, were also
suggested.
4 DISCUSSION
4.1 Instructorevaluations
According to the instructors’ evaluation, the
procedures for hauling up and dropping the anchor
were followed well. These procedures were
effectively memorised by the trainees. Most trainee
teamsslowedtheship
downeffectively,inagradual
manner. On the other hand, many trainee teams
struggledtosetacourseappropriatelyandmodifyit
accordingtothesituation.Moreover,traineestended
toperformpoorlyintermsoflookingoutforfishing
boats,andincomingandoutgoingships.
Trainee performance increasedmore between
the
twosessionsin2017.Webelievethatthistrendgives
evidenceoftheeffectivenessoftheEnglishe‐learning
coursethattraineestookbeforetheexercisein2017.
Fewer students found English‐language
communicationtobeaburdenin2017.Theimproved
comfortwithcommunicationskillsencouragedbythe
e
‐learning course allowed trainees to focus more on
ship‐handlingtasksinthesecondsessionof2017.
4.2 Comments
Thecommentsfrominstructorsandtraineeswereabout
four stages of the exercise: planning, execution,
evaluationandimprovement.
These stages suggest that the anchoring exercise
canbeframedasaPlan‐
Do‐Check‐Act(PDCA)cycle.
Thereisplanningoftheshiphandlingasa plan.As
execution, the anchoring training is carried out. As
evaluation,mutualevaluationandself‐evaluationare
performed during and after the exercise. The rubric
feedback is incorporated in the second training
exercise, as an opportunity for
improvement. The
instructor reviews are also incorporated into the
improvement step. The PDCA cycle tends to be
effective. This cycle guides us to offer the following
improvements to future iterations of the anchoring
trainingexercise:
1 Groupworkintheplanningstage:Implementation
ofdialogue, exchange of opinions and discussion
within the group is very effective. Instructor
facilitationofthegroupworkplanningisessential.
2 Instructors’chequeintheplanningstage:Trainees
improve by following the instructors’ advice.
Thinking independently about the instructorʹs
adviceandimprovinghasaneffectinpromotion
of an understanding and in acquisition of
knowledge.
Afterlisteningtoanexplanationfrom
the trainee, the instructor gives feedback so that
thetraineecanthinkindependentlyin the restof
theplanningphase.
3 Briefingintheplanningstage:Informationsharing
in a group, clarification of role assignments and
duplicatechequescanbeincorporatedinabriefing
during the navigation planning phase. Trainees
coulddiscussthebriefingcontentquickly,andask
instructors for advice about cooperation among
theteam.
4 Briefing in the planning stage: When the ROC
trainee explains the ship handling plan to
instructors and trainees, the ROCs’ own
understandingoftheplandeepens.
5 Simulation
in the planning stage: The
implementationofasimulationthatconsidersthe
effects of various factors on the navigation plan
couldbehelpful.
6 Creation of the evaluation list in the planning
stage: Trainees could generate their own rubrics
before completing the exercise. Choosing
evaluation items helps trainees to consider
the
importantpartsoftheexercise.
7 Goalsettingintheexecutionstage:Thedistanceof
thetargetsfromtheplannedrouteissetupatthe
time of a route sailing, along with the distance
betweenthetargetandtheplannedanchoragesite.
The Distance of Closest Pointed Approach to
the
targetisdeterminediftheshipneedstogive‐way
to another vessel. These benchmarks increase
traineemotivation.
8 Ship handling intention manifested in the
executionstage:AspartofBRM/BTM,thetrainee
of the ROC can promote his or her own
understanding by communicating intentions
clearlytothe
restoftheteam.
9 Directionsintheexecutionstage:TheROCtrainee
directs required work to the team members.
Thereby, while ROC relays the ship handling
intentions, independent thinking is promoted by
situationalworkcommands.
10 Assistance in the execution stage: RO1O and
RO3O carry out the work and report
on their
progresstotheROC.Thenavigationofficershould
also think from the perspective of the captain to
promoteunderstanding.
11 Self‐evaluationinthe evaluation stage: With self‐
evaluation, the ROC reviews his or her ship‐
handling skills and considers individual
improvements.
12 Peerreviewintheevaluation
stage:Byevaluating
teammembers,thetraineenoticesaspectsofship‐
handlingthatrequirespecialattention,andthinks
of improvements, which encourages long‐term
retention.
13 Improvement of the evaluation list in the
improvement stage: The traineeʹs understanding
ship‐handling could be deepened by improving
theevaluationitemsandcriteria
oftheevaluation
listofrubricform.Theimprovementofevaluation
items can clarify aspects of ship‐handling that
requirespecialattention.
14 Groupworkintheimprovementstage:Discussing
thegoodpointsandpointsforimprovementafter
training leads to the improvement of a traineeʹs
ship handling skills.
As trainees reflect
independently and in dialogue, this step can
dramaticallyimprovethetraining’seffectiveness.
15 Presentation in the improvement stage:
Presentation of the results achieved by the team
helps with mastery. Moreover, trainees can learn
from other teams who experienced different
circumstances.
16 Instructors’ debriefing in the improvement stage:
The
traineesobtainnewawarenessofknowledge
andskillsbylisteningtotheexplanationfromthe
386
instructor.Thisawarenessisnotobtainedfromthe
traineesʹpresentationsalone.
17 Assignment in the improvement stage: Trainees
should complete independent work after the
exercisetoencouragelong‐termretention.Trainees
could prepare a revised ship‐handling plan
independentlyasanat‐homeassignment.
By participating in this training, the
trainees
learned to think for themselves, use judgement and
perform skilled practical tasks. By thinking for
themselves, we believe that trainees become capable
of making a suitable correspondence to other
situations.
Takahashi (2008) showed that group work
increases student motivation. In particular, group
workintheplanningstageiseffective,
basedonthe
commentsfromtheinstructorsandtrainees.Theship
handlingbriefing,whichisusuallycarriedoutwhile
enteringtheport,isalsoeffective.Moreover,theeffect
ofthis briefing is greater because he instructor adds
suitable facilitation. Instructor facilitation is
indispensable, especially for the trainees who have
minimal ship
handling experience. Regarding
facilitation, some strategies promote intellectually
creativeactivities,asshownbyOishi(2008).Whenan
instructor gives suitable advice, trainees think by
themselves and become capable of performing the
better skills of ship handling. As for more effective
and more suitable facilitation, further observation is
required.
Inthe
executionstage,thinkingisneeded during
theactofexecution,andcorrespondencewithvarious
situations is needed. According to the situation at a
given time, trainees must consider the relative
positions of fishing boats, fishing gear, or other
vessels, and they must adjust the navigation plan
independently. Moreover, according to the
situation
athand,traineesmustrespondtowindandcurrents.
Thisindependentthinkingincreasestheeffectiveness
oftheexercise.
In the evaluation stage, reflection occurs during
self‐evaluation and peer review. Through this
reflection, the traineesʹ understanding of ship
handling progresses and an improvement in their
shiphandlingskillsis
achieved.Intheself‐evaluation,
traineesconsidertheirship handling deeply and are
conscious of the points that should be improved. In
peer review, other groupsʹ good points are adopted
by the trainees themselves, and the points for
improvement are considered as reference for future
shiphandling.
In the improvement stage,
we believe that
summarisingtheimprovementsontheevaluationlist
and the improvement in oneʹs ship handling ability
improves trainees’ skills. Moreover, notifications
about ship handling are obtained from group work
during the team debriefing. Similarly, by giving
group presentations, trainees identify points to fix
abouttheirteamwork.
5 SUMMARY
In May, anchoring training was conducted in
Japanese,whichisthestudents’nativelanguage.The
same anchoring training was conducted in English
fivemonthsafter.Thesamesequenceofexerciseswas
repeatedthenextyear.AlthoughtheOctobersessions
were more difficult due to the use of English,
performance
improved in both years because the
trainees had completed the exercise once before.
Performanceimproved much more between the two
sessions in the second year. This difference is
explained by the online pre‐training in English that
wasrequiredbeforethesecondsessioninthesecond
year.Traineesstruggledmore
withEnglish‐language
termsinthefirstyearbecausetheyhadnotcompleted
this e‐learning course. Trainees were therefore more
prepared to communicate about ship‐handling in
English in 2017. The anchoring exercise involves
every aspect of handling the ship. Each element of
those skills, including communication between
crewmembers, is
important to overall performance.
This study shows that repetition of the training
exercise is effective for encouraging performance
improvement, and that undergoing the training
exercise in a second language can effectively
encourage critical thinking and skill transfer across
thedomainsinvolvedinhandlingaship.
REFERENCES
Kashima,Hideyuki,etal.,2001.AbouttheTrainingEffectof
Ship Handling Training. Journal of the National Institute
forSeaTraining,1,17‐38.
Kunieda, Yoshiaki, et.al., 2018. Study on Education of
SeamanshipintheAnchoringTraining,the16thWorld
CongressoftheInternationalAssociationofInstitutesof
NavigationProceedings,
77‐82
Mochizuki,Michiko,2013.OnPeerLearningandLearning
Process in JSL Learners, Kansai University, Bulletin of
FacultyofForeignLanguageStudies,8,87‐97.
Oishi, Kanako, 2008. Technique of Facilitation–Talks to
ActiveEngineeringDesignEducation.JournalofJapanese
SocietyforEngineeringEducation,56(6),176‐180.
Takahashi, Toshio, 2008.
Toward More Active Classroom
Interaction–A Consideration of Implementing Learner‐
centredGroupWorkinClass,KansaiUniversityforum
forforeignlanguageeducation,7,23‐34.
