S. Nazir et al.

different people. Cooperation is of course an important consideration to take into

account. However, the systematic group division was not found to encounter the
student’s actual needs or knowledge. Which could be seen as a necessary aspect, to
facilitate an increased understanding within the group.

5.4.2 Sequencing

All cases utilized sequencing in their simulator training. Nevertheless, the way each
case introduced sequencing varied from case to case. Cases 1 and 6 utilized
part-skill sequencing to introduce the students to the different skills needed in
different visibilities. The students must learn the basic skills to navigate in day
light, before they are introduced to night-time and reduced visibility where
other skills are necessary. As for example; knowledge regarding navigation lights and
how to use the radar.
Case 1 also utilized a task-based sequencing, and a progression of the implemented
equipment was described. In addition, the removing of a GPS-signal was described to
increase the complexity. Indicating the use of part-task sequencing, since the removing
of a GPS-signal will affect other components in the bridge.
Furthermore, cases 1 and 3 mentioned the importance of Bbalancing^ the
exercise or taking the student’s knowledge into account. Indicating that all
students have the chance to follow with a constant progression. Additionally,
this indicates that the progression is following the student’s understanding.
Subsequently, this suggests that the student’s knowledge might increase due to such
balancing (Hays et al. 1992; White 1984).
Cases 2, 3, and 4 mainly described the full mission simulator training to contain a
progression with an increased complexity towards the end, while case 5 described their
first exercise to be quite easy, followed by a high-load exercise during the second
session. However, it was described that the complexity was reduced after this session,
with an increased complexity towards the end of the training, indicating that a proper
sequencing in accordance with the literature is conducted (Collins and Kapur 2014;
Farmer et al. 1999).

5.5 Feedback

5.5.1 Briefing

The briefing was analyzed to be conducted by 66.66%, cases 1, 2, 4, and 6, as we can

see in Table 6. The reason for this conclusion stems from the IMO model course 6.10,
where a simulator session is suggested to include briefing, planning, simulator exercise,
and debriefing. Consequently, a simulator session is suggested to start with a briefing,
where four of the designated institutions actually complied with.
If we look at cases 3 and 5, it was described that case 3 has a briefing in the first day
of the training but then continues the sessions with exercise and debriefing. Case 5 has
a designated briefing room but chooses to start with the planning which is the second
step in a simulator session, instead of performing an actual briefing. Subsequently,
these two cases were not found to comply with the literature review, as none of the
cases utilized briefing regularly during their sessions.