students, make them aware of situations, and described how they could discuss

different solutions together with the students.

The experiential learning in cases 3 and 5 is suggested since both mentioned
Blearning by doing^ and Bself-learning^ as an important factor to be aware of
when interacting with the students (Dewey 2004; Farmer et al. 1999). Case 1
described the second instructor to enter the bridges as a pilot for example, or as
an instructor to support the students, indicating the utilization of guidance. The
providing of independency for the students in case 1 is also suggested, since
there is only one instructor intervening in five bridges, enabling experiential
learning.
Furthermore, case 2 described how the instructor tries to reduce the interaction
further on in the training and subsequently tries not to intervene at all. This could
reduce the risk of the students relying on the instructors to guide them and successively
improve the student’s performance and experiential learning.
Case 6 described the interaction to occur via the intercom or VHF, indicating a low
personal interaction with the students in the bridges. Subsequently, this indicates a high
experiential learning for the students. On the other hand, the absence of personal
interaction might occur due to the fact that only one instructor is utilized during the
simulator training. Guidance and feedback during the simulator training were also
described as an important part of the simulator training (Farmer et al. 1999).
Consequently, due to the absence of personal interaction, this could indicate that the
students in case 6 received less guidance during the simulator training, which could
impact their learning gain and understanding.

5.2 Training time

As we can see in the Figs. 5, 66.66%, cases 1, 2, 4, and 6, has the same amount of
training time, 4 h, inside the full mission simulator bridges. However, two institutions
differ from the other four. Case 3 described their training time to vary between 1 h
15 min to 6 h 15 min, depending on the exercises performed in the simulator. This
indicates that case 3’s simulator training time varies depending on the exercise and its
objectives.

Training Time
9
8
8
7
6:15 6
6
5
4 4 4 4
4
3
2
1:15
1
0
Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Case 6

Hours Hours (Variaons*)

Fig. 5 Training time