Advertisement

Simulations at Work —a Framework for Configuring Simulation Fidelity with Training Objectives

  • Magnus HontvedtEmail author
  • Kjell Ivar Øvergård
Article
  • 6 Downloads

Abstract

This study aims to provide framework for considering fidelity in the design of simulator training. Simulator fidelity is often characterised as the level of physical and visual similarity with real work settings, and the importance of simulator fidelity in the creation of learning activities has been extensively debated. Based on a selected literature review and fieldwork on ship simulator training, this study provides a conceptual framework for fidelity requirements in simulator training. This framework is applied to an empirical example from a case of ship simulator training. The study identifies three types of simulator fidelity that might be useful from a trainer’s perspective. By introducing a framework of technical, psychological and interactional fidelity and linking these concepts to different levels of training and targeted learning outcomes, the study demonstrates how the fidelity of the simulation relates to the level of expertise targeted in training. The framework adds to the body of knowledge on simulator training by providing guidelines for the different ways in which simulators can increase professional expertise, without separating the learning activity from cooperative work performance.

Key Words:

Collaborative learning Cooperative work Professional learning Simulator fidelity Simulator training 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank the maritime pilots and instructors for their participation in this research. Our gratitude also goes to the anonymous reviewers for their thorough and helpful comments. We also thank Hans Christian Arnseth for valuable feedback on earlier versions of the paper. The authors bear sole responsibility for its contents.

References

  1. Alessi, Stephen M. (1988). Fidelity in the design of instructional simulations. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 40–47.Google Scholar
  2. Alexander, Amy. L.; Tad Brunyé; Jason Sidman; and Shawn. A. Weil (2005). From gaming to training: a review of studies on fidelity, immersion, presence, and buy-in and their effects on transfer in PC-based simulations and games, Paper presented at The Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation and Education Conference (I/ITSEC), NTSA, Orlando, Florida.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, John R. (2009). Cognitive Psychology and its Implications. New York, NY: Worth Publishing.Google Scholar
  4. Anderson, John R.; Lynne M. Reder; and Herbert A. Simon (1996). Situated Learning and Education. Educational Researcher, Vol. 25, No. 4, pp. 5–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arnseth, Hans C. (2004). Discourses and Artefacts in Learning to Argue: Analysing the Practical Management of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Oslo, Department of Education, Oslo: Norway.Google Scholar
  6. Baker, Ann C.; Patricia J. Jensen; and David A. Kolb (1997). In conversation: transforming experience into learning. Simulation and Gaming, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 6–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Beaubien, Jeffrey M.; and David P. Baker (2004). The use of simulation for training teamwork skills in health care: how low can you go?, Quality and Safety in Health Care, Vol. 13 Suppl. 1, pp. i51–i56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bransford, John D.; Ann L. Brown; and Rodney R. Cocking (Eds.) (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and school (Expanded edition). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  9. Cooke, Nancy J.; Eduardo Salas; Janis A. Cannon-Bowers; and Renée J. Stout (2000). Measuring team knowledge. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Vol. 42, No. 1, pp. 151–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dahlstrom, Nicklas; Sidney Dekker; Roel van Winsen; and James M. Nyce (2009). Fidelity and validity of simulator training. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp. 305–314.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14639220802368864 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Derry, Sharon J.; Roy D. Pea; Brigid Barron; Randi A. Engle; Frederick Erickson; Ricki Goldman; Hall Rogers; Timothy Koschmann; Jay L. Lemke; Miriam G. Sherin; and Bruce L. Sherin (2010). Conducting Video Research in the Learning Sciences: Guidance on Selection, Analysis, Technology, and Ethics. Journal of the Learning Sciences, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 3–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dillenbourg, Pierre; Sanna Järvelä; and Frank Fischer (2009). The evolution of research on computer-supported collaborative learning. In N. Balacheff; S. Ludvigsen; T. Jong; A. Lazonder; and S. Barnes (eds), Technology-Enhanced Learning. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer, pp. 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Edwards, Anne (2010). Being an Expert Professional Practitioner: The Relational Turn in Expertise, Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Emad, Gholamreza; and Wolff-Michael Roth (2008). Contradictions in the practices of training for and assessment of competency: a case study from the maritime domain. Education + Training, Vol. 50, No. 3, pp. 260–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Endsley, Mica R. (1995). Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Vol. 37, No. 1, pp. 32–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Engeström, Yrjö (2008). From teams to knots. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Engeström, Yrjö; and David Middleton (1998). Cognition and Communication at Work. Cambridge; Mass.: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Ercikan, Kadriye; and Wolff-Michael Roth (2006). What good is polarizing research into qualitative and quantitative? Educational Researcher, Vol. 35, No. 5, pp. 14–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Flin, Rhona; Paul O’Connor; and Margaret Crichton (2008). Safety at the Sharp End: A Guide to Nontechnical Skills. Farnham, England: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  20. Gaba, David M.; and Abe DeAnda (1988). A comprehensive anesthesia simulation environment: re-creating the operating room for research and training. Anesthesiology, Vol. 69, No. 3, pp. 387–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Goodwin, Charles (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, Vol. 96, No. 3, pp. 606–633.  https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1994.96.3.02a00100 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Goodwin, Charles (1995). Seeing in depth. Social Studies of Science, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 237–274.  https://doi.org/10.1177/030631295025002002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gould, Kristian S.; Bjarte K. Røed; Evelyn-Rose Saus; Vilhelm F. Koefoed; Robert S. Bridger; and Bente E. Moen (2009). Effects of navigation method on workload and performance in simulated high-speed ship navigation. Applied Ergonomics, Vol. 40, No. 1, pp. 103–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Grantcharov, Teodor P.; Viggo B. Kristiansen; Jørgen Bendix; Linda Bardram; Jacob Rosenberg; and Peter Funch-Jensen (2004). Randomized clinical trial of virtual reality simulation for laparoscopic skills training. British Journal of Surgery, Vol. 91, No. 2, pp. 146–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Greeno, James (2006). Learning in activity. In R. K. Sawyer (ed), The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University Press, pp. 79–96.Google Scholar
  26. Greeno, James (1997). On claims that answer the wrong questions. Educational Researcher, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 5–17.Google Scholar
  27. Gupta, Prahlad; and Neal J. Cohen (2002). Theoretical and computational analysis of skill learning, repetition priming, and procedural memory. Psychological Review, Vol. 109, No. 2, pp. 401–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hays, Robert T.; and Michael J. Singer (1989). Simulation Fidelity in Training System Design: Bridging the gap between reality and training. New York, NY.: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Heath, Christian; and Paul Luff (1996). Convergent activities: Line control and passenger information on the London Underground. In Y. Engeström; and D. Middleton (eds.), Cognition and Communication at Work, Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University Press, pp. 96–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hollnagel, Erik (2011). Simulator studies: The next best thing?. In A. B. Skjerve; and A. Bye (eds.), Simulator-Based Human Factors Studies Across 25 Years, London, UK: Springer, pp. 75–90.Google Scholar
  31. Hontvedt, Magnus (2014). Simulations in Maritime Training: A Video Study of the Socio-technical Organisation of Ship Simulator Training. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Oslo, Department of Education, Oslo: Norway.Google Scholar
  32. Hontvedt, Magnus (2015). Professional vision in simulated environments — Examining professional maritime pilots' performance of work tasks in a full-mission ship simulator. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, vol. 7, pp. 71–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hontvedt, Magnus; and Hans C. Arnseth (2013). On the bridge to learn: Analysing the social organization of nautical instruction in a ship simulator. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 89–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hutchins, Edwin (1995). Cognition in the Wild. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press,Google Scholar
  35. Hutchins, Edwin; and Tove Klausen (1996). Distributed cognition in an airline cockpit. In Y. Engeström; and D. Middleton (eds.), Cognition and Communication at Work. Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University Press, pp. 15–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. International Maritime Organisation (1968). Recommendations on Pilotage. Resolution A.159 (ES.IV). London, UK: IMOGoogle Scholar
  37. International Maritime Organisation (2011). International Convention on Standard of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, including 2010 Manila Amendments. London, UK: IMOGoogle Scholar
  38. Issenberg, S. Barry; William C. McGaghie; Ian R. Hart; Joan W. Mayer; Joel M. Felner; Emil R. Petrusa; Robert A. Waugh; Donald D. Brown; Robert R. Safford; Ira H. Gessner; David Lee Gordon; and Gordon A. Ewy (1999). Simulation technology for health care professional skills training and assessment. The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), Vol. 282, No. 9, pp. 861–866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Johnson, Ericka (2008). Simulating Medical Patients and Practices: Bodies and the Construction of Valid Medical Simulators. Body and Society, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 105–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Jordan, Birgitte; and Austin Henderson (1995). Interaction analysis: foundations and practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 39–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Klein, Gary; and Caroline E. Zsambok (1997), Naturalistic Decision Making, New Jersey, NJ.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  42. Kneebone, Roger L. (2016). Simulation reframed. Advances in Simulation, Vol. 1, No. 27.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s41077-016-0028-8
  43. Kozlowski, Steve W. J.; and Richard P. DeShon (2004). A psychological fidelity approach to simulation-based training: theory, research, and principles. In E. Salas; S. G. Schflett; and M. D. Coovert (eds.), Scaled Worlds: Development, Validation, and Applications, Burlington, VT: Ashgate, pp. 75–99.Google Scholar
  44. Kurtz, Cynthia F.; and David J. Snowden (2003). The new dynamics of strategy: sense-making in a complex and complicated world. IBM Systems Journal, Vol. 42, No. 3, pp. 462–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lave, Jean; and Etienne Wenger (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Liu, Dahai; Elisabeth L. Blickensderfer; Nikolas D. Macchiarella; and Dennis A. Vincenzi (2009a). Transfer of Training. In D. A. Vincenzi; J. A. Wise; M. Mouloua; and P. A. Hancock (eds.), Human Factors in Simulation and Training. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, pp. 49–60.Google Scholar
  47. Liu, Dahai; Nikolas D. Macchiarella; and Dennis Vincenzi, A. (2009b). Simulation fidelity. In D. A. Vincenzi; J. A. Wise; M. Mouloua; and P. A. Hancock (eds.), Human Factors in Simulation and Training. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, pp. 61–73.Google Scholar
  48. Miller, Robert B. (1954). Psychological Considerations in the Design of Training Equipment. Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH: Wright Air Development Center.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Moroney, William F.; and Brian W. Moroney (1998). Flight Simulation. In J. A. Wise; V. D. Hopkin ; and D. J. Garland (Eds.) Human factors in aviation systems. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 358–388.Google Scholar
  50. Murai, Koji; Shin-Ichi Wakida; Takashi Miyado; Keiichi Fukushi; Yuji Hayashi; and Laurie Stone C. (2009). Enhancing maritime education and training. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 293–302.  https://doi.org/10.1108/17415650911009272 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Oskarsson, Per-Anders; Staffan Nählinder; and Erland Svensson (2010). A meta study of transfer of training. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting 2010, Vol. 54, No. 28, pp. 2422–2426.  https://doi.org/10.1177/154193121005402813 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Øvergård, Kjell I.; Cato A. Bjørkli; Thomas Hoff; and Joachim Dahlman (2005). Comparison of Trajectory Variation and Speed for Real and Simulator-based High-Speed Navigation. In B. Veiersted; K. I. Fostervold; and K. S. Gould (eds.). Proceedings of the 37 th Annual Conference of the Nordic Ergonomic Society, Ergonomics as a tool in future development and value creation. Oslo, Norway: Nordic Ergonomics Society, pp 275–279.Google Scholar
  53. Øvergård, Kjell I.; Cato A. Bjørkli; Bjarte K. Røed; and Thomas Hoff (2010). Control strategies used by experienced marine navigators: observation of verbal conversations during navigation training. Cognition, Technology & Work, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 163–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Øvergård, Kjell I.; Astrid R. Nielsen; Salman Nazir; and Linda J. Sorensen (2015). Assessing Navigational Teamwork through the Situational Correctness and Relevance of Communication. Procedia Manufacturing, Vol. 3, pp. 2589–2596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Øvergård, Kjell I.; Magnus Hontvedt; Linda J. Sorensen; Paul N. Smit; and Salman Nazir (2017). Maritime Bridge Crew Training. In M. S. Young; and M. G. Lenné (eds.) Simulators for transportation human factors: research and practice, Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. pp. 281–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Packer, Martin J.; and Jessie Goicochea (2000). Sociocultural and Constructivist Theories of Learning: Ontology, Not Just Epistemology. Educational Psychologist, Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 227–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Papert, Seymour (1980). Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas. Basic Books, New York.Google Scholar
  58. Petraglia, Joseph (1998). The real world on a short leash: the (mis) application of constructivism to the design of educational technology. Educational Technology Research and Development, Vol. 46, No. 3, pp. 53–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Rasmussen, Jens (1983). Skills, rules, and knowledge: Signals, signs, and symbols, and other distinctions in human performance models. Systems, Man and Cybernetics, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC), Vol. 13, No. 3, May/June 1983, pp. 257–266.Google Scholar
  60. Rehmann, Albert J. (1995). A Handbook of Flight Simulation Fidelity Requirements for Human Factors Research. Wright-Patterson Airforce Base, Dayton, OH.: Federal Aviation Administration Technical CenterCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Reisberg, Daniel (1997). Cognition: Exploring the Science of the Mind, Norton, New York.Google Scholar
  62. Rønningen, Jahn V; and Kjell I. Øvergård (2017). Shared pilot passage plan and navigational safety during pilotage. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs, vol. 16, pp. 439–454.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13437-017-0128-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Rose, F. David; Elizabeth A. Attree; Bennett M. Brooks; David M. Parslow; and Pascale R. Penn (2000), Training in virtual environments: transfer to real world tasks and equivalence to real task training, Ergonomics, Vol. 43, No. 4, pp. 494–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Roth, Woff-Michael; and Alfredo Jornet (2015). Situational awareness as an Instructable and Instructed Matter in Multi-Media Supported Debriefing: a Case Study from Aviation. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), Vol. 24, No. 5, pp. 461–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Rystedt, Hans (2002), Bridging Practices: Simulations in Education for the Healthcare Professions. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Gothenburg, Department of Education Göteborg, Sweden.Google Scholar
  66. Rystedt, Hans; and Björn Sjöblom (2012). Realism, authenticity, and learning in healthcare simulations: Rules of relevance and irrelevance as interactive achievements. Instructional Science, Vol. 40, No. 5, pp. 785–798.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-012-9213-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Säljö, Roger (2003). Epilogue: From transfer to boundary-crossing. In T. Tuomi-Grön; and Y. Engeström (eds.) Between school and work: New perspectives on transfer and boundary-crossing, Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Pergamon Press, pp. 311–321.Google Scholar
  68. Sellberg, Charlott (2017). Training to become a master mariner in a simulator-based environment: The instructors’ contributions to professional learning. Ph.D.-thesis. Department of Education, Communication and Learning, University of Gothenburg, Sweden.Google Scholar
  69. Sellberg, Charlott (2018). From briefing, through scenario, to debriefing: the maritime instructor’s work during simulator-based training. Cognition, Technology and Work, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 49–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Sfard, Anna (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one. Educational researcher, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 4–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Silseth, Kenneth (2012). The multivoicedness of game play: Exploring the unfolding of a student’s learning trajectory in a gaming context at school. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 63–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Silvennoinen, Minna; Sacha Helfenstein; Minna Ruoranen; and Pertti Saariluoma (2012). Learning basic surgical skills through simulator training. Instructional Science, Vol. 40, No. 5, 769–783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Stoffregen, Thomas A.; Benoit G. Bardy; Jay L. Smart; and Randy Pagulayan (2003). On the nature and evaluation of fidelity in virtual environments. In L. Hettinger; and M. Haas (eds.), Virtual and Adaptative Environments: Applications, Implications, and Human Performance Issues, Mahwah, NJ.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 111–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Suchman, Lucy A. (1987). Plans and situated actions: the problems of human-machine communication. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  75. Taber, Michael J. (2013). Crash attenuating seats: effects on helicopter underwater escape performance. Safety Science, Vol. 57, August, pp. 179–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Taylor, Janelle S. (2011). The Moral Aesthetics of Simulated Suffering in Standardized Patient Performances. Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry, Vol. 35, No. 2, pp. 134–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Vincenzi, Dennis A.; John A. Wise; Moustapha Mouloua; and Peter A. Hancock (2009). Human Factors in Simulation and Training, Boca Raton, FL.: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  78. Waller, David; Earl Hunt ; and David Knapp (1998). The Transfer of Spatial Knowledge in Virtual Environment Training. Presence, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 129–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PedagogyUniversity of South-Eastern NorwayKongsbergNorway
  2. 2.Department of EducationUniversity of OsloOsloNorway
  3. 3.Department of Health, Social and Welfare StudiesUniversity of South-Eastern NorwayKongsbergNorway

Personalised recommendations