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

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4

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.

  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.

    Google 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.

  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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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

    Article  Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Edwards, Anne (2010). Being an Expert Professional Practitioner: The Relational Turn in Expertise, Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Engeström, Yrjö (2008). From teams to knots. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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

    Article  Google 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

    Article  Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

  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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

  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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google Scholar 

  36. International Maritime Organisation (1968). Recommendations on Pilotage. Resolution A.159 (ES.IV). London, UK: IMO

    Google Scholar 

  37. International Maritime Organisation (2011). International Convention on Standard of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, including 2010 Manila Amendments. London, UK: IMO

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Lave, Jean; and Etienne Wenger (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University Press.

    Google 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.

    Google 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

    Article  Google 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

    Article  Google 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 37thAnnual 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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

  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 Center

    Google 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

    Article  Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

  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

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

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.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Magnus Hontvedt.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hontvedt, M., Øvergård, K.I. Simulations at Work —a Framework for Configuring Simulation Fidelity with Training Objectives. Comput Supported Coop Work 29, 85–113 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-019-09367-8

Download citation

Key Words:

  • Collaborative learning
  • Cooperative work
  • Professional learning
  • Simulator fidelity
  • Simulator training