Rail Simulation and Training: A Socio-Cultural and Technical Orchestration

  • Anthony Mildred
  • Anjum Naweed
  • Angelina Ambrosetti
  • Roberta Harreveld
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10711)

Abstract

A Symphony Orchestra is made up of strings, woodwind, horn and percussion sections but without a musical composition and a skilled conductor they will never produce the desired effect on the listener. Train simulators are also made up of many functional components but without carefully considered training content that is integrated into a wider training curriculum and supported by skilled and well-trained facilitators, simulators cannot be expected to reach their full potential. This paper will examine the socio-cultural environment of the rail organizations in which simulators exist and discuss possible reasons for the failure of them to be used to maximum effect. A set of success factors will be presented that need to be considered in order to improve simulator use. Possible methodologies for improving the content of simulations and the way in which they support critical decision-making schema of drivers will also be discussed and the need to develop specific simulator facilitation skills among training staff will be examined.

Keywords

Fidelity concepts Skills transfer Autoethnography Rail driving 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This paper was the recipient of the Best Student Paper Award at the 2016 Australian Simulation Congress.

References

  1. 1.
    Naweed, A.: Simulator integration in the rail industry: the robocop problem. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part F J. Rail Rapid Transit 227, 407–418 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brown, J.S., Duguid, P.: Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organ. Sci. 2, 40–57 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brown, J.S., Duguid, P.: Knowledge and organization: a social-practice perspective. Organ. Sci. 12, 198–213 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Australasian rail association: The changing face of rail. A journey to the employer of choice, attraction and retention of employees in the Australasian rail industry (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Choy, S.C.: Aligning workplace pedagogies with learners: what do they need to know? In: 12th Annual Conference of Australian Vocational Education and Training Research Association, 15–17 April 2009, Crowne Plaza, Coogee Beach, New South Wales (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Land, R.: Toil and trouble: threshold concepts as a pedagogy of uncertainty. In: 5th Threshold Concepts Conference, Durham (2014)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rushby, N., Seabrook, J.: Recent advances in simulation training and assessment for the rail industry: results and case studies (T711 Report). UK Rail Safety and Standards Board (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Naweed, A., Balakrishnan, G., Dorrian, J.: Evaluating your train simulator part i: the physical environment. Ashgate (2013)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    UK rail safety and standards board: good practice guide on simulation as a tool for training and assessment (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Naweed, A., Balakrishnan, G.: Understanding the visual skills and strategies of train drivers in the urban rail environment. Work 47, 339–352 (2014)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hellier, E., Naweed, A., Walker, G., Husband, P., Edworthy, J.: The influence of auditory feedback on speed choice, violations and comfort in a driving simulation game. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 14, 591–599 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dulaski, D.M., Noyce, D.A.: Multi-modality fidelity in a fixed-base-fully interactive driving simulator. In: Driving Simulation Conference, North America 2005 (DSC-NA 2005) (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Taylor, H.L., Lintern, G., Hulin, C.L., Talleur, D.A., Emanuel Jr., T.W., Phillips, S.I.: Transfer of training effectiveness of a personal computer aviation training device. Int. J. Aviat. Psychol. 9, 319 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gerathewohl, S.J.: Fidelity of simulation and transfer of training: a review of the problem. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Aviation Medicine (1969)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Doncaster, N.: “By the seat of their pants” cues and feedback used by train crew. In: Rail Human Factors Around World, pp. 484–494. Taylor and Francis (2012)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Thomas, M.J.W.: Operational fidelity in simulation-based training: the use of data from threat and error management analysis in instructional systems design. In: SimTecT 2003 Simulation Industry Association of Australia, pp. 91–95 (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Witmer, B.G., Singer, M.J.: Measuring presence in virtual environments: a presence questionnaire. Presence Teleoper. virtual Environ. 7, 225–240 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wallis, G., Tichon, J.: Predicting the efficacy of simulator-based training using a perceptual judgment task versus questionnaire-based measures of presence. Presence Teleoper. virtual Environ. 22, 67–85 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schubert, T., Friedmann, F., Regenbrecht, H.: The experience of presence: factor analytic insights. Presence Teleoper. virtual Environ. 10, 266–281 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Knowles, M.S.: The Modern Practice of Adult Education. New York Association Press, New York (1970)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Harmon-Jones, E.E., Mills, J.E.: Cognitive dissonance: progress on a pivotal theory in social psychology. In: Scientific Conferences Program, 1997, U Texas, Arlington, TX, US; This volume is based on papers presented at a 2-day conference at the University of Texas at Arlington, winter 1997. American Psychological Association (1997)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hamstra, S.J., Brydges, R., Hatala, R., Zendejas, B., Cook, D.A.: Reconsidering fidelity in simulation-based training. Acad. Med. 89, 387–392 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cosmides, L., Tooby, J.: Origins of domain specificity: the evolution of functional organization. In: Mapping the Mind: Domain Specificity in Cognition and Culture, pp. 85–116 (1994)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Naweed, A.: Investigations into the skills of modern and traditional train driving. Appl. Ergon. 45, 462–470 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Fraser, K.L., Ayres, P., Sweller, J.: Cognitive load theory for the design of medical simulations. Simul. Healthc. 10, 295–307 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Savery, J.R., Duffy, T.M.: Problem based learning: an instructional model and its constructivist framework. Educ. Technol. 35, 31–38 (1995)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Australian Government: Qualification details TAE40116 - Certificate IV in Training and Assessment (Release 1) (2016)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Clayton, B., Meyers, D., Bateman, A., Bluer, R.: Practitioner expectations and experiences with the Certificate IV in training and assessment (TAA40104). In: A National Vocational Education and Training Research and Evaluation Program Report. ERIC (2010)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Vygotsky, L.S.: Mind in society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1980)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Goode, N., Salmon, P.M., Lenne, M.G.: Simulation-based driver and vehicle crew training: applications, efficacy and future directions. Appl Ergon. 44, 435–444 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
  32. 32.
  33. 33.
    Rail Safety Standards Board: Risk Triggered Commantary Driving (2018)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sato, A.B.: Nicholas investigating an effective method of using risk triggerd commentary driving and point and call checks In: Fifth International Rail Human Factors Conference, 14–17 September 2015, London (2015)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Appleton Institute for Behavioural ScienceCentral Queensland UniversityRockhamptonAustralia
  2. 2.Sydac Pty Ltd.AdelaideAustralia
  3. 3.Central Queensland UniversityNoosavilleAustralia
  4. 4.Central Queensland UniversityNorth RockhamptonAustralia

Personalised recommendations