See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/373173902

Potential of technology supported competence development for Maritime

Education and Training

Thesis · August 2023

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.14565.17124

CITATIONS READS

17 2,270

1 author:

Amit Sharma
University of Bergen
24 PUBLICATIONS 550 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Amit Sharma on 17 August 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Faculty of Technology, Natural Sciences and Maritime Studies
Department of maritime operations
University of South-Eastern Norway

Potential of technology supported competence development for

Maritime Education and Training
Amit Sharma
A dissertation for the degree of Philosophiae Doctor - August 2023
UiT The Arctic University of Norway
Faculty of Science and Technology
Department of Technology and Safety

Norwegian University of Science and Technology

Faculty of Engineering
Department of Ocean Operations and Civil Engineering

University of South-Eastern Norway

Faculty of Technology, Natural Sciences and Maritime Studies
Department of Maritime Operations

Western Norway University of Applied Sciences

Faculty of Business Administration and Social Sciences
Department of Maritime Studies
Potential of technology supported competence development for
Maritime Education and Training
Amit Sharma
© Amit Sharma 2023

University of South-Eastern Norway

Faculty of Technology, Natural Sciences and Maritime Studies
Department of Maritime Operations
Horten, 2023

UiT The Arctic University of Norway

Faculty of Science and Technology
Department of Technology and Safety

Norwegian University of Science and Technology

Faculty of Engineering
Department of Ocean Operations and Civil Engineering

Western Norway University of Applied Sciences

Faculty of Business Administration and Social Sciences
Department of Maritime Studies

Doctoral dissertations at the University of South-Eastern Norway no. 168

ISSN: 2535-5244 (print)
ISSN: 2535-5252 (online)

ISBN: 978-82-7206-785-3 (print)

ISBN: 978-82-7206-784-6 (online)
 Sharma: Potential of technology supported competence development for MET

Dedication

In loving memory of my maternal grandfather Shri Sharada Prasad Shukla

___
III
 Sharma: Potential of technology supported competence development for MET

Acknowledgements
There is a quote from the pioneering social psychologist Lev Vygotsky pinned in my office wall
which reads as “Through others, we become ourselves”. This quote has influenced both my
attitude towards research work in some degree my understanding of the core topics of my thesis.
The learning and development process that occur in any person’s life is influenced by many
individuals and even shapes the formation of a deliverable like PhD thesis. I am grateful for the
support and advice of my supervisors. I would like to thank my main supervisor Salman Nazir
for not only his inputs on my research but also providing a conducive environment for my PhD
journey. I would like to thank my co-supervisor Nalini Suparamaniam Kallerdahl for her support
and encouragement throughout the process. I would like to thank my department leadership, Anne
Kari Botnmark, Monica Husby and Atle Martin Christiansen for their unwavering support in all
practicalities. There are many mentors and colleagues who were also very influential in me being
able to cross the finish line. I would like to thank Anne Haugen Gausdal for being one of the first
professors in USN who guided me to research path and establishing high-level of trust. I would
also like to thank Sashidharan Komandur for being a role model in research conduct. I had many
intellectually stimulating conversations with you. I would like to thank Charlott Sellberg for her
intellectual inputs and support. It’s a privilege to be able to reach out to you anytime I wish. I
would like to thank Steven Mallam for his mentoring and support. I would like to thank Tae-eun
Kim for her collaboration and support. Special thanks also goes to Monica Fagerlie for her endless
support during the last stages of the PhD thesis submission process. It would have been very
difficult to cross the line without her support. I would like to thank Ziaul Haque Munim for his
intellectual inputs and support. I would like to thank Astrid Camilla Wiig for her guidance. I
would like to thank my colleagues and co-authors Per Haavardtun and Per Eirik Undheim for
their help in data collection and writing. This thesis would not have been complete without the
feedback about application and utilization from industrial actors. I would like to thank Leiv Kåre
Johannessen and Magne Aarset, from TERP. I am very grateful for your guidance and giving me
another perspective about the applicability of my research work. I had good support of numerous
friends also which helped me to enjoy the journey and decouple myself from work time to time.
Thanks to – Laura, Mariia, Sathiya, Simen, Jorgen, Hasan, Mehdi, Veronica, and Abhishek. My
family has been my strength and my orientation in life. I am grateful to my sister Amrita and
brother-in-law Akash for being always there for me. My parents – Vinay and Aparajita Sharma
have been my biggest cheerleaders and I derive my strength from them. The journey of writing
my thesis was made more beautiful and memorable as I met my life partner and wife Neha during
its course. I am grateful to life for being able to undertake this journey.

Thank you,

Borre, Norway May 2023

Amit Sharma
___
IV
 Sharma: Potential of technology supported competence development for MET

Abstract
The ongoing technological advances are offering new avenues of exploration for maritime
education and training domain. The increase in automation and digitalization is also
correspondingly changing the operational profiles for the seafarers working onboard merchant
ships and their competence requirements for various functions. The approach to prepare the future
workforce of seafarers will require revisitation of the existing regulations regarding competence
accreditation for the seafarers and identify the barriers and opportunities digital technologies
present for the maritime industry stakeholders. The novel learning solutions facilitated by the
information and communication technologies (ICTs) can allow the learning to be distributed and
ubiquitous. However, the skills of both maritime students and instructors will determine how
efficient is the adaptation and integration of technology. This thesis, through a series of individual
research studies, investigates the potential of technology supported competence development for
maritime education and training domain. The overall research questions which guided the thesis
were: (1) What are the emerging competence requirements for the future maritime workforce and
(2) What are the opportunities and barriers for technology integration in maritime educational
settings? A total of four papers constituted the empirical investigation of the thesis. The papers
examined the macro and micro contexts related to the competence development, technology
integration as well as the professional development of the maritime instructors.

Paper-1 of the thesis examined the suitability of the present STCW regulations for Officers in
Charge of a Navigational Watch. The scope of the study was narrowed down to the Table A-II/1
pertaining to the navigation officers in an operational role. An Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)
of the Knowledge, Understanding and Proficiency (KUP) items, as rated on their relevancy by a
sample of maritime professionals (n=109) was carried out. Furthermore, additional technical and
non-technical competences for a hypothetical Degree-2 autonomous operation were listed. The
results showed a new factor structure that synthesized into 11 competence themes which were
rated as relevant for the future autonomous operations. These themes were identified as - (1)
Position fixing and watchkeeping (2) Inspect and report defects to cargo spaces, hatch covers, and
ballast tanks (3) Prevent, control and fight fires onboard (4) Contribute to safety of personnel and
ships (5) Use of RADAR, ARPA, and ECDIS to maintain safety of navigation (6) Application of
leadership and teamworking skills (7) Ensure compliance with pollution prevention (8) Damage
control and distress communication (9) Application of meteorological information in navigation
(10) Reporting and communication (11) Manoeuvring and maintaining seaworthiness of ship.
Additionally, five main novel technical competency themes emerged - IT skills, safety and
security management skills, knowledge of engine room operations, electronic equipment, and
system integration. With respect to non-technical skills, the respondents rated the ability to
maintain situational awareness and leadership skills as particularly relevant for the future. The
novel non-technical skills that could be relevant for future autonomous operations were listed as
- non-routine problem solving, self-regulation capacity, critical thinking, mental readiness,
systemic thinking, the ability to develop trust in teams, the ability to adjust to cultural differences,
and negotiation abilities. The findings from the study could aid in the competence modelling
efforts for the future maritime workforce.
___
V
 Sharma: Potential of technology supported competence development for MET

In paper-2 of the thesis, a survey study assessing the technology-proficiency of the maritime
instructors (n=62), was carried out using a standard scale known as Technology Proficiency Self-
Assessment for 21st Century (TPSA-C21). The results provided scores for the self-rated
proficiency of the maritime instructors along six technical dimensions such as – Email, World-
Wide Web (WWW), emerging tools, integrated applications, teaching with technology and
teaching with emerging technology. Additionally, the data regarding the Level of Use (LoU) of
various ICTs as per the Concern Based Adoption Model (CBAM) in maritime classrooms were
collected. The findings indicated that the maritime instructors rated their proficiency relatively
lower in using Web 2.0 tools (social media/wiki/blogs) compared to other general tools available
to them. Furthermore, most maritime instructors rated their use of technology in the classroom at
“routine” or “mechanical” levels against the higher levels on the scale expected from them. The
findings hint at the reluctance to capitalize on Web 2.0 technology affordances by the maritime
instructors and shed light on potential areas of improvement with respect to higher levels of
technology integration in maritime classrooms.

With regard to ongoing educational innovations, Artificial Intelligence (AI) is generally discussed
as having significant potential to transform learning experiences. The primary argument given
towards the use of AI is related to the reduction of redundant tasks for the instructors and
improving the overall efficiency. The paper-3 of the thesis attempted to provide proof of concept
for adopting and using artificial intelligence (AI) in maritime classrooms. For this purpose, a
conversational agent or chatbot for training the Collision Avoidance Rules (COLREGs) was
developed. The chatbot titled “FLOKI” was introduced to the 2nd year Bachelor in nautical
science students (n=18), and data regarding its usability was collected through the standardized
System Usability Scale (SUS). The chatbot FLOKI received a score of 73.72 on the SUS
questionnaire, which indicates an above-average performance in terms of perceived usability. No
significant differences were observed in the responses by the students who had prior experience
with navigation or chatbot interaction compared to those who lacked these experiences. However,
an important result from the paper was also with respect to designing a distributed learning
solution and demonstrating the use of a constructivist learning approach through the AI Chabot.
The study intended to stimulate discussions around the pragmatic use of AI by the MET
stakeholders.

Paper-4 of the thesis discussed the generic competence requirements for maritime students due to
the impact of Industry 4.0 and digitalization. These skills are commonly referred to as the 21st-
century skills. The final study in the thesis was carried out to measure one of the critical skills as
per the 21st-century skills framework for education, namely the digital skills for maritime
students. The standardized scale known as the Youth Digital Skills Indicator (yDSI) was utilized
for this purpose, and the digital skills of a sample of maritime students (n=234) from B.Sc.
nautical sciences and B.Sc. marine engineering disciplines, were measured along four dimensions
– information navigation and processing skills, technical and operational skills, communication
and interaction skills, and content creation and production skills. A Confirmatory Factor Analysis
(CFA) was also carried out for evaluation of the factor structure of the scale. The results indicated
that the students had relatively lower levels of information processing and content creation skills
compared to other dimensions. In the increasingly digitalized learning and working environments,
___
VI
 Sharma: Potential of technology supported competence development for MET

the lower levels of digital skills in these dimensions could result in the limited capitalization of
distributed learning modes by the students and presents itself as another avenue requiring targeted
efforts by the MET stakeholders.

Through a mixed method design and use of standard scales predominantly from the learning
sciences discipline, the thesis provided empirical evidence related to the novel competence
requirements for seafarers, the level of technical skills of maritime trainees/instructors, and the
theoretical structure of measurement models where applicable. In conclusion, the thesis advocates
revisiting the technical competence requirements for seafarers and evaluating the suitability of
existing competence themes under the STCW regulations. The growing importance of non-
technical skills is also discussed. Furthermore, the role of distributed learning solutions that would
be relevant to address the novel competence requirements is investigated. While discussing the
technological affordances through digitalization, parallel consideration of relevant theoretical
perspectives, such as the socio-constructivist view to complement existing practices, is suggested.
The findings have implications for the maritime education and training stakeholders regarding
contributing towards the ongoing discussions for the effective integration of technology in
maritime classrooms and competence modelling for future seafarers. Based on the findings, areas
of future research related to competence requirements for seafarers in different roles, alternative
methodologies, and comparison of data from other geographical regions are suggested.

Keywords: Maritime education and training, STCW, digitalization, technology-integration

___
VII
 Sharma: Potential of technology supported competence development for MET

List of publications
Appended Articles

Article 1
Sharma, A., & Kim, T. e. (2021). Exploring technical and non-technical competencies of
navigators for autonomous shipping. Maritime Policy & Management. DOI:
10.1080/03088839.2021.1914874

Article 2
Sharma, A., & Nazir, S. (2021). Assessing technology self-efficacy of maritime instructors: An
explorative study. Education Sciences. 11 (1), 342-356. DOI: 10.3390/educsci11070342

Article 3
Sharma, A., Undheim, P.E. & Nazir, S. (2022). Design and implementation of AI Chatbot for
COLREGs training. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs. DOI: 10.1007/s13437-022-00284-0

Article 4
Sharma, A. (2022). Evaluation of digital skills for maritime students. Paper presented at 14th
International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies (EDULEARN’22), 3-6
July 2022, Palma, Spain. DOI: 10.21125/edulearn.2022.2039 (Extended Version)

___
VIII
 Sharma: Potential of technology supported competence development for MET

Additional relevant publications

Sharma, A., Nazir, S., Wiig, A. C., Sellberg, C., Imset, M., & Mallam, S. (2018). Computer
supported collaborative learning as an intervention for maritime education and training.
In: International Conference on Applied Human factors and Ergonomics (pp. 3-12). Springer,
Cham.

Sharma, A., Kim, T. E., & Nazir, S. (2021). Implications of Automation and Digitalization for
Maritime Education and Training. In: Sustainability in the Maritime Domain (pp. 223-233).
Springer, Cham.

Kim, T. E., Sharma, A., Bustgaard, M., Gyldensten, W. C., Nymoen, O. K., Tusher, H. M., &
Nazir, S. (2021). The continuum of simulator-based maritime training and education. WMU
Journal of Maritime Affairs, 20(2), 135-150.

___
IX
 Sharma: Potential of technology supported competence development for MET

List of tables
Table 1. Empirical data collected and the methodology employed in the thesis …...…36

Table 2. CFA fit indices ……………………………………………………………….49

___
X
 Sharma: Potential of technology supported competence development for MET

List of figures
Figure 1. Degrees of autonomy as defined by IMO ……………………….….….……..5

Figure 2. Career progression for a navigation or engineering officer …………..……..7

Figure 3. Modes of learning framework ……………………..……….………….……..9

Figure 4. Conceptual framework of PhD thesis…………….………………….….……11

Figure 5. Zone of Proximal Development..………………………………………….…18

Figure 6. Various facets of competency………… …………………………………….19

Figure 7. The role of AI Chatbot in learning……………………………………….…...31

Figure 8. Relationship between Ontology, Epistemology and Methodology…………..33

Figure 9. Frequency distribution pie graph for CBAM LoU………………………...…46

Figure 10. Example interaction with AI chatbot FLOKI………….………………...….48

___
XI
 Sharma: Potential of technology supported competence development for MET

Abbreviations
AI – Artificial Intelligence

AIEd – Artificial Intelligence in Education

AIS – Automatic Identification System

AR – Augmented Reality

ARPA – Automatic Radar Plotting Aid

AVE – Average Variance Extracted

BDA – Big Data Analytics

CA – Cronbach’s Alpha

CBT – Computer Based Training

CBAM – Concerns-Based Adoption Model

CFI – Comparative Fit Index

CR – Composite Reliability

CC – Cloud Computing

CFA – Confirmatory Factor Analysis

CoC – Certificate of Competency

COLREGs – International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea

DPO – Data Protection Officer

ECDIS – Electronic Chart Display and Information System

EFA – Exploratory Factor Analysis

ES – Expert Systems

GPS – Global Positioning System

IBM SPSS – IBM Statistical Package for Social Sciences

ICS - International Chamber of Shipping

___
XII
 Sharma: Potential of technology supported competence development for MET

ICT – Information and Communications Technology

ILO - International Labour Organization

ITS – Intelligent Tutoring System

IMO – International Maritime Organization

IoT – Internet of Things

IT – Information Technology

LMS – Learning Management System

LoU – Level of Use

MET – Maritime Education and Training

MASS – Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships

NLP – Natural Language Processing

NSD - Norwegian Centre for Research Data

OICNW – Officer In Charge of a Navigational Watch

OICEW – Officer In Charge of an Engineering Watch

KUP – Knowledge, Understanding and Proficiency

RFPNW – Ratings Forming Part of a Navigational Watch

RFPEW – Ratings Forming Part of an Engineering Watch

RMR – Root Mean Square Residual

RMSEA – Root Mean Square Error of Approximation

SD – Standard Deviation

SDG – Sustainable Development Goal

STCW – Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping

SUS – System Usability Scale

TPSA-C21 – Technology Proficiency Self-Assessment for 21st Century

TPACK – Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge

___
XIII
 Sharma: Potential of technology supported competence development for MET

TLI – Tucker Lewis Index

UK – United Kingdom

UN – United Nations

UNCTAD – United Nations Conference on Trade and Development

UNESCO – United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization

UNIDO – United Nations Industrial Development Organization

VR – Virtual Reality

WWW – World Wide Web

yDSI – Youth Digital Skills Indicator

___
XIV
 Sharma: Potential of technology supported competence development for MET

Table of contents
1 General Background and Introduction ................................................................................. 1
1.1 STCW framework for maritime industry ................................................................. 2
1.2 Evolving maritime operations .................................................................................. 4
1.3 Maritime Education and Training ............................................................................ 6
1.4 Conceptual framework of the thesis ....................................................................... 11
1.5 Research aims and objectives ................................................................................. 12
1.6 Thesis structure ...................................................................................................... 13
2 Theoretical insights ............................................................................................................ 14
2.1 Learning theories in education ............................................................................... 14
2.1.1 Behaviourism ......................................................................................................... 14
2.1.2 Cognitivism ............................................................................................................ 15
2.1.3 Constructivism ....................................................................................................... 16
2.1.4 Social cognitivism .................................................................................................. 16
2.1.5 Social constructivism ............................................................................................. 17
2.2 The concept of competency.................................................................................... 18
2.2.1 Competency............................................................................................................ 18
2.2.2 STCW competence framework .............................................................................. 20
2.3 Technology integration in education ...................................................................... 21
2.3.1 Technology integration .......................................................................................... 21
2.3.2 Technology self-efficacy ........................................................................................ 23
2.4 AI in education ....................................................................................................... 24
2.4.1 AI in education ....................................................................................................... 24
2.4.2 Conversational agents or chatbots .......................................................................... 25
2.5 21st Century skills in education .............................................................................. 26
2.5.1 21st century skills.................................................................................................... 26
2.5.2 Digital skills ........................................................................................................... 27
2.6 Theoretical discussions and summary .................................................................... 28
3 Methods .............................................................................................................................. 32
3.1 Ontological, epistemological, methodological reflections ..................................... 32
3.1.1 Review of philosophies and their connection......................................................... 32

___
XV
 Sharma: Potential of technology supported competence development for MET

3.1.2 Paradigm adopted in this project ............................................................................ 34

3.2 Data collection and analysis ................................................................................... 35
3.2.1 My background ...................................................................................................... 35
3.2.2 Data collection ....................................................................................................... 35
3.2.3 Survey instruments ................................................................................................. 37
3.2.4 Data analysis .......................................................................................................... 37
3.2.5 Notes on Reflexivity .............................................................................................. 39
3.2.6 Reflexive thematic analysis .................................................................................... 39
3.3 Reliability, Validity and Ethical considerations ..................................................... 41
3.3.1 Reliability and Validity .......................................................................................... 42
3.3.2 Quality Criteria for Qualitative data....................................................................... 43
3.3.3 Ethical considerations ............................................................................................ 44
4 Results ................................................................................................................................ 45
4.1 Summary and key findings from paper-1 ............................................................... 45
4.2 Summary and key findings from paper-2 ............................................................... 46
4.3 Summary and key findings from paper-3 ............................................................... 47
4.4 Summary and key findings from paper-4 ............................................................... 49
5 Discussions ......................................................................................................................... 50
5.1 General discussions ................................................................................................ 50
5.2 Theoretical and methodological limitations ........................................................... 56
5.3 Revisiting the research objectives .......................................................................... 58
5.4 Future research directions ...................................................................................... 59
6 Conclusion.......................................................................................................................... 60
6.1 Findings .................................................................................................................. 60
6.2 Recommendations .................................................................................................. 61
7 References .......................................................................................................................... 62
8 Appendices ......................................................................................................................... 79
9 Articles ............................................................................................................................. 139

___
XVI
1 General Background and Introduction
“The wind and the waves are always on the side of the ablest navigator”

- Edmund Gibbon

The maritime industry, since its inception, has consistently been recognized as an indispensable element
in global trade and culture. The need for transporting various goods and essential services has increased
manifold in today’s interconnected world. The United Nations has termed shipping the “backbone” of
global trade and economy (UN, 2016). The international seaborne trade accounted for about 10.6 billion
tons of cargo being loaded and unloaded worldwide in 2020 (UNCTAD, 2021). As per the International
Chamber of Shipping (ICS), more than 50,000 merchant vessels are trading internationally, transporting
various types of cargoes. Over 1 million seafarers operate these ships from almost every nationality of
the globe (ICS, 2020). These seafarers are working in the global fleet to transport essential cargo and
services, day and night, to various parts of the world, thereby playing a vital part in ensuring the seamless
functioning of the global economy. The safety of shipping largely depends on the competence,
knowledge, and skillset of the seafarers working on ships.

Maritime Education and Training (MET) has been termed as one of the six pillars of the maritime
industry by International Maritime Organization Secretary-General Koji Sekimizu during the 2015
World Maritime Day event (IMO, 2015). MET domain has been functioning over the years to ensure
the standardization and uniformity in the competence and skills of the seafarers, passing through the
various career channels available in the maritime domain (Manuel, 2017). However, MET is also
expected to cater to the evolving nature of the maritime operations that require competent seafarers who
can safely operate the ships and a modern workforce which possesses the skillset required to succeed in
the evolving operational landscape of the 21st Century (Alop, 2019). The maritime industry has
recognized the need for continuous professional development for the seafarers to ensure that competence
development is not limited to achieving a Certificate of Competency (CoC) for the required rank but
rather is reinforced throughout the career span (Ng & Yip, 2009).

The technological changes occurring in the recent years has been transforming the way organizations
work and train their employees in general. The proliferation of digital technologies offer alternative
models of vocational work, education and skills acquisition. With adaption of automation and
digitalization, there is increasing recognition for the need for reskilling the workforce. In the face of
such disruptive technology-driven changes however, the educational institutions, administrative systems
and regulatory bodies can often struggle to make information-based policy decisions. In this regard,
MET domain has similar challenges in terms of the lack of empirical evidence towards the potential
impact of technology and the new competence and skillset required for the seafarers. The research
problem for this thesis emerged out as the motivation to address this under-investigated area in maritime
industry. The primary objective of the thesis was to investigate the novel competence requirements
relevant for the future maritime workforce, as well as the barriers and opportunities for integrating
technology in the maritime educational settings.

1
To meet the primary research objective, a series of individual research studies were carried out where
different MET stakeholders such as industry professionals, instructors, seafarers and students were
recruited to provide empirical data. There are a total of 4 research papers constituting the PhD thesis.
The point of departure was the Standards of Training, Certification, and Watchkeeping (STCW)
regulations governing the competence accreditation and eligibility standards for seafarers to serve in the
maritime industry. The paper-1 of the thesis focused on investigating their suitability for advanced
maritime operations as well as the need for additional technical and non-technical competencies for
seafarers. Subsequently, the role of maritime instructors was explored for understanding the impact of
technological adaption. The paper-2 of the thesis focused on the level of technology proficiency of
maritime instructors and their level of technology integration for teaching activities. In terms of impact
in education, Artificial Intelligence (AI) has been one of the most evident topics of discussion for
learning sciences community. The paper-3 of the thesis focused on providing an example of potential
use of AI based tool for the purpose of supporting teaching and learning in maritime classroom. The
paper-4 of the thesis, with a focus on generic 21st century skills for the future, discussed the level of
digital skills of maritime cadets. In order to provide overall context to the individual research studies
and the PhD thesis, firstly, a general introduction and background is described of the STCW regulations,
evolving maritime operations and current practices of MET. It is done with simultaneous discussion of
the impact of technological changes and trends that are prevalent. Furthermore, the research objectives
for the individual studies are elaborated upon. A conceptual framework is also provided to further
describe the contribution of the findings for advancing understanding of the new competencies and the
use of technology in MET. To discuss further the above-mentioned topics and the future competence
requirements for maritime domain in the digital era, it is first necessary to describe the historical
development and present state of the STCW regulations.

1.1 STCW framework for maritime industry

The International Convention on the Standards of Training, Certification, and Watchkeeping
(STCW)’78, as amended, is the international convention that establishes the minimum competence
standards that seafarers must meet before the flag state can provide them the CoC. (IMO, 2011). In this
context, the flag state is any nation that has signed the STCW’78 convention, which ensures that the
MET institute meets the convention’s competency standards. The primary motivation behind the
proposal and adoption of STCW’78 as amended, by the IMO was to promote uniform compliance in
competence standards and promote safety at sea. The accidents such as Torrey Canyon (1967) and
Amoco Cadiz (1978) have brought the attention of the global maritime fraternity to the importance of
the human element in operational safety (Morrison, 1997). Prior to the STCW, the regulations proposed
by the IMO primarily dealt with the design of ships and the provision of safety equipment onboard. The
STCW regulations superseded the International Labour Organization (ILO) Officer Competency
Certificate Convention (no.53). The STCW Convention was first adopted in 1978. The STCW needed
to be ratified by 25% of the world’s shipping tonnage to be fully implemented. This condition was
finally met in 1984, and the regulations formally came into effect. The STCW regulations outline
competence requirements for the onboard ranks such as – Master, Chief-mate, Chief engineer, Second
engineer, Officer in charge of a navigational watch (OICNW), Officer in charge of an engineering watch
(OICEW), Ratings forming part of a navigational watch (RFPNW), Rating forming part of an

2
engineering watch (RFPEW), Able seafarer deckhands, Able seafarer engine rating, Radio officers,
Electro-technical officers, and other general crew members. The signatory states need to ensure that
their standards must meet or exceed the minimum competence standards specified in various STCW
chapters. Such a system, while not without its difficulties due to subjective interpretation of legislation,
is an attempt to ensure uniform compliance. The STCW convention has been revised on a regular basis
(for example, in 1995 and 2010), to reflect current changes in the maritime sector.

After the STCW came into effect, it was observed by the shipping community that some parts of the
regulations were still open to interpretation and lacked clear guidelines. The phrases such as “To the
satisfaction of the administration” in the STCW created varying interpretations by various signatory
states. Furthermore, several changes in the operational aspects of shipping required revising and
specifying the regulations in greater detail. As a result, in 1995, amendments to the STCW Convention
were adopted. These amendments came into effect in the year 1997. The amendments divided the STCW
code into two parts. Part A was of the code was deemed mandatory, while Part B consists of
recommendations. This move made the administration of the regulations easier and allowed for swifter
future changes. In 2007, a comprehensive review of the STCW convention and code was initiated by
the IMO, which culminated in the form of the 2010 Manila amendments. The 2010 Manila amendments
were formulated in light of advances in the operational technologies used onboard as well as heightened
security-related developments post year 2001. The 2010 Manila amendments to the STCW entered into
force in 2012 under the tacit acceptance procedure (Parsons & Allen, 2018). As of 2018, the STCW
convention was ratified by 164 shipping nations, representing 99% of the world’s shipping tonnage. In
the era of increased automation and digitalization of maritime operations, appropriate regulatory
framework and research insights will be needed to prepare the future seafarers which can function
effectively and safely with smart ships (Burke & Clott, 2016). As such, further revision of STCW can
be expected in the coming years to take into account the digital evolution of maritime domain.

The above-mentioned framework of STCW regulations for standardized assessment of seafarer

competence has received its fair share of criticism for its apparent shortcomings. For example, Sampson
et al. (2011) in their study highlighted the challenges related to the meeting the competence criteria for
the seafarers. They noted that the process of obtaining the CoC has varied standards in different
signatory states, and it can therefore result in an unreliable measure for the employers of these seafarers.
The shipping companies and fleet managers, as a result, try to compensate for this by their own in-house
training requirements. They also highlighted that the differing interests of various stakeholders involved
in this process can further compound the challenges. Ghosh et al. (2014) illustrated with examples the
decontextualized nature of assessment of competence and as a result the failure by the seafarers to apply
it in an operational scenario which could ultimately lead to serious incidents. Furthermore, they stated
that the assessment process of the competences for the seafarers can miss their mark, by the failure to
take into account all necessary facets of skills that would need to be addressed. If complete range of
skills (both technical and non-technical) for a particular competence is not being assessed, it could
potentially lead to a situation where the seafarer is not able to apply their knowledge in a holistic manner
during the operations. Such existing challenges for the MET stakeholders can further exacerbate in the
cases of novel skills requirements which naturally take place for any industry due to technological

3
advancements. It is therefore imperative to gain deeper understanding regarding the competence
requirements perceived to be critical for seafarers in the coming years.

1.2 Evolving maritime operations

It can be argued that the skillset necessary for the seafarers to effectively perform their duties have
always been a function of the technologies at use on ships (Manuel & Balmer, 2020). Due to
advancements in fundamental technology, the ships have also evolved over time. The shipping industry
has progressed from the “Age of Sail” when ships used sails as propulsion means (Carter & Carter,
2010), to steam-powered ships, and finally to today’s ships, which use a variety of propulsion modes
(such as, electric/nuclear/diesel), as well as modern navigational technology to carry out various
operations (Paul, 2020; Inal et al., 2022). The competence requirements for present day seafarer,
therefore, is markedly different than the ones from previous era (Emad et al., 2022). For instance,
Jurdzinski (2018) has described the transitioning of the maritime navigational model from mid-20th
century to the present model of 21st century. He describes the modern navigational bridge in detail,
which receives a large part of necessary information from reliable sources than what was available to
the predecessor systems. This information is also integrated and presented in such a form to the bridge
team to ensure efficiency. In the previous generation of navigators, the reliance was on paper charts for
example, along with elementary level of support from the shore through radio signals. There was limited
to no availability of satellite systems. In the case of modern navigators, understanding how to operate
various bridge technology such as - Electronic Chart Display and Information Systems (ECDIS), Global
Positioning System (GPS), and Automatic Identification System (AIS), Radar, and Automatic Radar
Plotting Aid (ARPA) has become critical (Pazouki et al., 2018).

The maritime industry is going through a steady transition, since it operates in a constantly changing
environment affected by digitalization. The digitalization phenomenon for the maritime industry is not
new; however, the scale and the pace of the changes are noticeably higher in the recent years (Scanlan
et al., 2022). It can be argued that there have been sub-optimal results in some cases when departing
from traditional methods of operating a ship. For example, there have been groundings and collisions
not despite of having navigational equipment such as ECDIS and RADAR but because of it. However,
in such cases after a careful analysis, the root cause usually has been attributed to the incorrect use of
such navigational equipment or their lack of integration in the navigational environment of ship (Turna
& Ozturk, 2020). The aforementioned equipment have on the contrast greatly increased the information
processing abilities of ship crew. The main premise of introducing any technological change has been
efficiency and safety. The maritime business and operational scenarios currently are rapidly changing
as a result of technological advancements, particularly new digital technologies and “Industry 4.0” often
known as the fourth industrial revolution (Ichimura et al., 2022). Some examples of such technologies
refer to – Artificial Intelligence (AI), Big Data Analytics (BDA), Virtual and Augmented Reality
(VR/AR), Internet of Things (IoT) and Cloud Computing (CC) (Sanchez-Gonzales et al., 2019).
Businesses are implementing digital technologies to increase productivity and remain competitive. In
spite of the promise of Industry 4.0, some barriers to its implementation are also recognized. Lack of
employee readiness or the lack of understanding regarding interplay between human and technology
dimension of their organizations can often result in businesses not being able to capitalize on perceived
benefits (Stentoft et al., 2019). To maintain effective, sustainable operations and improve short and long-

4
term competitiveness, maritime stakeholders must rethink and adapt their current strategy in this regard
(Babica et al., 2020). These developments also impact the MET community and their outlook towards
preparing the future generation of seafarers. The incremental nature of changes in the maritime
operational domain means that not only do the MET stakeholders need to cater for changing competence
demands but also take into account the appropriate framework to best inculcate the requisite skillset. It
can therefore be stated that technology has a twofold influence in the ongoing efforts to prepare the
future workforce of the sea. Certain competence requirements can become obsolete with the digital
advances in the maritime workspaces, whereas seafarers would be required to acquire some novel
competence requirements (Pazaver et al., 2021). For example, with the transition from paper charts to
ECDIS, the navigators onboard were required to simultaneously adapt and become proficient with the
use of ECDIS and the conventions on corresponding vector charts. Similarly, the changes in the
propulsion system and radio communication required revision in the competences of engineers and radio
communication officers respectively. There are numerous such examples in the recent years.
Furthermore, some of the major maritime nations are also expecting the deployment and the use of
Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS) in the coming years (Goerlandt, 2020). In this regard,
The International Maritime Organization (IMO) has undertaken a regulatory scoping exercise
anticipating the possible introduction of autonomous ships and defined four degrees of autonomy for
ship operations (IMO, 2018), as depicted in the Figure 1 below.

The arguments for introducing autonomous ships range from economic benefits associated with higher
efficiency to safety concerns (Brandsæter & Knutsen, 2018). Porathe, Prison, and Man (2014) cite four
primary arguments for adopting autonomous ships: improved work environment, cost savings,
emissions reduction, and increased safety. In the opinion of the author, the potential introduction of
autonomous shipping would be gradual, and the fully autonomous ships are not on the time horizon for
the immediate future. However, the introduction of semi-autonomous ships has the potential to result in
new modalities of ship transportation beyond those already available (Sharma & Kim, 2021). These
changes are following the already existing trends of the recent decades in the shipping with respect to
reduction of onboard crew and the functional allotment of an increasing number of operations to either
shore or to autonomous agents (Burke & Clott, 2016). The seafarers operating in the Degree 2 and 3 of
MASS operations will accordingly require different skillsets and educational approach than the existing
traditional framework.

Figure 1. Degrees of autonomy as defined by IMO, adapted from Sharma and Kim (2021)

5
In the above-mentioned evolving scenarios for maritime operations, Maritime Education and Training
(MET) institutes play a critical role in ensuring that the maritime industry has a competent workforce.
Not only do MET institutes require suitable infrastructure to support several modalities of instructional
content delivery, but maritime instructors must also maintain a current pedagogical profile and probe
the use of digital technology. The need for professional development of the MET instructors have been
argued in the recent past. However, most of the research articles in this regard have dealt the topic either
at an abstract level, offering broad recommendations or at purely conceptual level. For example,
Muirhead (2004) had written extensively regarding technological developments with advances in
computing and processing powers of the multimedia tools and gave a broad framework for their
integration in MET practices. He also advocated for the need for familiarization courses for the MET
instructors in such instances. Similarly, Gamil (2008) advocated for the capacity development of the
MET instructors as an integral part to raise the overall standards of the MET as a response to evolving
maritime operations. His conclusion was based on a survey study of maritime stakeholders. More
recently, Vujicic et al. (2022) examined several factors such as professional development, personal
characteristics and classroom performance that influence the effectiveness of the MET instructors. In
summary, it is recognized that the role of MET instructors cannot be ignored when discussing about the
future roadmap and skill development of the prospective maritime workforce.

1.3 Maritime Education and Training

A properly trained workforce is the critical component in any complex socio-technical system. Emery
and Trist (1960) first used the term “socio-technical systems” to describe work systems characterized
by intricate interplay among human actors, technological components, and the surrounding
environment. This definition although sufficient when initially coined, can now be termed generic,
which opens up the possibility of different interpretations according to the domain in question (Baxter
& Sommerville, 2011). For the purpose of present work, the term complex socio-technical systems is
used to describe high-risk domains such as aviation, railways, roadways and maritime domain where
priority is given to safe and reliable operations due to considerable risk of harm to human lives as well
as the surrounding environment should an accident occur. In the above-mentioned transportation
domains, the training of human element has considerable impact to their performance in day-to-day
operations and is enforced through regulatory measures. This is also true in the case of maritime industry
where the STCW convention is the primary instrument used by the International Maritime Organization
(IMO) for setting the standards of education and training of maritime workforce. Every member state,
signatory to the STCW convention strives to ensure uniform compliance to the minimum competence
requirements. In the case of maritime domain, the term Maritime Education and Training (MET) is used
to refer to the sub-domain of the maritime industry involved in the education and training of the seafarers
and preparing them for a career at sea. The standards, practices and regulations surrounding MET are
subject to considerable attention within the maritime industry, due to direct impact on the safety of ships
(Demirel & Mehta, 2009). There are several approved MET institutes in each of the signatory states of
the STCW convention that are executing the work of training and accreditation of the qualified
workforce. Various parts of the STCW cover requirements for different ranks as well as laying down
the common minimum standards. The STCW certification procedure for seafarers can be understood
through the following Figure 2. A hypothetical example of training for navigation or engine officer can

6
be taken to further illustrate the professional trajectory of a seafarer. The minimum requirements to be
completed before an individual can begin a career at sea is called the STCW basic training and is covered
under the Regulation VI/1. While STCW basic training courses are mandatory for every individual
aiming to start a career at sea (both officers and ratings), Certificate of Competency examinations are
professional check points for navigation or engineering officers to advance in their ranks (Othman &
Naintin, 2016). These officers in the process, address all the requirements listed in STCW depending on
the rank. A navigation or engine officer need to steadily acquire sea experience while passing COC
exams, ultimately reaching a designation of Master or Chief-engineer. Additionally, specialized short
courses are also taken by seafarers which target a generic area of competence usually common to more
than one rank or designation onboard. The ship owner or the ship management company in charge of
manning the vessel may require completion of additional in-house training for the seafarers employed
by them which is over and above the basic and minimum STCW framework described above. The career
progression can be visualized as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. An example of career progression for a navigation or engineering officer

The above figure gives a contemporary illustration of the professional trajectory of a seafarer
intending to be a navigation or engineering officer. As noted in previous section, the competence
requirements for seafarers have changed parallelly to the technological changes happening on ships. In
recent years, the pre-dominant model of training seafarers for prospective roles in the shipping was
through an apprenticeship model. Such model required the seafarers to spend considerable amount of
time at sea learning “on-the-job” through peers and immediate superiors in their respective department
(Emad & Roth, 2008). However, an ever-increasing component of the contemporary seafarer’s training
now involves spending a significant amount of time mastering the basics and theoretical components of
their job profile description. The sea-service remains relevant as well, but there is a cap on the time
required to be onboard for advancing in the ranks as compared to recent years. Such hybrid mode of
educating the seafarer for preparing for their job evolved from changing market dynamics as well as
efficiency concerns. Additionally, there are varied options available for officers with regards to shore-
based positions with the operational level experience (Pettit et al., 2005). Consequently, there is a tension
between mastering the vocational and academic aspects of MET in the approach to prepare the future
workforce (Manuel, 2017).

7
There are a variety of technological mediums available nowadays for the MET institutes to help them
deliver the various learning components of a professional MET education. For theoretical components,
traditionally, the classroom-based learning is employed with a selected number of lectures facilitated by
an instructor. The instructors and the students can utilize a wide variety of ICT tools such as computers,
smart phones, tablets, and learning management systems (LMS) to enable the transfer of knowledge and
evaluate the learning outcomes of the classroom lectures. The practical demonstration of the skills is
first carried out on a simulator station before being done onboard. The use of this approach provides a
risk-free environment to attain the required skills for the students without the errors being translated into
costs such as accidents or near misses onboard (Baldauf et al., 2016). The simulators utilized for skills
training are of variety of types providing different levels of immersion and fidelity. MET institutes
typically use desktop-based simulators for introductory exercises before utilizing full mission simulators
to provide a more immersive experience of operational scenario. Furthermore, with evolution in
technology, Virtual reality and Augmented reality based simulators are being developed that can allow
even greater immersivity along with cloud based simulators which can allow for real time remote
simulation based learning (Kim et al., 2021). Similarly, the educational delivery of the theoretical
components is also changing as a result of the advances in ICT technology. In addition to the
conventional mode of instructional delivery as described above, the more recent approaches such as
Computer-Based Training (CBT) which allows a selected number of modules to be completed onboard
on a laptop or desktop computer, during the seafarer’s assignments on ships is introduced. Furthermore,
the use of e-learning to connect to maritime trainees from different geographical areas, as well as the
use of specific applications in personal devices enabling ubiquitous access to course content for the
maritime trainees is possible for the theoretical component of maritime education and training (Collins
& Hogg, 2004; Sokolov et al., 2020). For all these advances in ICTs, there are also bottle-necks and
barriers existing for realizing applied benefits for education. Merely introduction technological solutions
without considering the end goals could even turn out to be counter-productive in some instances with
the demands of additional time and other resources. The effectiveness of these mediums in part depend
on the role of organizational management, as well as skills and capabilities of both students and
instructors. As noted by Miranda (2007), positive results from the use of technology only emerge when
its use is considered holistically and when used as new form of processing educational information to
better support the learning goals of the students.

The above-mentioned mediums provided a few examples of how learning content is delivered. In order
to categorize them and understanding how learning is taking place, the learning framework of Harvard
Professor - Richard Elmore can be utilized. According to Elmore (2016), there are primarily four modes
of learning that can be categorized against two axes. These two axes represent individual or collective
as a unit, forming opposite ends of one axis. Whereas the setting of learning can be hierarchical or
distributed, forming opposite ends of the horizontal axis. Consequently, there are four modes of learning
as per this framework, they are:

• Hierarchical Individual: Individual success and performance are the focus of learning in this
quadrant. The structure of knowledge acquisition is chronological.

8
 • Hierarchical Collective: Learning in this quadrant is similar to “hierarchical individual”
learning in some ways, but it is centred on group engagement. The structure of learning
acquisition is chronological.
• Distributed Individual: Learner in this quadrant initiates a learning process on his or her own,
selects objects of study, defines sources and means, and establishes goals, with the assistance
of internet and web 2.0 technologies.
• Distributed Collective: Learning is based on self-organized networks of people with similar
interests. Members of such networks acquire and transmit information based on their level of
understanding.

These four modes of learning and corresponding example from MET can be seen in Figure 3 below:

Figure 3. Modes of learning framework by Elmore (2016) and example of application within MET
context

An example of hierarchical individual mode of learning in maritime context would be the conventional
classroom instruction. The learning approach is structured and takes place in the physical setting of a
classroom within MET institute. Similarly, the example of hierarchical collective mode of learning in a
maritime context would be the simulator exercises taking place in the MET institute where the group of
maritime trainees participate collectively as a group. The setting is structured as well, with clear learning

9
objectives and performance indicators defined at both group and individual levels. As described above,
with changes in the technology and capacities, the digital modes of learning, whether distributed
individual or collective, are also being introduced for the MET stakeholders. An example of distributed
individual mode of learning would be CBT or e-learning initiatives with personal devices as described
earlier, whereas the use of cloud simulators or virtual worlds to form a community of learners for
maritime students would fall to the distributed collective learning mode. There are several examples of
commercial or governmental organizations providing e-learning and computer-based training solutions.
The International Maritime Organization (IMO) itself offers a selection of e-learning courses on its LMS
(IMO, 2022). Whereas technological companies such as Kongsberg Digital and Wartsila have initiated
cloud-based simulator solutions during the Covid-19 pandemic (Kim et al., 2021). The increasing
adaption of these digital distributed learning solutions does not negate the use of traditional hierarchical
modes of learning, but they can be increasing thought as complementary to each other. With greater
technological affordances available for the MET community, the options to use the relevant learning
modes that offer shortest path to the learning objectives while also being economical will be considered.
A common concern so far in the standardized mode of delivering education and training is also the issue
of lack of personalized feedback (Mallam et al., 2019). This would be another area where the use of
technology can be explored. In general, the distributed learning modes will be increasingly used in MET.
In this regard, digital technologies such as Artificial Intelligence for example, can play a major role in
the educational innovation.

As noted earlier, an indispensable element in the preparing the next generation of the seafarers is the
role played by the MET instructors. The MET instructors have the key responsibility in designing and
delivering the educational programs which are aligned with the industry standards. Therefore, their
professional development is also a factor to be considered for ensuring that the students are equipped
with the correct skills and knowledge (Vujicic et al., 2022). The relevant sections of the STCW
regulations that detail the requirements related to the qualifications of the MET instructors are A-I/6 and
A-I/8. Furthermore, non-mandatory suggestions and guidance are given in the sections B-I/6 and B-I/8
regarding compliance. Additionally, for ensuring compliance and to ensure adequate qualification
standards for the instructors, IMO has also developed model courses, namely IMO model courses 1.30,
3.12, 6.09 and 6.10. The IMO model course 1.30 is towards the in-service, onboard competence
assessment of seafarers and is therefore targeted for senior ship officers. Whereas the courses 3.12 and
6.09 addresses the classroom training and assessment methods and organization of instruction. The IMO
model course 6.10 specifies the guidelines for instructors who will be involved with simulator-based
training and assessment. These IMO model courses together along with other quality assurance
mechanisms ensure that the MET instructors who are responsible for holding the examinations for the
CoC of seafarers remain sufficiently prepared themselves. However, similar to the competence
accreditation framework of seafarers, variation at national level exists in this regard. The phrasing of
the regulation A-I/6 mentions that each party (signatory state) should ensure that the MET instructors
are “appropriately qualified”. While accounting for natural differences in resources and organizations
globally, it also leaves the phrasing open for different interpretations. Albeit it does not absolve the
responsibility for taking into considerations the latest changes in new technologies that might require
re-calibration of institutional efforts to prepare the MET instructors to better align with the ongoing
demands. The consideration of such steps will require continuous discussions for capacity building of

10
instructors and identifying the potential use of new educational technologies that could be leveraged for
the benefit of achieving intended learning outcomes.

1.4 Conceptual framework of the thesis

The aforementioned trends in the maritime sector point to an anticipated shift in the industry’s
operational profile and, by extension, new competence requirements for seafarers. Further, with
advances in digital technology, newer modes of learning and the content delivery that also take into
account the distributed mode of education are forthcoming. Responding to contemporary technological
changes would require maritime educational institutions to equip seafarers with “future ready” skill sets.
It can be observed that such developments are impacting multiple facets of MET. The areas where
transformation in approach for MET is required could be multiple and overlapping. Therefore, it is
essential to understand the interplay of various factors that could influence the route taken by the MET
stakeholders as well as the barriers and opportunities existing as a result. The present thesis is an attempt
to contribute in the current and ever-increasing body of knowledge aimed at tackling the above
mentioned challenges for the maritime domain.

To systematically consider these changes and advance our understanding regarding the new competence
requirements, as well as the potential use of technology, it is necessary to have a holistic perspective of
various factors that are interplaying in an educational context. Therefore, a conceptual framework for
the PhD thesis was formulated. Basically, the factors discussed above which are influencing MET can
be divided into three areas – (1) Macro-context (2) Professional development of MET instructors, and
(3) Micro-context, as shown in Figure 4 below.

Figure 4. Conceptual framework of the PhD thesis

11
Macro-context related to the use of technology in MET pertains to more abstract view of the
developments shaping the maritime industry at large and is dependent on various factors. For the
purpose of current work, it was identified as the need for new competencies as a result of changing
operations, the standards as per STCW regulations and the generic 21st century skills requirement for
contemporary learners. Further understanding of the macro-context could aid in making informed
decisions and pin-point areas where specific adaptations can be made. Paper-1 and paper-4 of the thesis
focused on the macro-context. By investigating the suitability of existing STCW regulations and
additional competence requirements for future maritime operations, paper-1 aimed to bridge the
knowledge gap with respect to current standards which are used to prepare the seafarers and the demands
with respect to the prospective new skillset. Another critical area which determines the use of technology
in MET is the professional development of the MET instructors. MET instructors are directly
responsible in imparting the education for the maritime trainees and their own level of advancement in
technology can significantly influence its use in instruction and subsequently the capabilities of the
students. Paper-2 of the thesis therefore focused on technology proficiency of maritime instructors and
their level of technology integration. Micro-context refers to the specific instances of classroom
activities where learning is taking place. For the purpose of the current work, they can be described as
the instances where interaction between instructor and student takes place mediated by technology tools.
By understanding how technology can be used to support these interactions to the benefit of both
instructors and students would be valuable for evaluating its viability. Paper-3 of the thesis with the
development and use of AI tool reflect on the micro-context. The paper-4 of the thesis shed light on the
topic of digital skills of the maritime trainees, which is identified as one of the important skills required
for industry 4.0 environments. The level of digital skills has also impact on the ability of learner to
optimally use technology for their own learning. Paper-4, while mostly concentrating on the micro-
context, simultaneously also touches upon the macro-context area of MET as described above. The
conceptual framework was used to develop the research aims and objectives of the thesis as outlined in
the next section.

1.5 Research aims and objectives

The research project set out to achieve the aim of the conceptual framework by a series of studies which
focused on macro and micro contexts of the MET and the issue of the professional development of the
maritime instructors. Based on the conceptual framework described above, specific research questions
were developed for the thesis. The overall research questions which guided the thesis were:

(1) What are the emerging competence requirements for the future maritime workforce and

(2) What are the opportunities and barriers for technology integration in maritime educational
settings?

The following research objectives were established for this purpose:

• To investigate the suitability of the present STCW competence requirements and explore novel
competence requirements that will be required for future seafarers.

12
 • To evaluate the digital skills of maritime students in the context of generic 21st century skills
and identify potential areas of improvement.
• To identify the state of art and the barriers for technology integration in the maritime
classrooms.
• To design, test and validate a learning intervention in the maritime classroom and present a
proof-of-concept for the use of novel digital tools.

The outline and structure of the thesis is presented in the next section.

1.6 Thesis structure

The thesis consist of six chapters in addition to the appendices with supplementary information. The
four papers are also appended towards the end. The thesis is organized as follows – first a general
background and context of the research work is presented in Chapter 1. This section lays out the
contemporary discussions regarding the primary topic of research and the conceptual framework which
laid the foundation of the subsequent work. In Chapter 2, a brief literature review of the some of the key
theoretical concepts associated with the research studies is presented. Important terminologies are
clarified and elaborated. Chapter 3, presents the methodology used in the studies and the overall research
paradigm. The reliability, validity of the findings as well as the ethical issues related to the above
mentioned studies are also described. Chapter 4 highlights the key findings from the research studies.
The Chapter 5 provides the general discussions of the findings as well as specific methodological and
theoretical discussions. The implications and future research directions are also provided. Chapter 6
provides the concluding remarks. The research contributions as well as stakeholder recommendations
are outlined in this chapter. Finally, the thesis ends with supplementary information in the appendices
along with the four appended research articles.

13
2 Theoretical insights
This chapter elaborates on the theoretical insights which were utilized in the research papers and the
PhD thesis. The essential theoretical concepts and state-of-the-art are described, which are related to the
research objectives of the papers. A summary and theoretical discussion is offered towards the end of
the chapter which focuses more on the application of concepts for MET purposes.

2.1 Learning theories in education

Since education and training is an overarching theme in the thesis, it is first necessary to review and
discuss the established learning theories in education. Learning theories seek to explain how knowledge
gets observably engrained in an individual’s memory. There are several theories existing in the research
literature which are used to describe the learning process. As described by Kay and Kibble (2016),
broadly they can be categorized as (1) Behaviourism (2) Cognitivism (3) Constructivism (4) Social
cognitivism and (5) Social constructivism. These learning theories are further elaborated upon as
follows:

2.1.1 Behaviourism
Behaviourism, sometimes referred to as behavioural psychology is a learning theory which states that
all behaviours by humans (or animals) are learned through interaction with the environment by a process
known as “conditioning”. In simple words, a behaviour is simply a response to stimulus from the
environment. The basic tenets of behaviourism started to emerge as early as the late 19th century through
a series of experiments carried out by Twitmyer and Pavlov (Clark, 2004). Twitmyer popularized the
term “knee jerk reactions” as he was conducting experiment with the subjects where they were tapped
on knee a moment later a bell was ringed. Subsequently, the sound of bell ringing alone was producing
the effect from the respondents, as if they have been struck by the hammer in the knee. Similarly, Pavlov
(1897) and Thorndike (1905) produced identical results through various experiments primarily on
animals. The term which was used to describe the effect of the stimulus was known as Pavlovian or
Classical conditioning. It was Watson (1913) who introduced the term methodological behaviourism
and aimed to formally connect the relation between stimulus-response to human psychology. According
to Watson (1930), the human psychology can be best understood through observable behaviour rather
than the internal processes within the mind. He argued that there is a simple and direct relationship
between the stimulus, situation and the subsequent reaction taken by individuals. The concept of
methodological behaviourism was extended by Skinner (1938) and he proposed the theory of operant
conditioning in contrast to the classical conditioning. According to Skinner, the behaviour of an
individual depends on the stimulus that occurs after the behaviour, which he termed as reinforcement.
The reinforcement can be positive (added after the behaviour) or negative (removed after the behaviour)
which determines how the behaviour will take shape subsequently. His position is often referred to as
“Radical Behaviourism” as he argued that all of the psychological processes can be traced back to the
associated stimuli. Even though behaviourism as a learning theory is widely discussed and applied since
its conception, several limitations of the theory were also identified. The most prominent limitation of
behaviourism was deemed to be its insistence to only take into account the observable behaviours of an
individual and not the internal mental processes. This take was criticized as it removes the role of

14
individual agency of the learners. Additionally, behaviourism as a learning theory could also be termed
as overly simplistic and does not take into account other factors that shape a learner’s experience. It is
also argued that it fails to take into account individual differences that might be present in a group of
learners (Brau et al., 2018). However, despite its limitations, behaviourism still remains an important
applied learning theory in education. Some of the modern concepts which are used in today’s classrooms
such as feedback, assigning of grades and gamification of curriculum can trace their origins from
behaviourist learning perspective.

2.1.2 Cognitivism
Cognitivism in the context of learning theories is the study of the human mind and how it is able to
obtain, process and store information. In the middle of 20th century, cognitivism began to emerge as the
more plausible theory to describe the learning process (Clark, 2018). In cognitivism, learning is
described as taking place in stages and the learner is thought to transition between various states of
knowledge. In contrast with the behaviourist perspectives, in cognitivism the emphasis is given towards
what the learners know and the process through which they came to acquire the knowledge (Jonassen,
1991). The early theory of cognitive development was advocated by Piaget (1936) where he described
four sequential stages of cognitive development occurring in children – (1) Sensorimotor stage (2) Pre-
operational stage (3) Concrete operational stage and (4) Formal operational stage. Furthermore, he
described the concept of “schema” as the basic building block of the learner behaviour. In simple terms,
it can be thought of as the basic unit of knowledge. According to Piaget (1957) as the mental
development takes place for the learner, the number and complexity of schema increases. The existing
schemata becomes the foundation over which new schemata are formed. According to cognitivism,
active learning is preferred over passive learning, where a learner should be able to engage in a
meaningful task and apply their own thinking to execute it. The modern application of cognitivism is
therefore towards problem solving activities and self-directed form of learning. Despite being received
favourably by a significant section of learning sciences community, some limitations of cognitivism
learning theory also emerged over the years. As described above, cognitivism learning theory espouses
the view of sequential stages of learning. However, in subsequent research, many investigators found
the importance of social factors which shape the level of knowledge regarding particular concepts for
learners (Dasen, 1994). Similarly, Piaget would propose that the thought precedes the speech in a child’s
development, as the learning occurs sequentially. This is in contrast with the position of Vygotsky
(1978), where he states that the development of thought and speech occurs together for a child and is
dependent on the social interaction between child and more knowledgeable other (parent or guardian).
In other words, sometimes contrary evidence was found regarding one of the central tenets of cognitivist
perspective i.e., a sequential order of learning taking place in well-defined stages. Nonetheless,
cognitivism remains a relevant lens for consideration, when designing curriculum and instructional
strategies in the classroom. Some applications in modern classroom of cognitivism learning theory is -
using surveys to map the existing state of knowledge regarding a particular concept for the learners and
then tailoring the lessons accordingly. Furthermore, introducing the learning content sequentially and in
sufficient quantity, so as to facilitate the assimilation and integration of the knowledge by the learners.

15
2.1.3 Constructivism
Constructivism is a term used to describe both epistemology as well as learning theory. In the context
of learning theory, constructivism refers to how learners construct the understanding of their own
environment through active engagement and building up on their past experiences. In other words, it is
about the learners creating their own meaning through experiences (Bednar et al., 1991). Historically,
the foundation of constructivist perspective of learning is complex and comprises of several similar
models given by various theorists. The prominent voices within the constructivist perspectives with
some overlap in their positions are - Dewey (1929), Vygotsky (1978), Bruner (1961) and Piaget (1957)
for example. The position of Bruner and Piaget is often described as cognitive constructivism, whereas
Vygotsky’s theory is termed as social constructivism (described later). Dewey although working
independently with Vygotsky had reached similar conclusions in his research regarding the social
dimensions of learning, however his emphasis was on connecting education with real life experiences
and often is described as pragmatist. The central assumptions within the constructivist perspective of
learning are as follows – (1) Knowledge is actively constructed by the learners (2) Learning is a social
and contextual process which involves meaning making (3) The instructor (or more knowledgeable
peer) assists the learner to achieve desired level of knowledge and (4) Learner participates in well
described context with established learning goals (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1992; Lebow, 1995; Wilson
et al., 1995). The practical application of constructivism learning theory in present day education are –
group work and problem-based learning assignments. Furthermore, activities or tasks that promote the
autonomy of student, while being minimally supervised by the instructor or peers are also an example.
Even though constructivist perspective of learning has been found to be useful specially in the domain
of vocational education and in pursuit of preparing student for real life scenarios, some limitations are
also present when using this approach. Constructivism is often criticized for lack of structure in the
environments designed for activities related to it. Additionally, it is often found to be difficult to evaluate
the student progress and grade them objectively in such situations.

2.1.4 Social cognitivism

Social cognitivism learning theory is based on the belief that the learning occurs through dynamic
interaction between an individual and the environment where observable behaviours are imitated. Social
cognitivism has its roots in the social learning theory proposed by Bandura (1962) where he offered a
criticism of the behaviourist perspective on learning and its inability to be applicable in real-life settings.
Later, he revised the theory and termed it as “Social Cognitive Theory” (Bandura, 1977, 1986).
According to Bandura (1977) there is reciprocal and dynamic interaction between triad of - (1) Personal
factors influencing an individual (2) External environment and (3) Behaviour of the individual. Bandura
did agree with the classic and operant conditioning explanations of the learning process. However, he
posited that the learners involved in the learning activities have the capacity for self-organization and
self-regulation. Furthermore, he emphasized the concept of observational learning where the learners
imitate ideal “models” in their social context. As per the theory, for observational learning to occur, it
was necessary that cognitive processing is taking place, as there is some thought prior to the imitation
of models. Due to this position, social cognitive theory was able to act as a bridge between the
behaviourism and cognitivism perspectives of learning. Some of the key constructs associated with
social cognitivism learning theory are - goals, outcome expectations, self-efficacy and socio-structural

16
variables (Bandura, 1986). These constructs are thought to be influencing the end behaviour of the
individuals. Goals refer to the intention to perform a certain action. Outcome expectations are beliefs
whether the action will have positive or negative consequences. The socio-structural variables refer to
the environmental factors that influence the goal and as a consequence facilitates or inhibits a behaviour.
Whereas self-efficacy is the confidence in one’s ability to perform the said behaviour. Some identified
limitations of social cognitivism learning theory are - its broad nature which encompasses several
factors, but their interaction is not adequately specified and therefore it is observed to be difficult to
operationalize. Some contemporary application of social cognitivism in the classrooms can be - targeted
training for improving self-efficacy of learners for particular aspects of the tasks and self-paced online
lectures for learners which enables them to exercise autonomy and self-regulation.

2.1.5 Social constructivism

Social constructivism learning theory also sometimes referred as the socio-cultural learning theory is a
theory originally proposed by Vygotsky (1978). As briefly mentioned earlier, it builds on the
constructivist perspective of learning, but it emphasizes on the social and cultural factors that influences
the level of knowledge and its acquisition process for the learners. According to this theory, the
knowledge is not passively acquired by the learners, but it is actively constructed through social
interaction with peers and instructors. In other words, the knowledge does not reside “in the mind” as
suggested by the cognitive perspective but rather resides in a particular social and cultural context. It is
often termed as a “learner-centred” approach. According to Vygotsky, learning process occurs in two
stages, where first it takes place at a social level and thereafter the knowledge is internalized by the
learners building upon their past experiences and beliefs. Social constructivist perspective of learning
gives importance to the process of collaboration and interaction between a learner and their environment.
A central concept related to social constructivism is - the Zone of Proximal development (ZPD) which
describes the role of More Knowledgeable Other (MKO) for guiding or scaffolding the learner to
achieve more knowledge (Refer Figure 5 below). MKO is conventionally described as either peer or
instructor. However, in modern context, MKO could also be an artificial intelligence agent for example.
To describe the concept of ZPD, often three concentric circles are illustrated where the innermost circle
represents the current state of knowledge for the learner and the second intermediate circle representing
what learner can do with the help of MKO (through scaffolding process). The third and final concentric
circle encompassing these two circles represent the level of knowledge currently out of the reach for the
learner. As per the social constructivist perspective, the difference between the first and second
concentric circle is defined as the ZPD. In other words, to expand the first and innermost circle
representing the current state of knowledge, the second circle should expand which can be achieved
through increased interaction with the external environment guided by the MKO. Furthermore, the
concept of community of learners is also described in the social constructivist perspective. Community
of learners refer to a group of students with similar learning goals who collaborate and work together to
construct knowledge and increase their understanding. Some apparent limitations of the social
constructivism learning theory is its inability to be applicable in a wide variety of learning settings. It is
often limited to a more narrow and confined learning setting where there is an explicit need for
collaborative approach. Furthermore, this approach to learning would be resource intensive in planning
and execution to adequately realize the desired learning goals. Some modern day application of social
constructivism learning theory are - group tasks where the role of instructor is minimal. The students

17
are allowed to collaborate, describe and present their findings in a plenary discussion. Additionally,
reciprocal teaching is employed at times i.e., students are given the task to prepare a small portion of
curriculum and play the role of instructor for a brief period. These activities are instrumental in making
the knowledge gaps explicit and allows the classroom to converge on the desired level of knowledge
together as a group.

Figure 5. Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) as defined by Vygotsky (1978)

2.2 The concept of competency

2.2.1 Competency
The term “competency” has a variety of definitions and interpretations in the literature. The Oxford
English dictionary defines competency as “the ability to do something successfully or efficiently”
(Stevenson, 2010, p.355). A more specific definition is provided by the United Nations Industrial
Development Organization (UNIDO), which defines competency as “a set of skills
encompassing knowledge and attributes which enables an individual to perform a task within a
specific function/job effectively” (Vathanophas & Thai-ngam 2007, p.50). Historically, research on
competency has discussed it in terms of an individual’s performance and its surrounding environment
(Hayes, 1979; Boyatzis, 1982). In this regard, one of the early attempts to define the concept of
competence in terms of an operational definition was by White (1959, p.297) where he defined
competence as “an organism’s capacity to interact effectively with its environment”. White (1959)
argued that the psychoanalytic instinct theory or the drive reduction theory, which were the dominant
psychological theories at the time were insufficient in adequately describing the construct of motivation.

18
To this end, he stated that an individual’s desire to master the surrounding environment or being
competent in their actions, leads to motivation which is reinforced through further interactions and
feedback. He viewed this as an inherent trait in humans and thought of it as independent of biological
drives or instincts. This view was influential in articulating the concept of competence further in the
subsequent research literature. Although not explicitly discussing the act of acquiring knowledge, he
indicated that competence is attained through prolonged acts of learning and exploration by an
individual of their immediate environment. Afterwards, the concept and definitions of competence
evolved, and it acquired a definite functional perspective. In the 1970s, McClelland (1973) argued that
in the educational contexts, it is more appropriate to test the ability of students to manage with the real-
life situations i.e., their competence in contrast to the traditional focus on intelligence diagnostics.
Similarly, Hartig et al. (2008, p.6) have defined competence as “complex ability constructs that are
closely related to performance in real-life situations”.

Another and more recent perspective in discussing competency is to define it in terms of education or
human resource development for individuals. In this regard, Mace (2005) described it as established
personal qualities that demonstrate the ability to consistently perform at an acceptable or high skill level
in a specific job function (Smythe et al., 2014, p.60). Shavelson (2010, p.44) gave a more overarching
framework of the term competence and its measurement. He stated that competence is - “(1) is a physical
or intellectual ability, skill or both; (2) is a performance capacity to do as well as to know; (3) is carried
out under standardized conditions; (4) is judged by some level or standard of performance as “adequate,”
“sufficient,” “proper,” “suitable” or “qualified”; (5) can be improved; (6) draws upon an underlying
complex ability; and (7) needs to be observed in real-life situations.”. Thus, the conceptualization and
adoption of competency as a concept can be seen as a step in the process of regulating and enhancing
human performance in a particular situation through targeted education and training. (Hoffman, 1999,
p.283).

Figure 6. Various facets of competency such as ability, knowledge and skills

19
In light of the above definitions, it is worthwhile to emphasize the distinction between competency and
skills. The phrase competency encompasses a larger range of employment needs than does the term
skill. The definition of competence given by Rychen and Salagnik (2003, p.46) where they have defined
it as “the ability to successful meet complex demands in a particular context through the mobilization
of psychosocial prerequisites” clarifies the above assertion. Here the psychosocial prerequisites includes
skills and attitudes. Thus, the phrases “skills,” “ability,” and “knowledge” are best used to refer to facets
of competency in this context, as can be seen in Figure 6. There can be differences in scope when talking
in relation to competence for a task or function. Therefore, it should be noted that competence for a
function is always tied to a relevant real-life context. To give an example of the term in a maritime
context - A navigator is considered competent if he or she is capable of successfully navigating the ship
between two destinations. To accomplish this duty, they will require a specific set of talents (e.g., radar
navigation, passage planning, etc.). Furthermore, there should be concrete description of the context in
which their performance can be measured and compared.

2.2.2 STCW competence framework

Until few decades ago, Individuals entering the merchant marine were required to perform mandatory
periods of minimum sea service in between advancing grades of license examinations conducted by the
appropriate licensing authorities. Sea service provided the majority of the necessary practical experience
and served as the foundation for additional instruction ashore. Long sea journeys, long turnaround
periods, large crew compliment, and comprehensive apprenticeship programs, all helped individuals
gain the necessary practical skills while at sea. However, there were also varying standards when
determining the seafarer’s competency for the job (Alop, 2004). For the increasingly globalized
maritime industry, it was imperative to have uniform competence standards, and this was the driving
motive for the adoption of the STCW convention (Emad & Roth, 2008).

The STCW convention and its adoption process was described in earlier sections. There are various
ranks and responsibility levels present in the hierarchy of manning arrangements for merchant shipping.
The standards of competence and related general abilities for the seafarers in the STCW are grouped
under seven functions, namely – (1) Navigation (2) Cargo handling and stowage (3) Controlling the
operation of the ship and care for persons on board (4) Marine engineering (5) Electrical, electronic and
control engineering (6) Maintenance and repair and (7) Radiocommunications (IMO, 2011). These
functions are further having three levels of responsibilities – (1) Management level (2) Operational level
and (3) Support level. The competence requirements for all the functions at each level of responsibility
are grouped under various chapters of the STCW. Taken together, they constitute the STCW competence
framework. There are several tables present in each chapter of the STCW Part-A, that enumerate the
set of competencies that should be acquired before a Certificate of Competency (CoC) can be issued by
an examining body for the candidate. Various methods of demonstrating the listed competencies may
include practical demonstrations, oral exams, written exams and other forms of assessment. These
competencies are divided into – Knowledge, Understanding and Proficiency (KUP) items. The focus of
the competence related research for this thesis has been the “Navigation” function at an “Operational”
level. For example, the Table A-II/1 which lists the competencies that an Officer in Charge of a
Navigational Watch (OICNW) for foreign going ships over 500 Gross Tonnage should possess. It has
19 competence themes and 66 KUPs. Corresponding tables are also present for management level

20
officers as well as ratings for various ship departments. The assessment of these competencies in the
case of navigation officer for example, involves written assessments as well as practical evaluations.
The written assessment of theoretical knowledge components typically include topics such as
navigation, cargo handling, emergency preparedness, etc. and can be conducted in a classroom setting,
or through computer-based testing. Whereas the practical evaluation is usually carried out onboard ship
or in a simulator setting. It entails the demonstration related to the ability of the seafarer to carry out
specific tasks associated to their job roles. In case of navigation officer, that would require tasks such as
- navigating the ship under varying conditions from point A to point B, as safely as possible.

Once a seafarer is deemed competent to serve in a particular rank, they are issued the Certificate of
Competence (CoC) as a formal recognition for their completed assessment. It signifies that they possess
minimum level of competence necessary to perform functions related to their rank. Subsequently, they
can be employed to any ship registered to a state signatory to the STCW convention. Furthermore, they
can progress to more advanced ranks in their career and obtain corresponding CoCs or choose to go
refresher training periodically to maintain the validity of the current CoC. The above description
illustrates the current status of competence assessment framework for maritime industry.

2.3 Technology integration in education

2.3.1 Technology integration
Technology integration can be described as the process of incorporating technological tools in the
classroom to improve the educational experience for students. Various technological resources such as
- desktop computers, laptops, tablets, smartphones, multimedia devices and other innovative digital tools
can be utilized by the instructors to achieve the curriculum objectives. Usually, the diverse form of
digital tools used in education are described under the umbrella term of Information and Communication
Technology (ICT) tools. The ICT tools can include both stand-alone and networked technologies used
in the classroom by the instructors and the students (Livingstone, 2012). The use of technological
resources is thought to be complimentary to the traditional approach of imparting knowledge by the
instructors. If utilized effectively, the above-mentioned ICT tools can help instructors expand their reach
and improve their efficiency in the classroom (Spector, 2014). In recent years, technological integration
has received considerable interest in educational research. This phenomenon can be attributed in part to
the rising availability of digital technologies in the production and distribution of instructional content
(Guzman & Nussbaum, 2009). Some of the potential benefits of technology integration are listed as
improved interaction, communication and collaboration and resource sharing amongst the students and
instructors. The use of ICT tools and associated technologies can facilitate the process of active
knowledge construction (An & Williams, 2010). However, critical reflections in the research literature
regarding the use of technology for education have also emerged concurrently. Selwyn (2010) argues
that wider analysis of influences regarding the technological developments is often missing in the
learning sciences literature. He further states that too often in the studies involving the use of technology
in educational settings, the focus is towards the micro-level of individual use with guidance from
instructors. The study of macro elements such as global trends, organizational and cultural factors at
institute and international levels could assist in socially grounded and pragmatic understanding of the
educational technology. This could aid the research community in providing better answers regarding

21
why and how the technology can be utilized for greater benefits of the learner community rather than
focusing on narrow contexts and “means-end” approach. Similarly, Livingstone (2012) pointed out that
the evidence that the introduction of ICT can improve learning gains might be ambivalent, as it has been
historically difficult to evaluate the impact of any learning intervention and their outcomes.
Furthermore, she highlights the fact that the optimal integration of technology for meeting learning
objectives can be resource intensive, both in terms of infrastructure as well as preparedness of the
instructors. In this regard, Saljo (2010) notes that the use of digital tools can challenge the established
institutional traditions regarding learning as they alter the way knowledge is created, stored and shared.
Instead of focusing on apparent effectiveness of these tools, he brings attention to the novel
technological affordances and their potential impact. The digital technologies might offer new
opportunities for collaboration and creativity for the learning communities, but they also creates doubt
about reliability and authenticity of obtained knowledge. In sum, the use of technology does change the
way education is delivered at the institution, however the effectiveness of their use is contested.

There are several technology integration frameworks and models developed as evident from the research
literature, that can be used by the instructors and other stakeholders when deciding to utilize any
technology for meeting learning objectives. One of the widely discussed model is the SAMR model of
technology integration given by Puentedura (2006). SAMR stands for Substitution, Augmentation,
Modification and Redefinition. It is a 4 level taxonomy utilized for selecting, using and evaluating any
technology for supporting the classroom instruction. In substitution level, the focus is on directly
replacing traditional activities or tools with digital counterparts. It can be as simple as having the lectures
in a digital format such as presentation slides. The next level is Augmentation, and the technology is
used to enhance the already existing system. An example in this regard could be use of multimedia to
facilitate the delivery of learning content. In the modification level, as the name suggests, technology is
used for fundamentally modifying the learning process. Use of dedicated Learning Management System
(LMS) can be considered as an example of this level. Finally, at the Redefinition level, the technology
is used to create learning experiences that are impossible at the prior three levels such as the use of
Virtual worlds or other similar distributed mode of learning. Another important framework with regards
to technology integration in education is known as TPACK framework proposed by Koehler and Mishra
(2009). TPACK stands for Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge. As the name suggests, the
TPACK model states that the effective integration of any technology will rely on three inter-playing
factors – (1) Pedagogical knowledge – the instructor’s own processes and practices related to teaching
and learning (2) Technology knowledge – the understanding regarding the technology in use and (3)
Content knowledge – the expertise related to subject being taught. It is built on Shulman’s (1987) model
of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) by adding technology as a separate dimension. According to
Koehler and Mishra (2009), for technology use to be beneficial in any educational setting, it will require
creation of continuous equilibrium of all three dimensions of TPACK. Another model utilized for
understanding the role of instructors in technology integration is known as RAT. It stands for
Replacement, Amplification and Transformation. It was conceptualized by Hughes et al. (2006). In
replacement stage of the RAT model, the technology directly replaces the traditional method of teaching,
whereas in the amplification stage, it is used to increase the productivity and efficiency of instruction.
Finally, at the transformation stage, the technology completely redefines the learning activities in the
classroom. In a way, the RAT model is closely related to the SAMR model with some parallels that can

22
be drawn regarding how the use of technology is conceptualized. Similarly, TIM model which stands
for Technology Integration Matrix, was developed by the Florida Centre of Instructional Technology in
2005. There are five distinct levels of technology integration as defined in TIM, they are – Entry,
Adoption, Adaptation, Infusion and Transformation. Together with five characteristics of learning
environment which are described as – Active learning, Collaborative learning, Constructive learning,
Authentic learning and Goal directed learning; the TIM model has 25 matrix cells which describe the
technology integration in any classroom. These are some examples of technology integration
frameworks and models existing in the literature; however the list is not exhaustive. Each of the
framework and model offers unique perspective for the purpose of technology integration and can be
utilized by the instructors and other stakeholders depending on their needs and suitability. A much
simpler instrument for determining the level of technology integration is Concern Based Adoption
Model - Level of Use (CBAM_LoU). It is based on the concern-based adoption model for innovation
diffusion (Hall et al., 1975) and can be used as a unidimensional scale having 8 distinct levels for
measuring educational innovation (Knezeck & Christensen, 2016).

As use of technology is usually discussed at micro-levels, it will require some reflections from the
educational stakeholders, especially the instructors to view the technology integration as a part of larger
efforts to deliver on the learning outcomes and be a cohesive part of education program (Okojie et al.,
2006). As was noticed in the above illustrated frameworks, for the technology integration to be truly
successful, the use of technology should be coupled with the pedagogical strategy. The instructors form
the critical link between the use of any technological resource for conducting learning in MET, to
making its practicable use for the benefit of the students (Sellberg, 2017). Kim et al. (2013) in their
study demonstrated that technology integration in the classrooms is co-related with the instructors’
belief about the nature of learning and their beliefs about the effective ways for teaching. In the context
of MET, the latest amendment to STCW in 2010 (Manila amendments) actively encourages the use of
e-learning and distance learning measures for seafarer training and assessment (Wei, 2013). The
utilization of technology and its adequate integration by the MET instructors will become an important
factor for the success of such proposed measures. In this regard, Muirhead (2004) had stated that
capacity development and MET instructor staff training will play a crucial role for the helping raising
the future training standards for maritime industry. The progressive use of technology in MET will be
complementary to the efforts of well-trained instructors to innovate the learning content delivery and
assessment of learning outcomes.

2.3.2 Technology self-efficacy

When integrating technology for the purpose of delivering on the learning objectives, certain limiting
factors or barriers are to be experienced by the instructors. Ertmer (1999) described them as first order
and second order barriers for technology integration in classrooms. First order barriers refer to the
factors which are external to an instructor’s loci of control such as organizational factors or
infrastructure. Whereas second order barriers are related to instructor’s belief system. The usage of
technology tools in the classroom by instructors is partly dependent on their self-efficacy toward them,
as described in various studies (Brinkerhoff, 2006; Moore-Hayes, 2011). Self-efficacy relates to the
confidence of an individual at their own abilities to perform certain actions. In other words, self-efficacy
is an individual’s belief that the task they are executing will result in the intended consequences. The

23
concept of self-efficacy is based on the social cognitive theory proposed by Bandura (1977). According
to Bandura (1993), self-efficacy could be a good predictor of behaviour. In the context of instruction in
an educational setting, it is referred to be one of the aspects that determines teaching effectiveness (Hoy
et al., 2009). The term technology self-efficacy by extension, can be described as “the belief in one’s
ability to successfully perform a technologically sophisticated new task” (McDonald & Siegall, 1992).
The concept of technology self-efficacy relates to an instructor’s belief in their ability to employ digital
technology in the classroom. (Gomez et al., 2022). Technology self-efficacy has become important in
the training of educators capable of successfully utilizing educational technology to increase learning
(Holden & Rada, 2011; Spencer, 2016). It is a predictor of and positively co-related with actual
technology integration in the classroom (Anderson et al., 2011). Low self-efficacy of instructors with
respect to use of technology can act as a barrier for technology integration in the classrooms (Harrel &
Bynum, 2018).

Measuring and improving instructor’s self-efficacy in the use of technology tools might thus aid in their
capacity development. In this context, Christensen and Knezeck (2017) suggest that in current
educational institutions, the ability to integrate 21st-century technology for learning and skill in its usage
is critical (Sharma & Nazir, 2021). They developed the Technology Proficiency Self-Assessment for
the Twenty-First Century (TPSA-C21) as a validated instrument for assessing instructor’s self-reported
self-efficacy scores in light of the most common technological instruments used in today’s classrooms.
Christensen and Knezeck (2014, p.312) explore the theoretical foundations of the scale, stating that it is
based on the notion of “Self-efficacy”, which they describe as “confidence in one’s competence”. The
scale is based on Ropp’s older version of the instrument, called Technology Proficiency Self-
Assessment (TPSA) (Ropp, 1999). The instructor’s perceived technology self-efficacy and digital
competency became a focal point for educational stakeholders in various domains in the wake of the
recent covid-19 pandemic (Ma et al., 2021; Pressley & Ha, 2021).

2.4 AI in education
2.4.1 AI in education
Digitalization in education refers to the use of personal computers, mobile platforms, internet, software
solutions, and other types of digital technology to educate students of all ages (Frolova et al., 2020). The
world-at-large is changing as a result of the capabilities of advanced technologies and shifting societal
expectations. This is also resulting in disruption of the workplace and consequently the educational
requirements for the individuals at those workspaces. The widespread use of digital technology in
education has an impact on both teaching and learning practices, as well as providing access to data,
mostly from growing online learning environments, that may be utilized to improve learning conditions
for students and teacher support (Siemens, 2013). The use of technology in the classrooms is resulting
in significant generation of associated data and digital footprints that can be analysed by the educational
stakeholders to further improve the learning activities and contribute to active policy making and
strategic decisions. In this regard, the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) will play an important role in
making sense of the emerging educational data. The use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has the potential
to solve some of the contemporary problems in education, provide new ways of learning and teaching,
and contribute towards the achievement of SDG 4 goal (UNESCO, 2019). The adoption of AI in

24
education has coincided with advancements in the educational technology itself, providing several
functional advantages (Zawacki-Richter et al., 2019). According to UNESCO (2021), the relationship
between AI and education can be imagined in areas like – (1) Learning with AI (Use of AI enabled tools
in classrooms) (2) Learning about AI (opportunities and limitations) and (3) preparing for AI (enabling
the global citizens to understand the wider impact of AI). Artificial Intelligence in Education (AIEd)
has gradually advanced from personal computers to online/web-based learning systems. The present use
of embedded systems and other technologies made possible by increased processing power has had an
impact on how education is delivered (Chen et al., 2020). Several studies have highlighted the potential
of AI to increase classroom engagement, decrease redundant tasks, tailor educational content, and
uncover learning gaps (Owoc et al., 2021; Schiff, 2021).

According to Timms (2016), AIEd will go beyond simply offering education through personal devices
in the future to provide new solutions for learning and teaching activities. One of the many potential
AIEd alternatives is the development and employment of “educational cobots” designed to aid human
educators. These cobots help learners stay engaged by answering simple inquiries. Through a social
network analysis of the associated literature, Goksel and Bozkurt (2019) established that concepts such
as Expert Systems (ES) and Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS) have stayed at the forefront of AI-related
educational research. This concept is being reinterpreted as intelligent agents or systems that may steer
humans towards learning objectives, while also supporting them in navigating the associated process.
This phenomenon can be attributed to specific improvements in AI, namely in the domain of Natural
Language Processing (NLP). These developments are also consistent with the growing examples of
human-automation agent collaboration in a variety of job tasks. It is observed that the Intelligent agents
are increasingly being delegated monotonous and repetitive tasks. The usage of chatbots in education is
a result of the AIEd advancements mentioned above. Despite considerable promises for the use of AI in
education, some specific challenges have also been stated in the emerging studies. Most evident
challenges related to the ethical handling of emergent data and reduction of bias in the algorithms being
utilized (Borenstein & Howard, 2021). Additionally, challenges such as the need for ensuring equitable
learning outcomes as well as providing equal access to learners among other issues are also frequently
mentioned (Woolf et al., 2013).

2.4.2 Conversational agents or chatbots

A conversational agent or chatbot is a computer software that simulates dialogue with human agents
(Adamopolou & Moussiades, 2020). As technology advances, more organizations are shifting from
traditional to digital platforms to interact with partners or clients. These organizations are striving to
provide convenience through technology by adopting AI techniques on their digital platforms. Chatbots
are one of the AI technologies that is becoming more popular and widely used. Recently, the AI tool
designed by OpenAI© – ChatGPT has become one of the most discussed topics in technology trends.
ChatGPT has rapidly progressed to acquire 1 million users within a week of its launch, beating many
past technology products in the process (Rudolph et al., 2023). It is a relevant example demonstrating
the potential of AI Chatbots. Chatbot technology includes virtual conversational assistants such as
Amazon’s Alexa and Google Assistant, as well as bots in messaging apps such as Meta’s Facebook
Messenger. In similar measures, educational institutions are exploring deployment of conversational
agents or chatbots for addressing their goals (Neto & Fernandez, 2019; Clarizia et al., 2018). Customer

25
service and education are two key areas of application for chatbot research and development towards
the coming years (Følstad et al., 2020). Chatbots can act as virtual advisors, adapting to the students’
abilities in the process and their rate of learning. The use of NLP to develop conversational agents for
educational use is one of the varied applications of AI for education. Chatbot development and
implementation has been occurring parallel with AI research. The first known chatbot, “ELIZA”, was
created in the 1960s and was programmed to serve as a psychotherapist (Weizenbaum, 1966). Since
then, chatbot technology has advanced steadily and strengthened NLP skills with numerous applications
in various business/operational contexts. An educational chatbot can replicate conversation and idea
exchange for practice with low-stakes skills. Similarly, they can be good tools for memorization related
tasks. Some of the evident benefits regarding the use of chatbot for learning activities can be listed as
personalized learning, ubiquitous access, faster feedback and greater engagement. There has recently
been a rise in research papers aimed at evaluating the applicability of chatbots in educational contexts.
Okonkwo and Ade-Ibijola (2021) conducted a systematic review of the literature on chatbot uses in
education. They mentioned some of the key benefits of employing chatbots in education as integration
of instructional information, greater motivation and engagement, ubiquitous access, and simultaneous
use by numerous learners. They also provide insight on some of the challenges related with chatbot use,
such as usability and evaluation issues, ethical concerns, programming considerations, and so on.
Likewise, Rapp et al. (2021), utilizing a human-computer interaction lens and a literature
analysis, highlighted issues such as trust, expectations, experience, satisfaction, etc., which are
significant in studies concentrating on chatbots and associated interaction concerns (Sharma et al.,
2022). Exploring the use of chatbot in varied educational setting and evaluate its functional use remains
a relevant area for AIEd research.

2.5 21st Century skills in education

2.5.1 21st century skills
21st century skills are the abilities and educational dispositions that educators, corporate leaders,
academics, and government agencies have identified as essential for success in 21st century society and
workplaces (Voogt & Roblin, 2010). Some examples of 21st century skills are – critical thinking,
technology literacy, collaboration, communication, leadership, creativity and so on. A sub-set of these
skills have always been crucial for the students, but they are even more so in today’s information-based
economy. This idea is part of the growing international trend that focuses on the skills that students must
master to flourish in a digital culture that is rapidly evolving. The contemporary workforce is far more
likely than previous generations to switch careers or employment. Developing 21st-century skills is vital
for preparing students for college, careers, and civic life. However, to provide students with a 21st-
century education, adequate support structure in institutions is also required (Kaufman, 2013). There is
also a corresponding need to integrate the 21st century skills at the curriculum level for having the desired
outcomes (Gut, 2011).

The 21st century skills can be categorized in the following three dimensions: (1) Learning and innovation
skills (2) Career and life skills and (3) Digital literacy (Fadel, 2008). This framework is often referred
to as the P21 framework for 21st century learning. The P21 Framework for 21st Century Learning was
established with input from educational experts, educators and business leaders in order to identify the

26
knowledge, skills, and expertise that students need to be successful in their careers, lives, and citizenship
(Mishra & Kereluik, 2011). There are other alternative frameworks also existing that characterize 21 st
century skills. For example, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in
their 2009 working paper listed information literacy, creativity and innovation, problem solving,
decision making and media literacy as some of the key 21st century skills (Ananiadou & Claro, 2009).
Whereas the European Union (EU) has listed skills such as – digital competence, technology and
engineering, literacy competence, mathematical competence, cultural awareness and citizenship
competence as being important in the coming years (EU, 2018). One of the common reoccurring skills
that is rated consistently important for the future is digital competence or digital skills. As economies in
different parts of the world shift from being based on industry to being based on services, citizens need
specific professional skills and mastery of other generic skill sets, with a focus on digital literacy.

2.5.2 Digital skills

The term digital literacy or digital skills does fall under the larger umbrella for the concept of 21st century
skills. However, the latter is used to refer to a broad range of skills necessary to thrive in modern day
work environment and knowledge society while the terms such as digital competences, digital skills, e-
skills and digital literacy are underpinned by the use of ICTs (Van Laar et al., 2017). In the aftermath of
the Covid-19 pandemic, the rate of digital transformation accelerated even further and many of the
operational modes of business and education changed irreversibly. The general transition to digital-first
interactions, such as virtual collaboration and remote work, has made digital skills more important than
ever before to businesses and the workforce. While this evolution has resulted in beneficial effects like
as improved labour mobility and the removal of geographic barriers to talent acquisition, it has also
resulted in the widening of an already significant skills gap. Not only the digital skills are required to
embrace these transitions and are key to secure career options in the future, the possession of these
abilities is also critical to various firms and organization’s survival.

The digital skills of an individual evolve over time. These skills are acquired in formal learning settings
as well as informal and social use of technologies over time and through peer learning (Leahy & Wilson,
2014). Several conceptualizations have split the digital skills to more specific abilities. However, most
of the interpretations remain limited to describing them in relation to information retrieval and technical
aspects of their usage. Increasingly, researchers are stressing the importance of adding content creation
and other skills for describing digital competences (Van Deursen et al., 2014).

Ferrari (2012) defines digital competence as a combination of information, communication, content

creation, and problem-solving skills. Content creation, in this context, can be defined as the ability to
create content in a variety of formats, platforms, and contexts. Whereas Helsper and Eynon (2013)
classified digital skills into four major categories: technical, critical, social, and creative. Their
categorization is based on the media literacy research, which states that the digitals skills should be
tested beyond merely the technical level and in connection to the ability to operate ICTs for social goals.
Van Deursen and Van Dijk (2009, 2010) measured the digital skills in four dimensions: (1) operational,
“the skills to operate digital media” (2) formal, “the skills to handle the special structures of digital
media such as menus and hyperlinks” (3) information, “the skills to search, select, and evaluate
information in digital media”; and (4) strategic, “the skills to employ the information contained in digital

27
media as a means to reach a specific personal or professional goal”. Van Dijk and Van Deursen (2014)
recently extended this framework by including communication and content creation skills. In this regard,
Helsper et al. (2020) developed a validated scale known as Youth Digital Skills Indicator (yDSI), a
cross-nationally validated measurement tool with 31 items dispersed among digital skills and digital
knowledge questions, suitable for large-scale population research. The scale measures the digital skills
of responding student along four dimensions – (1) Information navigation and processing skills (2)
Content creation and production skills (3) Technical and operational skills, and (4) Communication and
interaction skills.

2.6 Theoretical discussions and summary

As the profile of seafarers would evolve due to effects of the 4th industrial revolution, it would require
adaptation in MET, to equip them will skillset to work in the complex operational environments. Some
fundamental questions therefore arise in the backdrop of this anticipated climate. It would firstly be
important to determine the new competencies necessary to prepare the future maritime workforce. There
are several ways in which the concept of competence is often defined in the literature. However, in the
reference of present work, it is important to tie the competence to education and real-life scenarios. The
new competencies should reflect the increasing digitalized environment of shipping, to be able to align
with the real-life context for which they are being defined. The pedagogical model currently employed
for the training of seafarers include a combination of theoretical knowledge gained in academic setting
and practical skills gained through apprenticeship. The continuing trend of automation and digitalization
could cause changes in both these approaches. As digital environments require a different type of
skillsets compared to their predecessors. This is equally applicable in the case of the formal regulatory
requirements such as STCW provisions. In the context of navigators at an operational level for example,
there are 19 competence themes and corresponding 66 Knowledge, Understanding, and Proficiency
(KUP) items currently listed in the Table A-II/1 which would require revisitation with the changes in
operations. It was noticed through the examples given by Jurdzinski (2018) and other general trends,
that modern navigator is increasingly been required to perform supervisory duties because of increased
information processing and decision support available on ship’s bridge. However, merely introducing
technological changes for efficiency concerns, without considering its corresponding impact on the job
design and adaptability of the navigators can have detrimental effect on the balance of human,
technological and work organization factors within the ship’s bridge. Automation has a general tendency
to make the repetitive aspects of the job tasks redundant. Therefore, certain competence requirements
can become obsolete because of more accurate and reliable technological aids replacing their role. A
recent example of such changes was the introduction of integrated navigation system and ECDIS on
ship’s bridge. As a result, the navigators were required to be proficient in the use of new digital systems
for the purpose of navigation. In the event of further changes in technology related to maritime
navigation, certain additional technical competence requirements would be required from the navigators
as a consequence. Furthermore, the evident strength of the human operators in these complex systems
onboard will be their adaptability and creativity (Ahvenjärvi, 2016). Thus, an investigation of non-
technical skills for maritime operations would also be required. Non-technical skills can be described as
social and cognitive skills that are required in addition to the technical skills to safely execute operations
in the complex socio-technical systems (Flin et al., 2008). Examples of non-technical skills are –

28
decision making, leadership, situational awareness, and team work to quote a few. An understanding of
novel technical and non-technical skills necessary for seafarers therefore could aid the MET community
to prepare the future maritime workforce. These revised skillsets should be considered in the training
and assessment framework of the seafarers. Failure to account for these changes could lead to similar
challenges as described by Ghosh et al. (2014), i.e., a decontextualized nature of assessment of skills,
where the lack of alignment between what is expected from seafarers versus what they are being trained
and assessed, ultimately leading to a significant safety risk.

The generic 21st century skills will also play a key role in vocational education and training in the coming
years, as they form the foundation over which subsequent specializations takes place. The trainees who
will enter the workforce in the coming years should possess 21st century skills as recognized by P21,
EU and OECD. Some examples of these skills were given as - communication, collaboration, decision
making, creativity, digital skills and so on. In this regard, digital skills and competencies are considered
particularly relevant for the occupational fields, due to advances in digitalization that are occurring in
various professions. For the 21st century worker, digital skills will be alongside skills such as numeracy,
communication, and literacy as the fundamental skills necessary for labour force. The maritime trainees
would require proficiency in digital skills to utilize the increasing distributed modes of learning being
available. As was noted earlier, due to introduction of distributed learning solutions in the form of e-
learning, cloud simulators, VR simulators and similar, the trainee seafarers are able to pursue self-
directed form of learning. Further use of these solutions enabled by ICTs will allow them to pursue life-
long learning and transition through various roles in the evolving work domain. These factors constitute
the macro-context related to the education and training of future maritime workforce which require
consideration.

The role of instructors in vocational education and training is influential. It would be impacted with
technological changes. The fundamental duty of instructors is expected to transition from those who
impart the necessary knowledge to the ones who will facilitate learning (Maclean & Lai, 2011). As in
all vocational education and training environments, the MET instructors play an important role in
preparing the future seafarers. However, in the increasingly technology-rich learning environments, it
is important to consider their professional development and use of digital tools. For the MET instructors
to actively facilitate the learning process, firstly they would need to feel confident in their own ability
in use of web 2.0 tools. It is therefore apt for the MET stakeholders to focus on the level of technology
proficiency of MET instructors, to identify areas of potential improvement. The topic concerning
professional development of the MET instructors is raised by Muirhead (2004), Vujicic et al. (2022)
and Gamil (2008) among others, in their investigations. Muirhead (2004) elaborated upon the
multimedia technologies available for the MET institutes and the need for instructors to be appropriately
trained in their use. Whereas Vujicic et al. (2022) described various factors effecting the instructor’s
competencies and their preparedness in light of current industry demands. Similarly, Gamil (2008)
discussed the competitiveness of the instructors and its impact on the quality of education through a
survey of various MET stakeholders. However, more specific discussions regarding how the instructors
can integrate the various web 2.0 tools available and the opportunities now offered through the advent
of AI was observed to be yet not explored in the research literature related to MET.

29
The increasing adaptation of AI in education presents an interesting avenue for further exploration for
MET. When considering some of the technology integration frameworks commonly deployed in
education, such as SAMR, RAT or TIM, at the most elementary level, the technology is merely
described as supplanting the existing tools and practices. For example, In SAMR, the first level is termed
as substitution, comparable to the term Replacement in RAT, and Entry level of TIM. However, AI
technology, due to its fundamental nature, can target the highest levels described in these frameworks,
such as Redefinition and Transformation. In the micro-context of learning environments where close
interaction between instructors and students takes place, the Natural Language Processing (NLP)
characteristic of AI is particularly impactful. NLP allows for the computers to process the queries and
commands from humans and communicate to a certain extent in their own language. It can recognize
context of the conversation and respond with pre-programmed dialogues. When utilized in the form of
a conversational agent or chatbot, it can thus assist the instructors cognitively, by taking over the
repetitive aspects of classroom interactions. The conversational agent or chatbot can also promote self-
directed and personalized form of learning, as it responds according to the user queries. As it supports
ubiquitous learning in remote devices, it can be characterized as one of the distributed learning solutions.

All the technological affordances should be considered in light of existing educational theories. The
educational theories described earlier such as – behaviourism, cognitivism, constructivism, social-
cognitivism and social-constructivism, are not mutually exclusive. Some of them are inter-related with
agreements on various tenets. They can be thought of as various lenses, used to describe and analyse the
learning process happening in any educational environment. For example, social constructivism and
social cognitivism, both highlight the importance of social environment to the learning process.
Constructivism and social constructivism are similar in their conceptualization, with a focus on the
learners being active constructors of their knowledge. The Social-cognitivism theory espouses the view
of classical and operant conditioning of behaviourism, while also agreeing with the information
processing aspects of cognitivism. Each of these theories have relevant application in the modern,
increasingly digital learning environments. For example, behaviourism can influence the gamification
of learning, whereas cognitivism can assist in determining the adequate level of information load that
should be presented to the learners. Constructivism and Social cognitivism has potential use in e-
learning and immersive environments, with individual or group level participation. In the present
research, for the purpose of presenting proof-of-concept regarding application of AI to MET, social
constructivist learning perspective was utilized. Social constructivism as described by Vygotsky (1978)
emphasizes the fact that learning process takes place in social interactions with peers and instructors
before being internalized by the student. As noted earlier, due to advances in ICT, distributed learning
solutions are being increasingly adopted which enable new modes of learning which are both self-
directed and group oriented. This is in line with learner-centred social-constructivist perspective.
Furthermore, co-construction of knowledge is facilitated in these modes of learning, due to ease with
which virtual artefacts can be created and shared. Considering these aspects of theory and interaction
possibilities due to NLP, an AI chatbot was conceptualized. The chatbot was designed to act as the More
Knowledgeable Other (MKO) in the learning activities, which could facilitate the scaffolding process
as described in Figure 7. The research literature reviewed above therefore guided the theoretical stance
in the thesis and sheds light on the key prevalent trends related to the empirical investigation.

30
 Figure 7. The Role of AI Chabot in learning

The theoretical insights presented in this section illustrated the frameworks that guided the data
collection in respective studies constituting the thesis and the overall research objectives. The next
section presents and describes the methodology of the thesis.

31
3 Methods
The research methods can be described as an investigation strategy which helps the research to progress
from theoretical ideas to tangible research designs, collection of empirical data and its analysis. For
conducting research studies and projects, it is important to clarify the philosophical reasons, underlying
assumptions and overall worldview of the principal investigator which may have an impact on how the
research work was executed, which instruments were utilized and the interpretation of the generated
knowledge. Firstly, the ontological, epistemological and methodological stances are clarified.

3.1 Ontological, epistemological, methodological reflections

3.1.1 Review of philosophies and their connection
Three interrelated branches of philosophy that are frequently used in academic research are ontology,
epistemology, and methodology. Together, they form the concept of the research paradigm. The term
“research paradigm” refers to a set of norms, standards, and guiding principles that are used in the
scientific and scholarly communities (Olsen et al., 1992). There are different versions of their definitions
depending upon the disciplines. In simple words, Ontology refers to the nature and structure of reality.
Ontology as a philosophy, deals with how one views the world and what assumptions we make about
its nature, independent of any other considerations. As an example, it is perfectly acceptable to study
the ontology of fictional entities, as long as they have some defined characteristics agreed upon by a set
of individuals. Gruber (1993) defined ontology as an “explicit specification of conceptualization”.
Similarly, Borst (1997) defined it as “a formal specification of conceptualization”. The central point to
consider in these definitions is that the conceptualization is shared by a number of individuals as referred
above. Studer et al. (1998) combined these two definitions and defined ontology as “a formal, explicit
specification of a shared conceptualization”. Conceptualization in this context refers to a body of
knowledge with its entities, objects and the inter-relationship between them (Guarino et al., 2009). From
an ontological perspective, there are two versions of reality which are labelled as Realism and
Relativism (Killiam, 2013, p.17). The realism belief pertains to the fact that there is an absolute version
of reality independent to any context or point of view which can be measured and quantified. In contrast,
the relativism belief states that there are multiple versions of reality dependent on the point of views
which can only be understood through language and discourse (Bilgrami, 2002). Broadly therefore, the
realism belief tilts towards use of quantitative approach to gathering empirical data, whereas relativism
belief is about analysis of qualitative data. The choice of ontological belief will have a subsequent impact
on the selection of epistemology and methodology employed in answering the research objective (Guba
& Lincoln, 1994).

The study of validity, scope, and methods of acquiring knowledge is known as epistemology. The topic
of epistemology is important because it influences how scholars structure their study in their pursuit of
knowledge (Moon & Blackman, 2014). It addresses issues such as a) what constitutes a knowledge
claim; b) how knowledge can be gained or created; and c) how to assess the extent to which it is
transferable. Epistemology is often referred to as the “theory of knowledge”. The validity, variables,
and methodologies of acquiring knowledge are all part of epistemology. Examples of epistemological
or practical knowledge could be - knowing the probability of rain tomorrow or knowing how to identify

32
music from an artist. Methodology whereas refers to the specific approach of data collection selected
by the researcher. Methodology depends upon the ontological and epistemological position held by the
researcher and can be of qualitative, quantitative, or mixed design in nature. Some examples of the
commonly employed methodologies in social science research includes but are not limited to –
experimental/quasi-experimental, survey, causal-comparative, ethnographic, case study, grounded
theory, content analysis and action research. The following Figure 8 can illustrate the relationship
between ontology, epistemology, and methodology in a research endeavour. Together, the ontology,
epistemology, and methodology describe the concept of research paradigm which similarly deals with
the constitution of knowledge. There are three main types of research paradigm understood by
practitioners in social science research: (1) Positivism (3) Constructivism and (3) Pragmatism (Jupp,
2006). Positivism paradigm holds the view that knowledge is objective. Positivism paradigm stresses
on the importance of the hypothetico-deductive model of knowledge generation (Park et al. 2020). It is
often related to a deductive approach in research studies. Another version of positivism paradigm known
as “post-positivism” also exists in social sciences, which is based on acknowledging the limitations of
the positivism paradigm (Phillips, 1990).

Figure 8. Relationship between Ontology, Epistemology and Methodology

The post-positivists state that the reality as observed cannot be free from subjective biases and we should
understand the role of social contexts and arrive at the approximation of truth. Constructivism paradigm,
on the other hand, purports the inter-subjective and contextual nature of knowledge. In this paradigm,
importance is given to inductive nature of extracting facts and themes associated with research query.
Constructivism is related to the philosophy of interpretivism. While constructivism is concerned with
production of knowledge jointly, interpretivism deals with understanding shared perspectives and
meaning making. The constructivists understand the nature of reality from a subject’s own perspective
and seek to bring forth various perspectives within a social context. The term constructivism can have
different meaning if used in domains like education or psychology than in philosophy. Finally, the

33
pragmatism approach considers both aspects in the knowledge generation process and utilizes a different
approach to achieve research objectives. In essence, pragmatism steers away from the discussions
surrounding the nature of reality and concentrates on practical understanding of the research problem
(Patton, 2005, p.153). Further, the pragmatism philosophy rejects sharp dichotomies, rather it embraces
falsifiability and antiscepticism (Putnam, 1995). Pragmatists believe that the there is value in generating
solutions for research problem that function well in the local context than in theoretical level. In
pragmatism paradigm, the focus is therefore on the interplay between belief and actions through and
active process of enquiry and the researcher is interested in extracting actionable knowledge (Morgan,
2014).

3.1.2 Paradigm adopted in this project

The knowledge generated in a research project is often influenced by the worldview and philosophical
assumptions of the researcher. Considering the theories discussed in the above section, the research
paradigm which was primarily utilized in the thesis was post-positivism. However, the study also has
footprints of pragmatism in its conception. Pre-dominantly a quantitative approach to research design
and data collection was utilized. Quantitative research employs questionnaires, surveys, and
experiments to collect data, which is then reworked and tabulated in numbers, allowing the data to be
usually characterized through statistical analysis. This is in congruence with the ontological perspective
of realism. Despite this, a purely positivist stance was difficult to achieve in the context of this project.
Due to the global nature of maritime industry and wide differences in educational practices of various
states, it would have been not feasible to design survey studies and experiments for extracting
knowledge which is applicable in all parts of the world. Qualitative research on other hand, utilizes
observations, interviews, focus group discussions and so on, to collect textual data about various
perspectives, meaning making and perceptions. A more qualitative approach to collect data could have
been useful with some potential of getting rich insights about the research problem in question.
However, this approach was deemed to be resource intensive for collecting large amounts of data that
could inform level of skills for instructors and students. I acknowledge these limitations and therefore
was interested in exploratory studies assessing various facets of technology integration and competence
mapping with utilization of standard scales to limit subjectivity. This approach provided the most
practical solution for attempting to tackle the research problem within the constraints of time and
resources. Therefore, a post-positivist stance with some elements of pragmatism was adopted. In first
study, there has been open ended qualitative questions posed to gather qualitative data regarding novel
competence requirements, after which relevant competence themes were extracted. This approach
utilized the inductive methodology for themes extraction. Except this instance, all the data collected has
been in the form of closed survey questionnaires with Likert type scales. the responses given by the
participants were quantified and synthesized. This is line with a deductive methodology to arrive at
empirical findings. Descriptive and inferential statistics of various variables for each study were
obtained.

34
3.2 Data collection and analysis
3.2.1 My background
To elaborate further on context of the research and my motivation to conduct the project it is also
important to briefly describe my professional background. I am also a product of Maritime Education
and Training domain with my primary competence as a navigation officer. I hold a Bachelors in nautical
science and sea experience spanning seven years. I decided to pursue higher education and subsequently
completed a Masters in maritime management with technical specialization. During this phase, I also
became involved with some of the educational projects related to the department of maritime operations
at University of South-Eastern Norway, where I also worked as graduate research assistant.
Subsequently, I received fellowship for the PhD project with a focus on Maritime Education and
Training. Therefore, my background and orientation did play a part in selection of the research topic. It
allowed me to frame research objectives which could have been difficult for an outside enquirer of the
topic. However, as a part of the PhD journey it was also imperative of me to acquire a deeper knowledge
on research methodology which can form a toolkit for carrying out intended work. As a part of the
educational component of PhD project, I got the opportunity to attend courses on quantitative research
methodology and acquired knowledge related to statistical analysis. The knowledge related to
qualitative research methodology was acquired by being part of the Training and Assessment Research
Group (TARG) and while collaborating on various research articles in a support capacity. Additional
knowledge on topics such as use of Data Science and Artificial Intelligence was gained through specific
online courses. Furthermore, during the final few months of empirical data collection, I also worked
with TERP AS, an educational technology company situated in Norway with a focus on Maritime
Education and Training products. I had some experience in instruction with responsibility of subject
manager in one of the courses at master’s in science program within my department at the University of
South-Eastern Norway. I gave lectures on Research Methods course, in addition to delivering guest
lectures on the topic of human element in the shipping. Furthermore, I got the opportunity to supervise
master students on theses related to Maritime Education and Training during the PhD project.

3.2.2 Data collection

The primary data sources for the research studies were professionals in the MET industry, instructors,
seafarers, and students. The thesis utilized survey questionnaires to collect data. The collected data was
pre-dominantly quantitative in nature with one instance of qualitative open ended survey questions. The
respondents in the studies were selected through purposive sampling. The online purposive sampling
techniques has recently emerged as a method of choice for social science researchers aiming to gather
data about well-defined groups with specific socio-cultural context. They provide data in a timely and
economical manner for the purpose of analysis. However, random sampling techniques still have the
higher standard in comparison due to absence of researcher bias and better generalizability. The
researcher should be careful in drawing inferences when using purposive sampling techniques (Andrade,
2021). These limitations are duly acknowledged in all of the individual research studies conducted. The
scope of the studies were defined throughout the papers. The recruitment method for the respondents in
the study was through professional network of the researcher and the affiliated university. There were
some elements of randomness in sampling, as in each of the studies except paper-3, a digital link was

35
generated and was distributed to both the contacts of the researcher and online professional groups. In
the latter case, it was not in the control of the researcher which qualified respondents opted to answer
the questionnaires. Nonetheless, as a heuristic, most of the responses can be described to be collected in
a non-random manner.

In paper-1, the intention of the study was to analyse the suitability of STCW competence regulations for
hypothetical advanced maritime operations involving autonomous ships. The generated questionnaire
using Qualtrics© was distributed in several digital platforms. The respondents for the study were
maritime professionals which comprised all the geographical areas. Further, some demographic data
regarding their designation, specific area of shipping, years or experience and educational levels were
collected. A total of 109 valid responses out of 153 obtained responses were included in the analysis. In
paper-2, the study was concerning measuring the technology proficiency levels of maritime instructors.
In this study, a validated scale known as Technology Proficiency Self-Assessment for 21st century
(TPSA-C21) was utilized in addition to a unidimensional scale measuring the technology level of use
as per the Concern Based Adoption Model (CBAM-LoU). The questionnaire was digitalized using the
Nettskjema© tool and similarly distributed as in earlier study, using an online purposive mode of
gathering responses. However, the scope was defined as respondents who work as MET instructors in
Europe. Further demographic data regarding their educational qualifications, gender and years of
experience was collected. Similarly, in paper-3, the scope of study was narrowed down to the 2nd year
B.Sc. in nautical science students of the affiliated university. A total of 18 students participated in test
of the developed AI Chatbot for the purpose of COLREGs training. The validated scale known as
System Usability Scale (SUS) was utilized for gathering the data regarding usability of the AI Chatbot.
In this study, demographic data such as Gender, their prior experience with COLREGs and interaction
with Chatbots were deemed important to provide complete context. In both paper-2 and paper-3, the
data was analysed to see if there are differences in obtained responses due to demographic grouping. In
paper-4, the intention of the study was to assess the level of digital skills of maritime trainees. The scope
was narrowed to include respondents from the Philippines, which is a major skilled maritime workforce
supplier nation. The professional network of the industrial partner of the thesis, namely TERP AS, were
utilized to disseminate the digital version of yDSI (Youth Digital Skills Indicator) scale. Again, the
Nettskjema© tool was utilized for this purpose. The demographics data such as Gender, Educational
discipline and Age was gathered. The responses were collected in online purposive sampling approach
with a total of 234 valid responses collected out of total 270. The Table 1 below summarizes the data
collection and analysis approach for all four studies.

Table 1. Empirical data collected and the methodology employed in the thesis

Paper Approach Methodological Analysis method Number of

tools participants

1 Mixed methods Survey Descriptive statistics 109 maritime

Questionnaire Exploratory Factor Analysis professionals

Thematic Analysis

36
 2 Quantitative Survey Descriptive statistics 62 MET
Questionnaire Inferential statistics instructors

3 Quantitative Survey Descriptive statistics 18 B.Sc.

Questionnaire Inferential statistics students

4 Quantitative Survey Descriptive statistics 234 B.Sc.

Questionnaire Confirmatory Factor Analysis students

3.2.3 Survey instruments

As mentioned earlier, the survey questionnaires were used to collect the data in the thesis project. The
advantages of using questionnaires are mostly related to their ability to collect good number of data
points economically and quickly. Further, the data obtained in numerical mode makes it easier for
visualization and analysis using various tools. Some limitations related to using questionnaires are their
limited response rate and inability of the researcher to probe further insights from the respondents. The
thesis utilized the following survey questionnaires:

• Technical and Non-technical competence questionnaire derived from the STCW table A-II/1
and literature review related to additional relevant skills that could be suitable for future
navigation officers.
• The Technology Proficiency Self-Assessment for 21st Century (TPSA-C21) scale (Appendix
A6)
• Concern Based Adoption Model - Level of Use (CBAM-LoU) (Appendix A7)
• The System Usability Scale (SUS) (Appendix A8)
• The Youth Digital Skills Indicator (yDSI) (Appendix A9)

3.2.4 Data analysis

As the research paradigm was post-positivist and pragmatic in nature, most of the data analysis involved
statistical calculations of the parameters in various dimensions depending on the questionnaires used in
the study. It was also coupled with inductive analysis of emergent themes from the qualitative data.
Quantitative data analysis can be described as a process of manipulating and evaluating numbers in
order to extract meaning from them which can then be utilized to answer research questions, test
hypotheses, or explore causal relationships (Albers, 2017). Quantitative data analysis can further be
divided into descriptive and inferential statistics. The descriptive statistics is helpful in obtaining the
summary of the collected data and characteristics of the different variables, whereas the inferential
statistics allows the researcher to test relationships between the variables and draw inferences from it.
Qualitative data analysis on the other hand involves the process of data collection, sorting, coding,
breaking it down into manageable chunks, synthesis, and searching for patterns (Bogdan & Biklen,
2003). In both cases, it is first imperative for the researcher to sort and prepare the data for analysis. All
the collected data during each of the research studies was first captured in an MS Excel © Comma

37
Separated Value (CSV) format. Afterwards, data cleaning and preparation process was conducted. For
qualitative data that meant the aligning of obtained textual data with each respondent uniformly, whereas
the obtained quantitative data checked for straight lining or missing responses. These responses where
applicable were removed from the data set before it can further be analysed using advanced software
packages such as - IBM SPSS© and SmartPLS©.

In paper-1, in addition to obtaining the descriptive statistics for the Knowledge, Understanding,
Proficiency (KUP) items from the STCW Table A-II/1, an Exploratory Factor Analysis was conducted,
which resulted in a factor structure with new competence themes. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) is
a method of multivariate statistical analysis used in quantitative studies. It simplifies large amounts of
data by breaking it down into a fewer number of factors that form groups of related variables (Kilner,
2004; Tabachnick et al., 2007). EFA enables researchers to perform deductive analysis, theorize, and
assess the measurement instrument's construct validity (Williams et al., 2010). In addition, the
indicators’ consistency, convergent validity, and divergent validity were examined by using the partial
least squares structural equation modelling technique for measurement model assessment, as outlined
by Hair et al. (2019; 2020). The descriptive data was also collected for non-technical skills and the open-
ended questions in the survey instrument were examined through qualitative thematic analysis.

In paper-2, the descriptive statistics regarding the score of MET instructor on each of the 34 items
constituting the TPSA-C21 scale were obtained. These scores were further checked for variance in
response because of demographic groups with different levels of experience and educational
qualifications were checked by the use of non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA test. Basically, there
are two types of inferential statistics tests – parametric and non-parametric. The latter technique is
helpful when condition of normality of the obtained sample is not perfectly satisfied due to limited
sample size. It was utilized in both paper 2 and 3. Finally, a frequency percentage distribution of each
of the Concerns Based Adoption Model (CBAM) – Levels of Use was illustrated to give an idea of
which stage of technology integration MET instructors most identify with currently.

Similarly, in paper-3 the data which was obtained regarding the student user experience with AI Chatbot
was analysed using descriptive statistics as well as non-parametric Mann-Whitney U tests. This test is
similar to the Kruskal Wallis test and can be thought of as belonging to its sub-set of statistical tests
used when condition of normality is not satisfied due to limited sample size and variance in the
distribution of data points. The usability of AI chatbot as a whole was also calculated from the System
Usability Scale (SUS) by following the guidelines given by Brooke (2013).

In paper-4, the descriptive statistics were tabulated for the scores received by the students for each of
the items of the Youth Digital Skills Indicator (yDSI) scale. These were illustrated in the form of
percentage frequency distribution to give an idea of relatively how much the students felt confident in
their digital skills. Furthermore, a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was carried out. The CFA is a
multivariate statistical technique used to evaluate the structure of an instrument by checking the validity
and factor loadings of a number of measured variables. By obtaining the fit indices and checking the
covariance of the factors, it is used to assess the theoretical structure of the instrument (Brown & Moore,
2012).

38
3.2.5 Notes on Reflexivity
After briefly describing the data collection & analysis process and my own professional background, it
is important to further discuss my own role as the researcher and position myself in the above-mentioned
methodological process. Reflexivity is important consideration to address in contemporary social
science research and more specifically when dealing with qualitative data. Reflexivity can be defined as
“the constant awareness, assessment, and reassessment by the researcher of the researcher's own
contribution/influence/shaping of intersubjective research and the consequent research findings”
(Salzman, 2002, p.806). The basic premise in discussing reflexivity is related to the interpretivist
paradigm position that the reality and knowledge is influenced by human inter-subjectivity. There are
many instances in the methodological phases of the studies which can be influenced by my position as
the researcher. In most of instances, I took the decision to obtain the responses from the participants
from the studies through survey questionnaires. While this approach does remove some subjectivity in
the collected data, it can also be thought of as being too deductive. For instance, there is no possibility
of considering different interpretation of the survey questionnaires by each of the respondents and the
results often indicate a net response from all of the participants. Additionally, this approach does not
provide the opportunity to the researcher to include the respondents actively in interpreting the meaning
behind their given responses. However, even in quantitative analysis like – Exploratory Factor Analysis
(EFA), the naming of obtained factors is a subjective process. In this process of generating novel
competence themes from the obtained data, I am also introducing my subjectivity in the results to a
certain degree. For the collected qualitative data, during the thematic analysis process, the naming of
emergent themes was also a subjective process. These assigned themes also to a certain extent were
result of the relevant literature I consulted and therefore were a function of my own worldview. Finally,
it is also important to acknowledge the role of organizational factors in the research project which
influenced its trajectory. The project was funded by the affiliated university as an attempt to contribute
towards Maritime Education and Training research as a part of their strategic objective. The researcher
and stakeholders involved in the process have also shaped it in terms of research objectives,
methodology adopted and dissemination efforts. A brief description of the role of other researchers than
myself which supported the achievement of research objectives are described in Appendix A6.

3.2.6 Reflexive thematic analysis

In addition to the generic analysis process described above, it is necessary to specifically discuss the
process of thematic analysis in a greater detail than explained above due to the qualitative nature of this
sub-set of collected data and its analysis. The thematic analysis method was originally proposed by
Braun and Clarke (2006) as a flexible and intuitive approach to analyse the qualitative data. It consists
of six steps – (1) Data familiarization (2) Initial code generation (3) Generating themes (4) Theme
review (5) Defining and naming themes and (6) Report production. The term thematic analysis is
prefixed by the original proponents with the word “reflexive” to highlight the need for the users of the
technique to engage their data and realize their own biases and positions when conducting qualitative
research. Another reason for using the term “reflexive” as a prefix was to delineate their approach from
other two types of thematic analysis. According to Braun et al. (2019a), thematic analysis can be divided
into three types – (1) coding reliability approach (2) codebook approach and (3) reflexive approach.
They further elaborate that coding reliability approach can be described as positivist approach within

39
qualitative paradigm, which utilizes pre-defined and structured codes, and the focus is given towards
inter-rater reliability statistics when analysing data with less room for interpretation. Whereas, the
codebook approach is more interpretivist, still relying on a defined initial structure to analyse the
qualitative data. In contrast, the reflexive thematic analysis is “organic” which uses the subjectivity of
the researchers as a “resource” (Braun & Clarke, 2021a). Reflexive thematic analysis is therefore viewed
as theoretically flexible method for developing, analysing and interpreting patterns in the qualitative
data set (Braun & Clarke, 2021b, p.4). Despite being viewed as a flexible and organic approach, it is
still considered a necessary part in the methodology to explicitly describe the steps taken to analyse the
data and arrive at the results. It should further be noted that these steps of reflexive thematic analyse are
not strictly linear, with the possibility and common occurrence of iteration in between.

(1) Data familiarization: The process of data familiarization began with organizing of the collected
data from the survey platform website to a MS Word document and arranging them in a
sequential manner. In total there were three opened ended question which were asked to the
respondents, such as – Which additional technical/cognitive/social skills do you think would be
important in the future? Therefore, three distinct clusters of qualitative data were obtained.
There were a total of 77, 45 and 39 responses in textual format for these open-ended questions,
comprising a total of 2378 words. As can be seen, not all the respondents out of 109 who filled
the quantitative part of the questionnaire, chose to answer the open-ended qualitative part.
(2) Initial code generation: After arranging the data in an organized manner, I went through the data
together with the co-author of paper-1 and we read each of the textual responses line by line.
The interpretation of the textual responses were done in an “inductive” manner, as the questions
were open ended, and we were looking for additional novel skillset that would be required under
each of the three categories. It is essential to clarify that “inductive” approach in reflexive
thematic analysis does not imply pure induction. Reflexive thematic analysis cannot be
conducted in a theoretical vacuum and prior paradigmatic, epistemological and ontological
assumptions usually are applicable (Braun & Clarke, 2021a, p.331). These initial codes were
separately noted in a digital notepad.
(3) Generating themes: After the initial code generation from the long lines of textual data, the
shorter clusters of synthesized data were again organized into MS Word document using bullet
points. The broad outline of what can be termed as “sub-themes” started to appear as a function
of our interpretation at this stage. There were instances of repetition in code, and they were
correspondingly clustered under same headings. As noted above, although the process was
inductive, not all codes were included in the next stage. As the focus was on novel skillsets,
those codes that just repeated existing skills already codified under STCW table A-II/1 or
explicitly mentioned in the reviewed literature for paper-1 were not considered.

40
 (4) Reviewing, defining and naming themes: After removing the redundant codes and obtaining the
broad overview of lower-level sub themes, an iterative process followed with co-author of
paper-1 where the set of codes were scrutinized and reviewed. In this step, care was taken to
connect the themes and sub-themes with initial theoretical framework while not adding
redundant skillset. The process involved deliberation and negotiation between both researchers
regarding appropriate thematic titles. The relevancy to the original open-ended questions was
again verified. Furthermore, this process also involved visualization of themes and sub-themes
through diagrams in MS Word document.
(5) Report production: After finalizing the title of themes and their visualization in a structure. The
report was produced by the principal investigator. The visualization of themes under separate
figures aided this process. Eventually total of two corresponding figures were also constructed.
In total, five themes related to technical skills were identified. - IT skills, safety and security
management skills, knowledge of engine room operations, electronic equipment, and system
integration. With respect to non-technical skills the eight novel themes were listed as - non-
routine problem solving, self-regulation capacity, critical thinking, mental readiness, systemic
thinking, the ability to develop trust in teams, the ability to adjust to cultural differences, and
negotiation abilities.

3.3 Reliability, Validity and Ethical considerations

Reliability, validity and ethics are important concepts in research methods because they determine the
quality and accuracy of the results obtained. The term reliability refers to the consistency and stability
of results over time and across different measures or observations. If a research study is reliable, the
results should be consistent if the study was repeated using the same methods. This ensures that the
findings can be replicated and trusted. On other hand, validity refers to the accuracy and truthfulness of
the results. It assesses whether the results truly reflect what they were intended to measure. For example,
a valid study will measure what it claims to measure and will not be influenced by external factors. It is
often debated that the concepts of reliability and validity refer to the positivist paradigm in research and
are not transferable when evaluating qualitative data (Merriam, 1998). Therefore, a different framework
for evaluation is utilized when discussing findings originating from the textual responses obtained in the
first study. However, as a general practice, first the criteria for both types of data is described before
describing the specific characteristics of quantitative and qualitative data. In this regard, Elliot et al.
(1999) have given seven evolving guidelines which are common for evaluating both qualitative and
quantitative research. They can be listed as – explicit scientific context, appropriate methods, respect
for participants, specification of methods, appropriate discussions, clarity of presentation and
contribution of knowledge. These guidelines can be discussed briefly to shed further light on the quality
and analysis process of the data. To begin with, the scientific context of the research project has been
described early on in the introduction section highlighting the motivation to undertake the research
project. The scope of the project was situated in the topics such as STCW regulatory framework, the

41
skill development for MET instructors, students, and the use of educational technologies such as AI in
maritime learning contexts. The rationale behind selection of methodology was expanded upon in the
present section of methodology. As described earlier, the reasons to narrow down on pre-dominantly
quantitative survey questionnaires was given. The choice of methodology was influenced by post-
positivistic beliefs held by the principal investigator, as well as practical concerns. The discussion
section follows in the thesis where the implications of results are further elaborated upon and compared
with parallel findings by other investigators where such results are available. By specifying each of the
steps in the current body of texts as well as the research articles forming the thesis, every effort has been
taken to ensure clarity of the research objectives, analysis process and the obtained results. Furthermore,
recognized practices related to conducting survey studies while ensuring anonymity of the participants
have been followed. In all of the studies, the participation was strictly voluntary, and the contact details
of the principal investigator were always provided. Being the principal investigator myself, it is hard to
evaluate the contribution to the larger body of knowledge that was ultimately made with these studies.
However, as described earlier, it was observed that the research area which was the focus of this project
had not been investigated before, therefore, it can be claimed that the studies did contribute to addressing
an evident gap with respect to MET literature. Having described the general context of the project in
terms of broad guidelines, certain specific parameters related to quantitative data are provided next.
Firstly, the reliability and validity parameters of the survey data will be discussed which will be followed
by steps taken to ensure quality and accuracy of the qualitative part of the survey data.

3.3.1 Reliability and Validity

The concepts of reliability and validity are central to the quantitative survey methodology of data
collection primarily utilized in this thesis. The stability of a measurement scale, i.e., how far it will yield
the same results on subsequent occasions, is referred to as reliability (or consistency), whereas the degree
to which a scale measures what it is supposed to measure is referred to as its validity (Bannigan &
Watson, 2009). There are different ways to assess the reliability and validity of the collected data for
the surveys. For instance, the reliability is determined by measures of stability, internal consistency and
equivalence, whereas, validity is determined by factorial validity, convergent/divergent validity, content
validity and so on. In all of the studies carried out, the reliability of collected data was primarily
measured by determining Cronbach’s alpha. In paper-1 and paper-2, measures of composite reliability
were also provided. Factorial validity using confirmatory analysis was primarily used in the studies
(except paper-3) for ascertaining the validity of the collected data. In paper-1 and 2, measures of
convergent and divergent validity were also given. Only reliability statistic was determined in the paper-
3, since a 10 item unidimensional scale was utilized. (SUS). To describe some of the associated terms
further, Cronbach’s alpha is an index which is used to measure the internal consistency of a set of items,
i.e. to which extent the items are measuring the same construct. It is therefore used to determine the
reliability of a scale or set of items. Its value ranges from 0 to 1, where a value ranging 0.8 to 0.9 are
usually considered good. Low values (<0.60) are not desirable as it would mean that the items are not
reliably measuring the construct. However, high values (>0.95) are also not desirable as they indicate
redundancy (Tavakol & Dennick, 2011). Composite reliability, on other hand, is a similar measure for
assessing internal consistency. However, by considering the factor loading of the construct also into
account, it is thought to be more reliable measure than Cronbach’s alpha when measuring item
reliability. Average Variance Extracted can be described as the average amount of variance explained

42
by the various variables forming a particular construct (Farrell, 2010). Average Variance Extracted,
sometimes taken together with Composite Reliability is used to explain the convergent validity of the
constructs (Hair et al., 2019).

In paper-1, the Cronbach’s alpha (CA) value for the factors ranged from 0.617 to 0. 880. The composite
reliability (CR) values ranged between 0.828 and 0.925, which is considered “satisfactory to good”
according to the recommendations given by Hair et al. (2019). Except for Factor 1, the obtained Average
Variance Extracted (AVE) values were more than the required threshold of 0.5 (Hair et al., 2020). In
paper-2, the CA values ranged from 0.814 to 0.920 for the factors. The CR values were between 0.871
to 0.939, whereas the AVE values were between 0.585 to 0.723 for the factors. In paper-3, as indicated
earlier only CA value was determined for the unidimensional scale and it was found to be 0.884. It was
above the 0.700 threshold generally considered acceptable for the scale with similar number of items
(Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). In paper-4, the CA values for the factors ranged from 0.849 to 0.910.
The CR values were between 0.787 to 0.867. Notably, only 1 out of 4 factors in this study had an AVE
more than 0.5. However, the CR values of all the factors were more than 0.6, which established the
convergent validity as adequate for this study (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).

3.3.2 Quality Criteria for Qualitative data

Thematic analysis was performed on the qualitative data collected through the open-ended portion of
the questionnaire to extract the most important themes. thematic analysis can be defined as “a method
for identifying, analysing, and reporting patterns (themes) within data” (Braun & Clarke, 2006, p.79).
In this context, a theme is a type of patterned response or interpretation that can be found in the data.
Categories and codes were developed for the identified competence themes. As explained earlier, only
the themes that were not already covered by the STCW competence framework for technical skills or
the reviewed literature for non-technical skill requirements for navigators were qualified after the
iterative coding process. For commenting further on the qualitative part of thesis, which was only a
subset of paper-1, the guidelines given by Yardley (2000) can be used as a reference. According to
Yardley (2000, p.219), there are four essential criteria for evaluating value in the qualitative data
analysis, namely - (1) sensitivity to context, (2) commitment and rigour, (3) transparency and coherence
and (4) impact and importance. The thesis attempted to demonstrate the sensitivity to context through a
thorough review of literature related to the research objective of paper-1 as illustrated in the earlier
sections. Furthermore, demographic data was also collected and tabulated in paper-1 to give more
context to the readers. The elaboration of my own professional background and motivation to conduct
research on Maritime Education and Training was further provided to explain the context more.
However, it should be noted that due to impersonal method of data collection, it was not possible to
engage with the respondents more than what could have been experienced through a more personal data
collection method such as interviews. This can also be viewed as a positive alternative, as there were
less chances of making the respondents conscious through personal presence of the researcher. The
thesis attempted to demonstrate commitment and rigour by clearly outlining the data analysis process
related to thematic analysis, as given in the earlier section. The data was analysed by the two independent
researchers collaboratively with adherence to the guidelines given by Braun and Clarke (2006), in the
attempt to demonstrate particular engagement and rigour in the analysis of data. This step, along with
the literature review, also provided a reasonable level of transparency and coherence in the stated

43
narrative, by giving the readers a walkthrough of the steps involved. Additionally, efforts have been
made to describe the assumptions and worldview of the principal investigator as much as possible. Also,
the relative narrow scope of the research study and the informed consent process was instrumental in
addressing the transparency and coherence aspects of the research project. It is subjectively difficult to
clearly assess the final criteria as stated by Yardley (2000), i.e., the impact and importance of the
qualitative subset of data from paper-1. However, it can be argued that the process met the original
research objective. Additional number of respondents could have been beneficial in further
strengthening the last dimension of the quality criteria.

3.3.3 Ethical considerations

The thesis followed all the ethical guidelines as listed by the affiliated institution of the author. Most of
the guidelines pertain to the principles of informed consent, minimising the risk of harm, and
anonymization of the participant data. As such, no personal data was collected in the research studies
which can directly be linked to individual respondents. In the instances, such data was collected, a prior
Norwegian Centre for Research Data (NSD) form was filled and query for permission filled online.
However, it was later anonymized after the duration of data collection and analysis expired. The
respondents were notified about the nature of the study and their rights during the participation. This
was done through a statement informing the nature of the project, assurance of voluntary participation
and other relevant information which was provided to them before the study commenced. The
participants were informed that they are free to withdraw in any stage during the data collection. Contact
details of the principal investigator was also provided in every case. The extracts of these research intent
declaration are also provided in the appendix (A1-A4). Where applicable, the Data Protection Officer
(DPO) of the affiliated institute was involved and consulted with. In certain instances where established
scales were utilized (TPSA-C21 and yDSI), the original authors of the related studies were contacted
and consulted to better understand the procedures of the scale use and data analysis. The funding sources
were clearly acknowledged in all the individual papers constituting the thesis. Where specifically asked
by the journals, a declaration of no conflicts and individual contributions of the authors in the
formulation of the manuscript was also described. All the research papers constituting the thesis are
open access in nature and hosted in platforms like – ResearchGate© and USN Biblioteket (Library) for
instance. In summary, all possible efforts to follow the ethical guidelines and open science initiatives
were followed.

44
4 Results
This Chapter includes the summary of the key findings and results emerging from the thesis. A detailed
description of the findings can be seen in the four appended papers. Through a pre-dominantly post-
positivist and pragmatic stance, the thesis studied both macro and micro contexts of MET, along with
the issue of the professional development of the maritime instructors. After the results, the findings are
discussed in light of the research objective and theoretical framework, before articulating the key
contributions, limitations and directions for further research.

4.1 Summary and key findings from paper-1

The purpose of paper-1 was to investigate the suitability of the existing STCW requirements in relation
to the future autonomous operations and identify additional technical and non-technical skills that will
be required of the navigators. A mixed methods approach was utilized for this purpose. The original
STCW Table A-II/1 consisted of 66 items distributed within 19 competence themes. After performing
EFA on the 109 collected responses, only 41 KUPs were found relevant for future autonomous
operations distributed within 11 competences themes. These themes were identified as - (1) Position
fixing and watchkeeping (2) Inspect and report defects to cargo spaces, hatch covers, and ballast tanks
(3) Prevent, control and fight fires onboard (4) Contribute to safety of personnel and ships (5) Use of
RADAR, ARPA, and ECDIS to maintain safety of navigation (6) Application of leadership and
teamworking skills (7) Ensure compliance with pollution prevention (8) Damage control and distress
communication (9) Application of meteorological information in navigation (10) Reporting and
communication (11) Manoeuvring and maintaining seaworthiness of ship. These are the themes related
to technical skills relevant for future autonomous operations for navigators. The individual KUP items
which were rated as most important for future autonomous operations were – (1) Ability to take
precautions for the protection of passengers in emergency situations (KUP-26) and (2) Ability to take
initial actions following a collision or a grounding (KUP-27). Additionally, A component of the
questionnaire was dedicated to examining the new technical skill requirements not included in the
present competency framework. As a result of thematic analysis, five main novel technical competency
themes emerged - IT skills, safety and security management skills, knowledge of engine room
operations, electronic equipment, and system integration.

In relation to the non-technical skills, initially a division was done as per the reviewed literature, and
they were divided into – cognitive skills and social skills. Out of the five cognitive skills presented to
the respondents, they rated the ability to maintain situational awareness as the most important cognitive
skills. Further, through thematic analysis of their qualitative responses, five novel cognitive skills that
could be relevant for future autonomous operations emerged, such as - non-routine problem solving,
self-regulation capacity, critical thinking, mental readiness, and systemic thinking. Similarly, they were
also asked to evaluate and comment on social skills. Out of the six available options, the respondents
rated the ability to take leadership initiatives as the most important social skills. Through the thematic
analysis of their responses, three additional social skills that could be relevant emerged as - the ability
to develop trust in teams, the ability to adjust to cultural differences, and negotiation abilities.

45
The paper concluded by stating that the while development related to autonomous ship technologies are
gathering pace in recent years, relatively less studies have been conducted which are related to
competence modelling for the future seafarers who will be involved in these operations. The guidelines
and standards through instruments like the STCW regulations will be needed in the future which could
aid the MET community in preparing the future maritime workforce.

4.2 Summary and key findings from paper-2

The aim of paper-2 was to explore the level of technology self-efficacy and the level of technology use
by the MET instructors. The Technology Proficiency Self-Assessment for the Twenty-First Century
(TPSA-C21) questionnaire was used in this study to assess the self-reported technology proficiency of
maritime instructors from a variety of MET institutes in Europe and the UK. The TPSA-C21
questionnaire contains 34 items that assess technology self-proficiency across six dimensions: (1) Email
(2) World Wide Web (3) Emerging Tools (4) Technology with technology (5) Integrated Applications
(6) Technology with emerging technology. Additionally, the level of use of technology in classroom
was determined by the Concern Based Adoption Model (CBAM-LoU) which defines eight level of
educational innovation: (1) Non-use (2) Orientation (3) Preparation (4) Mechanical use (5) Routine (6)
Refinement (7) Integration (8) Renewal.

Figure 9 . Frequency distribution pie-graph for Level of Use (LoU) of technology in MET classrooms

The descriptive statistical analysis of obtained 62 responses indicated that on an average the respondents
rated their technical proficiency on each of the items greater than 4.0, in a Likert scale varying from 1-
5. However, that was not the case for Q. 8, 22 and 23, where the obtained average scores were – 3.37,
3.47 and 3.47 respectively. These results indicated a relative reluctance to utilize collaborative content
creation, dissemination and the use of web 2.0 tools. This indicates that the MET instructors use the

46
generic technology tools nominally, but not so much for constructivist purposes in the classroom.
Further, in the CBAM-LoU scale as shown in the Figure 9, the percentage frequency distribution was
highest for Level 4A, Routine (41.9%), which is described as being able to comfortably use information
technology for teaching but not being able to make further impact through its use. This was followed by
Level 3, Mechanical use (24.2%) of information technology. Evidently, none of the respondents selected
Level 4B, 5 and 6, which correspond to refinement, integration and renewal levels of use.

The study concluded with stating that there is a scope for improvement for the MET instructors for
teaching with a constructivist approach and the use of emerging technology. Further, through this study
attention was drawn towards relatively less targeted area of the capacity development of MET
instructors who have a crucial role in training the maritime workforce.

4.3 Summary and key findings from paper-3

In this paper, an AI chatbot was developed and implemented in the maritime classroom for assisting
students in increasing their understanding regarding the International Regulations for Preventing
Collisions at Sea or COLREGs. A total of 18 students enrolled in their Bachelors in Nautical Science
program took part in this study. The theme of the paper-3 is related to the paper-2, as it builds on the
findings and conclusions of the latter, where the role of MET instructors was described and elaborated
upon. As noted earlier, one of the findings from paper-2 stated that the MET instructors require a more
constructivist orientation in the classroom. Furthermore, their use of new emerging technology was also
argued as an area requiring further investigation. These findings were considered in conjugation with a
technology such as AI, which can support and be used for devising a digital distributed learning solution.
Therefore, in the paper-3, the use of AI was explored through design and validation of the Chatbot for
teaching and discussing COLREGs with the maritime trainees. The students practiced a subset of the
COLREGs and evaluated the user interface of chatbot through the System Usability Scale (SUS). Some
demographic questions such as student’s prior experience with maritime navigation or interacting with
a chatbot were also posed to understand the responses further. For the design of the chatbot, IBM Watson
Assistant© service was utilized which enables the use of Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) on
its cloud server. The chatbot was programmed to recognize and respond to queries regarding a subset of
COLREGs (Rules 11-18) along with some generic responses. The chatbot was titled “FLOKI” and was
conceptualized to act as the More Knowledgeable Other (MKO) in this instance that could respond to
queries from the students. An evident advantage of using this approach was the possibility of the chatbot
FLOKI to simultaneously engage multiple students repeatedly. The chatbot recognized the pre-defined
contexts and responded with stored dialogue blocks.

47
 Figure 10. Example interaction of a student with AI chatbot FLOKI (Sharma et al., 2022)

An example of AI chatbot and student interaction is provided in the Figure 10 above. The overall score
received by the chatbot was 73.72 in the SUS scale. It should be noted that this score does not correspond
to a percentage. The median 50th percentile score for the SUS scale is 70.5 (Bangor et al., 2008).
Therefore, the obtained score was above average and in the 3rd quartile of the total mean scores of the
SUS scale. Non-parametric analysis were conducted to examine if there are any differences in the
responses obtained through the SUS due to demographic grouping. A total of 10 respondents had stated
that they have some experience with navigation and 8 had replied negatively for the same. The mean
scores in SUS for these two groups were 74.97 and 72.70 respectively. The Mann-Whitney U test
showed no significant difference in both groups at 0.05 significance level (U value = 38, Z score =
0.133, two tailed) with p=0.896. Similarly, the respondents were asked whether they had any experience
in use of a chatbot prior to this exercise. A total of 11 respondents responded positively against 7 who
responded negatively. The mean SUS scores of these two groups were 78.61 and 66.65 respectively.
The Mann-Whitney U test showed no significant difference in both groups at 0.05 significance level (U
value = 21, Z score = 0.153, two tailed) with p=0.123.

In conclusion, the AI chatbot received a positive evaluation in terms of its efficiency, effectiveness and
satisfaction by the maritime students. The study present a proof-of-concept in terms of application of
AI, more specifically, Natural Language Processing (NLP) for maritime education and training. It
focused on the micro-context of learning interactions occurring between instructors and students
mediated with technology. The recommendations from the paper were towards exploration of more
application of digital technologies that can support classroom learning activities by promoting efficiency
and leveraging the use of AI for the benefit of MET instructors and the students.

48
4.4 Summary and key findings from paper-4
The aim of paper-4 was to bring the focus on the current level of digital skills of the maritime trainees,
which is often recognized as one of the indispensable 21st century skills necessary for the future
workforce to succeed in post digital environments. A questionnaire known as Youth Digital Skills
Indicator (yDSI) was administered to a total of 234 maritime trainees from the Philippines. The yDSI
questionnaire evaluates the digital skills in four dimensions: (1) technical and operational skills (2)
information navigation and processing skills (3) communication and interaction skills (4) content
creation and production skills. The data was analysed using descriptive statistics and CFA.

The findings through comparison of percentage frequency distribution of each dimensions indicate that
the maritime trainees rate their (1) technical and operational skills, and (3) communication and
interaction skills higher than (2) information navigation and processing, and (4) content creation and
production skills. The theoretical structure of the yDSI questionnaire was also evaluated through the
CFA, which was found to be a satisfactory fit, with the following fit indices as shown in Table 2.

Table 2. CFA fit indices

Indices Value

χ2 597.75

df 246

Sig. 0.000

RMSEA 0.078

RMR 0.063

CFI 0.895

TLI 0.882

Note - χ2 = Chi square, df = degrees of freedom, Sig = significance level, RMSEA = root mean square error of
approximation, RMR = root mean squared residual, CFI = comparative fit index and TLI = Tucker-Lewis index
(Sharma, 2022)

The paper identified a potential arena for improvement of digital skills of the maritime trainees with
respect to two dimensions. The results indicated that the maritime trainees are not completely confident
regarding interacting with information sources in digital environments and evaluating their credibility.
Furthermore, they are relatively less proficient in content creation with respect to their learning. These
issues could potentially impact the use of novel digital technologies in the classroom as the students will
not be able to capitalize fully with the available digital affordances. The study re-iterates the importance
of digital skills in professional vocational education and training environments.

49
5 Discussions
5.1 General discussions
This chapter discusses the obtained results in the thesis with the larger body of existing research
literature and provides reflections regarding the implications of the findings. It also discusses the
theoretical and methodological limitations of the current research. The four papers constituting the thesis
provided empirical evidence related to the primary objective: the investigation of competence
requirements for the future maritime workforce and barriers and opportunities regarding technology
integration in maritime classrooms. As elaborated in the previous section, several key takeaways
originate from each of the papers.

Paper-1 and paper-4, as noted earlier, focused on the macro-context regarding the use of technology in
MET and competence development. With regards to novel competence requirements, paper-1 listed 11
competence themes that could be relevant for future maritime operations through a conceptual example
of autonomous shipping: (1) Position fixing and watchkeeping (2) Inspect and report defects to cargo
spaces, hatch covers, and ballast tanks (3) Prevent, control and fight fires onboard (4) Contribute to
safety of personnel and ships (5) Use of RADAR, ARPA, and ECDIS to maintain safety of navigation
(6) Application of leadership and teamworking skills (7) Ensure compliance with pollution prevention
(8) Damage control and distress communication (9) Application of meteorological information in
navigation (10) Reporting and communication (11) Manoeuvring and maintaining seaworthiness of ship
(Sharma & Kim, 2021). These competences were listed for seafarers engaged in Degree 2 MASS
operations who will be onboard such autonomous vessels. Similar findings are emerging from recent
research literature related to competence requirements for operating autonomous ships in other projects
parallelly. For example, in the EU project AUTOSHIP, Lee et al. (2022) describe the training framework
for crew operating autonomous ships. They describe the use case scenario of Short Sea Shipping (SSS)
autonomous vessels, which they explain corresponds to the Degree 2 MASS as per IMO. For the
proposed use case, they have listed the following ten recommended skills for Remote Control Centre
(RCC) Operators to manage the autonomous ships effectively: (1) Navigation (2) Deck operation (3)
Cargo operation, Stability, and Ship Integrity (4) Machinery operation (5) Safety and Security (6)
Environment Protection (7) Maintenance (8) Information technology (9) Ship administration and (10)
Emergency Response. Although these skills are defined for RCC operators, the RCC does not
necessarily corresponds to shore control, as it can also be a manned ship leading the convoy of other
autonomous vessels. Furthermore, Lee et al. (2022, p.41) define some “general” competencies necessary
for RCC operators. These competencies and skills, as defined by them, appear to be indicating towards
a set of non-technical competencies/skills, although they have not explicitly stated so. They list eight
such general competencies – (1) Knowledge of conventional ships (2) Good sense of situational
awareness and digitalised information (3) Decisiveness & Quick-thinking skills (4) Mentality (5)
Leadership, Teamwork skills and Social ability (6) Critical thinking, mental arithmetic calculations &
Creative skills (7) Positive Attitude (8) Ability to remain calm and balanced. These competencies/skills
seem to have good overlap with some of the “cognitive” and “social” skills as mentioned in the paper-
1. Thus, it can be stated that overall, the skills listed by Lee et al. (2022) as relevant for Degree 2 MASS
operations, show reasonable overlap with the findings from paper-1 of the thesis, although some minor

50
areas of divergence also exist. Similarly, few commonalities in the findings of paper-1 were also
observed with the research of Yoshida et al. (2020), where they examined the suitability of the STCW
Table A-II/1 for the RCC operators using framework of situational awareness and goal-based gap
analysis. Out of the existing competence themes, they propose strengthening and increasing the
importance of about 11 themes, such as – Bridge Resource Management, Application of leadership and
teamwork skills, Terrestrial and Coastal navigation, Electronic systems of position fixing and
navigation, Watchkeeping, Radar navigation, Navigation using ECDIS, Navigation competence,
Knowledge of regulatory framework, Theoretical and Fundamental Knowledge, and Practical ability
related to navigation equipment (Yoshida et al., 2020, p.22). Upon closer inspection, there is a certain
redundancy in their defined themes, and it is possible that the unique themes under the STCW Table-
II/1, which should be retained, could have been further synthesized to about 9 themes. However, they
also mention some additional competence themes that would be required for the RCC operators, such
as - Experience of seagoing service, Fail-safe to the intermittence of data communication and Basic
knowledge of wireless communication and data transfer. The latter two additional skills as mentioned,
are similar to the findings of paper-1 where some of the additional technical skills required for future
maritime workforce were mentioned as “IT skills” and “electronic equipment”. These findings also lend
some evidence to the description of broader digital skills as necessary in the coming years. Yoshida et
al. (2020) explicitly mentioned that “Celestial navigation” as a competence theme might be redundant
in the future. This was also the finding in paper-1, as this competence theme, although traditionally rated
as important part of navigator’s training, was not rated sufficiently relevant for the future by the
respondents (Sharma & Kim, 2021). It could be relevant for the MET stakeholders to further investigate
the suitability of competence themes, not only with respect to navigation officers, but also for other
ranks and departments. If there are consistent evidence regarding redundancy of certain competence
requirements, corresponding changes should be considered for revision in the STCW. With regards to
individual Knowledge, Understanding and Proficiency (KUP) items, KUP 26 and 27 were rated as the
most important in the era of autonomous maritime operations by the respondents. These KUPs broadly
correspond to the ability to take appropriate action in emergency situations by the navigators. As more
functions will be allocated to automation agents, the primary role of human operators will transition to
responder of non-routine events. However, these developments will also entail corresponding risk of
incorrect actions taken by human operators due to inherent limits with respect to how humans process
information and respond. This is not entirely surprising as several literature sources have described
humans as having poor monitoring capabilities and their tendency to be “out-of-the-loop” once they are
in a supervisory capacity for autonomous agents (Endsley & Kiris, 1995; Porathe, 2021). As such,
increasing emphasis on non-technical skills is expected to continue in the era of autonomous shipping.
Emad et al. (2022) in their systematic literature review regarding the seafarer training needs for
operating future autonomous ships had a similar outlook. They stated that while at the moment a robust
framework and training curricula is lacking with regards to training seafarers for future maritime
operations, it would likely include three dominant dimensions, such as – cognitive, communicative and
operational skills. They reached this conclusion by reviewing the developments from other safety critical
domains such as aviation, nuclear, road and railways, where the adaptation of automation related training
frameworks traditionally preceded the maritime industry by few years. These findings do indicate a
growing importance of non-technical dimensions of seafarer competence in the increasing automated
shipping environments which should be considered by MET stakeholders.

51
The main findings from paper-4 were regarding the level of digital skills of maritime trainees as
measured by the yDSI questionnaire. Considering the generic 21st century skills requirement, paper-4
targeted an essential component of the future skillset that is argued to be critical for all vocational
workforce in the coming years. It was observed that the level of digital skills along the dimensions of
information navigation and content creation was relatively lower for the students compared to other
dimensions of digital skills. It suggests that participating students in the study were unclear on how to
acquire relevant information and assess its authenticity while interacting with digital media.
Furthermore, relatively low content creation and production ratings show that students need clarification
on creating digital content that can be incorporated into their education and related copyright issues. The
findings suggest that, in order to enable higher-order conversations in classroom instruction and
curriculum design, a relatively low score on the dimensions mentioned above may pose a bottleneck for
orienting students to create and assess knowledge (Krathwohl, 2002). It may have ramifications for
introducing and modifying digital media in maritime classrooms. Without considering maritime
students’ basic digital literacy, any proposed instructional delivery options or educational innovation
efforts will have a limited impact.

These findings indicate a scope of improvement, where the maritime students could improve on utilizing
their digital skills for creating new knowledge with their peers as well as evaluating the accuracy and
relevancy of digital content they are interacting with. While there are no studies to the best of my
knowledge that have focus on digital skills and their impact on education of maritime students, some
studies have discussed the digital environment where the future seafarers will operate and the need for
corresponding skillsets. For example, Shahbakhsh et al. (2022) in their literature review, identified the
key trends in maritime industry with respect to the ongoing digitalization and stated that the next
generation of maritime industry will require considerable mediation of human and technological agents
through digital interfaces. The need for adequate digital skills as a foundational knowledge for the
seafarers would be a legitimate need in such a scenario. Similar views were voiced by Alop (2019)
where he stated that the proficiency in ICT skills along with traditional seafaring knowledge will be key
in preparing for intelligent shipping environment. However, all the above articles are conceptual in their
nature and a more grounded approach to identify the role of digital skills for prospective maritime
trainees is yet to emerge from the MET stakeholders. Despite this, the requirements for proficiency in
digital skills for maritime students should also be viewed as a part of the larger vocational education
and training related requirements in Industry 4.0. For instance, the International Labour Organization
(ILO), in their roadmap for the digitalization of national Technical Vocational Education and Training
(TVET) systems, stressed on the importance of digital literacy for lifelong learning for the workforce.
(ILO, 2021). Similarly, the EU have defined a digital competence framework for its citizens (DigComp),
considering the digital transformation occurring in the recent years and the significant need for ICT
specialists in the coming future. Under this framework, EU have identified dimensions such as -
information and data literacy, communication and collaboration, digital content creation, safety, and
problem solving. Proficiency in these dimensions of the digital skills are envisioned by the EU in its
overall educational policy (Vuorikari et al., 2022). It is also worth noting that not only the digital skills
are necessary for the vocational employees from developed nations, but these skills could also provide
a more level playing opportunity to the vocational employees from the developing nations through
increased inclusivity and participation in global markets (Chetty et al., 2018). Thus, the need to cultivate

52
digital skills for maritime trainees is aligned with the wider efforts towards sustainable development and
should be considered at a global level. The paper-1 and paper-4 therefore, contributed towards
understanding of the macro-context related to the technology use and competence development for the
MET.

Undoubtedly, the role of MET instructors is also a key factor in understanding the potential use of
technology and exploring various ways it can be utilized to deliver on the goals of educational programs.
From the findings of paper-2, the level of use of technology in maritime classrooms and the self-reported
technology proficiency of MET instructors were identified. The results from paper-2 through the use of
TPSA-C21 indicated that the instructors reported less proficiency in the use of web 2.0 tools (e.g., social
media/wiki/blogs). Further, their self-reported level of technology use in the classrooms hovered around
“routine” applications predominantly (Level 4A), with none of the respondents reporting levels of use
such as – refinement, integration, and renewal. As noted earlier, these findings indicate that although
the MET instructors felt adequately competent in their use of majority of available technological
affordances, there is still scope of improvement regarding use of emerging tools and their own
pedagogical style. The findings draw the attention of the MET community towards relatively less
addressed area regarding the need for professional development of the instructors, corresponding to the
ongoing changes in the wider maritime domain. It is important to bring the level of technology
proficiency of the MET instructors to the forefront because this self-reported gap in utilization of
technology for education and training purposes can widen in the coming years. For example, with the
rise in distributed learning modes enabled by advances in ICT, novel opportunities for creating digital
content related to maritime subjects and their appropriate use will primarily rest with the MET
instructors only. Failure to capitalize on such affordances will signify possibility of under-utilization of
the technology infrastructure and its incomplete integration. As noted by Ertmer (2005), most of the
innovations in the instructional practice are led by the instructors themselves and the attitude of the
instructors towards the use of technology can be forming the “final frontier” which influences the end
results regarding their integration. It is important to consider the professional development of the
instructors for formulating policies and approach that takes into account the dynamic and technology
powered learning experiences required for 21st century education (Krishna, 2010). A natural question
does arises with respect to how to support the professional development of the MET instructors. On the
regulatory aspect, a possible step to adequately address these factors could be more explicit description
of teaching methods, training aids and technology integration strategies to be employed in the digital
learning environments by the MET instructors in IMO model courses 3.12 and 6.09. As described
earlier, the IMO model courses 3.12 and 6.09 concern the training and assessment methods as well as
organization of instructions for the MET instructors. A regulatory update and revision of their content
and requirements could aid in laying the groundwork of changes. However, on the more pragmatic side,
it would be about the organizational strategy of the MET institutes which could ensure more operational
response. There are certain strategies that can be adapted to ensure the professional development of the
instructors with respect to adequate utilization and integration of the technology. For instance, Potter
and Rockinson-Szapkiw (2012), using a socio-constructivist approach, have described a model for
effective professional development opportunities for the instructors. They describe three aspects of the
model as (1) technology operation (2) technology application and (3) technology integration with
mentor and community support. As per their model, initially, the instructors would need a basic

53
understanding and familiarity with the use of any technology. Albeit familiarity with any technology is
often only the basic step. Further, the instructors would need to explore the application of the technology
in question, through relevant pedagogical exercises. It is important to use a hands-on approach with
possible face to face sessions during this step. However, long-lasting positive changes in professional
capacity can happen with a collaborative and community-oriented approach involving all the instructors
in the organization, where they share their experiences and practices with the use of technology tools.
Potter and Rockinson-Szapkiw (2012, p.24) advocate for the use of mentoring in this step. Observation
of the new practices is more likely to be the most effective method for the instructors to transfer
knowledge among each other. However, the final step would require active administrative support and
intervention with respect to resources and planning. Similarly, Ertmer (2005) also elaborated upon the
need for professional development of the instructors to better support technology integration in the
classrooms. She stated that there is strong link between instructors existing beliefs and instructional
practices. According to Ertmer (2005, p.32), there are three strategies through which a concrete shift in
instructors’ attitude towards technology can happen – (1) Personal experiences: relatively simple and
lower-level use of technology can be used for initiation process (2) Vicarious experiences: observing
peers using technology can help generate similar behaviour by the instructors. The instructor can
contrast or draw parallel regarding their own approach by comparing with their peers. (3) Socio-cultural
influences: the experiences of the instructors can be shaped by their participation in a defined
professional community or through adapting what is considered to be a good instructional practice
regarding technology use in their organization. For evaluating the effectiveness of professional
development of MET instructors, an approach emerging from paper-2 can be adopted. Standard
instruments such as TPSA-C21 or TPACK can be used to determine the level of technology self-efficacy
before or after organizational intervention. It can also be used to compare differences in different
geographical regions.

The results obtained from paper-2 influenced the objectives of paper-3. As the results suggested that
there is a lack of utilization of emerging technologies by the MET instructors, a proof-of-concept of a
digital tool powered by AI was conceptualized. The focus of paper-3 was towards design and evaluation
of the AI Chatbot for a use case in maritime classroom. This resulted in the formation of the AI Chatbot
“FLOKI”, and subsequently it was evaluated for its perceived usability by the maritime trainees using
the System Usability Scale (SUS). The overall usability findings of the chatbot in paper-3 show that it
was well received by students in terms of efficacy, efficiency, and satisfaction. FLOKI exceeded the
conventional standard in usability studies (73.7), as it scored higher than the median score of SUS scale
(70.5). The non-parametric Mann-Whitney U test findings revealed no statistically significant
differences in the chatbot’s usability evaluation by students with prior navigation and COLREGs
experience. The difference in average SUS scores between students who had prior experience dealing
with a chatbot and those who did not had such experience was also not significant. However, an
important purpose for the design of chatbot was towards demonstrating how emerging tools can be
utilized in maritime classrooms. As the domain of AI expands to include improved models and interfaces
to interact with, it simultaneously provides new opportunities for their application in education. Some
of the potential benefits of AI in education, as noted earlier, were - the possibility to deliver personalized
content on demand, the transfer of the repetitive aspects of the teaching tasks to intelligent agents and
improving the overall quality and utilization concerning resources. However, these benefits can only be

54
realized if AI solutions are properly implemented in respective educational contexts and tailored to meet
the institutional needs. Owoc et al. (2021, p.10) have provided a general strategy for implementing AI
in educational institutions. According to their guidelines, institutes can adopt a five-step process for
integrating AI systems – (1) Plan and analyse: understanding the synergy between desired institutional
goals and proposed solutions along with an estimation of resources (2) Design and specify: Narrow
down to the functional requirements that the system should support (3) Implement and configure: The
system should be commissioned and installed in the institutional software architecture (4) Test and
evaluate: check for possible bugs, usability issues and performance (5) Monitor and support: providing
support to the users and ensuring data storage integrity. These guidelines can be used and tailored
according to the end goals and resources available. For example, in paper-3, the use case was related to
the training of COLREGs for the B.Sc. in nautical science students. The proposed proof-of-concept
provided a distributed learning solution in this regard. More diverse uses of AI in MET can be developed
to address different aspects of educational programs. It can range from automated assessments to
clustering of students according to their learning styles. The use of AI can therefore contribute towards
supporting and, in some cases innovating the education and training processes.

The pedagogical use of the AI Chatbot was influenced by a socio-constructivist perspective towards
learning. There were various reasons why this approach was adopted and should be considered to
address some of the recognized challenges and opportunities evident in MET. Firstly, as explained
earlier, the advances in ICT would present new modes of digital distributed learning. The MET
community must leverage the ongoing digital advances to identify innovative use for supporting their
educational programs. By their very nature, the digital distributed mode of learning will enhance
connectivity and collaboration between the learners and the instructor. It will provide new modes of
learning content delivery in addition to the existing ones. As a result, newer opportunities to collaborate
and learn on virtual platforms will emerge (Miranda, 2007). To a certain extent, this is already possible
and ongoing using the existing web 2.0 tools. However, the advances in ICTs would enable greater
immersivity and the ability to transfer a variety of multimedia. In such instances, it is possible to enable
the cultivation of digital community of learners. Therefore, the socio-constructivist learning perspective
will be a more appropriate view of studying the learning process in such instances. As described earlier,
it is a learner-centred theoretical lens that stresses the importance of the active construction of
knowledge through interaction and scaffolding by more knowledgeable others. The interaction and
scaffolding process, in turn, leads to the expansion of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) that
can enable the learner to articulate their knowledge further, compare it with their peers and internalize
the new findings, building up on the past level of knowledge. In virtual learning environments, it is
possible to trace the dynamic learning process by looking at the artefacts jointly developed by the
learners and identify possible knowledge gaps. Furthermore, in technology-mediated social contexts,
the learners could explore the co-construction of knowledge together, which will be actively supported
by ICTs and supervised by the instructors. It could result in exposure to more diverse perspectives and
greater student inclusion. The process of active engagement and collaboration can be useful for
developing skills such as - critical thinking, self-regulation and communication, which along with
digital skills, are part of the 21st century skills requirement that are argued to be necessary for vocational
education and training for industry 4.0. The learning activities organized using this view in mind can
support requirements related to both technical skills as well as non-technical skills. The MET

55
community can benefit from further exploring use cases where such learning processes can be
facilitated.

5.2 Theoretical and methodological limitations

As with most studies, the current thesis also consisted of certain theoretical and methodological
limitations that should be considered while interpreting the findings emerging from this project. I would
like to highlight them in this section.

In the arena of theoretical limitations, there are several examples which can be illustrated. For instance,
the learning process was described using a selected educational theory out of a few dominant ones.
However, a much larger variety of learning theories currently exist in educational research, and they
have different antecedents and assumptions that could have also been considered. For example, theories
such as Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL), or Computer Supported Cooperative
Work (CSCW) are considered relevant when discussing modern vocational learning environments. They
have emerged partly due to the unique nature of digital workspaces, though they trace some of their
tenets to predecessor theories in learning sciences. However, these theories are just an example of the
existing and ever-increasing learning theories currently employed in research. A comprehensive
discussion and comparison of the educational theories would have been out of the scope of the intended
research objectives for this project. Nevertheless, it is important to acknowledge that alternative
viewpoints exist when considering the choice of educational theories. Similarly, the choice of survey
instruments or the questionnaires also subjected the data collection to position towards specific
theoretical stances. For example, the TPSA-C21 questionnaire by Christensen and Knezeck (2017) was
adopted to assess the technology self-efficacy of the MET instructors. However, similar measures exist,
which are also utilized for measuring the instructors' self-declared technology proficiency or knowledge
levels. As described earlier, the TPACK framework given by Koehler and Mishra (2009) consists of
three dimensions such as technology knowledge, pedagogical knowledge and content knowledge of the
instructors. The questionnaire based on TPACK framework, such as the one developed by Schmidt et
al. (2009), could also have been used in such instances. Specifically, the part of questionnaire having
the technology dimension related questions would have provided another way of assessing the
technology self-efficacy of the MET instructors. Moore-Hayes (2011) has also provided a 5 item scale
for evaluating the technology self-efficacy of instructors. However, it was felt that it might not
adequately capture the whole continuum of available technologies and their use in instruction.
Therefore, TPSA-C21 was selected for the purposes of collecting the data. In the case of the evaluation
of usability, the System Usability Scale (SUS) was utilized (Brooke, 1996). However, there are various
options that closely resemble SUS in the outcomes such as Post Study System Usability Questionnaire
(PSSUQ). PSSUQ scale is designed to measure the perceived satisfaction with computer-based systems
or applications and utilizes 16 items to measure it along the dimensions of system, information and
interface quality (Lewis et al., 1990). As such, it could have also been utilized. However, due to the
choice of item wordings and relative simplicity in use, the selection subjectively tipped towards SUS
for evaluating the perceived usability of AI Chatbot. In the end, only one approach could be used in the
studies, however, it is important to acknowledge alternative questionnaires, as the choice of wording in
each of them do impact the responses of the users. This is equally applicable for the use of yDSI
questionnaire, where the intention was towards assessment of the digital skills of the students and several

56
similar instruments are present. In summary, the selection of one of the instruments, available from a
set of instruments with similar utility objective, correspondingly led to measurement of the factors
associated with their underpinning theories.

Regarding the methodological limitations, as noted earlier, the choice of research paradigm, i.e., a post-
positivist approach, imposed certain limitations throughout the project. Firstly, there was an evident
issue of sample size in some of the studies, namely paper-2 and paper-3. Both of these studies could
have benefited from a larger sample size than what was obtained. However, to cater to the limited sample
size to a certain degree, only non-parametric tests were utilized when calculating inferential statistics in
these two papers, thereby not requiring assumptions regarding the normal distribution of data.
Nonetheless, larger sample sizes do reinforce the generalizability of the results. As such, the findings
should only be considered relative to the obtained sample sizes, and caution should be exercised against
over-interpretation. There are also various limitations due to the data collection steps involved in the
thesis. For example, the majority of the collected empirical data was in the form of online surveys,
except in paper-3. Such a form of data collection can be viewed as having a rigid and narrow structure
of questions and being impersonal, as it does not offer the possibility of further interaction with the
respondents. Additionally, online surveys do not capture nuanced qualities like behaviour, emotion and
other form of non-verbal feedback from the respondents, which can be possible in a face-to-face method
of collecting the data. Another inherent limitation concerning survey questionnaires is the possibility of
structural bias. However, since most of the survey instruments were validated scales, an effort was taken
to mitigate its possibility. Finally, there is a recognized issue known as “satisficing” in surveys,
sometimes called “survey fatigue”. Satisficing occurs due to time constraints of the respondents or lack
of interest in accurately answering the survey questionnaire. It was mitigated to a certain degree by
removing the “straight-lined” responses from the obtained data and calculating various reliability and
validity parameters to ascertain if the factors are correctly and reliably loading as per their theoretical
structure. The steps like confirmatory analyses and calculation of Cronbach’s alpha, for example, helped
address this issue to a certain extent. The obtained values of these parameters were mostly found
satisfactory with the various thresholds defined in the research literature as described in the methodology
section. As acknowledged earlier, a more qualitative approach could also have assisted in understanding
the subtleties regarding the measurement of various factors. It would have been possible to go one level
further in the investigation and pose follow-up queries with respect to each scale. This approach was
adopted in paper-1 and was helpful in understanding the competence requirements more holistically.
Due to resource constraints, it was not possible to repeat in in the subsequent papers. It should be
acknowledged that a mixed method approach can certainly be preferable and satisfactory in terms of
achieving the research objectives. However, there are certain limitations with respect to qualitative data
collection and analysis as well when it was employed in paper-1. In relation to the obtained qualitative
data, it is also worth describing the specific limitations. The thematic analysis process of the qualitative
data was a subjective process and therefore it was a function of my own worldview and biases. The
limitations of the survey method also apply to the qualitative data as it was not obtained through face-
to-face interaction, rather, it was obtained through open-ended questions in the online survey
questionnaire, which generated a collected set of texts. Despite being richer than the Likert scale
responses, it was, therefore, still not possible to extract nuances from the obtained data. It should also
be noted that the respondent pool was international. However, the questions that were asked were in the

57
English language. It is possible that some of the respondents did not correctly comprehend the original
meaning or phrasing behind the questions due to the fact that English might not be their first language.
As such, certain variances can be expected in meaning due to subjective interpretations by the
respondents.

5.3 Revisiting the research objectives

The primary research objective of the thesis was to investigate the novel competence requirements
relevant for the future maritime workforce, as well as the barriers and opportunities for integrating
technology in the maritime educational settings. The results obtained from the thesis contributed to this
thematic area for the MET domain. Taking into account the role of navigation officers at an operational
level, the competence areas which will be potentially relevant were described. The findings indicate that
the following 11 competence areas could be particularly important: (1) Position fixing and watchkeeping
(2) Inspect and report defects to cargo spaces, hatch covers, and ballast tanks (3) Prevent, control and
fight fires onboard (4) Contribute to safety of personnel and ships (5) Use of RADAR, ARPA, and
ECDIS to maintain safety of navigation (6) Application of leadership and teamworking skills (7) Ensure
compliance with pollution prevention (8) Damage control and distress communication (9) Application
of meteorological information in navigation (10) Reporting and communication (11) Manoeuvring and
maintaining seaworthiness of ship. Furthermore, five additional novel technical competence themes
were described as - IT skills, safety and security management skills, knowledge of engine room
operations, electronic equipment, and system integration. Regarding non-technical skills, the results
indicated the ability to maintain situational awareness and leadership skills as particularly relevant for
the future maritime operations. The novel non-technical skills that could also be relevant were listed as
- non-routine problem solving, self-regulation capacity, critical thinking, mental readiness, systemic
thinking, the ability to develop trust in teams, the ability to adjust to cultural differences, and negotiation
abilities. With regards to the 21st century skills requirements for industry 4.0, an analysis with respect
to digital skills of maritime trainees was carried out. Out of the four dimensions of the digital skills, the
results indicated some scope of improvement with respect to content creation and information
processing dimensions, in order to capitalize on modern technological affordances. The role of MET
instructors, as described earlier, is vital for ensuring that the future maritime workforce possess the
skillsets described above. Through the use of scales such as TPSA-C21 and CBAM-LoU, the thesis
gathered evidence regarding the level of technology proficiency and integration of MET instructors. The
findings indicated a relatively low level of proficiency in the use of web 2.0 tools compared to other
forms of ICTs. Additionally, it was observed that the instructors utilized the technology pre-dominantly
at “routine” or “mechanical” levels compared to higher levels such as refinement, integration or renewal
that could have been explored. The use of emerging technologies such as AI and their possible role in
innovating the education and training was discussed. An AI Chatbot utilizing the NLP capabilities was
presented as a proof-of-concept for the application in MET. The process and functioning of the AI
Chatbot for training COLREGs was described. The AI Chatbot received satisfactory usability score as
observed through the use of SUS. Further opportunities with the use of similar digital distributed
learning tools and by adapting a socio-constructivist perspective of learning to capitalize on advancing
ICTs for were discussed. The thesis therefore elaborated upon both macro and micro contexts related to

58
digitalization, competence development and use of technology in MET, along with highlighting the role
of MET instructors and the need for their continuous professional development.

5.4 Future research directions

The results from the individual studies delineated knowledge of the trends related to competence
development, technology integration, and digital skills of students and instructors in maritime
classrooms. However, avenues of future research on these topics were also uncovered as a result. Some
of the recommended areas of future research would be the investigation of the suitability of other
stipulated and additional competence requirements for the marine engine officers (Table III/1) and other
departments as outlined in the STCW. The knowledge regarding changing roles of other ranks and
departments would be instrumental in understanding the regulatory changes required more holistically.
Additionally, studies highlighting the generic 21st-century skills and their integration into the MET
curriculum for future seafarers to prepare them for modern maritime work environments and beyond are
also required. There is a need for systematic anticipation of future skills requirements for seafarers, not
limited to merely obtaining certificates of competency. The findings from the thesis could aid in the
competence modelling of existing and new roles within the maritime industry. Further research would
also be needed with regard to the professional development of MET instructors. Future studies can be
carried out concerning the technology self-efficacy of maritime instructors and its impact in the
classroom utilizing a qualitative approach, for example. Such an approach could enable more insights
regarding the perceived barriers experienced by the MET instructors. The data should be collected from
geographical regions other than Europe and can be compared with the findings from the thesis. Finally,
the involvement of emerging technologies such as AI in maritime classrooms will present a multifaceted
opportunity for developing efficient approaches to prepare future seafarers. The MET stakeholders
would need further exploration and understanding of the varied capabilities of the AI systems.
Correspondingly, at an institutional level, there would be a need to investigate specific curriculum areas
that could be functionally allocated to such systems. The use of new distributed modes of learning that
enable the collective participation of learners and instructors requires an understanding of the
pedagogical strategies that should be utilized to meet the goals of the educational program. It is another
area that requires further research for the benefit of the MET stakeholders.

59
6 Conclusion
The dynamic nature of changes with advancements in digitalization and automation would require
corresponding changes in maritime education and training. The present thesis aims to contribute
actionable knowledge regarding several areas within the MET domain, which will require renewed focus
in the face of upcoming changes in shipping at large. Topics such as competence requirements,
technology integration and professional development of the MET instructors were investigated in the
thesis. Adequately preparing the future workforce of a global evolving industry requires efforts on a
greater scale. The scope of technology contributing towards competence development, capacity
building, and safe maritime operations is vast. It will require a continuous evaluation of benefits,
limitations and various perspectives from maritime stakeholders to address the maritime industry's
digital transformation conundrum. A proactive approach from the MET community and adaptation of
regulatory advances can facilitate the transition to the post-digital era.

6.1 Findings
• Considering the technological advances in maritime industry, certain new technical
competencies would be required for seafarers as expressed by a section of MET stakeholders.
In the case of navigators, engaged in operational capacity in semi-autonomous operations,
eleven competence themes are described, from a subset of the existing Knowledge,
Understanding and Proficiency (KUP) items in the STCW.
• With regards to non-technical skills, the ability to maintain adequate situational awareness and
the ability to take leadership initiatives are rated as particularly important by the respondents.
There is also emphasis on the emergency preparedness of the seafarers on the account of
increasing automation and transition to more supervisory duties.
• The level of digital skills of maritime students as per the 21st century skills framework for
industry 4.0 environments were evaluated. The maritime students from a major maritime
workforce supplier nation rated their levels of digital skills along four dimensions. It was noticed
that the students had relatively less proficiency in information processing and content creation
aspects of digital skills. A confirmatory factor analysis also evaluated the performance of the
scale and its theoretical structure.
• The level of technology proficiency and its integration is measured from a sample of MET
instructors using a standardized scale. The MET instructors in Europe rated their usage of web
2.0 tools and emerging technology lower than other standard forms of ICTs. Furthermore, they
reported their use of technology in maritime classrooms at “routine” or “mechanical” level in
their teaching, against the expected levels of refinement, integration and renewal.

60
 • The use of AI tools for their potential application for MET was investigated. The proof-of-
concept designed for demonstrating a use case in COLREGs training received adequate
usability score. No difference with respect to prior experience of navigation or knowledge of
COLREGs was observed.

6.2 Recommendations
• Due to the changing operational environment as a result of industry 4.0, integration of 21st
century skills in curriculum should be considered for adequately preparing maritime workforce
and ensuring continuous employability.
• The competence requirements for management level officers and other ranks in shipping as per
the STCW framework need to be determined and tailored to the evolving maritime operations.
There is a need to further investigate the framework of non-technical skills in light of ongoing
automation and digitalization in maritime domain.
• The MET community need to focus simultaneously on the professional development of MET
instructors. This is vital for developing successful pedagogical strategies to prepare the future
maritime workforce. With regards to technology integration in maritime classrooms, standard
scales can be used to establish benchmarks and facilitation of comparisons. At local or
institutional level, qualitative studies can also provide evidence regarding perceived barriers
and opportunities.
• Advances in the capabilities of AI present multi-faceted opportunities in education. Further
avenues where AI can be used to support MET and strategies for ensuring its optimal
integration at MET institutes needs to be identified.
• Due to increase in digital distributed learning solutions, corresponding adaptation of
pedagogical approach should be explored. Utilizing perspectives such as socio-constructivist
theory and inculcating learning activities that involve co-construction of knowledge, peer
assessment and similar strategies can be adapted in this regard to meet the educational goals.

61
7 References
Adamopoulou, E., & Moussiades, L. (2020). An overview of chatbot technology. In: Maglogiannis,
I., Iliadis, L., Pimenidis, E. (eds) Artificial Intelligence Applications and Innovations. AIAI 2020. IFIP
Advances in Information and Communication Technology, vol 584 (pp.373-383). Springer, Cham.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49186-4_31

Ahvenjärvi, S. (2016). The Human Element and Autonomous Ships. TransNav, the International
Journal on Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea Transportation. 10 (3), 517–522.
DOI:10.12716/1001.10.03.18.

Albers, M. J. (2017). Quantitative data analysis—In the graduate curriculum. Journal of Technical
Writing and Communication, 47(2), 215-233. DOI: 10.1177/0047281617692067

Alop, A. (2004). Education and training or training contra education? In: Proceedings of the 13th
International Conference on Maritime Education and Training, IMLA 13. St Petersburg. 14-17
September 2004. (pp. 5-12).

Alop, A. (2019). The challenges of the digital technology era for maritime education and training.
In: 2019 European Navigation Conference (ENC).Warsaw. 09-12 April 2019. (pp. 1-5). IEEE. DOI:
10.1109/EURONAV.2019.8714176

Anderson, S. E., Groulx, J. G., & Maninger, R. M. (2011). Relationships among preservice teachers’
technology-related abilities, beliefs, and intentions to use technology in their future
classrooms. Journal of Educational Computing Research. 45(3), 321–338. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.45.3.d.

Ananiadou, K., & Claro, M. (2009). 21st century skills and competences for new millennium learners
in OECD countries. OECD education working papers, no. 41. OECD Publishing. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1787/19939019

An, Y. J., & Williams, K. (2010). Teaching with Web 2.0 technologies: Benefits, barriers and lessons
learned. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 7(3), 41-48.

Babica, V., Sceulovs, & D., Rustenova, E. (2020). Digitalization in Maritime Industry: Prospects and
Pitfalls. In: Ginters, E., Ruiz Estrada, M., Piera Eroles, M. (Eds.), ICTE in Transportation and
Logistics 2019. ICTE ToL 2019. Lecture Notes in Intelligent Transportation and Infrastructure.
Springer, Cham. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-39688-6_4

Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational

Psychologist, 28(2), 117–148. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2802_3

Bannigan, K., & Watson, R. (2009). Reliability and validity in a nutshell. Journal of clinical
nursing, 18(23), 3237-3243. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2009.02939.x

62
Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. Prentice-Hall. Oxford, UK.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice Hall.
Engelwood Cliffs. NJ.

Bandura, A. (1962). Social learning through imitation. In Jones M. R. (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on
motivation.(pp. 211-169). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Baldauf, M., Dalaklis, D., & Kataria, A. (2016). Team training in safety and security via simulation: A
practical dimension of maritime education and training. In: Proceedings of INTED2016 Conference.
Valencia. 7-9 March 2016. (pp. 8519-8529). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/19439962.2014.996932

Bangor, A., Kortum, P. T., & Miller, J. T. (2008). An empirical evaluation of the system usability
scale. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 24(6), 574-594. DOI:
10.1080/10447310802205776

Baxter, G. & Sommerville, I. (2011). Socio-technical systems: From design methods to systems
engineering, Interacting with Computers, 23(1), 4–17, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2010.07.003

Bednar, A. , Cunningham, D., Duffy, T.M. & Perry, J.D. (1991) Theory into practice: How do we
link? (pp. 91-92) In T. Duffy & D. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology of instruction,
a conversation. Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates. Hillsdale, N.J.

Bereiter, C & Scardamalia, L. (1992) Constructivist values for instructional design: Five principles
toward a new mindset. Educational Technology Research and Development, 41, 4-16

Bilgrami, A. (2002). Realism and relativism. Philosophical issues, 12, 1-25. Link:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3050540. Date accessed: 18.04.2023.

Borst. W. (1997). Construction of Engineering Ontologies. PhD thesis, Institute for Telematica and
Information Technology, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.

Brown, T. A., & Moore, M. T. (2012). Confirmatory factor analysis. In: Houle, R.H. (Ed). Handbook
of structural equation modelling, (pp.361-379). Guilford Publications, New York.

Bogdan, R.C., & Biklen, S.K. (2003). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory
and methods (4th ed.). Allyn and Bacon. Boston.

Borenstein, J., & Howard, A. (2021). Emerging challenges in AI and the need for AI ethics
education. AI and Ethics, 1, 61-65. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-020-00002-7

Boyatzis, R. (1982). The competent manager – A model for effective performance. John Wiley and
Sons, New York.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in
psychology, 3(2), 77-101.

63
Braun, V., Clarke, V., Terry, G., & Hayfield. N. (2019a). Thematic analysis. In: Liamputtong, P.
(Ed.), Handbook of research methods in health and social sciences. (pp.843–860). Springer.
Singapore.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021a). One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive)
thematic analysis? Qualitative research in psychology, 18(3), 328-352.

Braun and Clarke (2021b). Thematic Analysis: A practical guide. Sage Publications. London

Brau, B., Fox, N., & Robinson, E. (2018). Behaviorism. In: Kimmons, R. (Ed.), The Students' Guide
to Learning Design and Research. EdTech Books. Link:
https://edtechbooks.org/studentguide/behaviorism. Date accessed: 18.04.2023

Brinkerhoff, J. (2006). Effects of a long-duration, professional development academy on technology

skills, computer self-efficacy, and technology integration beliefs and practices. Journal of research on
technology in education. 39(1), 22–43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2006.10782471

Brooke J. (2013) SUS: a retrospective. Journal of Usability Studies. 8(2), 29–40.

Brooke, J. (1996). SUS-A quick and dirty usability scale. Usability evaluation in industry, 189(194),
4-7.

Bruner, J. 1961. The act of discovery. Harvard Educational Review 31(1), 10-24.

Brandsæter, A., & Knutsen, K. E. (2018). Towards a framework for assurance of autonomous
navigation systems in the maritime industry. In: Haugen et al. (eds) Safety and Reliability–Safe
Societies in a Changing World (pp. 449-457). CRC press. London. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1201/9781351174664

Burke, R., & Clott, C. (2016). Technology, collaboration, and the future of maritime education.
In: RINA Education & Professional Development of Engineers in the maritime industry conference.
Singapore. 20-21 September 2016. (pp. 1-5).

Carter, W. E., & Carter, M. S. (2010). The age of sail: A time when the fortunes of nations and lives of
seamen literally turned with the winds their ships encountered at sea. The Journal of
Navigation, 63(4), 717-731. DOI: 10.1017/S0373463310000263

Chetty, K., Aneja, U., Mishra, V., Gcora, N., & Josie, J. (2018). Bridging the digital divide in the G20:
Skills for the new age. Economics, 12(1).

Christensen, R.; Knezek, G. (2014). The Technology Proficiency Self-Assessment Questionnaire

(TPSA): Evolution of a Self-Efficacy Measure for Technology Integration. In: Torsten, B., Reynolds,
N., Romeike, R., Schwill, A. (Eds.), KEYCIT 2014-Key Competencies in Informatics and ICT.
University of Potsdam, Potsdam, (pp. 311–318).

64
Clark, R. E. (2004). The classical origins of Pavlov’s conditioning. Integrative Physiological &
Behavioral Science, 39, 279-294.

Clark, K. R. (2018). Learning theories: cognitivism. Radiologic Technology, 90(2), 176-179.

Clarizia, F., Colace, F., Lombardi, M., Pascale, F., & Santaniello, D. (2018). Chatbot: An education
support system for student. In: Castiglione et al. (eds). Proceedings of 10th International Symposium
on Cyberspace Safety and Security (CSS). (pp. 291-302). Springer, Cham. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-
01689-0

Christensen, R.; Knezek, G. (2017). Validating the technology proficiency self-assessment

questionnaire for 21st century learning (TPSAC-21). Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher
Education, 33(1), 20–31. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2016.1242391

Chen, L., Chen, P., & Lin, Z. (2020). Artificial intelligence in education: A review. IEEE Access, 8(1),
75264-75278. DOI: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2988510

Collins, P., & Hogg, J. M. (2004). The ultimate distributed workforce: the use of ICT for seafarers. AI
& Society, 18(3), 209-241. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-003-0287-5

Crotty, M. J. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research
process. Routledge. London. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003115700

Dasen, P. (1994). Culture and cognitive development from a Piagetian perspective . In: Lonner, W. J.,
& Malpass. R. S. (Eds.), Psychology and culture (pp. 141–150). Allyn & Bacon. Boston.

Demirel, E., & Mehta, R. (2009). Developing an effective maritime education and training system-
TUDEV experiment. In International Maritime Lawyers Association Conference (pp. 1-11). Citeseer.
Accra, Ghana.

Dewey, J. (1929). The sources of a science of education. Horace Liveright. New York.

Elliott, R., Fischer, C. T., & Rennie, D. L. (1999). Evolving guidelines for publication of qualitative
research studies in psychology and related fields. British journal of clinical psychology, 38(3), 215-
229.

Elmore, R. (2016). Leaders of learning. Online course. Harvard X. Date accessed: 01.09.2022.
Link: https://www.edx.org/course/leaders-learning-harvardx-gse2x-0.

Emery, F. &. Trist, E. (1960). Socio-technical systems theory. In: Management Sciences Models and
Techniques, Churchman, C.W. & Verhulst, M. (Eds.), Vol. 2, Pergamon Press, London, (pp. 83–97).

Emad, G., & Roth, W. M. (2008). Contradictions in the practices of training for and assessment of
competency: A case study from the maritime domain. Education+ Training, 50(3), 260-272. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1108/00400910810874026

65
Emad, G., Narayanan, S., & Kataria, A. (2022). On the Road to Autonomous Maritime Transport: A
Conceptual Framework to Meet Training Needs for Future Ship Operations. Advances in
Transportation, 60 (1),640–646. DOI: https://doi.org/10.54941/ahfe1002500

Endsley, M. R., & Kiris, E. O. (1995). The out-of-the-loop performance problem and level of control
in automation. Human factors, 37(2), 381-394.

European Union (2018). Council recommendation on key competences for life long learning. Link:
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.C_.2018.189.01.0001.01.ENG&toc=OJ:C:2018:189:TOC

Data accessed: 18.04.2023.

Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology
integration? Educational technology research and development, 53(4), 25-39. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504683

Ertmer, P. A. (1999). Addressing first-and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology
integration. Educational technology research and development, 47(4), 47-61. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299597

Fadel, C. (2008). 21st Century Skills: How can you prepare students for the new Global
Economy. Presentation slides. OECD. Date accessed: 09.09.2022. Link:
https://www.oecd.org/site/educeri21st/40756908.pdf

Farrell, A. M. (2010). Insufficient discriminant validity: A comment on Bove, Pervan, Beatty, and
Shiu (2009). Journal of Business Research, 63(3), 324-
327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.05.003

Ferrari, A. (2012). Digital Competence in practice: An analysis of frameworks. JRC Technical

Reports. European Commission. Sevilla. DOI: 10.2791/82116.

Flin, R. H., O'Connor, P., & Crichton, M. (2008). Safety at the sharp end: a guide to non-technical
skills. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. London.

Fornell, C. & Larcker, D.F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables
and measurement error. Journal of marketing research, 18 (1), 39-50. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104

Følstad, A., Araujo, T., Papadopoulos, S., Law, E. L. C., Granmo, O. C., Luger, E., & Brandtzaeg, P.
B. (Eds.), (2020). Chatbot research and design. Third International Workshop, CONVERSATIONS
2019 Amsterdam, The Netherlands, November 19–20, 2019, Revised Selected Papers. Springer,
Cham. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-39540-7

66
Frolova, E. V., Rogach, O. V., & Ryabova, T. M. (2020). Digitalization of Education in Modern
Scientific Discourse: New Trends and Risks Analysis. European journal of contemporary
education, 9(2), 313-336. DOI: 10.13187/ejced.2020.2.313

Gamil, T. (2008). Upgrading MET instructors: the skills and knowledge enhancement demanded by
MET stakeholders. World Maritime University Dissertations. 406. Link:
http://commons.wmu.se/all_dissertations/406?utm_source=commons.wmu.se%2Fall_dissertations%2
F406&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

Ghosh, S., Bowles, M., Ranmuthugala, D., & Brooks, B. (2014). Reviewing seafarer assessment
methods to determine the need for authentic assessment. Australian Journal of Maritime & Ocean
Affairs, 6(1), 49-63. DOI: 10.1080/18366503.2014.888133

Goerlandt, F. (2020). Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships from a risk governance perspective:
Interpretation and implications. Safety science, 128, 104758. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2020.104758

Gomez, F. C., Trespalacios, J., Hsu, Y. C., & Yang, D. (2022). Exploring teachers’ technology
integration self-efficacy through the 2017 ISTE Standards. TechTrends, 66(2), 159-171. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-021-00639-z

Goksel, N., & Bozkurt, A. (2019). Artificial intelligence in education: Current insights and future
perspectives. In: Sisman-Ugur, S. & Kurubacak, G. (Eds.). Handbook of Research on Learning in the
Age of Transhumanism. (pp.224-236). IGI Global, Hershey. DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-8431-5

Gruber, T. R. (1993). A translation approach to portable ontology specifications. Knowledge

acquisition, 5(2), 199-220.

Guzman, A. & Nussbaum, M. (2009). Teaching competencies for technology integration in the
classroom. Journal of computer Assisted learning, 25(5),453–469. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-
2729.2009.00322.x

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In: Denzin, N.K.
& Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). Handbook of qualitative research. (pp. 105-117). Sage.

Gut, D. M. (2011). Integrating 21st century skills into the curriculum. In: Wan, G. & Gut, D.M.
(Eds.), Bringing schools into the 21st century. (pp. 137-157). Springer, Dordrecht. DOI: 10.1007/978-
94-007-0268-4_7

Guarino, N., Oberle, D., & Staab, S. (2009). What is an ontology? In: Staab, S. & Studer, R, (Eds.).
Handbook on ontologies, 1-17. Springer. USA.

Harrell, S., & Bynum, Y. (2018). Factors affecting technology integration in the classroom. Alabama
Journal of Educational Leadership, 5, 12-18.

67
Hayes, J. L. (1979). A New Look at Managerial Competence: the AMA model of worthy
performance. Management Review. November issue. (pp. 2–3) Association for the Advancement of
Computing in Education. Chesapeake, VA.

Hall, G. E., Loucks, S. F., Rutherford, W. L., & Newlove, B. W. (1975). Levels of use of the
innovation: A framework for analyzing innovation adoption. In: S. F. Loucks, B. W. Newlove, & J. E.
Hall (Eds.), Measuring levels of use of the innovation: A manual for trainers, interviewers, and raters.
Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. Austin, TX.

Hair, J. F., Risher, J.J., Sarstedt, M. & Ringle, C.M. (2019). When to Use and How to Report the
Results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review 31 (1), 2–24. DOI:10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203.

Hair, J. F., Howard, M.C. & Nitzl, C. (2020). Assessing Measurement Model Quality in PLS-SEM
Using Confirmatory Composite Analysis. Journal of Business Research, 109 (1), 101–110.
DOI:10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.11.069.

Hartig, J., Klieme, E., & Leutner, D. (Eds.). (2008). Assessment of competencies in educational
contexts. Hogrefe Publishing, Gottingen.

Helsper, E & Eynon, R (2013). Distinct skill pathways to digital engagement. European Journal of
Communication, 28(6), 696-671. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323113499113

Helsper, E.J., Schneider, L.S., van Deursen, A.J.A.M., & van Laar, E. (2020). The youth Digital Skills
Indicator: Report on the conceptualisation and development of the ySKILLS digital skills measure.
KU Leuven, Leuven.

Hoffmann, T. (1999). The meanings of competency. Journal of European Industrial Training, 23 (6),
275-286. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/03090599910284650

Hoy, A.W., Hoy, W.K., & Davis, H.A. (2009). Teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs. In: Wentzel, K.,
Wingfield, A., (eds). Handbook of Motivation at School. (pp. 627–654). Routledge: New York. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203879498

Holden, H., & Rada, R. (2011). Understanding the influence of perceived usability and technology
self-efficacy on teachers’ technology acceptance. Journal of Research on Technology in Education,
43(4), 343–367. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2011.10782576.

Hughes, J., Thomas, R., & Scharber, C. (2006). Assessing technology integration: The RAT –
Replacement, Amplification, and Transformation – framework. In: Proceedings of SITE 2006: Society
for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 1616–1620).

Ichimura, Y., Dalaklis, D., Kitada, M., & Christodoulou, A. (2022). Shipping in the era of
digitalization: Mapping the future strategic plans of major maritime commercial actors. Digital
Business, 2(1), 1-11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.digbus.2022.100022

68
ICS (2020). Date accessed: 27.09.2022. Link: https://www.ics-shipping.org/shipping-fact/shipping-
and-world-trade-largest-beneficial-ownership-countries/

IMO (2015). Date accessed: 27.09.2022. Link:

https://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/PressBriefings/Pages/02-WMD-launch.aspx

IMO (2022). International Maritime Organization (IMO) e-learning portal. Date accessed: 01.09.2022.
Link: https://lms.imo.org/moodle310/

IMO (2011). International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for
Seafarers. Including the 2010 Manilla Amendments (STCW). London, IMO.

IMO (2018). Working Group Report in 100th Session of IMO Maritime Safety Committee for the
Regulatory Scoping Exercise for the Use of Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS). IMO
Document MSC 100/WP.8. Dated 7th December 2018. London, IMO.

Inal, O. B., Charpentier, J. F., & Deniz, C. (2022). Hybrid power and propulsion systems for ships:
Current status and future challenges. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 156, 111965. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.111965

ILO (2021). Link: https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_emp/---

emp_ent/documents/publication/wcms_826682.pdf. Date accessed: 18.04.2023

Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Objectivism versus constructivism: Do we need a new philosophical

paradigm?. Educational technology research and development, 39, 5-14.

Jurdziński, M. (2018). Changing the Model of Maritime Navigation. TransNav: International Journal
on Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea Transportation, 12(1). DOI: 0.12716/1001.12.01.03

Jupp, V. (2006). The SAGE dictionary of social research methods : SAGE Publications Ltd. New
York. DOI: 10.4135/9780857020116

Kay, D., & Kibble, J. (2016). Learning theories 101: application to everyday teaching and
scholarship. Advances in physiology education, 40(1), 17-25. DOI: 10.1152/advan.00132.2015

Kaufman, K. J. (2013). 21 ways to 21st century skills: why students need them and ideas for practical
implementation. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 49(2), 78-83. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/00228958.2013.786594

Kim, T.-E., A. Sharma, A. H. Gausdal, and C.-J. Chae. (2019). Impact of automation Technology on
Gender Parity in Maritime Industry. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs 18 (4): 579–593.
doi:10.1007/s13437-019-00176-w.

69
Kim, C., Kim, M. K., Lee, C., Spector, J. M., & DeMeester, K. (2013). Teacher beliefs and technology
integration. Teaching and teacher education, 29, 76-85. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.08.005

Kim, T. E., Sharma, A., Bustgaard, M., Gyldensten, W. C., Nymoen, O. K., Tusher, H. M., & Nazir,
S. (2021). The continuum of simulator-based maritime training and education. WMU Journal of
Maritime Affairs, 20(2), 135-150. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13437-021-00242-2

Killam, L. (2013). Research terminology simplified: Paradigms, axiology, ontology, epistemology and
methodology. Sudbury, ON.

Kilner, T. (2004). Educating the Ambulance Technician, Paramedic, and Clinical Supervisor: Using
Factor Analysis to Inform the Curriculum. Emergency Medicine Journal 21 (3): 379–385.
DOI:10.1136/emj.2003.009605.

Knezek, G., Christensen, R. (2016). Extending the will, skill, tool model of technology integration:
adding pedagogy as a new model construct. Journal of Computing in Higher Education. 28, 307–
325. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-016-9120-

Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)?
Contemporary issues in technology and teacher education, 9(1), 60-70.

Krathwohl, D.W. (2002). A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An Overview. Theory into Practice,
41(4), 212-218. DOI: 10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2

Krishna, S. V. (2010). The use of technology to build 21st century skills in formal education. MIT
Edu.

Larson, L.C.& Miller, T.N. (2011). 21st century skills: Prepare students for the future. Kappa Delta Pi
Record, 47 (3), 121–123. DOI: 10.1080/00228958.2011.10516575

Lebow, D. (1995) Constructivist values for instructional systems design: five principles toward a new
mindset. In B. Seels (Ed.), Instructional design fundamentals: A reconsideration. (pp. 175-185).
Educational Technology Publications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Leahy, D., & Wilson, D. (2014). Digital skills for employment. In: Proceedings of IFIP Conference
on Information Technology in Educational Management (pp. 178-189). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
DOI:10.1007/978-3-662-45770-2_16

Lewis, J. R., Henry, S. C., & Mack, R. L. (1990). Integrated office software benchmarks: A case
study. In: Human–Computer Interaction—INTERACT ’90 (pp. 337–343). Elsevier. Cambridge,
England.

Livingstone, S. (2012). Critical reflections on the benefits of ICT in education. Oxford review of
education, 38(1), 9-24. DOI: 10.1080/03054985.2011.577938

70
Mallam, S. C., Nazir, S., & Renganayagalu, S. K. (2019). Rethinking maritime education, training,
and operations in the digital era: Applications for emerging immersive technologies. Journal of
Marine Science and Engineering, 7(12), 428. DOI: :10.3390/jmse7120428

Ma, K., Chutiyami, M., Zhang, Y., & Nicoll, S. (2021). Online teaching self-efficacy during COVID-
19: Changes, its associated factors and moderators. Education and information technologies, 26(6),
6675-6697. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10486-3

McClelland, D.C. (1973). Testing for competence rather than for “intelligence.” American
Psychologist, 28 (1), 1–14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034092

Maclean, R., & Lai, A. (2011). The future of technical and vocational education and training: Global
challenges and possibilities. International Journal of Training Research, 9(1-2), 2-15. DOI:
10.5172/ijtr.9.1-2.2

McDonald, T., & Siegall, M. (1992). The effects of technological self-efficacy and job focus on job
performance, attitudes, and withdrawal behaviors. The Journal of Psychology, 126(5), 465-475. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1992.10543380

Mace, N. L. 2005. Teaching Dementia Care: Skill and Understanding. JHU Press, Baltimore.

Manuel, M. E., & Baumler, R. (2020). The Evolution of Seafarer Education and Training in
International Law. In: Mukherjee et al. (eds), Maritime Law in Motion (pp. 471-494). Springer,
Cham. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31749-2_22

Manuel, M. E. (2017). Vocational and academic approaches to maritime education and training
(MET): Trends, challenges and opportunities. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs, 16(3), 473-483.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13437-017-0130-3

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. Revised and
expanded from “Case Study Research in Education”. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, CA

Miranda, G. L. (2007). The limits and possibilities of ICT in education. Sísifo-Educational Sciences
Journal, 3, 41-50.

Mishra, P., & Kereluik, K. (2011). What 21st century learning? A review and a synthesis. In :
Proceedings of SITE 2011 - Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International
Conference (pp. 3301-3312). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
07 March 2011.Tennessee, USA.

Moore-Hayes, C. (2011). Technology integration preparedness and its influence on teacher-efficacy.

Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 37 (3), 1–15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21432/T2B597

Morrison, W. S. G. (1997). Competent Crews = Safer Ships—An Aid to Understanding STCW 95.
WMU Publications. Malmö

71
Moon, K., and Blackman, D. (2014). A Guide to Understanding Social Science Research for Natural
Scientists. Conservation Biology, 28: 1167-1177.
DOI: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cobi.12326/full

Morgan, D. L. (2014). Pragmatism as a paradigm for social research. Qualitative inquiry, 20(8), 1045-
1053. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/107780041351373

Muirhead, P.M.P. (2004). New technology and maritime training in the 21st century: Implications and
solutions for MET institutions. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs. 3, (2), 139–158. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03195056.

Naismith, L., Lee, B.H. & Pilkington, R.M. (2011). Collaborative learning with a wiki: Differences in
perceived usefulness in two contexts of use. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 27, 228–242.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00393.x

Neto, A. J. M., & Fernandes, M. A. (2019). Chatbot and conversational analysis to promote
collaborative learning in distance education. In: Proceedings of IEEE 19th International Conference
on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT) (Vol. 2161, pp. 324-326). 15-18 July 2019 Maceio,
Brazil. DOI: 10.1109/ICALT47348.2019

Ng, J. & Yip, T. (2009). Maritime Education in a Transdisciplinary World: The Case of Hong Kong.
The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics, 25(1), 69–82. DOI:10.1016/S2092-5212(09)80013-8

Nunnally, J. & Bernstein, L. (1994). Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill Higher, INC. New York.

Okojie, M. C., Olinzock, A. A., & Okojie-Boulder, T. C. (2006). The pedagogy of technology
integration. Journal of technology studies, 32(2), 66-71. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21061/jots.v32i2.a.1

Okonkwo, C.W. & Ade-Ibijola, A. (2021). Chatbots applications in education: A systematic review.
Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 2, 1-10. DOI: 10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100033

Olsen, M.E. , Lodwick, D.G., Dunlop, R.E. (1992). Viewing The World Ecologically (1st ed.).
Routledge. London. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429267048

Othman, M. R., & Naintin, E. A. (2016). The relationship between maritime education and employer
trust: the structural equation modelling (SEM) perspective. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs, 15,
293-316. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13437-015-0093-1

Owoc, M. L., Sawicka, A., & Weichbroth, P. (2021). Artificial Intelligence Technologies in
Education: Benefits, Challenges and Strategies of Implementation. In: IFIP International workshop on
Artificial Intelligence for Knowledge Management. (pp.37-58). 11 August 2019, Macau, China. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85001-2_4

Patton (2005). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods (4th ed). Sage. Los Angeles, CA

72
Paul, D. (2020). A history of electric ship propulsion systems. IEEE Industry Applications
Magazine, 26(6), 9-19.

Park, Y. S., Konge, L., & Artino, A. R. (2020). The positivism paradigm of research. Academic
Medicine, 95(5), 690-694. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000003093

Parsons, J., & Allen, C. (2018). The history of safety management. In: Oltedal, H.A. & Lutzhoft, M.
(eds). Managing Maritime Safety (pp. 16-31). Routledge. London.

Pazouki, K., Forbes, N., Norman, R. A., & Woodward, M. D. (2018). Investigation on the impact of
human-automation interaction in maritime operations. Ocean engineering, 153, 297-304. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2018.01.103

Pazaver, A., Manuel, M. E., Bolmsten, J., Kitada, M., Bartuseviciene, I. (Eds.). (2021). Proceedings of
the International Maritime Lecturers' Association. Seas of traansition: setting a course for the future.
World Maritime University. http://dx.doi.org/10.21677/imla2021.00

Pavlov, I. P. (1897). The work of the digestive glands. London: Griffin.

Pettit, S. J., Gardner, B. M., Marlow, P. B., Naim, M. M., & Nair, R. (2005). Ex-seafarers shore-based
employment: the current UK situation. Marine Policy, 29(6), 521-531. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2004.10.001

Phillips, D.C. (1990). Postpositivistic science: myths and realities. In Guba E.G.(Ed.), The Paradigm
Dialog. Sage Publications, Newbury Park CA.

Piaget, J. (1936). Origins of intelligence in the child. Routledge & Kegan Paul. London.

Piaget, J. (1957). Construction of reality in the child. Routledge & Kegan Paul. London.

Potter, S. L., & Rockinson‐Szapkiw, A. J. (2012). Technology integration for instructional

improvement: The impact of professional development. Performance Improvement, 51(2), 22-27.

Porathe, T., J. Prison, and Y. Man. (2014). Situation Awareness in Remote Control Centres for
Unmanned Ships. In: Proceedings of RINA Human Factors in Ship Design & Operation, 26–27
February 2014. London, UK.

Porathe, T. (2021). Human-automation interaction for autonomous ships: Decision support for remote
operators. TransNav: International Journal on Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea
Transportation, 15(3). DOI: 10.12716/1001.15.03.03

Pressley, T., & Ha, C. (2021). Teaching during a pandemic: United States teachers' self-efficacy
during COVID-19. Teaching and Teacher Education, 106, 103465. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103465

73
Putnam, H. (1995). Pragmatism and Moral Objectivity. In: Nussbaum, M.C. & Glover, J. (Eds.).
Women, Culture, and Development. (pp.199-224). Oxford University Press. New York.

Puentedura, R. R. (2006). Transformation, technology, and education in the state of Maine. Link:
http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/archives/2006_11.html. Date accessed: 18.04.2023.

Rapp, A., Curti, L., & Boldi, A. (2021). The human side of human-chatbot interaction: A systematic
literature review of ten years of research on text-based chatbots. International Journal of Human-
Computer Studies, 151, 102630. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2021.102630

Ropp, M.M. (1999). Exploring individual characteristics associated with learning to use computers in
preservice teacher preparation. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 31(4), 402–424.
DOI:10.1080/08886504.1999.10782262

Rudolph, J., Tan, S., & Tan, S. ChatGPT: Bullshit spewer or the end of traditional assessments in
higher education? Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching, 6(1). DOI:
https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.9

Rychen, D. S., & Salganik, L. H. (Eds.). (2003). Key competencies for a successful life and well-
functioning society. Hogrefe Publishing. Cambridge, MA.

Sampson, H., Gekara, V., & Bloor, M. (2011). Water-tight or sinking? A consideration of the
standards of the contemporary assessment practices underpinning seafarer licence examinations and
their implications for employers. Maritime Policy & Management, 38(1), 81-92. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2010.533713

Säljö, R. (2010). Digital tools and challenges to institutional traditions of learning: Technologies,
social memory and the performative nature of learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26
(1). 53-64. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00341.x

Salzman, P. C. (2002). On reflexivity. American Anthropologist, 104(3), 805-811.

Sanchez-Gonzalez, P.-L., Díaz-Gutiérrez, D., Leo, T., & Núñez-Rivas, L. (2019). Toward
Digitalization of Maritime Transport? Sensors, 19(4), 926. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s19040

Scanlan, J., Hopcraft, R., Cowburn, R., Trovåg, J.M., and Lutzhoft, M. (2022). Maritime educational
for a digital industry. Necesse Ergoship maritime artikler. 7(1). 23-33.

Sellberg, C. (2017). Representing and enacting movement: The body as an instructional resource in a
simulator-based environment. Education and Information Technologies, 22(5), 2311-2332. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-016-9546-1

Schmidt, D., Baran, E., Thompson, A., Koehler, M.J., Shin, T, & Mishra, P. (2009). Technological
Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK): The Development and Validation of an Assessment

74
Instrument for Preservice Teachers. Paper presented at the 2009 Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association. April 13-17, San Diego, CA.

Schiff, D. (2021). Out of the laboratory and into the classroom: the future of artificial intelligence in
education. AI & society, 36(1): 331-348. DOI: 10.1007/s00146-020-01033-8.

Selwyn, N. (2010). Looking beyond learning: Notes towards the critical study of educational
technology. Journal of computer assisted learning, 26(1), 65-73.DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-
2729.2009.00338.x

Shavelson, R. J. (2010). On the measurement of competency. Empirical research in vocational

education and training, 2(1), 41-63. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03546488

Sharma, A., & Kim, T. e. (2021). Exploring technical and non-technical competencies of navigators
for autonomous shipping. Maritime Policy & Management. DOI: 10.1080/03088839.2021.1914874

Sharma, A., & Nazir, S. (2021). Assessing technology self-efficacy of maritime instructors: An
explorative study. Education Sciences. 11 (1), 342-356. DOI: 10.3390/educsci11070342

Sharma, A., Undheim, P.E. & Nazir, S. (2022). Design and implementation of AI Chatbot for
COLREGs training. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs. DOI: 10.1007/s13437-022-00284-0

Sharma, A. (2022). Evaluation of digital skills for maritime students. Paper presented at 14th
International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies (EDULEARN’22), 3-6 July
2022, Palma, Spain. DOI: 10.21125/edulearn.2022.2039

Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard

Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.

Shahbakhsh, M., Emad, G. R., & Cahoon, S. (2022). Industrial revolutions and transition of the
maritime industry: The case of Seafarer’s role in autonomous shipping. The Asian Journal of Shipping
and Logistics, 38(1), 10-18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajsl.2021.11.004

Siemens, G. (2013). Learning analytics: The emergence of a discipline. American Behavioral

Scientist, 57(10), 1380-1400. DOI: 10.1177/0002764213498851

Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms: An experimental analysis. New York: Appleton-
Century.

Smythe, A., C. Jenkins, P. Bentham, and J. Oyebode. (2014). Development of a Competency

Framework for a Specialist Dementia Service. The Journal of Mental Health Training, Education and
Practice, 9 (1): 59–68. DOI:10.1108/JMHTEP-08-2012-0024

Sokolov, S. S., Saveleva, M. N., Mitrofanova, A. V., Kolesnichenko, S. V., & Logunov, N. S. (2020).
Implementation of Training Programs Using Digital Distance Education Technologies for Seafarers.

75
In: Proceedings of 2020 IEEE Conference of Russian Young Researchers in Electrical and Electronic
Engineering (EIConRus). 27-30 January 2020, St. Peterburg, Russia. (pp. 521-525). IEEE.

Spencer, J. (2016). The real issue in tech integration is self-efficacy. The creative classroom. Date
accessed: 04 September 2022. Link: http://www.spencerauthor.com/the-real-issue-in-tech-integration-
is/.

Spector, J.M. (2014). Conceptualizing the emerging field of smart learning environments. Smart
Learning Environment. 1, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-014-0002-7

Stevenson, A. 2010. Oxford Dictionary of English. USA: Oxford University Press

Stentoft, J., Jensen, K. W., Philipsen, K., & Haug, A. (2019). Drivers and barriers for Industry 4.0
readiness and practice: a SME perspective with empirical evidence. Production Planning &
Control.32(10), 811-828. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2020.1768318

Studer, R., Benjamins, V. R., & Fensel, D. (1998). Knowledge engineering: Principles and
methods. Data & knowledge engineering, 25(1-2), 161-197.

Su, F.; Beaumont, C. (2010). Evaluating the use of a wiki for collaborative learning. Innovations in
Education and Teaching International, 47(4), 417–431. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2010.518428

Tabachnick, B. G., L. S. Fidell, &. Ullman. J. B (2007). Using Multivariate Statistics. Pearson. USA.

Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach's alpha. International journal of
medical education, 2, 53-60.

Thorndike, E.L. (1905). The elements of psychology. New York: A.G. Seiler.

Thirslund, S (1997). Sailing directions of the North Atlantic Viking age (from about the year 860 to
1400). The Journal of Navigation, 50(1), 55-64. DOI: https://doi. org/10. 1017/ S037346330 0023584

Timms, MJ (2016). Letting artificial intelligence in education out of the box: educational cobots and
smart classrooms. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 26(2), 701–712. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-016-0095-y

Turna, İ., & Öztürk, O. B. (2020). A causative analysis on ECDIS-related grounding accidents. Ships
and Offshore Structures, 15(8), 792-803. DOI: 10.1080/17445302.2019.1682919

UN (2016). Date accessed: 27.09.2022. Link: https://press.un.org/en/2016/sgsm18129.doc.htm

UNCTAD (2021). Date accessed: 01.09.2021. Link: https://hbs.unctad.org/world-seaborne-trade/

UNESCO (2019). Date accessed: 27.09.2022. Link: https://en.unesco.org/news/how-can-artificial-

intelligence-enhance-education

76
UNESCO (2021). Date accessed: 27.09.2022. Link:
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000381226

Vathanophas, V. & Thai-ngam, J. (2007). Competency Requirements for Effective Job Performance
in the Thai Public Sector. Contemporary Management Research 3 (1), 45–70. DOI:10.7903/cmr.49.

Van Deursen, A.J.A.M. and J.A.G.M. Van Dijk (2009b). Improving digital skills for the use of online
public information and services. Government Information Quarterly, 26(2), 333-340. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2008.11.002

Van Deursen, A.J.A.M. & Van Dijk, J.A.G.M. (2010). Measuring Internet skills. International
Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 26(10), 891-916. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2010.496338

Van Laar, E., Van Deursen, A. J., Van Dijk, J. A., & De Haan, J. (2017). The relation between 21st-
century skills and digital skills: A systematic literature review. Computers in human behavior, 72,
577-588. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.010

Van Deursen, A. J. A. M., Helsper, E. J., & Eynon, R. (2014). Measuring digital skills. From digital
skills to tangible outcomes project report. Date accessed: 09.09.2022. Link:
http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/projects/?id=112

Van Dijk, J.A.G.M. & Van Deursen, A.J.A.M. (2014). Digital skills, unlocking the information
society. Palgrave Macmillan, New York.

Vujičić, S., Hasanspahić, N., Gundić, A., & Maglić, L. (2022). Analysis of factors influencing the
effectiveness of MET instructors. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs, 21(4), 549-570. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13437-022-00271-5

Voogt, J., & Roblin, N. P. (2010). 21st century skills: discussion paper. Discussienota. Zoetermeer:
The Netherlands: Kennisnet, 23(3), 2000. Date accessed: 15.09.2022. Link:
http://hdl.voced.edu.au/10707/254371.

Vuorikari, R., Kluzer, S. and Punie, Y. (2022). DigComp 2.2: The Digital Competence Framework for
Citizens - With new examples of knowledge, skills and attitudes, EUR 31006 EN, Publications Office
of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2022, ISBN 978-92-76-48883-5, doi:10.2760/490274.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Socio-cultural theory. In: Cole, M., Jolm-Steiner, V., Scribner, S., Souberman,
E., (Eds.), Mind in Society: Development of Higher Psychological Process. (pp. 52–58). Harvard
University Press, Cambridge.

Watson, G. (2006). Technology professional development: Long-term effects on teacher self-

efficacy. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(1), 151-166.

77
Wilson, B, Teslow, J., & Osman-Jouchoux, R. (1995) The impact of constructivism (and
postmodernism) on ID Fundamentals. In B. Seels (Ed.) Instructional design fundamentals: A
reconsideration. (pp. 137-185). Educational Technology Publications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Watson, J. B. (1913). Psychology as the behaviorist views it. Psychological Review, 20, 158-178.

Watson, J. B. (1930). Behaviorism (revised edition). University of Chicago Press.

Weizenbaum, J. (1966). ELIZA—a computer program for the study of natural language
communication between man and machine. Communications of the ACM, 9(1), 36–45 . DOI:
10.1145/365153.365168

Wei, R. (2013). Views from maritime education and training on the full implementation of 2010
STCW amendments. Journal of Shipping and Ocean Engineering, 3(1), 40-46.

White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: the concept of competence. Psychological

review, 66(5), 297-333.

Woolf, B. P., Lane, H. C., Chaudhri, V. K., & Kolodner, J. L. (2013). AI grand challenges for
education. AI magazine, 34(4), 66-84.

Williams, B., A. Onsman, and T. Brown. (2010). Exploratory Factor Analysis: A Five-step Guide for
Novices. Australasian Journal of Paramedicine 8 (3): 90–103. DOI:10.33151/ajp.8.3.93.

Yoshida, M., Shimizu, E., Sugomori, M., & Umeda, A. (2020). Regulatory requirements on the
competence of remote operator in maritime autonomous surface ship: Situation awareness, ship sense
and goal-based gap analysis. Applied Sciences, 10(23), 8751.

Zawacki-Richter, O., Marín, V. I., Bond, M., & Gouverneur, F. (2019). Systematic review of research
on artificial intelligence applications in higher education–where are the educators? International
Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(1): 1-27. DOI: 10.1186/s41239-019-
0171-0.

78
8 Appendices

A.1 Informed Consent form for Paper-1

79
A.2 Informed Consent form for Paper-2

80
81
82
A.3 Informed Consent form for Paper-3

83
A.4 Informed Consent form for Paper-4

84
A.5 Description of contribution from other researchers

The PhD project was an undertaking for me as a principal investigator which required substantial support
to be executed. There were many individuals who supported me directly and indirectly. However, it is
important to acknowledge the contribution of some researchers who had significant intellectual inputs
in the research papers of the thesis as well as the overall research project.

Prof. Salman Nazir: Prof. Salman Nazir acted as the main supervisor for the PhD project and provided
guidance for the same. He contributed in brainstorming of research ideas as well as towards the
formulating critical discussions. He had direct contributions in paper-2 of the thesis with respect to being
a co-author as well as assisting in data collection for the study. He also acted as co-author in paper-3 of
the thesis and assisted in write-up and presentation of the results.

Ass. Prof. Tae-eun Kim: Ass. Prof. Tae-eun Kim had significant contributions in paper-1 of the PhD
thesis. Apart from acting as co-author for the same, she played a lead role in data collection. She had
contributions in data analysis for Exploratory Factor Analysis and Thematic Analysis methods used in
the paper as well as write-up and presentation of the results.

Mr. Per Eirik Undheim: Mr. Per Eirik Undheim had significant contributions in paper-3 of the PhD
thesis. Apart from acting as co-author for the same, he played a lead role in planning of the experiment.
He had contributions towards the pedagogical dimension of the paper and provided initial feedback
towards the use of AI Chatbot. He also contributed to the write-up of the paper and presentation of the
results.

85
A.6 Technology Proficiency Self-Assessment for 21st century (TPSA-C21)
questionnaire by Christensen and Knezek (2017)

I feel confident that I could...

SD D U A SA
1. ... send e-mail to a friend. 1 2 3 4 5

2. .. subscribe to a discussion list. 1 2 3 4 5

3. ... create a distribution list" to send e-mail to 1 2 3 4 5
several people at once.

4. .. send a document as an attachment to an e-mail message. 1 2 3 4 5

5. .. keep copies of outgoing messages that I send to others. 1 2 3 4 5

6. ... use an Internet search engine (e.g., Google) 1 2 3 4 5
to find Web pages related to my subject matter interests.

7. ... search for and find the Smithsonian Institution Web site. 1 2 3 4 5

8. ... create my own web page. 1 2 3 4 5

9. ... keep track of Web sites I have visited so that I can return 1 2 3 4 5
to them later. (An example is using bookmarks.)
10. ... find primary sources of information on the Internet that 1 2 3 4 5
I can use in my teaching.
11. ... use a spreadsheet to create a bar graph of the 1 2 3 4 5
proportions
of the different colors of M&Ms in a bag.
12. ... create a newsletter with graphics. 1 2 3 4 5
13. ... save documents in formats so that others can read them 1 2 3 4 5
if they have different word processing
programs (eg., saving Word, pdf, RTF, or
text).
14. …use the computer to create a slideshow presentation. 1 2 3 4 5
15. ... create a database of information about important 1 2 3 4 5
authors
in a subject matter field.
16. …write an essay describing how I would use 1 2 3 4 5
technology in my classroom.

86
17. ... create a lesson or unit that incorporates subject matter 1 2 3 4 5
software as an integral part.
18. ... use technology to collaborate with teachers or students, 1 2 3 4 5
who are distant from my classroom.

19. … describe 5 software programs or apps that I 1 2 3 4 5

would use in my teaching.
20. ... write a plan with a budget to buy technology 1 2 3 4 5
for my classroom.
21. …integrate mobile technologies into my curriculum. 1 2 3 4 5
22. …use social media tools for instruction in the classroom. 1 2 3 4 5
(ex. Facebook, Twitter, etc.)
23. …create a wiki or blog to have my students collaborate. 1 2 3 4 5

24. …use online tools to teach my students from a distance. 1 2 3 4 5

25. …teach in a one-to-one environment in which the students 1 2 3 4 5
have their own device.
26. …find a way to use a smartphone in my classroom for 1 2 3 4 5
student responses.
27. … use mobile devices to connect to others for my 1 2 3 4 5
professional
development.
28. … use mobile devices to have my students access learning 1 2 3 4 5
activities.
29. … download and listen to podcasts/audio books. 1 2 3 4 5

30. … download and read e-books. 1 2 3 4 5

31. … download and view streaming movies/video clips. 1 2 3 4 5

32. … send and receive text messages. 1 2 3 4 5

33. … transfer photos or other data via a smartphone. 1 2 3 4 5

34. … save and retrieve files in a cloud-based environment. 1 2 3 4 5

87
A.7 Concern Based Adoption Model Level of Use (CBAM-LoU)

Concerns- Based Adoption Model

(CBAM) Levels of Use of an
Innovation
Please mark one category that best indicates your overall level of use of information
technology.
Level 0: Non-use
I have little or no knowledge of information technology in education, no
involvement with it, and I am doing nothing toward becoming involved.
Level 1: Orientation
I am seeking or acquiring information about information technology in education.
Level 2: Preparation
I am preparing for the first use of information technology in education.
Level 3: Mechanical Use
I focus most effort on the short-term, day-to-day use of information technology with
little time for reflection. My effort is primarily directed toward mastering tasks
required to use the information technology.
Level 4 A: Routine
I feel comfortable using information technology in education. However, I am
putting forth little effort and thought to improve information technology in
education or its consequences.
Level 4 B: Refinement
I vary the use of information technology in education to increase the expected
benefits within the classroom. I am working on using information technology to
maximize the effects with my students.
Level 5: Integration
I am combining my own efforts with related activities of other teachers and
colleagues to achieve impact in the classroom.
Level 6: Renewal
I reevaluate the quality of use of information technology in education, seek major
modifications of, or alternatives to, present innovation to achieve increased impact,
examine new developments in the field, and explore new goals for myself and my
school district.

88
A.8 System Usability Scale (SUS) by Brooke (1996)

System Usability Scale (SUS)

Strongly Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Strongly

Disagree Disagree Agree Agree
1. I think I would like to use
this tool frequently.
2. I found the tool
unnecessarily complex.
3. I thought the tool was easy
to use.
4. I think that I would need
the support of a technical
person to be able to use
this system.
5. I found the various
functions in this tool were
well integrated.
6. I thought there was too
much inconsistency in this
tool.
7. I would imagine that most
people would learn to use
this tool very quickly.
8. I found the tool very
cumbersome to use.
9. I felt very confident using
the tool.
10. I needed to learn a lot of
things before I could get
going with this tool.

89
A.9 Youth Digital Skills Indicator (yDSI) by Helsper et al. (2020)

Part -1

1. I know how to adjust privacy setting 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

2. I know how to turn off the location settings on my 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

mobile device
3. I know how to protect a mobile device (e.g. with a PIN, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
a screen pattern or a finger print)
4. I know how to store photos, documents, contacts or 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
other files in the cloud (e.g. Google Drive, iCloud)
5. I know how to use private browsing (e.g. incognito 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
mode)
6. I know how to block unwanted pop-up messages or ads 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

7. I know how to use programming language (e.g. XML, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Python, Java, C++)

Part -2

1. I know how to choose the best keywords for online 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

search
2. I know how to find a website I have visited before 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3. I know how to find information on a website no matter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

how it is designed

4. I know how to use advanced search functions in search 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

engine

5. I know how to check if the information I find online is 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

true
6. I know how to figure out if a website can be trusted 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

90
Part -3

1. Depending on who I want to communicate with, I know 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

which medium or tool to use (make a call, send a
WhatsApp message, send an email, etc.)
2. I know when to mute myself or disable video in online 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
interactions
3. I know which images and information of me it is OK to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
share online
4. I know when it is appropriate and when it is not 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
appropriate to use emoticons(e.g. smileys, emojis) or
text speak or capital letters
5. I know how to report negative content relating to me or a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
group to which I belong

6. I know how to recognise when someone is being bullied 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

online

Part -4

1. I know how to create something which incorporates 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

different digital media (images, music, video, GIFs)

2. I know how to edit existing online images, music and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

videos

3. I know how to ensure that many people will see what I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

put online

4. I know how to change the things I put online 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

depending on how other people react to it

5. I know how to distinguish sponsored and non-sponsored 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

content

6. I know when I am allowed to use content covered by 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

copyright

91
A.10 Outline of the analysis for paper-1

• The sample was checked for sampling adequacy using Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin test. The
Bartlett’s test of sphericity was also significant.

KMO and Bartlett's Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .754

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 2533.630

df 780

Sig. .000

• Factor extraction method was Principal Component Analysis. Only the factors with
eigenvalues greater than 1 were considered. 11 factors explained 72.6% of variance.

Total Variance Explained

Extraction Sums of Squared Rotation Sums of

Initial Eigenvalues Loadings Squared Loadings

Comp % of Cumulative % of Cumulative % of

onent Total Variance % Total Variance % Total Variance

1 10.519 26.298 26.298 10.51 26.298 26.298 3.539 8.848

2 3.923 9.808 36.106 3.923 9.808 36.106 3.330 8.324

3 2.560 6.400 42.506 2.560 6.400 42.506 3.125 7.812

4 2.072 5.180 47.686 2.072 5.180 47.686 3.024 7.560

5 1.860 4.649 52.335 1.860 4.649 52.335 2.901 7.253

6 1.627 4.067 56.402 1.627 4.067 56.402 2.891 7.228

92
7 1.573 3.932 60.334 1.573 3.932 60.334 2.662 6.655

8 1.317 3.293 63.627 1.317 3.293 63.627 2.234 5.585

9 1.291 3.228 66.855 1.291 3.228 66.855 1.975 4.939

10 1.219 3.047 69.901 1.219 3.047 69.901 1.786 4.466

11 1.078 2.694 72.596 1.078 2.694 72.596 1.570 3.925

12 .891 2.227 74.822

13 .842 2.106 76.928

14 .813 2.031 78.959

15 .713 1.783 80.742

16 .645 1.612 82.353

17 .590 1.475 83.828

18 .560 1.401 85.229

19 .546 1.365 86.594

20 .493 1.232 87.826

21 .465 1.161 88.988

22 .432 1.081 90.068

23 .383 .957 91.025

24 .375 .939 91.964

25 .363 .907 92.870

26 .333 .833 93.703

27 .312 .780 94.483

28 .282 .705 95.188

93
29 .264 .660 95.847

30 .257 .643 96.491

31 .227 .568 97.059

32 .200 .500 97.559

33 .174 .435 97.994

34 .163 .408 98.402

35 .141 .351 98.753

36 .126 .315 99.068

37 .120 .301 99.369

38 .106 .266 99.635

39 .076 .191 99.826

40 .070 .174 100.00

94
• Factor 1 – Reliability and Descriptive statistics

• Factor 2 – Reliability and Descriptive statistics

95
• Factor 3 – Reliability and Descriptive statistics

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha
Based on
Standardized
Cronbach's Alpha Items N of Items
.817 .816 4

• Factor 4 – Reliability and Descriptive statistics

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha
Based on
Standardized
Cronbach's Alpha Items N of Items
.817 .816 4

96
• Factor 5 – Reliability and Descriptive statistics

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha
Based on
Standardized
Cronbach's Alpha Items N of Items
.817 .816 4

• Factor 6 – Reliability and Descriptive statistics

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's Alpha
Based on
Standardized
Cronbach's Alpha Items N of Items
.817 .816 4

97
• Factor 7 – Reliability and Descriptive statistics

• Factor 8 – Reliability and Descriptive statistics

98
• Factor 9 – Reliability and Descriptive statistics

• Factor 10 – Reliability and Descriptive statistics

99
• Factor 11 – Reliability and Descriptive statistics

100
• Confirmatory analysis illustration from SmartPLS4©

101
• Reliability statistics from SmartPLS4©

• Validity statistics from SmartPLS4©

102
• Frequency table outputs from SPSS© for Non-technical skills

Q2.1 Ability to maintain adequate situational awareness

Valid
Frequency Percent Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid Extremely important 37 25.2 34.3 34.3

Very important 47 32.0 43.5 77.8

Moderately 22 15.0 20.4 98.1

important

Slightly important 2 1.4 1.9 100.0

Total 108 73.5 100.0

Missing System 39 26.5

Total 147 100.0

Q2.2 Ability to execute planned decisions

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent

Valid Extremely important 28 19.0 25.9 25.9

Very important 45 30.6 41.7 67.6

Moderately important 28 19.0 25.9 93.5

Slightly important 6 4.1 5.6 99.1

Not at all important 1 .7 .9 100.0

Total 108 73.5 100.0

Missing System 39 26.5

Total 147 100.0

103
 Q2.3 Ability to distribute and manage workload

Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percent Percent

Valid Extremely important 17 11.6 15.7 15.7

Very important 47 32.0 43.5 59.3

Moderately important 34 23.1 31.5 90.7

Slightly important 6 4.1 5.6 96.3

Not at all important 4 2.7 3.7 100.0

Total 108 73.5 100.0

Missing System 39 26.5

Total 147 100.0

Q2.4 Ability for anticipatory thinking

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent

Valid Extremely important 24 16.3 22.2 22.2

Very important 47 32.0 43.5 65.7

Moderately important 31 21.1 28.7 94.4

Slightly important 5 3.4 4.6 99.1

Not at all important 1 .7 .9 100.0

Total 108 73.5 100.0

Missing System 39 26.5

Total 147 100.0

104
 Q2.5 Ability to think creatively and develop novel solutions

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent

Valid Extremely important 21 14.3 19.4 19.4

Very important 40 27.2 37.0 56.5

Moderately important 31 21.1 28.7 85.2

Slightly important 14 9.5 13.0 98.1

Not at all important 2 1.4 1.9 100.0

Total 108 73.5 100.0

Missing System 39 26.5

Total 147 100.0

Q3.1 Ability to communicate effectively and being a good listener

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent

Valid Extremely important 33 22.4 30.6 30.6

Very important 48 32.7 44.4 75.0

Moderately important 22 15.0 20.4 95.4

Slightly important 3 2.0 2.8 98.1

Not at all important 2 1.4 1.9 100.0

Total 108 73.5 100.0

Missing System 39 26.5

Total 147 100.0

105
 Q3.2 Ability to take leadership initiatives in both normal and abnormal situations

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent

Valid Extremely important 41 27.9 38.0 38.0

Very important 38 25.9 35.2 73.1

Moderately important 24 16.3 22.2 95.4

Slightly important 3 2.0 2.8 98.1

Not at all important 2 1.4 1.9 100.0

Total 108 73.5 100.0

Missing System 39 26.5

Total 147 100.0

Q3.3 Ability to perform as cohesive team member

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent

Valid Extremely important 37 25.2 34.3 34.3

Very important 38 25.9 35.2 69.4

Moderately important 29 19.7 26.9 96.3

Slightly important 2 1.4 1.9 98.1

Not at all important 2 1.4 1.9 100.0

Total 108 73.5 100.0

Missing System 39 26.5

Total 147 100.0

106
 Q3.4 Ability to shift gears or change direction as needed to be flexible and adaptable

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent

Valid Extremely important 28 19.0 25.9 25.9

Very important 48 32.7 44.4 70.4

Moderately important 28 19.0 25.9 96.3

Slightly important 4 2.7 3.7 100.0

Total 108 73.5 100.0

Missing System 39 26.5

Total 147 100.0

Q3.5 Ability to cope with work related stress

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent

Valid Extremely important 38 25.9 35.2 35.2

Very important 41 27.9 38.0 73.1

Moderately important 26 17.7 24.1 97.2

Slightly important 1 .7 .9 98.1

Not at all important 2 1.4 1.9 100.0

Total 108 73.5 100.0

Missing System 39 26.5

Total 147 100.0

107
 Q3.6 Ability to build and maintain good relationships and develop rapport

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent

Valid Extremely important 32 21.8 29.6 29.6

Very important 55 37.4 50.9 80.6

Moderately important 18 12.2 16.7 97.2

Slightly important 2 1.4 1.9 99.1

Not at all important 1 .7 .9 100.0

Total 108 73.5 100.0

Missing System 39 26.5

Total 147 100.0

108
A.11 Outline of the analysis for paper-2

• Non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test results for Q.1

Test Statisticsa,b Test Statisticsa,b

... send e-mail to ... send e-mail to
a friend. a friend.
Kruskal-Wallis H 7.055 Kruskal-Wallis H 1.667
df 3 df 3
Asymp. Sig. .070 Asymp. Sig. .644
a. Kruskal Wallis Test a. Kruskal Wallis Test
b. Grouping Variable: Highest degree b. Grouping Variable: Years of
received teaching experience

• Non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test results for Q.2

Test Statisticsa,b Test Statisticsa,b

... subscribe to a
... subscribe to a
discussion list. discussion list.
Kruskal-Wallis H 1.923
Kruskal-Wallis H 7.058
df 3 df 3

Asymp. Sig. .070 Asymp. Sig. .589

a. Kruskal Wallis Test
a. Kruskal Wallis Test
b. Grouping Variable: Highest degree b. Grouping Variable: Years of

received teaching experience

• Non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test results for Q.3

Test Statisticsa,b
Test Statisticsa,b
... create a
... create a
distribution to
distribution list to
send e-mail to
send e-mail to
several people
several people
at once.
at once.
Kruskal-Wallis H 2.380
Kruskal-Wallis H 12.990
df 3
df 3
Asymp. Sig. .497
Asymp. Sig. .005
a. Kruskal Wallis Test
a. Kruskal Wallis Test
b. Grouping Variable: Years of
b. Grouping Variable: Highest degree
teaching experience
received

109
• Non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test results for Q.4

Test Statisticsa,b
Test Statisticsa,b
... send a
... send a
document as an
document as an
attachment to an
attachment to an
e-mail message.
e-mail message.
Kruskal-Wallis H 4.286
Kruskal-Wallis H 11.982
df 3
df 3
Asymp. Sig. .232
Asymp. Sig. .007
a. Kruskal Wallis Test
a. Kruskal Wallis Test
b. Grouping Variable: Years of
b. Grouping Variable: Highest degree
teaching experience
received

• Non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test results for Q.5

Test Statisticsa,b
Test Statisticsa,b
... keep copies
... keep copies
of outgoing
of outgoing
messages that I
messages that I
send to others.
send to others.
Kruskal-Wallis H 4.260
Kruskal-Wallis H 16.226
df 3
df 3
Asymp. Sig. .235
Asymp. Sig. .001
a. Kruskal Wallis Test
a. Kruskal Wallis Test
b. Grouping Variable: Years of
b. Grouping Variable: Highest degree
teaching experience
received

• Non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test results for Q.6

Test Statisticsa,b
Test Statisticsa,b
... use an
... use an
Internet search
Internet search
engine (e.g.,
engine (e.g.,
Google)
Google)
Kruskal-Wallis H 1.614
Kruskal-Wallis H 10.146
df 3
df 3
Asymp. Sig. .656
Asymp. Sig. .017
a. Kruskal Wallis Test
a. Kruskal Wallis Test
b. Grouping Variable: Years of
b. Grouping Variable: Highest degree
teaching experience
received

110
• Non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test results for Q.7

Test Statisticsa,b Test Statisticsa,b

... search for ... search for

and find the and find the

Smithsonian Smithsonian

Institution Web Institution Web

site. site.

Kruskal-Wallis H 9.017 Kruskal-Wallis H 4.895

df 3 df 3

Asymp. Sig. .029 Asymp. Sig. .180

a. Kruskal Wallis Test a. Kruskal Wallis Test

b. Grouping Variable: Highest degree b. Grouping Variable: Years of

received teaching experience

• Non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test results for Q.8

Test Statisticsa,b Test Statisticsa,b

... create my ... create my

own web page. own web page.

Kruskal-Wallis H .990 Kruskal-Wallis H 1.461

df 3 df 3

Asymp. Sig. .804 Asymp. Sig. .691

a. Kruskal Wallis Test a. Kruskal Wallis Test

b. Grouping Variable: Highest degree b. Grouping Variable: Years of

received teaching experience

• Non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test results for Q.9

Test Statisticsa,b Test Statisticsa,b

... keep track of ... keep track of

Web sites I have Web sites I have

visited so that I visited so that I

can return to can return to

them later. them later.

Kruskal-Wallis H 10.534 Kruskal-Wallis H 2.505

df 3 df 3

Asymp. Sig. .015 Asymp. Sig. .474

a. Kruskal Wallis Test a. Kruskal Wallis Test

b. Grouping Variable: Highest degree b. Grouping Variable: Years of

received teaching experience

111
• Non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test results for Q.10

Test Statisticsa,b Test Statisticsa,b

... find primary
... find primary
sources of
sources of
information on
information on
the Internet
the Internet
Kruskal-Wallis H 14.630
Kruskal-Wallis H 3.402
df 3
df 3
Asymp. Sig. .002
Asymp. Sig. .334
a. Kruskal Wallis Test
a. Kruskal Wallis Test
b. Grouping Variable: Highest degree
b. Grouping Variable: Years of
received
teaching experience

• Non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test results for Q.11

Test Statisticsa,b Test Statisticsa,b
... use a ... use a
spreadsheet to spreadsheet to
create a bar create a bar
graph of the graph of the
proportions of proportions of
the different the different
colors colors
Kruskal-Wallis H 8.805 Kruskal-Wallis H 2.817
df 3 df 3
Asymp. Sig. .032 Asymp. Sig. .421
a. Kruskal Wallis Test a. Kruskal Wallis Test
b. Grouping Variable: Highest degree b. Grouping Variable: Years of
received teaching experience

• Non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test results for Q.12

Test Statisticsa,b Test Statisticsa,b

... create a ... create a

newsletter with newsletter with

graphics. graphics.

Kruskal-Wallis H 5.723 Kruskal-Wallis H 1.589

df 3 df 3

Asymp. Sig. .126 Asymp. Sig. .662

a. Kruskal Wallis Test a. Kruskal Wallis Test

b. Grouping Variable: Highest degree b. Grouping Variable: Years of

received teaching experience

112
• Non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test results for Q.13

Test Statisticsa,b Test Statisticsa,b

... save ... save

documents in documents in

formats so that formats so that

others can read others can read

them them

Kruskal-Wallis H 14.141 Kruskal-Wallis H 1.537

df 3 df 3

Asymp. Sig. .003 Asymp. Sig. .674

a. Kruskal Wallis Test a. Kruskal Wallis Test

b. Grouping Variable: Highest degree b. Grouping Variable: Years of

received teaching experience

• Non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test results for Q.14

Test Statisticsa,b Test Statisticsa,b

…use the …use the

computer to computer to

create a create a

slideshow slideshow

presentation. presentation.

Kruskal-Wallis H 20.729 Kruskal-Wallis H 3.116

df 3 df 3

Asymp. Sig. .000 Asymp. Sig. .374

a. Kruskal Wallis Test a. Kruskal Wallis Test

b. Grouping Variable: Highest degree b. Grouping Variable: Years of

received teaching experience

• Non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test results for Q.15

Test Statisticsa,b Test Statisticsa,b

... create a ... create a

database of database of

information information

about important about important

authors authors

Kruskal-Wallis H 8.361 Kruskal-Wallis H 1.112

df 3 df 3

Asymp. Sig. .039 Asymp. Sig. .774

a. Kruskal Wallis Test a. Kruskal Wallis Test

b. Grouping Variable: Highest degree b. Grouping Variable: Years of

received teaching experience

113
• Non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test results for Q.16

Test Statisticsa,b Test Statisticsa,b

…write an essay …write an essay

describing how I describing how I

would use would use

technology in technology in

my classroom. my classroom.

Kruskal-Wallis H 9.109 Kruskal-Wallis H 4.277

df 3 df 3

Asymp. Sig. .028 Asymp. Sig. .233

a. Kruskal Wallis Test a. Kruskal Wallis Test

b. Grouping Variable: Highest degree b. Grouping Variable: Years of

received teaching experience

• Non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test results for Q.17

Test Statisticsa,b Test Statisticsa,b

... create a ... create a

lesson or unit lesson or unit

that incorporates that incorporates

subject matter subject matter

software as an software as an

integral part. integral part.

Kruskal-Wallis H 9.122 Kruskal-Wallis H 3.519

df 3 df 3

Asymp. Sig. .028 Asymp. Sig. .318

a. Kruskal Wallis Test a. Kruskal Wallis Test

b. Grouping Variable: Highest degree b. Grouping Variable: Years of

received teaching experience

• Non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test results for Q.18

Test Statisticsa,b Test Statisticsa,b
... use ... use
technology to technology to
collaborate with collaborate with
teachers or teachers or
students students
Kruskal-Wallis H 11.822 Kruskal-Wallis H 3.415
df 3 df 3
Asymp. Sig. .008 Asymp. Sig. .332
a. Kruskal Wallis Test a. Kruskal Wallis Test
b. Grouping Variable: Highest degree b. Grouping Variable: Years of
received teaching experience
114
• Non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test results for Q.19
Test Statisticsa,b Test Statisticsa,b
… describe 5 … describe 5
software software
programs or programs or
apps that I apps that I
would use in my would use in my
teaching. teaching.
Kruskal-Wallis H 13.021 Kruskal-Wallis H 3.225
df 3 df 3
Asymp. Sig. .005 Asymp. Sig. .358
a. Kruskal Wallis Test a. Kruskal Wallis Test
b. Grouping Variable: Highest degree b. Grouping Variable: Years of
received teaching experience

• Non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test results for Q.20

Test Statisticsa,b Test Statisticsa,b
... write a plan ... write a plan
with a budget to with a budget to
buy technology buy technology
for my for my
classroom. classroom.
Kruskal-Wallis H 14.592 Kruskal-Wallis H 1.208
df 3 df 3
Asymp. Sig. .002 Asymp. Sig. .751
a. Kruskal Wallis Test a. Kruskal Wallis Test
b. Grouping Variable: Highest degree b. Grouping Variable: Years of
received teaching experience

• Non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test results for Q.21

Test Statisticsa,b Test Statisticsa,b
…integrate …integrate
mobile mobile
technologies technologies
into my into my
curriculum. curriculum.
Kruskal-Wallis H 7.065 Kruskal-Wallis H 1.146
df 3 df 3
Asymp. Sig. .070 Asymp. Sig. .766
a. Kruskal Wallis Test a. Kruskal Wallis Test
b. Grouping Variable: Highest degree b. Grouping Variable: Years of
received teaching experience
115
• Non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test results for Q.22
Test Statisticsa,b Test Statisticsa,b
…use social …use social
media tools for media tools for
instruction in the instruction in the
classroom. classroom.
Kruskal-Wallis H 7.046 Kruskal-Wallis H .672
df 3 df 3
Asymp. Sig. .070 Asymp. Sig. .880
a. Kruskal Wallis Test a. Kruskal Wallis Test
b. Grouping Variable: Highest degree b. Grouping Variable: Years of
received teaching experience

• Non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test results for Q.23

Test Statisticsa,b Test Statisticsa,b
…create a wiki …create a wiki
or blog to have or blog to have
my students my students
collaborate. collaborate.
Kruskal-Wallis H 5.104 Kruskal-Wallis H 2.649
df 3 df 3
Asymp. Sig. .164 Asymp. Sig. .449
a. Kruskal Wallis Test a. Kruskal Wallis Test
b. Grouping Variable: Highest degree b. Grouping Variable: Years of
received teaching experience

• Non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test results for Q.24

Test Statisticsa,b Test Statisticsa,b
…use online …use online
tools to teach tools to teach
my students my students
from a distance. from a distance.
Kruskal-Wallis H 3.925 Kruskal-Wallis H 1.490
df 3 df 3
Asymp. Sig. .270 Asymp. Sig. .685
a. Kruskal Wallis Test a. Kruskal Wallis Test
b. Grouping Variable: Highest degree b. Grouping Variable: Years of
received teaching experience

116
• Non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test results for Q.25
Test Statisticsa,b Test Statisticsa,b
…teach in a …teach in a
one-to-one one-to-one
environment environment.
Kruskal-Wallis H 4.314 Kruskal-Wallis H 4.170
df 3 df 3
Asymp. Sig. .229 Asymp. Sig. .244
a. Kruskal Wallis Test a. Kruskal Wallis Test
b. Grouping Variable: Highest degree b. Grouping Variable: Years of
received teaching experience

• Non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test results for Q.26

Test Statisticsa,b Test Statisticsa,b
…find a way to …find a way to
use a use a
smartphone in smartphone in
my classroom my classroom
Kruskal-Wallis H 6.732 Kruskal-Wallis H 2.596
df 3 df 3
Asymp. Sig. .081 Asymp. Sig. .458
a. Kruskal Wallis Test a. Kruskal Wallis Test
b. Grouping Variable: Highest degree b. Grouping Variable: Years of
received teaching experience

• Non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test results for Q.27

Test Statisticsa,b Test Statisticsa,b
use mobile use mobile
devices to devices to
connect to connect to
others for my others for my
professional professional
development. development.
Kruskal-Wallis H 3.162 Kruskal-Wallis H 3.981
df 3 df 3
Asymp. Sig. .367 Asymp. Sig. .263
a. Kruskal Wallis Test a. Kruskal Wallis Test
b. Grouping Variable: Highest degree b. Grouping Variable: Years of
received teaching experience

117
• Non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test results for Q.28
Test Statisticsa,b Test Statisticsa,b
… use mobile … use mobile
devices to have devices to have
my students my students
access learning access learning
activities. activities.
Kruskal-Wallis H 4.831 Kruskal-Wallis H 3.859
df 3 df 3
Asymp. Sig. .185 Asymp. Sig. .277
a. Kruskal Wallis Test a. Kruskal Wallis Test
b. Grouping Variable: Highest degree b. Grouping Variable: Years of
received teaching experience

• Non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test results for Q.29

Test Statisticsa,b Test Statisticsa,b
… download … download
and listen to and listen to
podcasts/audio podcasts/audio
books. books.
Kruskal-Wallis H 10.011 Kruskal-Wallis H 2.386
df 3 df 3
Asymp. Sig. .018 Asymp. Sig. .496
a. Kruskal Wallis Test a. Kruskal Wallis Test
b. Grouping Variable: Highest degree b. Grouping Variable: Years of
received teaching experience

• Non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test results for Q.30

Test Statisticsa,b Test Statisticsa,b
… download … download
and read e- and read e-
books. books.
Kruskal-Wallis H 13.894 Kruskal-Wallis H 2.626
df 3 df 3
Asymp. Sig. .003 Asymp. Sig. .453
a. Kruskal Wallis Test a. Kruskal Wallis Test
b. Grouping Variable: Highest degree b. Grouping Variable: Years of
received teaching experience

118
• Non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test results for Q.31
Test Statisticsa,b Test Statisticsa,b
… download … download
and view and view
streaming streaming
movies/video movies/video
clips. clips.
Kruskal-Wallis H 6.441 Kruskal-Wallis H 4.754
df 3 df 3
Asymp. Sig. .092 Asymp. Sig. .191
a. Kruskal Wallis Test a. Kruskal Wallis Test
b. Grouping Variable: Highest degree b. Grouping Variable: Years of
received teaching experience

• Non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test results for Q.32

Test Statisticsa,b Test Statisticsa,b
… send and … send and
receive text receive text
messages. messages.
Kruskal-Wallis H 9.311 Kruskal-Wallis H 4.702
df 3 df 3
Asymp. Sig. .025 Asymp. Sig. .195
a. Kruskal Wallis Test a. Kruskal Wallis Test
b. Grouping Variable: Highest degree b. Grouping Variable: Years of
received teaching experience

• Non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test results for Q.33

Test Statisticsa,b Test Statisticsa,b
… transfer … transfer
photos or other photos or other
data via a data via a
smartphone. smartphone.
Kruskal-Wallis H 7.505 Kruskal-Wallis H 2.031
df 3 df 3
Asymp. Sig. .057 Asymp. Sig. .566
a. Kruskal Wallis Test a. Kruskal Wallis Test
b. Grouping Variable: Highest degree b. Grouping Variable: Years of
received teaching experience

119
 • Non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test results for Q.34
Test Statisticsa,b Test Statisticsa,b
… save and … save and
retrieve files in a retrieve files in a
cloud-based cloud-based
environment. environment.
Kruskal-Wallis H 7.308 Kruskal-Wallis H 1.230
df 3 df 3
Asymp. Sig. .063 Asymp. Sig. .746
a. Kruskal Wallis Test a. Kruskal Wallis Test
b. Grouping Variable: Highest degree b. Grouping Variable: Years of
received teaching experience

• Descriptive Statistics output from SPSS© for each of the item in TPSA-C21
Descriptive Statistics
Std.
N Min Max Mean Deviation
... send e-mail to a friend. 62 2 5 4.74 .571
... subscribe to a discussion list. 62 3 5 4.68 .594
... create a distribution list to send e-mail to several people at once. 62 2 5 4.60 .689
... send a document as an attachment to an e-mail message. 62 3 5 4.81 .474
... keep copies of outgoing messages that I send to others. 62 3 5 4.73 .548
... use an Internet search engine (e.g., Google) to find Web pages 62 3 5 4.85 .399
related to my subject matter interests.
... search for and find the Smithsonian Institution Web site. 62 1 5 4.60 .839
... create my own web page. 62 1 5 3.37 1.258
... keep track of Web sites I have visited so that I can return to them 62 1 5 4.56 .822
later. (An example is using bookmarks.)
... find primary sources of information on the Internet that I can use 62 2 5 4.65 .655
in my teaching.
... use a spreadsheet to create a bar graph of the proportions of the 62 1 5 4.26 1.023
different colors of M&Ms in a bag.
... create a newsletter with graphics. 62 1 5 4.00 1.187
... save documents in formats so that others can read them if they 62 1 5 4.60 .799
have different word processing programs (eg., saving Word, pdf,
RTF, or text).
…use the computer to create a slideshow presentation. 62 3 5 4.81 .474

120
... create a database of information about important authors in a 62 1 5 4.08 1.029
subject matter field.
…write an essay describing how I would use technology in my 62 2 5 4.45 .843
classroom.
... create a lesson or unit that incorporates subject matter software 62 1 5 4.06 .973
as an integral part.
... use technology to collaborate with teachers or students, who are 62 1 5 4.53 .718
distant from my classroom.
… describe 5 software programs or apps that I would use in my 62 1 5 4.03 1.086
teaching.
... write a plan with a budget to buy technology for my classroom. 62 1 5 4.10 1.020
…integrate mobile technologies into my curriculum. 62 1 5 4.11 .960
…use social media tools for instruction in the classroom. (ex. 62 1 5 3.47 1.457
Facebook, Twitter, etc.)
…create a wiki or blog to have my students collaborate. 62 1 5 3.47 1.224
…use online tools to teach my students from a distance. 62 1 5 4.48 .805
…teach in a one-to-one environment in which the students have 62 2 5 4.44 .738
their own device.
…find a way to use a smartphone in my classroom for student 62 1 5 4.15 1.022
responses.
use mobile devices to connect to others for my professional 62 1 5 4.13 1.000
development.
… use mobile devices to have my students access learning 62 1 5 4.18 .967
activities.
… download and listen to podcasts/audio books. 62 1 5 4.42 .801
… download and read e-books. 62 1 5 4.48 .784
… download and view streaming movies/video clips. 62 1 5 4.56 .738
… send and receive text messages. 62 3 5 4.74 .477
… transfer photos or other data via a smartphone. 62 1 5 4.76 .619
… save and retrieve files in a cloud-based environment. 62 1 5 4.58 .737
Valid N (listwise) 62

121
• Factor loading output from SmartPLS4©

122
• Reliability statistics from SmartPLS4©

• Validity statistics from SmartPLS4©

123
A.12 Outline of the analysis for paper-3

• Raw data after initial processing

• Comparison between group data using Mann-Whitney U Test

124
 • Mann-Whitney U test for “Experience in navigation”

The U-value is 38. The critical value of U at p < .05 is 17.

Therefore, the result is not significant at p < .05.

125
The Z-Score is 0.13328. The p-value is .89656. The result is not significant at p < .05.

• Mann-Whitney U test for “Experience with Chatbot”

The U-value is 21. The critical value of U at p < .05 is 16.

Therefore, the result is not significant at p < .05.

The Z-Score is 1.53963. The p-value is .12356. The result is not significant at p < .05.

126
A.13 Outline of the analysis for paper-4

• Descriptive statistics from SmartPLS4©

• Factor loading output from SPSS©

Factor – 1: Communication and Interaction skills (CI)

Factor – 2: Technical and operational skills (TO)

Factor – 3: Content creation and Production skills (CP)

Factor – 4: Information navigation and processing skills (IN)

127
 Rotated Component Matrixa

Component

1 2 3 4

TO1 ,260 ,614 ,185 ,109

TO2 ,480 ,664 ,064 ,081

TO3 ,433 ,682 ,061 ,114

TO4 ,339 ,687 ,158 ,233

TO5 ,167 ,599 ,389 ,178

TO6 ,024 ,699 ,235 ,157

IN1 ,226 ,264 -,055 ,732

IN2 ,344 ,192 ,208 ,626

IN3 ,060 ,101 ,221 ,778

IN4 ,053 ,079 ,302 ,770

IN5 ,378 ,157 ,441 ,605

IN6 ,332 ,167 ,461 ,541

CI1 ,710 ,318 ,122 ,254

CI2 ,766 ,175 ,275 ,177

CI3 ,846 ,173 ,169 ,120

CI4 ,754 ,263 ,227 ,153

CI5 ,573 ,388 ,248 ,225

CI6 ,662 ,312 ,239 ,179

CP1 ,293 ,266 ,528 ,248

128
 CP2 ,247 ,325 ,587 ,199

CP3 ,585 ,224 ,448 ,186

CP4 ,493 ,131 ,621 ,193

CP5 ,170 ,204 ,758 ,219

CP6 ,140 ,109 ,740 ,148

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

a. Rotation converged in 7 iterations.

• The factor loadings (λ) for each item were used to calculate Average Variance Extracted
(AVE) and Composite Reliability (CR)

ε = 1- λ2 (For each item)

AVE = Σλ2 / 6 (Σλ2 = Sum of (square of) each factor loading)

CR = Σλ2 / Σλ2 + Σ ε

129
 • Descriptive and reliability statistics from SPSS©

o Technical and operational skills

Item Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation N
I know how to adjust privacy 4.42 .867 234
setting
I know how to turn off the location 4.63 .991 234
settings on my mobile device

I know how to protect a mobile 4.60 .945 234

device (e.g. with a PIN, a screen
pattern or a finger print)

I know how to store photos, 4.40 1.006 234

documents, contacts or other files
in the cloud (e.g. Google Drive,
iCloud)
I know how to use private 4.50 1.007 234
browsing (e.g. incognito mode)

I know how to block unwanted 4.26 1.114 234

pop-up messages or ads

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha Based on
Cronbach's Standardized
Alpha Items N of Items
.849 .852 6

130
 o Information navigation and processing skills

Item Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation N
I know how to choose the best 4.09 1.009 234
keywords for online search

I know how to find a website I 4.26 1.039 234

have visited before
I know how to find information on 3.86 1.095 234
a website no matter how it is
designed
I know how to use advanced 3.83 1.110 234
search functions in search engine

I know how to check if the 4.06 1.024 234

information I find online is true

I know how to figure out if a 4.09 1.093 234

website can be trusted

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha Based on
Cronbach's Standardized
Alpha Items N of Items
.872 .872 6

131
 o Communication and interaction skills

Item Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation N
Depending on who I want to 4.42 .942 234
communicate with, I know which
medium or tool to use (make a
call, send a WhatsApp message,
send an email, etc.)

I know when to mute myself or 4.47 .950 234

disable video in online interactions

I know which images and 4.54 .854 234

information of me it is OK to share
online

I know when it is appropriate 4.43 .848 234

and when it is not appropriate
to use emoticons(e.g. smileys,
emojis) or text speak or capital
letters

I know how to report negative 4.42 .915 234

content relating to me or a group to
which I belong

I know how to recognise when 4.41 .964 234

someone is being bullied online

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha Based on
Cronbach's Standardized
Alpha Items N of Items
.910 .911 6

132
 o Content creation and production skills

Item Statistics
Mean Std. Deviation N
I know how to create 3.99 1.006 234
something which incorporates
different digital media
(images, music, video, GIFs)

I know how to edit existing 4.03 1.040 234

online images, music and
videos
I know how to ensure that 4.19 .972 234
many people will see what I put
online
I know how to change the 4.14 .959 234
things I put online depending
on how other people react to
it
I know how to distinguish 4.05 1.176 234
sponsored and non-sponsored
content
I know when I am allowed to 4.07 1.115 234
use content covered by
copyright

Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's
Alpha Based on
Cronbach's Standardized
Alpha Items N of Items
.857 .860 6

133
 • Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) fit indices output from SPSS©

Result (Default model)

Minimum was achieved

Chi-square = 597,751
Degrees of freedom = 246
Probability level = ,000

CMIN

Model NPAR CMIN DF P CMIN/DF

Default model 54 597,751 246 ,000 2,430
Saturated model 300 ,000 0
Independence model 24 3633,620 276 ,000 13,165

RMR, GFI

Model RMR GFI AGFI PGFI

Default model ,063 ,821 ,782 ,673
Saturated model ,000 1,000
Independence model ,416 ,184 ,113 ,169

Baseline Comparisons

NFI RFI IFI TLI

Model CFI
Delta1 rho1 Delta2 rho2
Default model ,835 ,815 ,896 ,882 ,895
Saturated model 1,000 1,000 1,000
Independence model ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,000

RMSEA

Model RMSEA LO 90 HI 90 PCLOSE

Default model ,078 ,070 ,086 ,000
Independence model ,228 ,222 ,235 ,000

134
Regression Weights: (Group number 1 - Default model)
Estimate S.E. C.R. P Label
TO1 <--- TechOp 1,000
TO2 <--- TechOp 1,411 ,149 9,473 ***
TO3 <--- TechOp 1,392 ,144 9,694 ***
TO4 <--- TechOp 1,495 ,153 9,749 ***
TO5 <--- TechOp 1,192 ,145 8,236 ***
TO6 <--- TechOp 1,155 ,156 7,398 ***
IN1 <--- Inav 1,000
IN2 <--- Inav 1,204 ,144 8,338 ***
IN3 <--- Inav 1,232 ,151 8,163 ***
IN4 <--- Inav 1,277 ,154 8,292 ***
IN5 <--- Inav 1,511 ,156 9,683 ***
IN6 <--- Inav 1,503 ,161 9,315 ***
CI1 <--- Coin 1,000
CI2 <--- Coin 1,043 ,075 13,986 ***
CI3 <--- Coin ,941 ,067 14,046 ***
CI4 <--- Coin ,929 ,067 13,949 ***
CI5 <--- Coin ,897 ,074 12,094 ***
CI6 <--- Coin 1,013 ,077 13,199 ***
CP1 <--- Copro 1,000
CP2 <--- Copro 1,078 ,111 9,667 ***
CP3 <--- Copro 1,095 ,105 10,395 ***
CP4 <--- Copro 1,143 ,105 10,902 ***
CP5 <--- Copro 1,201 ,126 9,536 ***
CP6 <--- Copro ,976 ,118 8,290 ***

135
Standardized Regression Weights: (Group number 1 -
Default model)
Estimate
TO1 <--- TechOp ,624
TO2 <--- TechOp ,771
TO3 <--- TechOp ,797
TO4 <--- TechOp ,803
TO5 <--- TechOp ,640
TO6 <--- TechOp ,561
IN1 <--- Inav ,589
IN2 <--- Inav ,688
IN3 <--- Inav ,667
IN4 <--- Inav ,683
IN5 <--- Inav ,876
IN6 <--- Inav ,817
CI1 <--- Coin ,793
CI2 <--- Coin ,821
CI3 <--- Coin ,823
CI4 <--- Coin ,819
CI5 <--- Coin ,733
CI6 <--- Coin ,785
CP1 <--- Copro ,676
CP2 <--- Copro ,705
CP3 <--- Copro ,766
CP4 <--- Copro ,811
CP5 <--- Copro ,695
CP6 <--- Copro ,595

Covariances: (Group number 1 - Default model)

Estimate S.E. C.R. P Label
TechOp <--> Inav ,199 ,037 5,430 ***
Inav <--> Coin ,302 ,049 6,159 ***
Coin <--> Copro ,404 ,057 7,039 ***
TechOp <--> Coin ,317 ,047 6,697 ***
TechOp <--> Copro ,260 ,043 6,020 ***
Inav <--> Copro ,321 ,052 6,144 ***

136
Correlations: (Group number 1 - Default model)
Estimate
TechOp <--> Inav ,624
Inav <--> Coin ,684
Coin <--> Copro ,798
TechOp <--> Coin ,788
TechOp <--> Copro ,709
Inav <--> Copro ,799

Variances: (Group number 1 - Default model)

Estimate S.E. C.R. P Label
TechOp ,291 ,058 5,055 ***
Inav ,351 ,074 4,736 ***
Coin ,557 ,078 7,128 ***
Copro ,461 ,082 5,630 ***
u1 ,456 ,046 9,960 ***
u2 ,397 ,045 8,865 ***
u3 ,325 ,038 8,498 ***
u4 ,358 ,043 8,388 ***
u5 ,597 ,060 9,887 ***
u6 ,847 ,083 10,196 ***
u7 ,662 ,065 10,208 ***
u8 ,566 ,058 9,794 ***
u9 ,663 ,067 9,902 ***
u10 ,655 ,067 9,824 ***
u11 ,243 ,034 7,077 ***
u12 ,396 ,046 8,521 ***
u13 ,328 ,035 9,352 ***
u14 ,293 ,032 9,038 ***
u15 ,234 ,026 9,003 ***
u16 ,235 ,026 9,060 ***
u17 ,386 ,039 9,811 ***
u18 ,355 ,038 9,429 ***
u19 ,547 ,056 9,800 ***
u20 ,541 ,056 9,623 ***
u21 ,389 ,043 9,100 ***
u22 ,314 ,037 8,497 ***
u23 ,713 ,074 9,692 ***
u24 ,800 ,079 10,149 ***

137
Squared Multiple Correlations: (Group number 1 -
Default model)
Estimate
CP6 ,354
CP5 ,482
CP4 ,657
CP3 ,587
CP2 ,497
CP1 ,457
CI6 ,617
CI5 ,538
CI4 ,671
CI3 ,678
CI2 ,674
CI1 ,629
IN6 ,667
IN5 ,767
IN4 ,466
IN3 ,446
IN2 ,473
IN1 ,346
TO6 ,315
TO5 ,410
TO4 ,645
TO3 ,635
TO2 ,594
TO1 ,390

138
9 Articles

Article 1
Sharma, A., & Kim, T. e. (2021). Exploring technical and non-technical competencies of navigators
for autonomous shipping. Maritime Policy & Management. DOI: 10.1080/03088839.2021.1914874

139
MARITIME POLICY & MANAGEMENT
https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2021.1914874

ARTICLE

Exploring technical and non-technical competencies of

navigators for autonomous shipping
Amit Sharma and T. Kim
Department of Maritime Operations, Faculty of Technology, Natural Sciences and Maritime Sciences, University of
South-Eastern Norway, Vestfold, Norway

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
The emergence of autonomous ship technologies has attracted a growing Competence; STCW;
body of academic studies, regulatory discussions and exploration endea­ autonomy; autonomous
vours in recent years. With the introduction of new technology comes the shipping; seafarers; MASS
need for the seafarers to be trained in its use. The purpose of this paper
is 1) to examine the suitability of the International Convention on
Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers
(STCW) Table A-II/1 competence framework for navigators under
Maritime Autonomous Surface Ship (MASS) operations, and 2) to propose
future technical and non-technical competencies that will be needed in
autonomous shipping era. A mixed method approach was adopted with
collection of both quantitative and qualitative data through a survey
instrument developed on the basis of the literature and current STCW
Table A-II/1, in which the 66 Knowledge, Understanding & Proficiency
(KUP) requirements for navigators were converted into measurement
items. Statistical analysis of the data has aided in identifying a list of key
technical and non-technical competence requirements for the navigators
under MASS operations. The results can be used as an input for revision of
the STCW competence requirements and to facilitate the preparation and
implementation of novel training frameworks for autonomous shipping.

1. Introduction
Shipping industry is often recognized as the lifeline of global economy (Stopford 2009). Over 50,000
merchant ships operate globally to keep the flow of international trade and are manned by over
1.5 million seafarers with representation of virtually every nationality on the globe (ICS 2019).
Merchant ships are recognized as high-value assets and some of the technologically sophisticated
ships can cost up to 200 million USD while carrying a variety of cargo across the destinations that
are necessary and vital to markets worldwide (ICS 2019). Any unexpected event or accident during
ship operations could result not only in considerable financial consequences to all stakeholders in
the supply chain, but also have the potentials to result in casualties, loss of life, and significant
environmental, legal and reputational consequences (Kim, Nazir, and Øvergård 2016; Schröder-
Hinrichs, Hollnagel, and Baldauf 2012). Naturally to cater for these issues, shipping community has
come up with international frameworks and conventions which dictate various aspects of shipping
such as design, operations, manning and training. In this regard, the global maritime authority for

CONTACT T. Kim [email protected]

StatementThis article is a revised and expanded version of a paper entitled ‘Catching up with time? Examining the STCW
competence framework for autonomous shipping’ presented at Ergoship 2019 Conference, Haugesund, Norway; 24-
25 September 2019.
© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the
original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
2 A. SHARMA AND T.-E. KIM

establishing the standards for safety, security and environmental performance of international
shipping is the International Maritime Organization (IMO).
Among other considerations, it is important that the ships are operated by well skilled and
qualified seafarers. The training requirements of the industry are oriented towards producing
seafarers that can not only operate the ships in an efficient manner, but also give considerable
regard to environment and safety. The International Convention on Standards of Training,
Certification & Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW, 1978 as amended) and its associated Code—
as the key instrument of IMO, outlines the qualification standards for officers and ratings for
merchant ships globally (IMO 2011). While basic STCW certificates are a prerequisite for any
seafarer serving onboard ships, the specific training requirements for different levels of responsi­
bility (i.e., management, operational & support) as well as different ship types and departments are
also listed in the STCW Code. STCW in its present form, applies a skill-based framework for
training of seafarers. Such framework traces its roots in the apprenticeship model where the seafarer
needs to demonstrate the Knowledge, Understanding and Proficiency (KUP) of a set of tasks to be
deemed competent for a particular rank (Burke and Clott 2016). The convention has been revised
after every few years (1995 & 2010) since its inception to be in line with the contemporary needs of
the shipping industry. The need for periodic revision of the STCW Convention and its associated
Code can be attributed to changing workplace demands and novel competency requirement with
the advent of new technology.
Shipping industry at the moment is undergoing through a wave of increased automation and
digitalization (Kitada et al. 2018), interest in autonomous and remotely-controlled ships is growing
at a rapid speed globally (Mallam, Nazir, and Sharma 2020; Kim and Mallam 2020). The reasons to
support the introduction of autonomous ships ranges from economic reasons through increased
efficiency to safety considerations (Brandsæter and Knutsen 2018). Porathe, Prison, and Man
(2014) outline four major reasons—improved work environment, cost reduction, reduction of
emissions and increased safety—as the drive for adopting autonomous ships. The introduction of
autonomous ships also has the potential to result in new modes of ship transportation than the ones
existing at the moment.
However, with the new technology comes the need for the seafarers to be trained in its use.
Therefore, a natural lag towards the new competence requirements and their implementation in the
existing regulations for the shipping industry exists. IMO has launched a regulatory scoping
exercise for the potential introduction of Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS) and defined
4 degrees of autonomous ship operations (IMO 2018), as illustrated in the following Figure 1.
In the context of autonomous ships, the skills and competence that are required for the seafarers
in charge of navigational watch i.e. the navigators, is not sufficiently investigated. There is a need for

Figure 1. Degrees of autonomy as defined by IMO (adapted from IMO [2018]; Kim et al. 2019).
 MARITIME POLICY & MANAGEMENT 3

Figure 2. Research flow.

outlining of the needed competencies in order to correspondingly address the novel training
requirements of the future navigators (Barsan, Hanzu-Pazara, and Arsenie 2007). It is expected
that the STCW convention will be needed to be updated in coming years to catch up with the new
operational environments of ships brought on by automation and digitalization. Several recent
studies have discussed upon the issues regarding reskilling of seafarers and preparation of Maritime
Education and Training (MET) institutes for meeting future competence demands for autonomous
ship operations (Wright 2020; Emad, Khabir, and Shahbaksh 2020). However, none of the studies
have conducted a detailed and itemized evaluation of the STCW competence requirements along
with exploration regarding additional future skills. In this paper, we aim to investigate the suitability
of the present STCW requirements (Table A-II/1) for Degree 2 MASS operations as defined by IMO
(see Figure 1) and explore the novel future technical and non-technical competencies that will be
required for navigators in merchant ships. The remainder of this manuscript is organized as follows
—First, the concept of competency, skills requirement of navigators and historic development of
STCW convention is elaborated upon. Next, the design of data collection instrument is described
along with the data collection and analysis methods. Further, the obtained results are described in
light of the selected research questions. Finally, the implications of the study are discussed for the
shipping industry along with the future research directions.
4 A. SHARMA AND T.-E. KIM

2. Theoretical and legal background

There are several definitions and interpretations of the word ‘competency’ in the literature.
A generic definition of competency as given by Oxford English dictionary is—‘the ability to do
something successfully or efficiently’ (Stevenson 2010, 355). A more precise definition can be
considered as the one given by United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO)
which defines competency as—‘a set of skills encompassing knowledge and attributes which enables
an individual to perform a task within a specific function/job effectively’ (Vathanophas and Thai-
ngam 2007, 50). The research originating with regards to competency has conventionally described
it in relation to the performance of the individual and to its surrounding environment. Woodruff
(1993) described competency as ‘the set of behavior patterns which are needed to allow the incumbent
to perform tasks and functions with competence’. Whereas Mace (2005) termed it as acquired
personal skills which reflect potential ability to provide consistently adequate or high-level perfor­
mance in a specific job function (Smythe et al. 2014, 60). The outlining and use of competency as
a concept can therefore be seen as a part of the process to manage and improve the human
performance in a given context through targeted education and training (Hoffmann 1999, 283).
In relation to the above definitions, it is worth highlighting the difference between competency and
skills. The term competency defines the requirements for the job in a broader context than skills.
The terms such as skills, ability and knowledge therefore can be best termed as facets of competency
in this regard. A navigator can be termed as competent if he/she can safely navigate the ship across
two destinations safely. To undertake this task however, he/she will need a set of skills (e.g., passage
planning, radar navigation).
The skills required by the navigators for the operation of ships can be broadly divided into—
technical and non-technical skills (Hetherington, Flin, and Mearns 2006; Sharma et al. 2019). The
technical skills refer to the knowledge regarding ship operations such as navigation, engine
propulsion, cargo handling, maintenance and radio communications. Such skills can be ship
specific and also change every few years due to basic changes in ship design and technology
advancement. For instance, knowledge regarding use of various bridge equipment such as
Electronic Chart Display and Information Systems (ECDIS), Global Positioning System (GPS),
Radar, Automatic Radar Plotting Aid (ARPA), Automatic Identification System (AIS) have become
paramount for present day navigators. The skills related to the navigational means of the past and
the knowledge regarding them has either become obsolete or just present as superficial requirement
(e.g. use of sextant to obtain fix) in assessment of competence. The future technical competencies of
navigators will therefore, in part depend upon the development of novel navigational technologies
and their subsequent adaption by ships.
In relation to the non-technical skills for navigators, the domain itself is relatively less explored
by the stakeholders involved in MET. The first Bridge Resource Management (BRM) course for the
maritime education and training purposes was launched in 1990s, taking inspiration from the
aviation sector’s Crew Resource Management (CRM) course (Barnett, Gatfield, and Pekcan 2003;
O’Connor 2011). However, the effectiveness of BRM in terms of implementation and the outcomes
has been reported variably (O’Connor 2011). Fjeld, Tvedt, and Oltedal (2018) in their review
identified five non-technical skills in the research literature related to navigators: (1) situational
awareness (2) workload management (3) decision making (4) communication and (5) leadership. It
is worth noting that the first three belong to sub-category of ‘cognitive skills’ and the remaining 2
are classified as ‘interpersonal (social) skills’. The investigation of more non-technical skills such as
‘mental readiness’, ‘anticipatory thinking’, ‘coping with stress/fatigue’ and ‘seeking advice/feedback’
as listed in taxonomy proposed by Yule et al. (2006) would be beneficial. In terms of cognitive skills
and their facilitation, appropriate design considerations can help answer some of the concerns
(Endsley and Kiris 1995). The acquisition of ‘interpersonal’ or ‘social skills’ in contrast would
require active intervention in training of navigators.
 MARITIME POLICY & MANAGEMENT 5

Traditionally, maritime industry is termed as conservative (resistant to change) and reactive in

nature (Mokashi, Wang, and Vermar 2002). The major conventions which regulate the maritime
operations at present often originated as the aftermath of large-scale shipping disasters (Schröder-
Hinrichs et al. 2013). In this regard, STCW convention is not different. The establishment of
STCW was triggered by aftermath of the Torrey Canyon and Amoco Cadiz disaster, where the
named ships grounded which resulted in the biggest environmental disasters at the time
(Schröder-Hinrichs et al. 2013; Parsons and Allen 2018, 24). STCW upon its proposal and
implementation initiated common framework for seafarer competence. It replaced the 1936
International Labour Organization (ILO) Officer Competency Certificate Convention (no.53)
and was seen as a major step towards ensuring common competency standards worldwide
(Morrison 1997). In the few years after its establishment, the shipping community however felt
that the STCW 1978 missed its mark. Issues such as vague competence requirements interpreted
differently by member states, lack of clarity in standards and continuing number of major
shipping disasters meant that the member states signatory to the convention argued for major
revisions (Emad and Roth 2008; Schröder-Hinrichs et al. 2013). These prevailing issues called for
major revisions to the convention, which was adopted by IMO in the year 1995. The 1995
amendments to STCW marked a major change in the approach of IMO and shipping community
with regards to establishment and compliance with safety related regulations in shipping. The
member states were now required to demonstrate and outline clear road map of compliance than
just being passive signatories as was the case in the past (Parsons and Allen 2018). The framing of
regulations also laid emphasis on the importance of the human element within shipping rather
than focusing on external provisions as was the norm of its predecessors. The STCW 1995
amendment among other major changes, laid out the Competence-Based Training (CBT)
requirements for the seafarers. The competencies associated with specific job roles and profiles
were now clearly documented, and the seafarers were required to demonstrate them before
receiving certifications for their rank (Lewarn 2002).
The 2010 amendments to STCW continued the emphasis on proactive changes in education and
training of seafarers with incorporation of new automation and digitalization developments within
shipping. Several key competence requirements were added in this amendment, which were related
to modern technologies such as ECDIS, work-rest hours regulations, security training, environ­
mental awareness, and training in non-technical skills such as leadership and teamwork (IMO
2011). Currently, STCW 1978 as amended, in its Table A-II/1 has included 66 Knowledge,
Understanding & Proficiency items (KUPs) which specifies the minimum standard of competence
for officers in charge of navigational watch on ships of 500 gross tonnage or more (IMO 2011).
These KUPs collectively reflect 19 competence themes as illustrated in Table 1.

Table 1. Competences for navigation officers in operational role as listed in Table A-II/1 of STCW (IMO, 2011, 99–110)
Competence themes
Plan and conduct a passage and determine position
KUP 1 Ability to use celestial bodies to determine the ship’ position
KUP 2 Ability to determine the ship’s position by use of 1) landmarks, 2) aids to navigation, including lighthouses, beacons and
buoys, 3) dead reckoning, taking into account winds, tides, currents and estimated speed
KUP 3 Have thorough knowledge of and ability to use nautical charts, and publications, such as sailing directions, tide tables,
notices to mariners, radio navigational warnings and ships’ routing information
KUP 4 Ability to determine the ship’s position by use of electronic navigational aids
KUP 5 Ability to operate the equipment and apply the information correctly
KUP 6 Have knowledge of the principles of magnetic and gyro-compasses
KUP 7 Ability to determine errors of the magnetic and gyro-compasses, using celestial and terrestrial means, and to allow for
such errors
KUP 8 Have knowledge of steering control systems, operational procedures and change-over from manual to automatic
control and vice versa. Adjustment of controls for optimum performance
KUP 9 Ability to use and interpret information obtained from shipborne meteorological instruments
KUP 10 Have knowledge of the characteristics of the various weather systems, reporting procedures and recording systems
KUP 11 Ability to apply the meteorological information available
(Continued)
6 A. SHARMA AND T.-E. KIM

Table 1. Competences for navigation officers in operational role as listed in Table A-II/1 of STCW (IMO, 2011, 99–110)
Maintain a safe navigational watch
KUP 12 Have thorough knowledge of the content, application and intent of the International Regulations for Preventing
Collisions at Sea, 1972, as amended
KUP 13 Have thorough knowledge of the Principles to be observed in keeping a navigational watch
KUP 14 Proficient in use of routing in accordance with the General Provisions on ships’ routing
KUP 15 Proficient in use of information from navigational equipment for maintaining a safe navigational watch
KUP 16 Have knowledge of blind pilotage techniques
KUP 17 Proficient in use of reporting in accordance with the General Principles for Ship Reporting Systems and with VTS
procedures
KUP 18 Knowledge of bridge resource management principles, including 1) allocation, assignment, and prioritization of
resources, 2) effective communication 3) assertiveness and leadership, 4) obtaining and maintaining situational
awareness, 5) consideration of team experience
Use of radar and ARPA to maintain safety of navigation
KUP 19 Have knowledge of the fundamentals of radar and automatic radar plotting aids (ARPA)
KUP 20 Ability to operate and to interpret and analyse information obtained from radar and ARPA performance, including 1)
factors affecting performance and accuracy, 2) setting up and maintaining displays, 3) detection of misrepresentation of
information, false echoes, sea return, etc., racons and SARTs
KUP 21 Ability to operate and to interpret and analyse information obtained from radar and ARPA use, including 1) range and
bearing; course and speed of other ships; time and distance of closest approach of crossing, meeting overtaking ships, 2)
identification of critical echoes; detecting course and speed changes of other ships; effect of changes in own ship’s course or
speed or both, 3) application of the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972, as amended, 4) plotting
techniques and relative- and true- motion concepts, 5) parallel indexing
KUP 22 Awareness of principal types of ARPA, their display characteristics, performance standards and the dangers of over-
reliance on ARPA
KUP 23 Ability to operate and to interpret and analyse information obtained from ARPA, including 1) system performance and
accuracy, tracking capabilities and limitations, and processing delays, 2) use of operational warnings and system tests, 3)
methods of target acquisition and their limitations, 4) true and relative vectors, graphic representation of target information
and danger areas, 5) deriving and analysing information, critical echoes, exclusion areas and trial manoeuvres
Use of ECDIS to maintain the safety of navigation
KUP 24 Have knowledge of the capability and limitations of ECDIS operations, including 1) a thorough understanding of
Electronic Navigational Chart (ENC) data, data accuracy, presentation rules, display options and other chart data formats, 2)
the dangers of over-reliance, 3) familiarity with the functions of ECDIS required by performance standards in force
KUP 25 Proficient in operation, interpretation, and analysis of information obtained from ECDIS, including 1) use of functions
that are integrated with other navigation systems in various installations, including proper functioning and adjustment to
desired settings, 2) safe monitoring and adjustment of information, including own position, sea area display, mode and
orientation, chart data displayed, route monitoring, user-created information layers, contacts (when interfaced with AIS and/
or radar tracking) and radar overlay functions (when interfaced), 3) confirmation of vessel position by alternative means, 4)
efficient use of settings to ensure conformance to operational procedures, including alarm parameters for anti-grounding,
proximity to contacts and special areas, completeness of chart data and chart update status, and backup arrangements, 5)
adjustment of settings and values to suit the present conditions, 6) situational awareness while using ECDIS including safe
water and proximity of hazards, set and drift, chart data and scale selection, suitability of route, contact detection and
management, and integrity of sensors.
Respond to emergencies
KUP 26 Ability to take precautions for the protection and safety of passengers in emergency situations
KUP 27 Ability to take initial actions following a collision or a grounding; and ability to assess initial damage and perform
control
KUP 28 Appreciate the procedures to be followed for rescuing persons from the sea, assisting a ship in distress, responding to
emergencies which arise in port
Respond to a distress signal at sea
KUP 29 Have knowledge of the contents of the International Aeronautical and Maritime Search and Rescue (IAMSAR) Manual
Use the IMO Standard Marine Communication Phrases and use English in written and Oral form
KUP 30 Have adequate knowledge of the English language to enable the officer to use charts and other nautical publications,
to understand meteorological information and messages concerning ship’s safety and operation, to communicate with
other ships, coast stations and VTS centres and to perform the officer’s duties also with a multilingual crew, including the
ability to use and understand the IMO Standard Marine Communication Phrases (IMO SMCP)
Transmit and receive information by visual signalling
KUP 31 Ability to use the International Code of Signals
KUP 32 Ability to transmit and receive, by Morse light, distress signal SOS as specified in Annex IV of the International
Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972, as amended, and appendix 1 of the International Code of Signals, and
visual signalling of single-letter signals as also specified in the International Code of Signals
Manoeuvre the ship
(Continued)
 MARITIME POLICY & MANAGEMENT 7

Table 1. Competences for navigation officers in operational role as listed in Table A-II/1 of STCW (IMO, 2011, 99–110)
KUP 33 Have knowledge of ship manoeuvring and handling, including knowledge of 1) the effects of deadweight, draught,
trim, speed and under-keel clearance on turning circles and stopping distances, 2) the effects of wind and current on ship
handling, 3) manoeuvres and procedures for the rescue of person overboard, 4) squat, shallow-water and similar effects, 5)
proper procedures for anchoring and mooring
Monitor the loading, stowage, securing, care during the voyage and the unloading of cargoes
KUP 34 Have knowledge of the effect of cargo, including heavy lifts, on the seaworthiness and stability of the ship
KUP 35 Have knowledge of safe handling, stowage and securing of cargoes, including dangerous, hazardous and harmful
cargoes, and their effect on the safety of life and of the ship
KUP 36 Ability to establish and maintain effective communications during loading and unloading
Inspect and report defects and damage to cargo spaces, hatch covers and ballast tanks
KUP 37 Have knowledge and ability to explain where to look for damage and defects most commonly encountered due to 1)
loading and unloading operations, 2) corrosion, 3) severe weather conditions
KUP 38 Ability to state which parts of the ship shall be inspected each time in order to cover all parts within a given period of
time
KUP 39 Ability to identify those elements of the ship structure which are critical to the safety of the ship
KUP 40 Ability to state the causes of corrosion in cargo spaces and ballast tanks and how corrosion can be identified and
prevented
KUP 41 Have knowledge of procedures on how the inspections shall be carried out
KUP 42 Ability to explain how to ensure reliable detection of defects and damages
KUP 43 Have understanding of the purpose of the ‘enhanced survey programme’
Ensure compliance with pollution prevention requirements
KUP 44 Have knowledge of the precautions to be taken to prevent pollution of the marine environment
KUP 45 Awareness of anti-pollution procedures and all associated equipment
KUP 46 Awareness of importance of proactive measures to protect the marine environment
Maintain seaworthiness of the ship
KUP 47 Have working knowledge and application of stability, trim and stress tables, diagrams and stress-calculating equipment
KUP 48 Have understanding of fundamental actions to be taken in the event of partial loss of intact buoyancy
KUP 49 Have understanding of the fundamentals of watertight integrity
KUP 50 Have general knowledge of the principal structural members of a ship and the proper names for the various parts
Prevent, control and fight fires onboard
KUP 51 Ability to organize fire drills
KUP 52 Have knowledge of classes and chemistry of fire
KUP 53 Have knowledge of fire-fighting systems
KUP 54 Have knowledge of action to be taken in the event of fire, including fires involving oil systems
Operate life-saving appliances
KUP 55 Ability to organize abandon ship drills and knowledge of the operation of survival craft and rescue boats, their
launching appliances and arrangements, and their equipment, including radio life-saving appliances, satellite EPIRBs, SARTs,
immersion suits and thermal protective aids
Apply medical first onboard ship
KUP 56 Awareness of the practical application of medical guides and advice by radio, including the ability to take effective
action based on such knowledge in the case of accidents or illnesses that are likely to occur on board ship
Monitor compliance with legislative requirements
KUP 57 Have basic working knowledge of the relevant IMO conventions concerning safety of life at sea, security and protection
of the marine environment
Application of leadership and teamworking skills
KUP 58 Have working knowledge of shipboard personnel management and training
KUP 59 Have knowledge of related international maritime conventions and recommendations, and national legislation
KUP 60 Ability to apply task and workload management, including 1) planning and co-ordination, 2) personnel assignment, 3)
time and resource constraints, 4) prioritization
KUP 61 Have knowledge and ability to apply effective resource management, including 1) allocation, assignment, and
prioritization of resources, 2) effective communication onboard and ashore, 3) decisions reflect consideration of team
experiences, 4) assertiveness and leadership, including motivation, 5) obtaining and maintaining situational awareness
KUP 62 Have knowledge and ability to apply decision-making techniques, including 1) situation and risk assessment, 2) identify
and consider generated options, 3) selecting course of action, 4) evaluation of outcome effectiveness
Contribute to the safety of personnel and ship
KUP 63 Have knowledge of personal survival techniques
KUP 64 Have knowledge of fire prevention and ability to fight and extinguish fires
KUP 65 Have knowledge of elementary first aid
KUP 66 Have knowledge of personal safety and social responsibilities

Extrapolating the trends in shipping and taking into account the continuous automation of
many functions onboard, some of the existing competence requirements listed above are bound to
8 A. SHARMA AND T.-E. KIM

become obsolete (Sharma et al. 2019; Kim and Mallam 2020). On the other hand, new competence
will be required to ensure the navigators are trained for the new job functions.
Furthermore, with gradual introduction of automation technologies onboard ships over the
years, many of the ship’s functions have already become automated. This has meant that ship
owners who are responsible for manning and maintenance of ship would feel suffice to reduce the
crew size, as crewing bears a significant cost in day-to-day ship operations (Stopford 2009).
However, this has also meant that there are less and less crew onboard performing the duties on
ships, but more information elements for the crew to process in a variety of operations. This has
contributed to increased cognitive load, and it has been documented that many accidents in
shipping have occurred not despite the presence of new technology but rather because of it
(Lützhöft and Dekker 2002). The skillsets such as creative thinking, resilience, communication,
leadership and management skills, as well as other cognitive and social skills have therefore become
increasingly desired in the ship crew, in addition to their updated technical knowledge.
In light of above, the list of competence themes for ship navigators in Table 1 and the important
cognitive and social skills as identified in the literature became the basis for designing a survey
instrument, which was utilized in data collection and interpretation process of the present study.

3. Methods
To adequately model the competence requirements for navigators engaged in Degree 2 MASS
operations, a mixed method approach was adopted. This consisted of a quantitative evaluation of
the existing STCW competence framework, and a qualitative exploration of future technical and
non-technical competencies navigators need to thrive in the era of autonomous shipping. The scope
of the study was narrowed down to only include the navigators in operational role and hypothe­
tically engaged in Degree 2 MASS operations scenario as illustrated in Figure 1. The IMO definition
of autonomous shipping was used as a reference in the survey due to the international profile of the
respondents. The aforementioned 66 KUPs in STCW 1978 as amended were converted into
measurement items in a survey, where respondents were asked to rate the extent to which they
think that autonomous shipping will impact on these KUPs and their requirement on a Likert scale
from 1 (Extremely important) to 5 (Not at all important). The text content of the KUPs were not
modified rather, the original text from STCW was followed in order to maintain the originality of
the requirements and validity concerns of the study. The questionnaire was digitalized using the
platform Qualtrics™, and the link was then sent out to respondents working on international
merchant shipping industry through non-random & purposive sampling approach using profes­
sional network. The respondents either consisted of active seafarers or individuals working within
shipping industry in some capacity. The collected data was exported from QualtricsTM in the form
of MS Excel Comma Separated Value (CSV) data file and was checked for blank and straight lining
responses as part of data cleaning and preparation process. 43 cases of blank and 1 case of straight
lining responses were found and consequently removed from dataset. A total number of 109 valid
responses out of 153 collected responses were therefore registered for the comprehensive ques­
tionnaire. Several demographic questions were also included at the end of the questionnaire to
facilitate the understanding of survey responses. The demographics data was collected for all the
respondents except 2 cases of missing values, where the respondents completed the actual survey
but erroneously left out the demographic information. The demographic characteristics of the
respondents are summarized in Table 2.
In addition, the respondents were also asked to rate the importance of non-technical skills as
identified in literature review about their relevance in Degree 2 autonomous operations. For this
purpose, a separate section for non-technical skills was added in the survey questionnaire. The non-
technical skills were further divided into cognitive and interpersonal (social) skills. Finally, an open-
ended avenue provided in the survey questionnaire enabled the respondents to register qualitative
responses about their opinion regarding which future technical and non-technical competencies
 MARITIME POLICY & MANAGEMENT 9

Table 2. Demographic characteristics of the respondents.

Range Frequency Percent
Industrial area Shipping company 75 70.0
Shipping management company 11 10.3
Maritime training institute/provider 13 12.3
Others 8 7.4
Shipping sectors Wet Bulk (Tanker sector) 57 53.3
Dry Bulk 8 7.4
Cargo Liners and Container Ships 20 18.7
Passenger Liners/Cruise Ships/Ferries 4 3.7
Other shipping sectors 18 16.9
Year of experience 0–5 years 68 63.5
6–10 14 13.1
11–15 7 6.5
+ 15 years 18 16.9

will be relevant. The survey utilized an anonymous link with no personal information being
collected. For the quantitative section, the collected responses were analysed using following soft­
ware and programs—SPSSTM and SmartPLSTM. The questionnaire was designed using ‘forced
responses’ function for the listed KUPs, so that there are no missing values and the respondents
had to complete all the answers before proceeding further. The overall research flow is illustrated in
the following Figure 2.
The collected responses were analysed using four modes of analysis: (1) Exploratory Factor
Analysis (EFA) (2) Measurement Model Assessment (3) Descriptive Statistics and (4) Thematic
Analysis. EFA is a multivariate statistical technique for quantitative analyses, which reduces the
large number of variables into smaller set of factors that represent the sets of correlated variables
(Kilner 2004; Tabachnick, Fidell, and Ullman 2007). EFA allows the researchers to undertake
parsimonious analysis, generate theory and also evaluate the construct validity of the measurement
instrument (Williams, Onsman, and Brown 2010). The data gathered regarding the evaluation of 66
KUPs were analysed using EFA to allow rigorous analysis for suitability and regrouping for Degree
2 MASS operations. Furthermore, the extracted factor structure from EFA was evaluated using
partial least squares structural equation modelling technique for measurement model assessment as
per the steps given by Hair et al (2019; 2020) to check for consistency, convergent and divergent
validity of the indicators.
The qualitative responses gathered through the open-ended section of the questionnaire was
subject to a detailed thematic analysis to identify the relevant themes. Braun and Clarke (2006, 79)
defined thematic analysis as ‘a method for identifying, analysing and reporting patterns (themes)
within data’. In this regard, a theme represents some level of ‘patterned’ response or meaning within
the dataset. The emerging competence themes were categorized and coded. After the coding of
emerging competence themes, only those not previously discussed in either STCW competence
framework regarding technical skills or in the reviewed literature associated with non-technical skill
requirements for navigators were qualified. As a result, any redundant competence theme was
excluded. Finally, the data gathered for non-technical skills was subjected to descriptive analyses to
better understand and visualize their relevancy as rated by the respondents.

4. Results
In accordance with described research framework, the results are reported in two parts. Part
A describes the results regarding suitability of existing STCW competence framework and the
requirement of novel technical skills obtained by EFA, measurement model assessment and
thematic analysis, whereas Part B describes the descriptive statistics regarding the requirement of
novel non-technical competence themes derived through thematic analysis.
10 A. SHARMA AND T.-E. KIM

4.1. Part-A
A Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was conducted on the 66 questionnaire items with varimax
rotation. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) value (.754), is above recommend value of 0.5 (Hair et al.
2006). Bartlett’s test of sphericity was also significant (p < 0.001), which indicates a good level of
sampling adequacy for the purpose of EFA. 28 KUPs out of 66 have obtained a score of < 2 from the
scale of 1 (Extremely important) to 5 (Not important at all), which indicated their high relevance for
Degree 2 MASS operations. The authors examined the factor loading of all items and removed the
items that did not loaded significantly (<0.5) on any of the major components. Several iterations
were run to determine the final factor structure. As given in the following Table 3, the final EFA has
given 11 factors with eigenvalue greater than 1, which explained 72.6% of the total variance.
Factor 1 represents the KUPs 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 & 15. Examining the individual KUPs and the original
theme as designated in Table 1, the derived competence theme was labelled as—Position fixing &
Watchkeeping. Factor 2 contained KUPs 38–42, which are originally belonging to the theme—
Inspect and report defects and damages to cargo spaces, hatch covers and the ballast tanks. Since all

Table 3. Results from Exploratory Factor Analysis (n= 109).

Factor Comm. Cronbach’s
No. Competence theme description Loading * α
1 Position fixing & Watchkeeping KUP 3 .800 .692 .830
KUP 2 .743 .718
KUP 1 .736 .705
KUP 6 .701 .646
KUP 15 .621 .712
KUP 7 .593 .665
2 Inspect and report defects and damages to cargo spaces, hatch covers KUP 40 .748 .747 .849
& ballast tanks KUP 39 .724 .712
KUP 41 .689 .724
KUP 42 .672 .712
KUP 38 .661 .600
3 Prevent, control and fight fires onboard KUP 52 .782 .820 .829
KUP 54 .777 .764
KUP 53 .776 .827
KUP 51 .620 .590
4 Contribute to safety of personnel and ship KUP 63 .780 .683 .851
KUP 65 .754 .735
KUP 64 .680 .747
KUP 66 .615 .683
5 Use of radar, ARPA and ECDIS to maintain safety of navigation KUP 24 .798 .711 .819
KUP 22 .738 .770
KUP 23 .706 .675
KUP 25 .667 .646
6 Application of leadership and teamworking skills KUP 61 .809 .772 .823
KUP 60 .741 .773
KUP 58 .678 .666
KUP 62 .629 .684
7 Ensure compliance with pollution prevention KUP 46 .884 .853 .880
KUP 45 .841 .832
KUP 44 .809 .788
8 Damage control and distress communication KUP 28 .812 .796 .753
KUP 27 .764 .717
KUP 29 .635 .642
9 Application of meteorological information in navigation KUP 11 .713 .758 .758
KUP 10 .697 .731
KUP 9 .612 .672
10 Reporting and communication KUP 31 .788 .782 .622
KUP 17 .762 .723
11 Manoeuvring and maintaining seaworthiness of ship KUP 33 .767 .774 .617
KUP 47 .686 .789
 MARITIME POLICY & MANAGEMENT 11

but 2 KUPs (37 & 43) were loaded on this factor, the original competence theme was retained after
evaluation from the authors.
Comm.* refers to communalities, which indicate the amount of the variance in the variable that
has been extracted by the factor solution. Varimax rotation performed to extract factors.
Factor 3 consisted of KUPs 51–54, which overlapped with the original competence theme titled
Prevent, control and fight fires onboard, therefore the original title was retained. Factor 4 is made up
of KUPs 63–66 and overlapped with the theme—Contribute to safety of personnel and ship, the
original competence theme title was retained. Factor 5 consisted of KUPs 22–25. It has partial
overlap with two competence themes, which are—Use of radar and ARPA to maintain safety of
navigation and Use of ECDIS to maintain safety of navigation. Upon examining the individual KUPs
that loaded on this factor, the competence theme was labelled as—Use of radar, ARPA and ECDIS to
maintain safety of navigation. Factor 6 contained the KUPs 58, 60, 61 & 62. They barring for 1 KUP
largely fall under the theme—Application of leadership & teamworking skills and the original
competence theme was retained. Factor 7 consisted of KUPs 44, 45 & 46. It had a perfect overlap
with the original competence theme—Ensure compliance with pollution prevention requirements
and the title was retained. Factor 8 consisted of KUPs 27, 28 & 29, which have an overlap between
two of the original themes, namely—Respond to emergencies and Respond to a distress signal at sea.
Upon examining the individual KUPs, the competence theme was renamed as—Damage control
and distress communication. Factor 9 consisted of KUPs 9, 10 & 11. After considering the individual
KUPs, the competence theme was named as—Application of meteorological information in naviga­
tion. Factor 10 contained KUPs 17 & 31. Upon examining the individual KUPs the competence
theme was labelled as—Reporting and Communication. Finally, Factor 11 consisted of KUP 33 & 47.
The competence theme was labelled as—Manoeuvring and maintaining seaworthiness of ship.
A reliability check for the synthesized factors was performed in SPSSTM using the score of
Cronbach’s alpha as a measure. Cronbach’s alpha score provides an indication of internal consis­
tency of the measurement i.e. to which extent the items in the instrument measure the same
construct (Tavakol and Dennick 2011). The overall Cronbach’s alpha for total scale was 0.923. The
Cronbach’s alpha for each individual competence theme is shown in Table 3.
For measurement model assessment which is confirmatory in nature, the software package
SmartPLSTM was utilized and the results were checked against the guidelines provided by Hair
et al. (2019) for reflexive measurement models regarding item loadings, internal consistency
reliability, convergent and divergent validity. The first step in reflexive model assessment pertains
to examining the indicator loadings. The following reflexive indicator loadings were obtained for
the measurement model which barring for two items (KUP 1 & 2) had values above the recom­
mended value of 0.708 as given in Table 4. These denote the indicator variance that is explained by
the extracted factor.
Subsequently, the Composite Reliability (CR) and the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) values
were calculated. The CR and AVE values for the factors in the measurement model are also
provided in Table 4. The CR values for the extracted factors were ranging between 0.828 and
0.925, considered ‘satisfactory to good’ as per the guidelines (Hair et al. 2019). The obtained
Average Variance Extracted (AVE) values, except Factor 1, were greater than recommended
threshold of 0.5 (Hair, Howard, and Nitzl 2020). Finally, the discriminant validity, using the
Fornell-Larcker criterion was calculated. As reported in Table 5, square root of each factor’s AVE
is more than the co-relation coefficient when compared with other factors, indicating the discri­
minant validity criterion is supported for the measurement model (Fornell and Larcker 1981).
Table 5. Discriminant validity
For exploring the new technical skill requirement not covered in the existing competence
framework, a section of questionnaire was dedicated to open-ended questions such as ‘What
technical competence or skills do you think would be important for future navigators?’ The
respondents were asked to describe in few sentences of their opinion regarding which skills
would be needed and reasons for the same. The qualitative responses were then analysed through
12 A. SHARMA AND T.-E. KIM

Table 4. Reflexive indicator loadings, CR and AVE of the measurement model.

No. Competence theme Indicators Loading CR AVE
1 Position fixing & Watchkeeping KUP 3 .733 .853 .498
KUP 2 .591
KUP 1 .508
KUP 6 .831
KUP 15 .785
KUP 7 .733
2 Inspect and report defects and damages to cargo spaces, hatch covers & ballast tanks KUP 40 .841 .894 .627
KUP 39 .747
KUP 41 .800
KUP 42 .821
KUP 38 .746
3 Prevent, control and fight fires onboard KUP 52 .884 .908 .712
KUP 54 .869
KUP 53 .860
KUP 51 .757
4 Contribute to safety of personnel and ship KUP 63 .718 .890 .670
KUP 65 .865
KUP 64 .874
KUP 66 .807
5 Use of radar, ARPA and ECDIS to maintain safety of navigation KUP 24 .820 .881 .649
KUP 22 .828
KUP 23 .819
KUP 25 .753
6 Application of leadership and teamworking skills KUP 61 .869 .879 .647
KUP 60 .844
KUP 58 .762
KUP 62 .733
7 Ensure compliance with pollution prevention KUP 46 .907 .925 .805
KUP 45 .913
KUP 44 .870
8 Damage control and distress communication KUP 28 .852 .864 .679
KUP 27 .793
KUP 29 .826
9 Application of meteorological information in navigation KUP 11 .878 .863 .678
KUP 10 .816
KUP 9 .773
10 Reporting and communication KUP 31 .887 .842 .728
KUP 17 .818
11 Manoeuvring and maintaining seaworthiness of ship KUP 33 .927 .828 .709
KUP 47 .749

iterative thematic coding. Any overlap with existing technical skills or competence themes was
discarded and only the unique themes emerging were retained in the analysis. These emerging
themes were labelled as the ‘additional technical skills’ the future navigators will require in addition
to the already existing ones as listed in the STCW framework.
In the obtained qualitative responses provided by the respondents, the results indicated that the
increasing automation would mean that the future seafarers or navigators should be well versed
with relevant IT skills that could facilitate the operations onboard. The respondents described that
the elementary knowledge regarding coding, and comprehension of machine learning algorithms
will be necessary for the future navigators due to the presence of numerous intelligent decision
support systems. The respondents also added that due to further advancement towards engine
room automation, it might be the case that the crew compliment onboard is further reduced, and
the navigators are also trained for engine room operations or for a basic knowledge thereof
contributing to the development of a new hybrid role with equal competence requirement for
both navigation and engine operations. Due to potential introduction of complex electronic
equipment, a separate competence theme addressing the elementary fault finding and troubleshoot­
ing aspects will be necessary to ensure smooth functioning of major operational equipment
onboard.
 MARITIME POLICY & MANAGEMENT 13

Further, the advent of integrated systems on ships will mean that the navigators or the remote-
control operators are well versed with knowledge regarding instrumentation & control and opera­
tion of diverse types of sensors as well as their limitations. Lastly, the importance of managing risks
when abnormal situation arises due to failure/deviance of system and expertise in cyber security will
be paramount in day-to-day operations for autonomous ships.
In summary, five major novel technical competence themes emerged during the thematic
analysis, namely—IT skills, safety & security management skills, knowledge regarding engine room
operations, electronic equipment and system integration. The new technical competence themes are
highlighted using the thematic map as illustrated in Figure 3.

4.2. Part-B
The second part of the survey recorded the data regarding the relative importance of listed cognitive
and social skills in the reviewed literature under Degree 2 MASS operations. With respect to the
non-technical skills, there were relatively few measurement items and each of them received
identical scores. Therefore, along with the scores, a measure of proportion was employed to identify
which skills are relatively important among the listed. With regards to the cognitive skills, the ability
to maintain adequate situational awareness obtained the score of 1.90 (most important) also with
a proportion of 34.2% which was the highest proportion for extremely important category. For the
purpose of visualization of this data, Figure 4 illustrates the summative evaluation of 109 responses
on each of the cognitive skills.
For social skills, the ability to take leadership initiatives received a score of 1.95 and the highest
proportion of respondents marking it as extremely important—37.5%. Majority of the respondents
termed the required social skills as either ‘Very important’ or ‘Extremely important’. This was also
found to be the case for aforementioned cognitive skills. For the purpose of visualization of this
data, Figure 5 illustrates the summative evaluation of 109 responses on each of the social skills.
For the non-technical skills, an exploratory question—What non-technical competence or skills
do you think would be important for future navigators? was included in the survey questionnaire to
identify competence themes in addition to the ones contained in the questionnaire. As a result, five
major themes emerged with regard to cognitive skills namely—non-routine problem solving, ability

Figure 3. Additional technical skill relevant for autonomous operations.

14 A. SHARMA AND T.-E. KIM

Figure 4. Descriptive statistics for cognitive skills.

for self-regulation, critical thinking, mental readiness and systemic thinking. Similarly, for social
skills, three major themes such as—ability to establish trust in teams, ability to adapt to cultural
differences and negotiation skills emerged. These emerged themes were labelled as ‘additional non-
technical skills’ for the navigators. The respondents claimed that the due to increased automation
and possible reduction to bare-minimum crew members, considerable emphasis to cultivation of
non-technical skills is required. This could entail a relatively small team of seafarers onboard or one
remote control center tackling many operations related to ship.
In this regard, skills such as self-regulation, critical thinking and non-routine problem solving
are particularly important as indicated by the respondents. Further, it was described by the

Figure 5. Descriptive statistics for social skills.

 MARITIME POLICY & MANAGEMENT 15

respondents that due to unanticipated situations arising due to hidden properties and interaction
between various components within the system, navigators of the future will need to demonstrate
considerable mental readiness for handling complex situations and systemic thinking skills. With
regards to the existing international nature of shipping industry, characteristics such as ability to
earn trust, negotiation and awareness regarding cultural difference between individuals were
termed as some of the important social skills to possess. The newly emerged non-technical
competence themes are highlighted in a thematic map as illustrated in Figure 6.

5. Discussion
The existing shipping regulations need to be revised or updated in light of the developments taking
place with respect to autonomous shipping globally, otherwise they may form a self-limiting
regulatory barrier for introduction and adoption of autonomous shipping. The present study
intended to target these aspects of autonomous shipping and facilitate improved understanding
of regulatory changes that may be required.
The results derived from analysis provided an insight towards competence requirements for
Degree 2 MASS operations and suitability of existing STCW competence framework. As illu­
strated in the EFA results (Part A), some of the original competence themes were still deemed
necessary in the era of autonomous shipping. This to a certain extent is expected as Degree 2
MASS operations, though represents further advancement in ship operations and many ship­
board functions, still doesn’t amount to ‘crew-less’ operations. Degree 2 MASS operations, is the
next step in the continuum of autonomy leading to completely autonomous ships. Consistent
with the definition of Degree 2 MASS operations, the seafarers, are still present onboard to take
control if necessary (IMO 2018). However, their roles and as a result, the competence require­
ment are indicated as more towards supervisory functions and emergency response. This is
indicated by the fact that the individual items such as KUP 26 Ability to take precautions for
the protection and safety of passengers in emergency situations and KUP 27 Ability to take initial
actions following a collision or a grounding; received the lowest score (most important)—1.48 and
1.51, respectively, in the survey. Some new competence themes as a result of covariance in
relevant KUPs also occurred. Emergent competence themes such as—Position fixing & watch­
keeping and Damage control and distress communication among others provide such examples.
Several competence themes such as—Application of leadership & teamworking skills and Ensure
compliance with pollution prevention remain relevant. Correspondingly, a modified set of KUPs
will be needed to be established in the future for adequately addressing training requirements for
different levels of autonomous operations.
The emergent competence themes as derived in Table 3 along with the novel competence themes
as illustrated in Figure 3 together address the technical skills as required from future seafarers
engaged in Degree 2 MASS operations. There is a marked trend with shift of emphasis from
navigational functions that are projected to be automated with time, towards other aspects of ship
operations. In this regard, Wróbel, Montewka, and Kujala (2017) had also remarked that with
increase in automation onboard, navigational risks such as collision and grounding might decrease
and non-navigational risks such as fire, flooding etc will increase. The increased automation and
digitalization onboard vessels will introduce vulnerabilities in addition to mere safety. It has
increasingly been recognized that merchant ships are becoming susceptible for cyber-attacks.
Jones, Tam, and Papadaki (2016) provided scenarios and pointed out the potential weaknesses of
various bridge equipment such as ECDIS, GPS, AIS etc. In this regard, the presence of human crew
onboard becomes the first line of defence, training and instilling skills for detecting and responding
to cyber-attack is relevant for future autonomous operations.
A considerable number of respondents also stressed the importance of acquisition of non-
technical skills for autonomous operations. According to Ahvenjärvi (2016), the obvious strength
of human element in these complex systems onboard will be their flexibility and creativity.
16 A. SHARMA AND T.-E. KIM

Figure 6. Additional non-technical skills relevant for autonomous operations.

Therefore, adequate exploration regarding non-technical skills in maritime operations and training
measures to support them need to be recognized. The qualitative data has indicated that future
navigators should engage in systemic thinking competence. This is somehow anticipated as the
future systems with deployment of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and automation technologies would
mean that the systems will become more and more complex with increasing invisible interactions. It
is paramount for the crews onboard to be able to have a holistic and systemic understanding of the
systems and its interactions, to be able to comprehend the complexity, to evaluate the interrelations
of sub-systems and to subsequently generate the best decisions and course of actions. Furthermore,
effective leadership, which is an important element for safe operation today will play an increasingly
important role in the autonomous era in order to effectively handle the ship in both normal and
abnormal situations. Good leadership correlates with good safety performance, the decisions,
attitudes and behaviours of leaders at all organizational levels shape the safety culture and working
environment which determines the end results (Flin and Yule 2004; Kim and Gausdal 2017). In the
era of autonomous shipping where information flow will determine the decisions and directions, in
which ways shipping company and its management could effectively take advantage of the auto­
mation technology for safe, reliable and efficient ship operations is a topic worthy of further
investigation.
Several limitations of the present research need to be mentioned. First of all, the sample size can
be increased to enhance validity and generalizability of the results. Further, challenges with respect
to subjectivity can be listed even after rigorous data analysis process conducted, since both labelling
the extracted factors during EFA process as well as labelling of competence themes from thematic
analysis are subjective in nature. These limitations mean that the results derived should be
considered preliminary and further exploration with greater sample size is needed. Future research
should be directed in examining the suitability of other competence requirements stipulated in
STCW (e.g., Table A-II/2) as well as for roles within other departments in merchant shipping sector
such as marine engineer officers. Such investigation carried out by different stakeholders could aid
the revision and integration of changes that will be required for the STCW Convention and its
associated Code to prepare competent seafarers for the dynamically evolving nature of autonomous
shipping.

6. Conclusion and policy implications

Implementation of autonomous shipping technologies has the potential for enhancing safety,
efficiency and sustainability performance of maritime industry. However, the regulatory framework
for autonomous operations and the investigation for role of human element is in its initial stages.
Modelling competences and anticipating the future competence for navigators or operators under
plausible autonomous shipping scenarios could be the first stage in preparing for the challenges and
opportunities autonomous shipping offers.
 MARITIME POLICY & MANAGEMENT 17

Through quantitative and qualitative analysis of a representative sample from the global ship­
ping industry, the suitability of existing STCW competence requirements as well as the new
competence themes that will be required under manned and remotely controlled MASS operations
were presented in this research. Among the original 66 KUP items, 26 of them were rated by the
respondents to be considered as less relevant for future navigators. The 11 competence themes
emerged through the statistical analysis, together with the social and cognitive skills derived from
the thematic analysis, can be considered as the reference for reskilling of future navigators. The
results may contribute to the existing discussions regarding the revision of the STCW convention
and its associated codes, in particular the STCW Table A-II/1 to facilitate the preparation and
implementation of novel training frameworks for autonomous shipping. The research could aid the
curriculum design in MET institutions to equip the trainees with updated skillset for safe and
efficient operations. Future research should be directed at investigating the competence require­
ments for various roles involved in MASS operations.

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the support and feedback from the Norwegian national joint PhD program in
nautical operations and the Korea Institute of Maritime and Fisheries Technology. This article is a revised and
extended research work of a short conference paper entitled Catching up with time? Examining the STCW
competence framework for autonomous shipping, previously presented at Ergoship 2019 conference at
Haugesund, Norway, 24th-25th September. Copyright permission has been obtained from the conference organiza­
tion to publish at Maritime Policy & Management.

ORCID
T. Kim http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9339-2933

References
Ahvenjärvi, S. 2016. “The Human Element and Autonomous Ships.” TransNav, the International Journal on Marine
Navigation and Safety of Sea Transportation 10 (3): 517–522. doi:10.12716/1001.10.03.18.
Barnett, M., D. Gatfield, and C. Pekcan. 2003. “A Research Agenda in Maritime Crew Resource Management.” Paper
presented at International Conference on Team Resource Management in the 21st Century. USA, October 23–24.
Barsan, E., R. Hanzu-Pazara, and P. Arsenie. 2007. “New Navigation Competencies Required for an Updated STCW
Convention.” Pomorstvo 21 (2): 151–161.
Brandsæter, A., and K. Knutsen. 2018. “Towards a Framework for Assurance of Autonomous Navigation Systems in
the Maritime Industry.” In Safety and Reliability–Safe Societies in a Changing World, edited by A. Barros, C. Van
Gulijik, S. Haugen, J. Erik Vinnem, and T. Kongsvik, 449–457. New York, USA: CRC press.
Braun, V., and V. Clarke. 2006. “Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology.” Qualitative Research in Psychology 3 (2):
77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
Burke, R., and C. Clott. 2016. “Technology, Collaboration, and the Future of Maritime Education.” Paper presented at
RINA Education & Professional Development of Engineers in the maritime industry conference, Singapore,
September 20–21.
Emad, G. R., M. Khabir, and M. Shahbakhsh. “Shipping 4.0 And Training Seafarers for the Future Autonomous and
Unmanned Ships” Paper presented at 21st Marine Industries ConfereBraunnce. Iran, 1–2 January 2020.
Emad, G. R., and W. M. Roth. 2008. “Contradictions in the Practices of Training for and Assessment of Competency:
A Case Study from the Maritime Domain.” Education + Training 50 (3): 260–272. doi:10.1108/
00400910810874026.
Endsley, M. R., and E. O. Kiris. 1995. “The Out-of-the-Loop Performance Problem and Level of Control in
Automation.” Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 37 (2): 381–394.
doi:10.1518/001872095779064555.
Fjeld, G. P., S. D. Tvedt, and H. Oltedal. 2018. “Bridge Officers’ Non-technical Skills: A Literature Review.” WMU
Journal of Maritime Affairs 17 (4): 475–495. doi:10.1007/s13437-018-0158-z.
Flin, R. 2004. “Leadership for Safety: Industrial Experience.” Quality and Safety in Health Care 13 (suppl_2): 45–51.
doi:10.1136/qshc.2003.009555.
18 A. SHARMA AND T.-E. KIM

Fornell, C., and D. F. Larcker. 1981. “Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and
Measurement Error.” Journal of Marketing Research 18 (1): 39–50. doi:10.1177/002224378101800104.
Hair, J. F., J. J. Risher, M. Sarstedt, and C. M. Ringle. 2019. “When to Use and How to Report the Results of
PLS-SEM.” European Business Review 31 (1): 2–24. doi:10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203.
Hair, J. F., M. C. Howard, and C. Nitzl. 2020. “Assessing Measurement Model Quality in PLS-SEM Using
Confirmatory Composite Analysis.” Journal of Business Research 109 (1): 101–110. doi:10.1016/j.
jbusres.2019.11.069.
Hair, J. F., W. C. Black, B. J. Babin, R. E. Anderson, and R. L. Tatham. 2006. Multivariate Data Analysis. New Jersey:
Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River.
Hetherington, C., R. Flin, and K. Mearns. 2006. “Safety in Shipping: The Human Element.” Journal of Safety Research
37 (4): 401–411. doi:10.1016/j.jsr.2006.04.007.
Hoffmann, T. 1999. “The Meanings of Competency.” Journal of European Industrial Training 23 (6): 275–286.
doi:10.1108/03090599910284650.
ICS (International Chamber of Shipping). 2019. “Shipping and World Trade” International Chamber of Shipping
Accessed 17 June. http://www.ics-shipping.org/shipping-facts/shipping-and-world-trade
IMO (International Maritime Organization). 2011. International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification
and Watchkeeping for Seafarers. Including the 2010 Manilla Amendments. London: IMO.
IMO (International Maritime Organization). Working Group Report in 100th Session of IMO Maritime Safety
Committee for the Regulatory Scoping Exercise for the Use of Maritime Autonomous Surface Ships (MASS). IMO
Document MSC 100/WP.8. Dated December 7th 2018. IMO: London
Jones, K. D., K. Tam, and M. Papadaki. 2016. “Threats and Impacts in Maritime Cyber Security.” Engineering &
Technology Reference 1 (1): 1–13. doi:10.1049/etr.2015.0123.
Kilner, T. 2004. “Educating the Ambulance Technician, Paramedic, and Clinical Supervisor: Using Factor Analysis to
Inform the Curriculum.” Emergency Medicine Journal 21 (3): 379–385. doi:10.1136/emj.2003.009605.
Kim, T.-E., A. Sharma, A. H. Gausdal, and C.-J. Chae. 2019. “Impact of automation Technology on Gender Parity in
Maritime Industry.” WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs 18 (4): 579–593. doi:10.1007/s13437-019-00176-w.
Kim, T.-E., and A. H. Gausdal. 2017. “Leading for Safety: A Weighted Safety Leadership Model in Shipping.”
Reliability Engineering & System Safety 165: 458–466. doi:10.1016/j.ress.2017.05.002.
Kim, T.-E., and S. Mallam. 2020. “A Delphi-AHP Study on STCW Leadership Competence in the Age of
Autonomous Maritime Operations.” WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs 19 (2): 163–181. doi:10.1007/s13437-
020-00203-1.
Kim, T.-E., S. Nazir, and K. I. Øvergård. 2016. “A STAMP-based Causal Analysis of the Korean Sewol Ferry
Accident.” Safety Science 83: 93–101. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2015.11.014.
Kitada, M., M. Baldauf, A. Mannov, P. A. Svendsen, R. Baumler, J. U. Schröder-Hinrichs, and K. Lagdami. 2018.
“Command of Vessels in the Era of Digitalization.” Paper presented at The International Conference on Applied
Human Factors and Ergonomics, Orlando, USA, July 21–25.
Lewarn, B. 2002. “Seafarer Training – Does the System Defeat Competence?”, Paper presented at the 3rd General
Assembly of International Association of Maritime Universities, Rockport, Maine, USA, September 23–26.
Lützhöft, M. H., and S. W. Dekker. 2002. “On Your Watch: Automation on the Bridge.” The Journal of Navigation 55
(1): 83–96. doi:10.1017/S0373463301001588.
Mace, N. L. 2005. Teaching Dementia Care: Skill and Understanding. Baltimore, USA: JHU Press.
Mallam, S. C., S. Nazir, and A. Sharma. 2020. “The Human Element in Future Maritime Operations – Perceived
Impact of Autonomous Shipping.” Ergonomics 63 (3): 334–345. doi:10.1080/00140139.2019.1659995
Mokashi, A. J., J. Wang, and A. K. Vermar. 2002. “A Study of Reliability-centred Maintenance in Maritime
Operations.” Marine Policy 26 (5): 325–335. doi:10.1016/S0308-597X(02)00014-3.
Morrison, W. S. G. 1997. Competent Crews = Safer Ships—An Aid to Understanding STCW 95. Malmö: WMU
Publications.
O’Connor, P. 2011. “Assessing the Effectiveness of Bridge Resource Management Training.” The International
Journal of Aviation Psychology 21 (4): 357–374. doi:10.1080/10508414.2011.606755.
Parsons, J., and C. Allen. 2018. “The History of Safety Management.” In Managing Maritime Safety, edited by
H. A. Oltedal and M. Lützhöft, 16–31, Oxfordshire, UK: Routledge.
Porathe, T., J. Prison, and Y. Man.“Situation Awareness in Remote Control Centres for Unmanned Ships”, Paper
presented at RINA Human Factors in Ship Design & Operation, London, UK, 26–27 February 2014.
Schröder-Hinrichs, J. U., E. Hollnagel, M. Baldauf, S. Hoffman, and A. Kataria. 2013. “Maritime Human Factors and
IMO Policy.” Maritime Policy & Management 40 (3): 243–260. doi:10.1080/03088839.2013.782974.
Sharma, A., T.-E. Kim, S. Nazir, and C. J. Chae. 2019. “Catching up with Time? Examining the Schröder-Hinrichs,
J. U., E. Hollnagel and M. Baldauf. 2012. “From Titanic to Costa Concordia-a Century of Lessons Not Learned.”
WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs 11 (2): 151–167. doi:10.1007/s13437-012-0032-3.
Smythe, A., C. Jenkins, P. Bentham, and J. Oyebode. 2014. “Development of a Competency Framework for
a Specialist Dementia Service.” The Journal of Mental Health Training, Education and Practice 9 (1): 59–68.
doi:10.1108/JMHTEP-08-2012-0024.
 MARITIME POLICY & MANAGEMENT 19

Stevenson, A. 2010. Oxford Dictionary of English. USA: Oxford University Press.

Stopford, M. 2009. Maritime Economics. London: Routledge.
Tabachnick, B. G., L. S. Fidell, and J. B. Ullman. 2007. Using Multivariate Statistics. USA: Pearson.
Tavakol, M., and R. Dennick. 2011. “Making Sense of Cronbach’s Alpha.” International Journal of Medical Education
2 (1): 53–55. doi:10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd.
Vathanophas, V., and J. Thai-ngam. 2007. “Competency Requirements for Effective Job Performance in the Thai
Public Sector.” Contemporary Management Research 3 (1): 45–70. doi:10.7903/cmr.49.
Williams, B., A. Onsman, and T. Brown. 2010. “Exploratory Factor Analysis: A Five-step Guide for Novices.”
Australasian Journal of Paramedicine 8 (3): 90–103. doi:10.33151/ajp.8.3.93.
Woodruff, C. 1993. “What Is Meant by a Competency?.” Leadership and Organization Development Journal 14 (1):
29–36. doi:10.1108/eb053651.
Wright, R. G. 2020. Unmanned and Autonomous Ships: An Overview of MASS. USA: Routledge.
Wróbel, K., J. Montewka, and P. Kujala. 2017. “Towards the Assessment of Potential Impact of Unmanned Vessels on
Maritime Transportation Safety.” Reliability Engineering & System Safety 165 (1): 155–169. doi:10.1016/j.
ress.2017.03.029.
Yule, S., R. Flin, S. Paterson-Brown, N. Maran, and D. Rowley. 2006. “Development of a Rating System for Surgeons’
Non-technical Skills.” Medical Education 40 (11): 1098–1104. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02610.x.

View publication stats

Article 2
Sharma, A., & Nazir, S. (2021). Assessing technology self-efficacy of maritime instructors: An
explorative study. Education Sciences. 11 (1), 342-356. DOI: 10.3390/educsci11070342
 education
sciences
Article
Assessing the Technology Self-Efficacy of Maritime Instructors:
An Explorative Study
Amit Sharma * and Salman Nazir

Training and Assessment Research Group (TARG), Department of Maritime Operations, University of
South-Eastern, Borre P.O. Box 4 3199, Norway; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: Maritime Education and Training (MET) is an integral part of the global maritime industry,
playing an essential role in ensuring that the sector is supplied continuously with a skilled workforce.
The successful outcomes of the educational content delivery in MET institutes depend, to a certain
extent, on the maritime instructor’s ability to create conducive learning environments utilizing
all of the resources available. The self-efficacy of maritime instructors in various facets, most
notably their proficiency with the use of technology in classrooms, can lead to the introduction of
transformative learning practices. Accurately measuring their self-reported technological proficiency
could be the initial step in this direction. This study aimed to measure the self-reported technology
proficiency of maritime instructors using an established and validated scale: Technology Proficiency
Self-Assessment for the 21st century (TPSA-C21). The scale was administered, using an online survey,
to a sample of MET instructors within Europe and the UK, with n = 62 valid responses received.
Using descriptive statistics and the evaluation of the measurement model, the study highlighted



the perceived level of proficiency of the MET instructors along dimensions such as email, world-


wide web use, emerging tools, teaching with technology, integrated applications, and teaching with
Citation: Sharma, A.; Nazir, S. emerging technologies. The survey also measured the perceived level of technology integration
Assessing the Technology for maritime instructors according to the Concerned-Based Adoption Model–Level of Use (CBAM–
Self-Efficacy of Maritime Instructors:
LoU) classification. The results indicate a potential area of improvement for maritime instructors
An Explorative Study. Educ. Sci. 2021,
with regard to their self-reported proficiency, namely in the dimension of teaching with emerging
11, 342. https://doi.org/10.3390/
technology. The implications for the MET domain, the respondent demographics and the future
educsci11070342
research directions are discussed.
Academic Editors: Charlott Sellberg
and Eleanor Dommett
Keywords: maritime education and training; maritime pedagogy; TPSA-C21; self-efficacy

Received: 1 June 2021

Accepted: 8 July 2021
Published: 12 July 2021 1. Introduction
Maritime Education and Training has been referred to as one of the six pillars of the
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral global maritime industry by the International Maritime Organization [1]. The maritime
with regard to jurisdictional claims in industry plays an indispensable role in the global economy, and enables trade and the
published maps and institutional affil- movement of goods and services across various continents. The European region has his-
iations. torically been recognized as influential in the maritime industry due to the presence of key
maritime clusters in the region, which have traditionally facilitated knowledge exchange,
collaboration, research, and the development of maritime technology [2]. About 43,000
ships ply the European waters alone; they are instrumental in the transport of valuable
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. goods and passengers, and in the value creation and sustainable solutions in the supply
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. chain of the region [3]. The availability of technical capital in the region has also been si-
This article is an open access article multaneously linked with the presence of human capital itself, with maritime professionals
distributed under the terms and and seafarers providing the knowledge and experience for the operations. The availability
conditions of the Creative Commons of this relevant human capital is supported by the well-established Maritime Education
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
and Training (MET) institutes in the region. There are numerous MET universities and
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
vocational MET institutes in Europe (and the UK) [4], providing various courses and
4.0/).

Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 342. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11070342 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/education

Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 342 2 of 14

programs for competence development, the fulfilment of the regulatory requirements, and
research and development in the maritime sector.
The operational environment related to the maritime domain has evolved steadily
over the years. From isolated floating workspaces with labour-intensive working arenas,
ships have transformed into valuable assets which are linked using Information and
Communication Technologies (ICTs) to the larger supply chain involved in the movement
of goods [5]. Many modern ship operations are managed or assisted via shore offices at
present. A parallel trend has been replacement of many functions onboard with automation,
with crew members primarily supervising the performance of the automation agents.
Correspondingly, the crew size has shown a trend of reduction, along with a change in
their skillsets and competence requirements. Many researchers have addressed these
developments, with commentary on the need for ICT skills training for contemporary
seafarers [6,7] along with the need to balance the academic aspects of MET with the
predominant vocational aspects [8].
The technological innovations of the 21st century are leading us towards changes in
the dynamics of education and its delivery globally. The advancements in Information
and Communication Technologies (ICTs) have resulted in the availability of educational
solutions that enable the ubiquitous delivery of content and novel opportunities for com-
munication and collaboration when engaging with that content. The maritime domain has
also adopted modern ICTs and developments in the learning sciences through the use of
distance learning, simulator-based learning, e-learning and other initiatives [9,10]. Some
other emerging trends that hold substantial potential for Maritime Education and Training
are Artificial Intelligence and Virtual/Augmented Reality [7,11]. However, the utilization
of any technology or its integration into classrooms, to a certain extent, depends upon the
teachers and instructors, who are typically responsible for achieving the learning objectives
set out in the educational programs [12]. Even though we have seen a considerable increase
in the use of distributed learning solutions in recent years, traditional hierarchical learning
solutions—in which the training and education are facilitated in an established institution
and mediated by instructors—are still relevant for a majority of maritime operations.
Technology integration in the classroom can be generally defined as the use of tech-
nological resources such as personal computers, laptops, smart phones, tablets, and other
devices with or without internet support for carrying out activities related to the learning
and assessment. Davies and West [13] (p. 843) gave a more formal definition as “the
effective implementation of educational technology to accomplish learning outcomes”.
Educational technology itself can be any tool or device, whether electronic or mechanical,
that can be used for achieving the intended learning goals. In the learning sciences, various
models of technology integration for classrooms have been proposed over the past several
years [14]. The models for technology integration can further be divided into the models
that focus on the removal of barriers that hinder the use of ICTs in the classrooms [15] and
the models that focus on the personal skill set of the instructors and their proficiency with
the ICTs [16].
The arguments in support of technology integration are numerous, the most promi-
nent being the need for the cultivation of 21st century skills, such as communication,
collaboration, critical thinking and creativity, etc. [17,18]. The possession of such a skillset
is thought to be a requirement for a generic worker in any socio-technical system, including
the maritime domain [19], in which human and automation agents work in tandem with
close and continuous collaboration. As Artificial Intelligence and Digitalization make
further inroads in the maritime domain, it will require a reimagination of the operational
processes, with the automation agents taking over most of the redundant and repetitive
tasks, whereas the human operators are expected to be able to augment their creative and
reasoning abilities to enhance the system performance and ensure safe outcomes [11]. Such
a change, although gradual, can be expected to take place in the coming years. It would
require an appropriate response from the researchers and practitioners associated with the
MET community to ensure that the seafarers are ready to face technological challenges
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 342 3 of 14

through the possession of appropriate skills and competencies. In addition, the current
pandemic of COVID-19 has also put constraints on the infrastructure of MET institutes. The
pandemic has necessitated the adoption of measures to ensure that remote and e-learning
measures are in place to continue the training and assessment of maritime trainees. Here,
the maritime instructors, who are responsible for the education of future seafarers, play
a crucial role. The maritime instructors who are responsible for instilling the required
competencies to the maritime trainees use various instructional tools and resources to
ensure the satisfactory transfer of knowledge in the classrooms and simulators [20,21].
The ongoing changes in the learning environment related to the use of a variety of digital
affordances and existing infrastructure put the focus on the resources made available to
the maritime instructors and their self-perceived efficacy in their use.
In light of above, the primary research objective for this study is to assess the tech-
nology self-efficacy of the maritime instructors. Utilizing a validated scale to measure the
self-reported technological proficiency of the maritime instructors could aid in mapping
and identifying areas of possible improvement. In this paper, we utilize the Technology
Proficiency Self-Assessment for the 21st Century (TPSA-C21) questionnaire for the mea-
surement of the self-reported technological proficiency of maritime instructors from a
selection of MET institutes in Europe and the UK. In the subsequent sections, first, a brief
review of the associated terms and literature is carried out. The context of the present study
is also elaborated upon. Furthermore, the methods for conducting the data collection and
analysis are described. This is followed by a description of the obtained research results
from the study and discussions highlighting the contribution, limitations and potential
areas of future research.

2. Context and Literature Review

The maritime industry depends on certain factors to ensure safe outcomes in day-to-
day operations, with one of them being a qualified and skilled workforce. The elemental
function of the maritime industry is to transport goods and services across the globe. It
employs high value assets, i.e., ships, towards this end, which are manned by seafarers.
The International Maritime Organization (IMO), through the Standards of Training, Certifi-
cation and Watchkeeping (STCW) regulations, aim to ensure standardization in seafarer’s
qualifications for all of the signatory member states. According to the European Maritime
Safety Agency, about 210,000 masters and officers are working on ships that possess a valid
Certificate of Competency (CoC) issued by an EU member state [22]. In order to possess
a valid CoC and other mandatory certificates following the provisions of the STCW, the
seafarers have to undergo various stipulated courses in an approved Maritime Education
and Training (MET) institute. MET institutes, therefore, make an important contribution
towards ensuring the supply of a skilled workforce for the maritime industry. As there
has been a steady demand for skilled and qualified seafarers for the maritime industry
over the decades [23], and given the fact that many of these certifications often also require
periodic renewals, the MET institutes have a dynamic and evolving role to perform. The
STCW regulations have been revised in the past to keep up with the changing workplace
environment and, as a consequence, competence requirements within the maritime indus-
try [11]. This has been the case with MET institutes and the modes of educational content
delivery [24]. The MET institutes not only need to possess adequate infrastructure to
utilize various modes of educational content delivery; there is also a need for the maritime
instructors to continuously update their pedagogical profile and explore the use of digital
technologies. STCW regulation I/6 stipulates that the person responsible for conducting
courses that lead up to the issuance of a certificate for a seafarer should also be adequately
qualified. As a response, the IMO came up with Model Course 6.09 “Train the Trainer”
and 6.10 “Train the simulator trainer and assessor”, which, amongst other things, focus on
the role of instructor, the learning process, the design of the training program, and the use
of teaching aids. The development of a pedagogical profile and continuous professional
development of maritime instructors are therefore deemed important for the maritime
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 342 4 of 14

industry. The instructors should feel sufficiently confident in their own ability to utilize the
technological tools available to them to impart lessons pertaining to the courses.
Technology integration has received increasing attention in the studies related to
educational sciences in recent years. This can be partly ascribed to the increasing availability
of digital tools in educational content design and delivery [25]. Whereas the use of any
technological tool does not guarantee the better transfer of training, it does transform the
nature of the educational delivery [26]. Some of the ICT tools can increase the instructor’s
outreach and improve their efficiency if utilized properly. Instructors engaged in vocational
education and training are increasingly adopting novel modes of educational content
delivery to improve the learning outcomes for the educational programs [27,28]. Various
studies have pointed to the fact that the use of technological tools by the instructors in
the classrooms depends on their self-efficacy towards them [29,30]. Self-efficacy, in simple
terms, can be defined as the belief of an individual that the task he or she is performing
will lead to the desired outcomes. Self-efficacy as a concept has underpinnings in Social
Cognitive Theory [31]. Bandura [32] stated that self-efficacy could be a good predictor of
a behavior. It is also termed as one of the factors that influences the effectiveness of the
teaching [33].
Measuring and improving self-efficacy in the use of technological tools for the in-
structors can therefore help in their capacity development. In this regard, Christensen
and Knezeck [34] argue that the ability to integrate 21st century technology for learning
and proficiency in the use of these technologies has a vital role in modern educational
institutions. They proposed a validated instrument known as the Technology Proficiency
Self-Assessment for the 21st Century (TPSA-C21) for the measurement of self-reported
self-efficacy scores for the instructors, with reference to the prominent technological tools
adopted in the contemporary classrooms. The theoretical underpinnings of the scale were
discussed by Christensen and Knezeck (p. 312, [35]); they stated that it is grounded in the
concept of “Self-efficacy”, which they defined as “confidence in one’s competence”. The
scale was adapted from the earlier version of the instrument, known as the Technology
Proficiency Self-Assessment (TPSA), which was developed by Ropp [36]. It has previously
been used by [37] to measure confidence in integrating technology into classrooms in the
USA, and by [38] as a measure which was further correlated with the age, gender and
subject area of the respondents. The original TPSA scale measured technology proficiency
in four dimensions, i.e., using electronic mail (Email), using the world wide web (WWW),
using technology applications, and proficiency in teaching with technology [39]. After
reviewing the performance of the scale and taking into account the recent developments,
two more dimensions of technological proficiency, namely emerging tools and teaching
with emerging technologies, were included in the scale by Christensen and Knezeck [34].
The six sub scales, along with their definitions, are described below:
• Email: the ability to send a document as an attachment to an email message.
• WWW: the ability to find the primary resources of information on the internet that
can be used in teaching.
• Emerging tools: the ability to save and retrieve files from a cloud-based environment.
• Teaching with technology: the ability to use technology to collaborate with teachers or
students who are distant from the classroom.
• Integrated applications: the ability to use a spreadsheet to create a bar graph of the
proportions of different colours.
• Teaching with emerging technologies: the ability to teach in a one-to-one environment
in which the students have their own devices.
These six sub-scales, taken together, aim to provide a measure of the technology
proficiency of the instructors. The instrument can also be used to compare groups of
instructors, or to carry out a longitudinal study on the same group of instructors to measure
any change due to training interventions. Accurately measuring the technology self-efficacy
of the MET instructors can be the first step in identifying their training requirements and
the need for policy interventions, if any. To the best of our knowledge, the quantitative
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 342 5 of 14

assessment of self-reported technology proficiency or technology self-efficacy for maritime

instructors in the European context has not been attempted in the existing research literature
related to MET. In the next section, we elaborate upon the steps followed to achieve this
aim.

3. Methods
In order to achieve the research objective, the TPSA-C21 questionnaire was digitalized
in the platform Nettskjema® , a Norwegian secure service solution for data collection which
supports the drafting process of online survey links. There are a total of 34 questions in
the TPSA-C21 questionnaire, which together provide the scores related to the 6 sub-scales.
Their grouping is as follows: Email (Q.1–5), WWW (Q.6–10), Integrated Applications (Q.11–
15), Teaching with technology (Q.16–20), Teaching with emerging technologies (Q.21–28)
and Emerging tools (Q.29–34). The online link of the questionnaire was distributed to the
professional contacts, who were MET instructors within a European MET (additionally in
the UK) institute using an email platform. The scope of the study was limited to Europe
and the UK in order to ensure the sufficient generalizability of the research outcomes. The
respondents were asked to rate each item from “Strongly Disagree” to “Strongly Agree”
and anything in between Likert scale numbering 1 to 5. A few demographics questions,
such as Gender, Age, Years of experience, and Country of origin were also inserted at
the beginning in order to facilitate the understanding of the obtained data. Furthermore,
towards the end of the questionnaire, the respondents were also asked to rate their level
of technology proficiency using the Level of Use scale [40]. This is a self-assessment
instrument based on the Concern Based Adoption Model (CBAM), and it lists 8 levels of
educational innovation: (1) Non-use, (2) Orientation, (3) Preparation, (4) Mechanical use, (5)
Routine, (6) Refinement, (7) Integration, and (8) Renewal [41]. All of the ethical guidelines
of the affiliated institution regarding anonymity and data collection were followed. The
ethical permission to collect and process the data was obtained from the Norwegian Centre
for Research Data (NSD) via a notification form, reference number 471618, in March 2020.
The method of data collection was a non-random, purposive sampling approach
through the professional networks of MET universities. The data collection stage lasted
from May 2020 to November 2020. At the end of this period, a total number of 76 responses
were obtained. The data was then checked for anomalies, and 14 responses were removed
due to either being incomplete or straight-lining the responses. Finally, a total number of n =
62 valid responses were extracted which were deemed fit for further analysis. The data was
then analyzed for descriptive statistics and measurement model assessment using Microsoft
Excel® , and the statistical software packages SPSS® and SmartPLS3® . The calculation of
the descriptive statistics and the non-parametric statistical test, for the examination of the
differences in means by groups such as educational qualifications and years of experience
using the Kruskal–Wallis test was conducted through SPSS® . For the measurement model
assessment through Confirmatory Composite Analysis (CCA), SmartPLS3® was utilized,
along with the guidelines given by Hair et al. [42,43]. Accordingly, the factor loadings
for items under each dimension, Composite Reliability, Cronbach’s Alpha, Rho Alpha,
Average Variance Extracted and Heterotrait–Monotrait ratios were obtained. For the non-
parametric Kruskal–Wallis test, Chi-square and P significance values were obtained for the
comparison. The average age of the respondent was 43.0 years (SD = 5.46 years). The rest
of the demographic data is summarized in Table 1. Most of the respondents stated their
country of origin as Norway (29%), followed by Sweden (17.7%), Denmark (12.9%), the UK
(9.7%), Germany (6.4%), Belgium (4.8%), and the Netherlands (1.6%). The rest (17.9%) did
not specify their country of origin. The obtained scores and values for various statistics for
the TPSA-C21 sub-scales and each item under them are described in detail and discussed
in the next section.
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 342 6 of 14

Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the respondents.

Demographic Frequency Percent

Male 52 83.9
Gender
Female 10 16.1
Bachelors 10 16.1
Educational Masters 36 58.0
Qualifications Doctorate 13 21.0
Other 3 4.9
0–5 years 17 27.4
6–10 14 22.6
Years of experience
11–15 10 16.1
+15 years 21 33.9

4. Results
The TPSA-C21 scores for each of the subscales are elaborated below.

4.1. Email
The Email subscale consisted of five items. Their individual scores, factor loading,
reliability value and Kruskal–Wallis test results are given below (Table 2).

Table 2. Self-reported proficiency of maritime instructors along the dimension ‘Email’.

Factor Qualifications Experience

Q.No. Mean SD
Loading Chi.sq/Sig. Chi.sq/Sig.
Q.1—Send an email to friend 4.74 0.57 0.767 7.055/0.070 1.667/0.664
Q.2—Subscribe to a discussion list 4.68 0.59 0.896 7.058/0.070 1.923/0.589
Q.3—Create a distribution list to
4.60 0.69 0.759 12.990/0.005 * 2.380/0.497
send email to several people at once
Q.4—Send a document as an
4.81 0.47 0.860 11.982/0.007 * 4.286/0.232
attachment to an email
Q.5—Keep copies of outgoing
4.73 0.55 0.841 16.226/0.001 * 4.260/0.235
message that I send to others
Note: SD = standard deviation; Chi.sq = chi square; Sig = significance; * = significant at the p < 0.01 level.

4.2. World Wide Web

The World Wide Web subscale consisted of five items. Their individual scores, factor
loading, reliability values and Kruskal–Wallis test results are given below (Table 3).

Table 3. Self-reported proficiency of maritime instructors along the dimension ‘World Wide Web’.

Factor Qualifications Experience

Q.No. Mean SD
Loading Chi.sq/Sig. Chi.sq/Sig.
Q.6—Use internet search engine to
find Web pages related to my 4.85 0.40 0.713 10.146/0.017 1.614/0.656
subject matter interests
Q.7—Search for and find
4.60 0.84 0.852 9.017/0.029 4.895/0.180
Smithsonian institute website
Q.8—Create my own webpage 3.37 1.26 0.464 0.990/0.804 1.461/0.691
Q.9—Keep track of websites I have
visited so that I can return to them 4.56 0.82 0.865 10.534/0.015 2.505/0.474
later
Q.10—Find primary sources of
information on the internet that I 4.65 0.66 0.854 14.630/0.002 * 3.402/0.334
can use in my teaching
Note: SD = standard deviation; Chi.sq = chi square; Sig = significance; * = significant at the p < 0.01 level.

4.3. Integrated Applications

The Integrated applications subscale consisted of five items. Their individual scores,
factor loading, reliability value and Kruskal–Wallis test results are given below (Table 4).
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 342 7 of 14

Table 4. Self-reported proficiency of maritime instructors along the dimension ‘Integrated Applica-
tions’.

Factor Qualifications Experience

Q.No. Mean SD
Loading Chi.sq/Sig. Chi.sq/Sig.
Q.11—Use spreadsheets to create a
bar graph of the proportions of 4.26 1.02 0.879 8.805/0.032 2.817/0.421
different colours
Q.12—Create a newsletter with
4.00 1.19 0.811 5.723/0.126 1.589/0.662
graphics
Q.13—Save documents in formats
so that others can read them if they
4.60 0.80 0.884 14.141/0.003 * 1.537/0.674
have different word processing
programs
Q.14—Use the computer to create a
4.81 0.47 0.802 20.729/0.000 * 3.116/0.374
slideshow presentation
Q.15—Create a database of
information about important 4.08 1.03 0.726 8.361/0.039 1.112/0.774
authors in a subject matter field
Note: SD = standard deviation; Chi.sq = chi square; Sig = significance; * = significant at the p < 0.01 level.

4.4. Teaching with Technology

The Teaching with technology subscale consisted of five items. Their individual scores,
factor loading, reliability value and Kruskal–Wallis test results are given below (Table 5).

Table 5. Self-reported proficiency of maritime instructors along the dimension ‘Teaching with
technology’.

Factor Qualifications Experience

Q.No. Mean SD
Loading Chi.sq/Sig. Chi.sq/Sig.
Q.16—Write an essay describing
how I would use technology in my 4.45 0.84 0.770 9.109/0.028 4.277/0.233
classroom
Q.17—Create a lesson or unit that
incorporates subject matter 4.06 0.97 0.855 9.122/0.028 3.519/0.318
software as an integral part
Q.18—Use technology to
collaborate with teachers or
4.53 0.72 0.850 11.822/0.008 * 3.415/0.332
students, who are distant from my
classroom
Q.19—Describe 5 software
programs or apps that I would use 4.03 1.09 0.732 13.021/0.005 * 3.225/0.358
in my teaching
Q.20—Write a plan with a budget to
4.10 1.02 0.777 14.592/0.002 * 1.208/0.751
buy technology for my classroom
Note: SD = standard deviation; Chi.sq = chi square; Sig = significance; * = significant at the p < 0.01 level.

4.5. Teaching with Emerging Technology

The Teaching with emerging technologies subscales consisted of eight items. Their
individual scores, factor loading, reliability value and Kruskal–Wallis test results are given
below (Table 6).

4.6. Emerging Tools

The Emerging tools subscale consisted of six items. Their individual scores, factor
loading, reliability value and Kruskal–Wallis test results are given below (Table 7).
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 342 8 of 14

Table 6. Self-reported proficiency along the dimension ‘Teaching with emerging technology’.

Factor Qualifications Experience

Q.No. Mean SD
Loading Chi.sq/Sig. Chi.sq/Sig.
Q.21—Integrate mobile
4.11 0.96 0.823 7.065/0.070 1.146/0.766
technologies into my curriculum
Q.22—Use social media tools for
3.47 1.46 0.616 7.046/0.070 0.672/0.880
instruction in the classroom
Q.23—Create a wiki or blog to have
3.47 1.22 0.706 5.104/0.164 2.649/0.449
my students collaborate
Q.24—Use online tools to teach my
4.48 0.80 0.814 3.925/0.270 1.490/0.685
students from a distance
Q.25—Teach in one to one
environment in which students 4.44 0.74 0.714 4.314/0.229 4.170/0.244
have their own device
Q.26—Find a way to use
smartphone in my classroom for 4.15 1.02 0.883 6.732/0.081 2.596/0.458
student responses
Q.27—Use mobile devices to
connect with others for my 4.13 1.00 0.846 3.162/0.367 3.981/0.263
professional development
Q.28—Use mobile devices to have
my students access to learning 4.18 0.97 0.885 4.831/0.185 3.859/0.277
activities
Note: SD = standard deviation; Chi.sq = chi square; Sig = significance; * = significant at the p < 0.01 level.

Table 7. Self-reported proficiency of maritime instructors along the dimension ‘Emerging tools’.

Factor Qualifications Experience

Q.No. Mean SD
Loading Chi.sq/Sig. Chi.sq/Sig.
Q.29—Download and listen to
4.42 0.80 0.885 10.011/0.018 2.386/0.496
podcasts/audiobooks
Q.30—Download and read e-books 4.48 0.78 0.915 13.894/0.003 * 2.626/0.453
Q.31—Download and view
4.56 0.74 0.908 6.441/0.092 4.754/0.191
streaming movies/videoclips
Q.32—Send and receive text
4.74 0.48 0.573 9.311/0.025 4.702/0.195
messages
Q.33—Transfer photos or other data
4.76 0.62 0.892 7.505/0.057 2.031/0.566
via a smartphone
Q.34—Save and retrieve files in a
4.58 0.74 0.876 7.308/0.063 1.230/0.746
cloud based environment
Note: SD = standard deviation; Chi.sq = chi square; Sig = significance; * = significant at the p < 0.01 level.

Table 8, below, represents the Cronbach’s Alpha (CA), Composite Reliability (CR),
Rho Alpha and Average Variance Extracted (AVE) values. The first three measures denote
the dimensions’ construct validities, while AVE denotes the convergent validity.

Table 8. Cronbach’s Alpha (CA), Composite Reliability (CR), Average Variance Extracted and
Rho_Alpha.

Dimension CA CR Rho-Alpha AVE

Email 0.883 0.915 0.895 0.683
WWW 0.814 0.871 0.865 0.585
Integrated Applications (IA) 0.879 0.912 0.890 0.677
Teaching with technology (TWT) 0.857 0.897 0.863 0.637
Teaching with emerging
0.912 0.930 0.927 0.626
technology (TWET)
Emerging tools (ET) 0.920 0.939 0.949 0.723

Table 9, below, describes the Heterotrait–Monotrait ratio values as a measure of the

dimension’s discriminant validity.
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 342 9 of 14

Table 9. Heterotrait–Monotrait Ratio (HTMT) values of the dimensions.

Dimension Email WWW IA TWT TWET ET

Email - - - - - -
WWW 0.913 - - - - -
Integrated Applications 0.745 0.928 - - - -
Teaching with technology 0.738 0.871 0.986 - - -
Teaching with emr.
0.463 0.542 0.765 0.840 - -
technology
Emerging tools 0.730 0.595 0.820 0.802 0.784 -

Table 10, below, describes the frequency and percentage distribution of the maritime
instructors, marking them as belonging to one of the levels (0–6) of the CBAM-LoU classifi-
cation in their ability to integrate technology for their own use.

Table 10. Concern-Based Adoption Model–Level of Use (CBAM–LoU) frequency distribution.

Level of Use Frequency Percent C. Percent

Level 0—Non use - - -
Level 1—Orientation - - -
Level 2—Preparation 2 3.2 3.2
Level 3—Mechanical use 15 24.2 27.4
Level 4A—Routine 26 41.9 69.4
Level 4B—Refinement 11 17.7 87.1
Level 5—Integration 8 12.9 100
Level 6—Renewal - - 100

5. Discussion
The previous section highlighted and illustrated the results obtained, i.e., the score
of the maritime instructors on the 34 questionnaire items and the six sub-scales aiming
to measure their technology self-efficacy. All of the respondents scored more than 4.0 on
average on the Likert scale for the TPSA-C21 questionnaire, except for Q.8, 22 and 23. The
scores obtained on these three questions were 3.37, 3.47 and 3.47, respectively. These scores
were markedly low for any of the questionnaire item scores (refer to Tables 2–7). Although
the instructors scored 4.0 or above in the rest of the questionnaire, which offers some
evidence that they feel sufficiently proficient in the use of most of the technological tools in
their teaching, the relatively lower scores on these questions indicate that instructors do
not employ tools that can facilitate collaborative content creation and dissemination, and
hint at the reluctance to capitalize on the affordances provided by Web 2.0.
In addition to the above, a non-parametric Kruskal–Wallis test was employed to
detect the between-group differences in each of the items for two demographic categories,
namely educational qualifications and years of experience. No a-priori threshold was
declared for this test; however, it is necessary to compare the noticeable differences in the
form of overlap or lack thereof in the mean distributions, as indicated by the obtained
chi-square/p-value statistics. The group distribution for the educational qualifications
appears to be skewed, and therefore makes it more likely for the respondents to have
differences in each item. However, the items, such as Q.3, 4, 5, 10, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20 and 30,
showed relatively high chi-square values (p < 0.01), indicating that it is more likely that a
difference in formal educational qualifications could mean difference in the usage of certain
tools or measures, and correspondingly in the self-efficacy in those measures. This could
also be the result of differences in the educational curriculum and delivery methods of
different maritime universities. For example, the organizational structure, the instructors’
formal qualification or their roles within the organization could be different if a maritime
institution frequently offers diverse programs in higher levels (e.g., Masters and PhD level)
as opposed to regular vocational or bachelor-level courses. For the tests conducted between
groups with different years of experience in teaching, relatively lower chi-square values
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 342 10 of 14

were obtained in comparison to the educational qualifications group. However, in the

obtained sample, a relatively smaller difference in the group distribution percentage was
also observed for groups with different years of experience, partly explaining such an
outcome for the statistical test.
For the measurement model assessment, the guidelines mentioned by Hair et al. [42]
were followed and a confirmatory composite analysis was performed. Firstly, the factor
loading of each item was checked. The recommended value is greater than 0.708, which
was achieved by all of the items except Q.8, 22, 23 and 32. As we can observe from the
descriptive statistics, the first three items also received relatively low scores in comparison
to the rest of questionnaires, indicating low weightages within the associated constructs.
Although Q.32—Sending and receiving text messages—being a generic item, received a
comparable score in its mean value, it still has less weightage for the construct’s emerg-
ing tools. Furthermore, the measures of construct reliability, namely Cronbach’s Alpha,
Composite Reliability and Rho Alpha, had satisfactory values within the desired interval
range from 0.70 to 0.95. The measure of convergent validity, namely the Average Variance
Extracted (AVE), was also above the required threshold of 0.50, demonstrating the adequate
convergent validity of the constructs. Lastly, the divergent validity was checked using
Heterotrait–Monotrait ratios (HTMT). The recommended value, as per [42], is about 0.90.
This was exceeded by a noticeable margin when comparing the “Teaching with technology”
and “Integrated Applications” constructs in Table 9, indicating that the present measure-
ment exercise and collected data could not satisfactorily distinguish between these two
dimensions. Although the limited sample size would warrant caution regarding general-
ization or inference from this result, it is worth noting for future studies and the usage of
the scale.
With respect to the distribution of the respondents according to their classification
in the CBAM-LoU self-assessment scales, it is evident from Table 10 that the majority of
the responses tended to be clustered around the middle of the spectrum. Most of the
instructors (41.9%) identified themselves to be at Level 4A, Routine, i.e., towards being
able to comfortably use information technology in their teaching but not having managed
to make more efforts to improve their teaching and its impact with use. This was followed
by Level 3, Mechanical use (24.2%) of the information technology. None of the respondents
marked themselves in the extreme ends of the spectrum i.e., Levels 0, 1 and 6. These results
also show that areas of concern exist for the maritime instructors and their utilization
of information technologies in their teaching activities. Therefore, the MET institutions
could provide more resources and/or training for the instructors for them to advance
further on these levels of educational innovation, namely to Levels 4B, 5 and 6. These levels
correspond to the refinement, integration and renewal levels of use for technology in the
classroom, respectively [40].
The findings indicate that the MET instructors feel sufficiently confident in the use
of a majority of the technological affordances available to them; however, there is scope
for improvement in their own pedagogical style and in utilizing collaborative knowledge-
creating tools, as well as tools that enable the class to engage in a dynamic collaborative
learning environment (e.g., social media/wiki/blogs). This facilitates online, distributed
modes of learning in some instances of the course work, which is argued to support the
acquisition of 21st century skills, such as collaboration and communication in the digital
workspace [17]. It is also supported by the socio-constructivist perspective of teaching and
learning, in which researchers suggest that knowledge is created in the learning context and
then internalized by the student, with peers and technology often acting in mediation [44].
Many researchers have utilized Web 2.0 tools in postgraduate learning settings, with
marked improvement in the student engagement in the classroom and innovation in their
own practices [45,46]. Similarly, the use of more advanced and interactive technologies such
as virtual and augmented reality learning tools deserves further scrutiny to estimate their
viability in increasing student engagement and motivation for learning in the classroom
context.
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 342 11 of 14

The study also highlights the need to focus appropriate attention towards capacity
building and technology integration in order for the MET instructors to improve the
competitiveness of the MET institutes in general. Too often, and in a majority of cases rightly
so, the discussions related to MET quality and value creation hover around the students
and their profile, needs and learning style, etc. However, the MET instructors, who form a
critical link in the value creation chain of the MET domain, remain under-researched [47].
In this regard, the discussions are often centered around infrastructure development for
MET, and seldom on investment in terms of the continuous professional development of
maritime instructors. The self-efficacy of maritime instructors towards the integration of
technology and reflection towards their pedagogical approach also has implications for
the competence development of maritime trainees. Even though the use of technological
tools is acknowledged for active and interactive learning, for integrative learning with
continuous assessment and for meaningful learning, the challenge for instructors to reflect
on their attitudes towards technology is evident [48]. In order to translate their self-
efficacy towards technology to meaningful pedagogical changes, [49] suggests that the
constructivist orientation for teachers and proper guidance, as well as collaboration in using
technological aids, could potentially increase the overall digital intervention in teaching.
The increase in the qualifications of the instructors through structured training and capacity
building can pay appropriate dividends to the MET institutes as they continue to focus
on the pedagogical challenges of the current age with advancements in technology and
the changing nature of maritime operations. A formal intervention by stakeholders in
the maritime domain and regulatory bodies might be the need of the hour, in the form
of changes in the regulations governing the qualifications of the MET instructors to cope
with the need to transform maritime educational services and their delivery. Such a move
influences the competence of the MET instructors and, by extension, the competence of
the students, and also increases the innovation and value creation in the maritime domain.
In summary, we would like to propose following recommendations for the stakeholders
involved in Maritime Education and Training:
• Ensuring adequate support in the form of resources such as time allocation, and
administrative and technical support to maritime instructors in order for them to be
able to successfully advance their efforts to integrate technology into their practice.
• Changes in the regulatory frameworks and requirements that acknowledge the need
for continuous professional development for maritime instructors specifically with
the focus on digitalization and use of Web 2.0 tools.
• Reflection on the pedagogical practices that could provide learning frameworks which
support the acquisition of 21st century skills.
The MET institutes should give special consideration in this regard, ensuring that
adequate resources and a conducive environment are provided to the maritime instructors
in order for them to achieve their goals and objectives for educational programs.
Some limitations of the present study also need to be outlined. Firstly, the sample size
of the respondents could have been greater. This would have enabled the even greater
generalizability of the results. A greater number of data points could also have enabled
the use of inferential statistics (e.g., for regression) in contrast to the primarily descriptive
statistics utilized in the study. Secondly, qualitative data in the form of open-ended
questions could have been included in the questionnaire, allowing the MET instructors
to communicate the reasons or barriers for the limited integration of technology tools in
the classroom or their self-reported technological proficiency. Another apparent limitation
is that the survey was answered predominantly by Western European nationalities. As
such, the obtained data and the results are also a reflection of those geographical regions,
and future studies—when conducted involving the rest of the European nationalities—
would provide better generalization, along with more data points. Finally, the utilization
of questionnaire surveys in itself presents certain limitations. The use of a Likert scale in
capturing the responses imposes a predetermined level of granularity on the responses,
and deeper interpretation of the data is not possible due to the utilization of this design.
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 342 12 of 14

Future studies related to technological integration in the classrooms of MET institutes

should be related to the utilization of similar data collection measures in different geo-
graphical locations (e.g., in Asia), and should compare them with the European dataset.
The more comprehensive modelling of the data utilizing structural equation modelling and
regression analysis techniques is also possible if more data measures are included. These
efforts could help in a more rigorous analysis of the self-reported technological proficiency
of the MET instructors in the region, and the factors affecting it.

6. Conclusions
Maritime Education and Training plays an integral part in global maritime operations.
The maritime instructors form a critical link in ensuring the competence development of
maritime trainees. The capacity building of the MET instructors can play a vital role in
the industry’s transformation to deliver on future challenges. This study utilized a vali-
dated measure of self-reported technology proficiency, namely the Technology Proficiency
Self-Assessment for the 21st Century (TPSA-C21), for the assessment of the technology
self-efficacy scores of the MET instructors in the European states (and UK) along six di-
mensions. The results indicated a scope of improvement for the MET instructors in the
better utilization of Web 2.0 tools, such as wiki, blogs and social media, i.e., teaching using
a constructivist approach and emerging technologies. The results also highlighted the level
of use of information technologies by the maritime instructors in their classrooms and the
areas of improvement therein. The further adoption of additional measures into their teach-
ing practices can mean the utilization of collaborative learning techniques in the classroom
that bear the potential of better supporting remote and distributed modes of learning in the
maritime classrooms. Maritime instructors with a higher level of technological self-efficacy
could contribute to the training and education of a 21st century maritime work force that
would require an additional and/or differential set of competences. The present study
provides a suitable departure point for the further investigation of such topics. Future
research should be directed toward gathering more samples from different nationalities,
which would enable the greater generalization of the results, as well as comparing different
geographical clusters in order to gain further insights for policy interventions.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.S. and S.N.; methodology, A.S.; writing—original

draft preparation, A.S.; writing—review and editing, A.S. and S.N.; visualization, A.S. and S.N.;
supervision, S.N. Both authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the Department of Maritime Operations, University of
South-Eastern Norway, PhD project no.2700077.
Institutional Review Board Statement: The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the
Declaration of Helsinki, and the ethical permission to collect and process the data was obtained from
the Norwegian Centre for Research Data (NSD) via a notification form, reference number 471618, on
18 March 2020.
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all respondents involved in
the study.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank Charlott Sellberg and Gesa Praetorius for their
guidance during the data collection stage.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. IMO Secretary-General Launches 2015 World Maritime Day Theme: “Maritime Education and Training”. Available online:
http://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/PressBriefings/Pages/02-WMD-launch.aspx#.XqBPGMgzbZs (accessed on 22 April
2020).
2. Miller, M.B. Europe and the Maritime World: A Twentieth Century History; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2012.
3. Oksavik, A.; Hildre, H.P.; Pan, Y.; Jenkinson, I.; Kelly, B.; Paraskevadakis, D.; Pyne, R. Future Skills and Competence Needs; Skillsea
Project: Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 2020.
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 342 13 of 14

4. International Association of Maritime Universities (IAMU). Available online: https://iamu-edu.org/about-iamu/members/

(accessed on 22 April 2020).
5. Burke, R.; Clott, C. Technology, collaboration, and the future of maritime education. In Proceedings of the Royal Institution of
Naval Architects-International Conference on Education and Professional Development of Engineers in the Maritime Industry,
Singapore, 20–21 September 2016.
6. Kadioglu, M. Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Training Application for MET Institutions. Int. J. Mar. Navig.
Saf. Sea Transp. 2008, 2, 111–116.
7. Mallam, S.C.; Nazir, S.; Renganayagalu, S.K. Rethinking Maritime Education, Training, and Operations in the Digital Era:
Applications for Emerging Immersive Technologies. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2019, 7, 428. [CrossRef]
8. Manuel, M.E. Vocational and academic approaches to maritime education and training (MET): Trends, challenges and opportuni-
ties. WMU J. Marit. Aff. 2017, 16, 473–483. [CrossRef]
9. Kitada, M.; Bolmsten, J.; Zeya, K.; Pham, T.H.; Aung, M.S. Learning theories meet virtual classroom technologies: Understanding
new educational opportunities in maritime education and training. In Proceedings of the 18th Annual General Assembly of the
IAMU, Varna, Bulgaria, 11–14 October 2017; pp. 72–81.
10. Boulougoris, E.; Mizythras, P.; Chrysinas, L.; Vavourakis, G.; Theotokatos, G.; Aymelek, M.; Kurt, I. Developing multidisciplinary
blended learning courses for maritime education with cross-European collaboration. WMU J. Marit. Aff. 2019, 18, 319–340.
[CrossRef]
11. Sharma, A.; Kim, T.-E. Exploring technical and non-technical competencies of navigators for autonomous shipping. Mar. Pol.
Man. 2021. [CrossRef]
12. Bitner, N.; Bitner, J.O.E. Integrating technology into the classroom: Eight keys to success. J. Technol. Teach. Educ. 2002, 10, 95–100.
13. Davies, R.S.; West, R.E. Technology integration in schools. In Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology;
Bishop, M.J., Boling, E., Elen, J., Svihla, V., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 841–853.
14. Knezek, G.; Christensen, R. Extending the will, skill, tool model of technology integration: Adding pedagogy as a new model
construct. J. Comput. High. Educ. 2016, 28, 307–325. [CrossRef]
15. Rogers, P.L. Barriers to adopting emerging technologies in education. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 2000, 22, 455–472. [CrossRef]
16. Vannatta, R.A.; Fordham, N. Teacher dispositions as predictors of classroom technology use. J. Res. Technol. Educ. 2004, 36,
253–271. [CrossRef]
17. Larson, L.C.; Miller, T.N. 21st century skills: Prepare students for the future. Kappa Delta Pi Rec. 2011, 47, 121–123. [CrossRef]
18. Saavedra, A.R.; Opfer, V.D. Learning 21st-century skills requires 21st-century teaching. Phi. Delta Kappan. 2012, 94, 8–13.
[CrossRef]
19. De Água, P.M.G.B.; da Silva Frias, A.D.; Carrasqueira, M.D.J.; Daniel, J.M.M. Future of maritime education and training: Blending
hard and soft skills. Pomorstvo 2020, 34, 345–353. [CrossRef]
20. Sellberg, C. Representing and enacting movement: The body as an instructional resource in a simulator-based environment. Educ.
Inf. Technol. 2017, 22, 2311–2332. [CrossRef]
21. Kim, T.-E.; Sharma, A.; Bustgaard, M.; Gyldenstsen, W.; Nymoen, O.K.; Tusher, H.M.; Nazir, S. The continuum of simulator-based
maritime training and education. WMU J. Marit. Aff. 2021, 20, 135–150. [CrossRef]
22. European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA). Seafarer Statistics in EU—2018. Available online: http://www.emsa.europa.eu/
publications/reports/item/3977-seafarer-statistics-in-the-eu-statistical-review-2018-data-stcw-is.html (accessed on 1 June 2021).
23. Ghosh, S.; Bowles, M. Management of berths at sea for seafarer students. Aust. J. Marit. Ocean. Aff. 2013, 5, 11–21. [CrossRef]
24. Muirhead, P.M. New technology and maritime training in the 21st century: Implications and solutions for MET institutions.
WMU J. Marit. Aff. 2004, 3, 139–158. [CrossRef]
25. Guzman, A.; Nussbaum, M. Teaching competencies for technology integration in the classroom. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 2009, 25,
453–469. [CrossRef]
26. Säljö, R. Digital tools and challenges to institutional traditions of learning: Technologies, social memory and the performative
nature of learning. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 2010, 26, 53–64. [CrossRef]
27. Johnson, T.; Wisniewski, M.A.; Kuhlemeyer, G.; Isaacs, G.; Krzykowski, J. Technology adoption in higher education: Overcoming
anxiety through faculty bootcamp. J. Asynchronous Learn. Netw. 2012, 16, 63–72. [CrossRef]
28. Murdoch, D.; Fichter, R. From doing digital to being digital: Exploring workplace adoption of technology in the age of digital
disruption. Int. J. Adult Vocat. Educ. Technol. IJAVET 2017, 8, 13–28. [CrossRef]
29. Brinkerhoff, J. Effects of a long-duration, professional development academy on technology skills, computer self-efficacy, and
technology integration beliefs and practices. J. Res. Technol. Educ. 2006, 39, 22–43. [CrossRef]
30. Moore-Hayes, C. Technology integration preparedness and its influence on teacher-efficacy. Can. J. Learn. Technol. 2011, 37, 1–15.
[CrossRef]
31. Bandura, A. Social Learning Theory; Prentice-Hall: Oxford, UK, 1977.
32. Bandura, A. Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educ. Psychol. 1993, 28, 117–148. [CrossRef]
33. Hoy, A.W.; Hoy, W.K.; Davis, H.A. Teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs. In Handbook of Motivation at School; Wentzel, K., Wingfield, A.,
Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2009; pp. 627–654.
34. Christensen, R.; Knezek, G. Validating the technology proficiency self-assessment questionnaire for 21st century learning (TPSA
C-21). J. Digit. Learn. Teach. Educ. 2017, 33, 20–31. [CrossRef]
Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 342 14 of 14

35. Christensen, R.; Knezek, G. The Technology Proficiency Self-Assessment Questionnaire (TPSA): Evolution of a Self-Efficacy
Measure for Technology Integration. In KEYCIT 2014-Key Competencies in Informatics and ICT; Torsten, B., Reynolds, N., Romeike,
R., Schwill, A., Eds.; University of Potsdam: Potsdam, Germany, 2014; pp. 311–318.
36. Ropp, M.M. Exploring individual characteristics associated with learning to use computers in preservice teacher preparation. J.
Res. Comput. Educ. 1999, 31, 402–424. [CrossRef]
37. Miller, J.; Christensen, R.; Knezek, G. Effect of a Makerspace Training Series on Elementary and Middle School Educator
Confidence Levels Toward Integrating Technology. In Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education
International Conference, Austin, TX, USA, 5 March 2017; Resta, P., Smith, S., Eds.; Association for the Advancement of
Computing in Education (AACE): Austin, TX, USA, 2017; pp. 1015–1020.
38. Woods, K.D. Teacher Technology Efficacy: The Relationship among Generation, Gender, and Subject Area of Secondary Teachers.
Ph.D. Thesis, Liberty University, Lynchburg, VA, USA, 2020.
39. Knezek, G.; Christensen, R.; Miyashita, K.; Ropp, M.M. Instruments for Assessing Educator Progress in Technology Integration; IITTL:
Denton, TX, USA, 2000.
40. Griffin, D.; Christensen, R. Concerns Based Adoption Model Levels of Use of an Innovation (CBAM-LOU). Adapted from Hall, Loucks,
Rutherford, & Newlove (1975); Institute for the Integration of Technology into Teaching and Learning (IITTL): Denton, TX, USA,
1999.
41. Hall, G.E.; Loucks, S.F.; Rutherford, W.L.; Newlove, B.W. Levels of use of the innovation: A framework for analyzing innovation
adoption. J. Teach. Educ. 1975, 26, 52–56. [CrossRef]
42. Hair, J.F.; Risher, J.J.; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M. When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2019, 31,
2–24. [CrossRef]
43. Hair, J.F., Jr.; Howard, M.C.; Nitzl, C. Assessing measurement model quality in PLS-SEM using confirmatory composite analysis.
J. Bus. Res. 2020, 109, 101–110. [CrossRef]
44. Vygotsky, L.S. Socio-cultural theory. In Mind in Society: Development of Higher Psychological Process; Cole, M., Jolm-Steiner, V.,
Scribner, S., Souberman, E., Eds.; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1978; pp. 52–58.
45. Su, F.; Beaumont, C. Evaluating the use of a wiki for collaborative learning. Innov. Educ. Teach. Int. 2010, 47, 417–431. [CrossRef]
46. Naismith, L.; Lee, B.H.; Pilkington, R.M. Collaborative learning with a wiki: Differences in perceived usefulness in two contexts
of use. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 2011, 27, 228–242. [CrossRef]
47. Vujičić, S.; Hasanspahić, N.; Gundić, A.; Hrdalo, N. Assessment for Ensuring Adequately Qualified Instructors in Maritime
Education and Training Institutions. Athens J. Sci. 2020, 7, 115–124. [CrossRef]
48. Jääskelä, P.; Häkkinen, P.; Rasku-Puttonen, H. Teacher beliefs regarding learning, pedagogy, and the use of technology in higher
education. J. Res. Technol. Educ. 2017, 49, 198–211. [CrossRef]
49. Gao, P.; Choy, D.; Wong, A.F.; Wu, J. Developing a better understanding of technology based pedagogy. Australas. J. Educ. Technol.
2009, 25. [CrossRef]
Article 3
Sharma, A., Undheim, P.E. & Nazir, S. (2022). Design and implementation of AI Chatbot for
COLREGs training. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs. DOI: 10.1007/s13437-022-00284-0
WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13437-022-00284-0

IAMU SECTION ARTICLE

Design and implementation of AI chatbot for COLREGs

training

Amit Sharma1 · Per Eirik Undheim1 · Salman Nazir1

Received: 16 March 2022 / Accepted: 20 June 2022

© The Author(s) 2022

Abstract
The education and training for the maritime industry require renewed focus in the
face of technological changes and increasing digitalization. Artificial intelligence
presents an avenue for further research that can positively impact efficiency and
competence development. Among many applications of artificial intelligence in
education, conversational agents or chatbots have gained increased interest in recent
years. This paper describes the design and implementation process of “FLOKI”—a
chatbot aimed at assisting maritime trainees in learning Collision Avoidance Reg-
ulations (COLREGs). For the design of the chatbot, IBM Watson Assistant®—a
cognitive computing service—was utilized, which enables the use of Application
Programming Interfaces (APIs) in its cloud server. A selected number (n = 18) of
2nd year B.Sc. in Nautical Science students in a Norwegian maritime university
interacted with the chatbot for reflecting on their knowledge about COLREGs. In
addition to demographic data, the maritime trainees were asked to answer questions
related to user experience utilizing the System Usability Scale (SUS). The findings
are discussed along with their implications and future research directions involving
AI in maritime education and training.

Keywords Artificial intelligence · Maritime education and training · Chatbot ·

COLREGs · Digitalization

1 Introduction

The advancements in information technologies and their application have led to the
increasing adoption of digitalization and automation in various aspects of the mari-
time industry (Kitada et al. 2019; Janssen et al. 2021). In continuation to this trend
and with the efforts to control and support seaborne ships with remote locations,

* Amit Sharma
[email protected]
1
Department of Maritime Operations, University of South-Eastern Norway, Postboks 4,
3199 Borre, Norway

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 A. Sharma et al.

artificial intelligence (AI) will play an essential role in the coming decades through
its application in the maritime industry. The future seafarers will be expected to
understand and communicate effectively with the various decision support systems
enabled by AI (Alop 2019). The education and training of the maritime industry will
require a different approach in the face of these changes (Burke and Clott 2016). In
addition to the competencies listed in the Standards of Training, Certification, and
Watchkeeping (STCW) regulations, maritime stakeholders need to consider cultivat-
ing digital skills and AI-enabled education to adequately prepare future seafarers
(Sharma and Kim 2021; Baldauf et al. 2016). This study presents a proof of concept
for the application of AI in maritime education and training.
Artificial intelligence (AI) has been making steady advancements in recent years
and providing various domains with several functional benefits through its use.
Although the origin of AI as a concept can be traced back to the 1950s (McCa-
rthy et al. 2006), the recent developments with computing capabilities, advance-
ments in machine learning techniques, and enhanced memory and processing capa-
bilities have led to novel applications in a variety of domains. AI is now being used
in finance, healthcare, services, and governance, to provide a few examples of its
usage (Buchanan et al. 2020; Ferreira et al. 2021; Sharma et al. 2020; Kouziokas
2017). The basic premise to utilize AI has been its potential to increase efficiency
and innovate associated processes in any field of application. However, the use of
AI in such applications also puts focus on the role of the associated human element
in such instances. Several researchers and professionals have pointed out that with
the advent of AI, there would be a parallel trend regarding the need to reskilling the
workforce and redefining their roles (Card and Nelson 2019; Rotatori et al. 2021).
The AI and its application, in its fundamental premise, is supposed to augment
human performance.
A recurring theme around the adoption of AI in workspaces has been regarding
the awareness and experience of the individuals with the technology in question, i.e.,
AI literacy. In this regard, Long and Magerko (2020, p. 2) have defined the term as
“a set of competencies that enables individuals to critically evaluate AI technolo-
gies; communicate and collaborate effectively with AI; and use AI as a tool online
at home, and in the workplace.” They demarcate a set of competencies (human
role, data literacy, ethics, etc.) and design considerations (critical thinking, social
interaction, low barrier to entry, etc.) to support developers and educators for creat-
ing learner-centered AI. Promoting AI literacy, among other considerations, goes
hand in hand in with the efforts to advance the technologies in the workspaces and
the training of the future workforce. Furthermore, Rahm (2021) has argued in this
regard that the relationship between technological development and education is a
reciprocal one. While AI literacy is needed as a change in the educational system to
enable AI adaption, increased AI literacy by itself can also be utilized to direct the
desired technical development in various domains.
One of the primary objectives for applying AI is to improve the learning out-
comes in education and training (Pedro et al. 2019). Like other areas of its applica-
tion, AI brings affordances of greater computing power and tailored delivery of con-
tent to the learners. The application of AI in education (AIEd) is closely linked to
the advances in the AI domain at large (Zawacki-Richter et al. 2019). Several studies

13
Design and implementation of AI chatbot for COLREGs training

have pointed out the potential of AI to promote engagement, reduce redundant tasks,
personalize educational content, and identify emerging learning gaps in the class-
rooms (Owoc et al. 2021; Schiff 2021). According to Luckin et al. (2016), the AIEd
system consists of the domain, pedagogical, and learner models. The strength of
AIEd is the fact that the system can select appropriate content from the domain
model to the requirements of the learner (model) while also tracking the intermedi-
ate interactions (pedagogical model) (Samuelis 2007). Thus, AIEd can enable tai-
lored content delivery suitable to each learner’s needs.

1.1 AIEd and application of chatbots

The use of AI in education has occurred concurrently with advances in AI technol-

ogy itself, offering several functional benefits of its use. AIEd has slowly progressed
from personal computers in education to Web-based/online learning systems. The
current use of embedded systems and other technologies available through advances
in computing power has influenced how education is delivered (Chen et al. 2020).
These developments have enabled, among other applications, the use of intelligent
conversational agents or chatbots that can perform instructor-like functions in a
classroom. Similarly, Timms (2016) has argued that in the future, AIEd will break
away from merely education from personal devices to provide new solutions for
learning and teaching activities. One of the varied directions AIEd can potentially
take will be developing and using “educational cobots” that will be designed to sup-
port human instructors. These cobots can keep the learners engaged and answer
simple queries the learners might have. Through social network analysis of selected
literature related to application of AI in education, Goksel and Bozkurt (2019) have
demonstrated that terms like expert systems (ES) and intelligent tutoring systems
(ITS), which can mimic human behavior and provide immediate as well as custom-
ized feedback to learners, have remained at the forefront for AI-related educational
research. With the advances in AI, namely natural language processing (NLP), this
concept is being reimagined as intelligent agents or systems that can guide individu-
als towards the learning objectives and aims and help them navigate the associated
process. This is also congruent to the increasing instances of human-automation
agent teaming that is taking place in a wide variety of work processes. The larger
trend has been towards delegating the tasks of mundane and repetitive nature to
intelligent agents. The application of chatbots in education is due to the advances
mentioned above in AIEd. In simple terms, the chatbot or conversational agent is
defined as a computer program designed to simulate conversation with human agents
(Adamopolou and Moussiades 2020). The development of chatbots and their appli-
cation has been occurring concurrently with AI research. The first known chatbot
was developed in the 1960s and was called ELIZA, intended to act as a psychothera-
pist (Weizenbaum 1966). Since then, there has been a steady progression in chat-
bot technology, improving the NLP capabilities with various applications in differ-
ent business/operational cases. Recently, there has been an increase in the research
studies that aim to evaluate the application of chatbots in an educational context. In
this regard, Okonkwo and Ade-Ibijola (2021) have conducted a systematic literature

13
 A. Sharma et al.

review regarding chatbot applications in education. They have listed integration of

educational content, increased motivation and engagement, ubiquitous access, and
simultaneous use by multiple learners as some of the primary benefits of using chat-
bots in education. They also shed light on some of the challenges that accompany
chatbot usage, such as usability and evaluation issues, ethical issues, and program-
ming issues. Similarly, Rapp et al. (2021), adapting a human–computer interaction
lens and through their literature review, have identified themes such as trust, expec-
tations, experience, and satisfaction, which are relevant in studies focusing on chat-
bot and associated interaction issues.

1.2 COLREGs in maritime education and training

The maritime industry is a safety–critical industry with ships moving valuable cargo
from one geographical location to another. The consequences of accidents in the
maritime industry are often catastrophic, with loss of valuable cargo, environmen-
tal pollution, and, in extreme cases, loss of passengers and crew members on board
(Schröder-Hinrichs et al. 2012) . There are various frameworks and mechanisms
in place to avoid such undesirable events happening and ensure the safety of sea
transportation. From the ship’s design, guidelines for maritime operations, and the
training of seafarers, the maritime industry has adopted various codes and regula-
tions to ensure compliance and promote safety at sea. The seafarers working as crew
members play a crucial role in day-to-day operations. Their education and training
directly impact the safety of operations onboard (Ziarati 2006). The Maritime Edu-
cation and Training (MET) domain, which follows the broader framework as stipu-
lated by the Standards of Training, Certification, and Watchkeeping (STCW’74 as
amended), ensures the supply of skilled and competent workforce working in the
maritime industry. The STCW lists competence requirements for various operational
roles onboard (deck officer, marine engineer, ratings, etc.). The mandatory mini-
mum competence requirements for deck officers in charge of the navigational watch
are listed in the STCW table A-II/1. There are a total of 19 competence areas that
a prospective officer should demonstrate to be deemed worthy for a Certificate of
Competency (CoC). Among them, the knowledge of International Regulations for
Preventing Collisions at Sea or COLREGs forms an integral part of the operational
knowledge required for a deck officer. The COLREGs, also sometimes referred to
as “Rules of Road,” lists the various regulations that govern the safe movement of
maritime traffic. They assign responsibilities such as “Give-Way Vessel” or “Stand-
On Vessel” to ships encountering each other at sea. Furthermore, they also list the
correct light and sound signals that should be exhibited by different ship types in
conditions that apply to them. These rules are crucial in determining the action to
be taken by ships when performing navigation (Chauvin et al. 2013). According to
the European Maritime Safety Agency, collisions and groundings were the cause of
about 25% of maritime casualties in the year 2020 (EMSA 2021). Improper under-
standing and application of COLREGs can therefore have serious consequences
(Mohovic et al. 2016). The MET institutes all across the globe take various meas-
ures to adequately cater to the development of good understanding and application

13
Design and implementation of AI chatbot for COLREGs training

of COLREGs during the training period of future deck officers. However, it is also
recognized by the maritime stakeholders that various flag states signatory to the
STCW differ in terms of educational resources and approaches towards education
and training of seafarers. The educational content delivery, tools utilized, and how
assessment is carried out for learning outcomes depend upon these factors and are
at the discretion of the MET institutes. In Norway, for example, COLREGs train-
ing is imparted as part of the 3-year Bachelor’s in Nautical Science degree. The
COLREGs training forms part of the curriculum in various ways in which specific
learning outcomes are expected of the trainees undergoing the 3-year degree. Firstly,
the students are expected to remember and understand the different terminologies
associated with COLREGs, their framework and historical background, and some
of the rule content by heart. Furthermore, the students can develop skills in apply-
ing COLREGs in a safe, controlled environment (simulator) where they solve prac-
tical assignments and understand the relationship between COLREGs and bridge
resource management (BRM). Finally, to further increase the competence and
synthesize new ways to use COLREGs to solve emerging challenges in the mari-
time industry, students can opt to write their Bachelor thesis in a related topic to
gain specialization. The above learning outcomes constitute a macromodel of the
curriculum in subdiscipline of navigation namely COLREGs as it is conducted in
Norway. The culmination of the training occurs when the students go out at sea
for 12 months as deck cadets obtaining real-world training in its application before
being awarded CoC by the Norwegian Maritime Authority. The COLREGs training,
therefore, consists of the demonstration of both innate knowledge as well as practi-
cal skills. The knowledge component forms the building block and fundamentals in
the understanding of COLREGs. The focus on novel ways to promote understanding
and knowledge acquisition can support the overall goal of making the deck officer
trainees competent in this important sub-discipline of navigation.

1.3 Pedagogical use of chatbot or conversational agent

There are various pedagogical frameworks applicable and in use for supporting pro-
fessional learning. The most common characteristic of chatbot in supporting profes-
sional educational needs is its ubiquity and simulation of conversations of an instruc-
tor or peer. As such, the chatbot or conversational agent is particularly well suited to
support self-directed learning (SDL) among individuals. SDL can be defined as a
process in which individuals take the initiative in their learning (Knowles 1975).
The benefit of using a chatbot is that it can be incorporated in learning instruction
design with the discretion of the students. It can support learning activities outside
the traditional classroom. The students can pose targeted queries to the conversa-
tional agent and get responses. The agent can also promote reflection as dialogue
is initiated in the process. Instead of passively learning about COLREGs, the chat-
bot can promote engagement and offer the students an opportunity to exercise ini-
tiative. The chatbot can also act as an additional source of knowledge other than
peers and the instructor (Ref Fig. 1). The acquisition of the knowledge component of
COLREGs is iterative in nature; and therefore, the chatbot is well suited to support

13
 A. Sharma et al.

Fig. 1  Student-centered learning activities with chatbot support for self-directed learning

self-directed learning experiences in aiding its understanding. COLREGs are rel-

evant for this context because, in addition to being an essential part of deck officer
training, they are also “fixed” in terms of component and their numbers, thus provid-
ing sufficient rationale to be designated to an intelligent agent.
In the present study, we, therefore, aimed to design and implement a chatbot for
supporting the COLREGs training in the maritime classroom. The primary research
objective was to conceptualize and design the chatbot “FLOKI” which can act as an
intelligent conversational agent for answering queries related to a selected number
of COLREGs. Furthermore, we wanted feedback on the usability of the designed
chatbot FLOKI itself. We wanted to understand if it also offers a better user expe-
rience in learning COLREGs which is often perceived as a routine and repetitive
component of nautical education. For this purpose, a standardized questionnaire
known as System Usability Scale (SUS) was utilized. The objective of this study
was to provide a “proof of concept” for AIEd in a maritime educational context. The
subsequent sections of the paper describe the design and implementation process.

2 Method

2.1 Design of chatbot FLOKI

For achieving the research objective, the chatbot was built using the IBM Wat-
son Assistant service (IBM 2022). It is a service on the IBM Cloud that enables

13
Design and implementation of AI chatbot for COLREGs training

businesses and organizations to build and deploy conversational agents. The service
instance was created by the first author on the IBM Cloud and was eventually devel-
oped to meet the objectives of deploying a conversational agent that could help the
maritime trainees learn the COLREGs. A chatbot or conversational agent has three
primary building blocks as per the IBM Watson Assistant service, namely (1) intent,
(2) entity, and (3) dialogue. In simple terms, intent can be defined as the purpose of
the user’s input. Several separate intents have to be described in the chatbot to cater
for all possible purposes that the user in question can have to interact with it. The
entity refers to an object or term that is related to the intent described by the user
and lists all possible synonyms or similar words that can be related to the user’s
intent. Finally, the dialogue is a response to the recognized intent by the chatbot. It
reverts with the response(s) and option(s) to the query posed by the user and enables
to supply the most appropriate answers or information that the user queried for ini-
tially. These blocks of chatbot work seamlessly together the moment a user query is
received by its interface. The intent block matches the query with pre-stored intent.
The context of the conversation is stored in the entity block, so that the chatbot
“remembers” the conversation’s objective, and the dialogue block gives appropriate
response to the query. The chatbot during the design phase was titled “FLOKI”—as
a tribute to the Norse navigator Floki Vilgerdson, often attributed for discovering
Iceland (Thirslund 1997) and providing a maritime persona to the conversational
agent. The primary objective of the FLOKI was to enable the discussions of the
COLREGs with the maritime trainees; therefore, it was required to input the specific
regulations. The International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (1978 as
amended) have 41 regulations and 4 annexes (IMO 2021).
As the intention with FLOKI was to demonstrate proof of concept, only a subset
of these rules were selected to be introduced in the chatbot. The authors decided to
focus on Rules 11–18, which fall under the Part-B, Section-II, of the regulations and
are titled “Conduct of vessels when in sight of one another.” The following intents
were created for the chatbot—#Greetings, #COLREGs, #thank_you, and #Goodbye.
Several examples were provided under each intent to enable the chatbot to capture
them. In this step, as per recommendations by the IBM, the first author typed many
sentences related to how a student might type a query and stored them as an example
under each intent. It is often advised to type as many variations of the query as are
possible, including misspelled sentences or typos, to ensure optimum simulation of
the actual use case. Furthermore, 8 entities were created, one for each rule, so that
chatbot can capture the context and does not “forgets” when intermediate sentences
or queries are being directed to it.
Finally, the dialogue block was filled with responses to the expected intent. The
main components of this block were the actual COLREGS (Rules 11–18) that
were inserted under appropriate headings. These were in textual format; however,
some images were also inserted under each rule where applicable to enable a richer
response than just plain text and offer better multimedia integration.
The finalization of contents within all three blocks resulted in a hierarchical
branching logic flowchart of the chatbot FLOKI which first greets the user with a
predefined text describing who it is and its intended purpose, understands the intent
of the input, can do customary chit-chat (e.g., “Hello to you, Lets get started!”),

13
 A. Sharma et al.

returns with the relevant COLREGs when queried, and can also offer conversation
ending salutations (e.g., “Goodbye to you”). The IBM cloud service enabled a trial
pop-up on the side, which can be used dynamically throughout the process to test
how the chatbot is responding. This service was utilized, and several iterations later,
the chatbot was deemed suitable for deployment. However, at that stage, the chatbot
service was still situated in the IBM Cloud, and to make an actual user case, the
service should be hosted in a “real world” environment. For this purpose, a Word-
Press® site was deployed (www.​floki​press.​com) and the API integration was ena-
bled with the IBM cloud via a plugin, which resulted in the pop-up of chatbot every
time the website was accessed.

2.2 Implementation in a maritime classroom

After the completion of the design and deployment of the chatbot, it was introduced
in a regular classroom for B.Sc. in Nautical Science students. An informed consent
form briefly describing the purpose of the experiment and a few demographics-
related questions were provided in a separate sheet. The summary of the demo-
graphic data is provided in Table 1. Participation in the study was voluntary, and
no personal information was collected throughout the experiment. The study was
conducted on 17 September 2021 with 2nd year B.Sc. Nautical Sciences students
at a university which offers maritime education and training (MET) programs in
Norway. A total no. of n = 18 students participated in the study. The students in the
group received an introductory briefing and were given consent forms. After filling
out these forms, the students received some additional instructions regarding the use
of chatbot FLOKI in a separate information sheet that dealt with interaction instruc-
tions and the use of a QR code to access the WordPress site quickly as show in
Fig. 2. The students were, therefore, free to select either smartphone or a laptop to
interact with FLOKI. After 20 min of familiarization, students proceeded to interact
with the chatbot regarding COLREGs Rules 11 to 18. A further 20 min was allotted
for conducting this phase of the study (Fig. 3).
The students interacted with FLOKI by first typing customary greetings and then
asking specific questions. As per the design of the conversational agent, the input
was classified and processed accordingly, and the relevant dialogue block responded
with the appropriate rule and supporting images where applicable. The students

Table 1  Demographic Demographic Frequency Percent

characteristics of the
respondents Gender Male 16 88.8
Female 2 11.2
Prior experience Yes 10 55.5
with navigation No 8 44.5
Prior experience Yes 11 61.1
interacting with No 5 27.7
chatbot
Can’t say 2 11.2

13
Design and implementation of AI chatbot for COLREGs training

Fig. 2  Design of chatbot with IBM Watson APIs

Fig. 3  Implementation in the classroom and instruction page

practiced in this manner for Rules 11–18 as intended in this exercise and compared
the experience with reading rules from a textbook with no interaction (Fig. 4). As
originally intended, all of the students could simultaneously interact with FLOKI
independently. Some of the students used their smartphones, while some used their
tablets or laptop devices for their convenience.
Afterwards, the students were handed another questionnaire—the System Usability
Scale (SUS)—to enable the collection of the usability data for the chatbot FLOKI. The
SUS is used to provide an overall usability score as per ISO9241-11 on characteristics

13
 A. Sharma et al.

Fig. 4  Example interaction of a student with FLOKI

such as effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction (Brooke 1986). The whole exercise
was approximately 1 h long for the students—resembling a typical lecture session in
the classroom. The collected data was then analyzed using software packages—MS
Excel and SPSS. The obtained results, along with the figures and related statistics, are
described in the next section.

3 Result

The demographic data of the student respondents is summarized in Table 1:

The usability data of FLOKI was collected through the 18 participating students.
For this purpose, a System Usability Scale was utilized. The scale has 10 items, and
the respondents were asked to rate each item from scale 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5
(Strongly Agree) for respective statements. The results are summarized in Table 2:
For calculating the overall usability score, the guidelines given by Brooke (2013)
were followed. The guidelines refer to converting all the score to 0–4 scale. For odd-
numbered questions, the mean was subtracted by 1 and for the even-numbered ques-
tions the mean was subtracted with 5 to compensate for their negative wording. The
total of both odd- and even-numbered questions is then multiplied by 2.5.
(2.53 + 2.97 + 2.13 + 3.19 + 3.04) = 13.86

(3.19 + 3.74 + 2.53 + 2.90 + 3.27) = 15.63

(13.86 + 15.63) ∗ 2.5 = 73.72

13
Design and implementation of AI chatbot for COLREGs training

Table 2  The System Usability scores of the chatbot FLOKI

S.no Question Mean

1 I think that I would like to use this chatbot frequently 3.53

2 I found the chatbot unnecessarily complex 1.81
3 I thought the chatbot was easy to use 3.97
4 I think that I would need support of a technical person to use this chatbot 1.26
5 I found various functions in this chatbot are well integrated 3.13
6 I thought there was too much inconsistency in this chatbot 2.47
7 I would imagine that most people would learn to use this chatbot quickly 4.19
8 I found the chatbot very cumbersome to use 2.10
9 I felt very confident in using the chatbot 4.04
10 I needed to learn a lot of things before I could get going with the chatbot 1.73

We calculated the internal consistency of the scale through Cronbach’s alpha.

The even-numbered questions which were negatively worded were re-coded in SPSS
and made to correspond with the positively worded questions. The Cronbach alpha’s
calculated value was 0.884, greater than the recommended value of 0.700 of scales
with a similar number of items (Nunnally and Bernstein 1994).
As some of the demographics data was also collected, we examined this data to
investigate if the experience of navigation and experience in the prior use of chatbot
had any effect on the perceived usability scores across the groups. To cater for this,
we utilized non-parametric Mann–Whitney U test scores.
For the groups having experience or lack thereof with navigation on ships, there
were 10 respondents stating that they had some experience in navigation and conse-
quently experienced in the practical application of COLREGs, whereas 8 respond-
ents stated that they had no experience with navigation on ships. The average SUS
scores for these two groups were 74.97 and 72.70, respectively (Fig. 5).
The Mann–Whitney U test showed no significant difference in both groups at
0.05 significance level (U value = 38, Z score = 0.13328, two-tailed) with p = 0.896.
Similarly, the respondents stated whether they have any prior interaction with
chatbots. A total of 11 respondents replied that they have interacted with a chatbot
prior to this exercise, while 7 respondents stated they have not, or they are not sure
of this experience. The average SUS scores for these two groups were 78.61 and
66.65 respectively (Fig. 6).
The Mann–Whitney U test showed no significant difference in both groups at
0.05 significance level (U value = 21, Z score = 0.15396, two-tailed) with p = 0.123.

4 Discussion

The overall usability data for the chatbot suggest that it was received positively by
the students in terms of its effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction. The median
score of usability as obtained by SUS for a large number of product evaluation stud-
ies is 70.5 (Bangor et al. 2008) . The chatbot FLOKI, with a score of 73.72, got a

13
 A. Sharma et al.

Fig. 5  SUS scores of groups in experience with navigation

higher score than the established benchmark in usability studies. It should be noted
that the usability scores out of 100 do not refer to a percentage score. The median
score of 70.5 marks the 50th percentile of the established usability benchmark.
The score of 73.72 is above the 50th percentile and would lie in the 3rd quartile of
the mean scores for the SUS scale. As per the classification given by Bangor et al.
(2008) , the rating can be described as “Good”; however, higher ratings of “excel-
lent” (SUS score ranging from 80 to 90) and “best imaginable” (SUS score ranging
from 90 to 100) are also present in the continuum. The non-parametric Mann–Whit-
ney U test results showed no difference in the usability evaluation of the chatbot by
the students who had prior experience in navigation and the use of COLREGs. The
difference in the average SUS scores for the students who had prior experience inter-
acting with a chatbot was relatively higher than the group of students with experi-
ence in navigation. However, similar to the evaluation between the first sub-groups,
a non-statistically significant difference was observed. The findings indicate that
prior experience and familiarization with an AIEd tool can influence how the stu-
dents perceive it; however, more evidence is still needed in this direction.

13
Design and implementation of AI chatbot for COLREGs training

Fig. 6  SUS scores of groups in experience interacting with chatbot

During the informal debriefing session after the conclusion of the study, some
of the students did remark that they found the chatbot “interesting” and “novel” for
the purpose of studying COLREGs, and they would consider it to be a worthwhile
addition in the overall efforts to master the knowledge-related aspects of COLREGs
application. Some of the students also mentioned that they found the chatbot “relat-
able” while interacting with it and would like to practice further to gain a better
understanding of the COLREGs. However, as described earlier, the chatbot was
trained to respond to a limited number of COLREGs, namely from Rules 11–18. To
be truly integrated into the curriculum and for the possibility of future usage, it will
be required to further include the dialogue blocks for all of the COLREGs, namely
from Rules 1 to 41. Due to the limitations concerning the handling of personal
data, advanced features like voice recognition were not considered. Voice recogni-
tion with the use of artificial neural networks (ANN) allows the chatbot to have an
advanced interface that can communicate with the trainees back and forth through
textual medium and recognize their voice inputs and respond accordingly. This
would result in a much-improved interaction experience for the students. Advances

13
 A. Sharma et al.

in natural language processing (NLP) capabilities of the chatbot can also recognize
the voice tone and the corresponding emotion of the students, thereby also catering
to the students’ emotions and respond with appropriate empathy (Suta et al. 2020).
In several countries which are signatory to the STCW, oral examination consti-
tutes a part of the competence assessment of deck officers. For example, the Mari-
time and Coastguard Agency (MCA) of the UK states that “The oral examination
forms part of the assessment of the attainment of all MCA Certificates of Compe-
tency, and all candidates must demonstrate an adequate knowledge of English Lan-
guage” (MCA 2021). This also applies to the demonstration of knowledge regarding
COLREGs in the oral examinations related to the Navigation function for the deck
officers. Since, this part of the assessment can be thought to be iterative in nature
and sufficiently narrow in scope, it has the potential for the application of AIEd
tools. Specifically, chatbot FLOKI, with voice recognition integration, can facilitate
the self-directed learning process of oral examination preparation for the prospective
deck officers. The maritime trainees can utilize the chatbot virtually without limit to
master this aspect of curriculum without depending on the instructors or their peers
for the support.

5 Outlook and conclusions

The ongoing efforts for introducing digital solutions and support for maritime edu-
cation and training purposes have to go further than merely catering to the basic
knowledge recall and application. To support higher order of knowledge develop-
ment in various scenarios, digital interactive tools such as those presented in this
paper can prove helpful. The stakeholders must understand the potential applications
within the maritime classrooms and simulators to optimally use such solutions. The
support from artificial intelligence can be considered in light of rapidly evolving
educational technology and changing client expectations. Traditional curriculum
design affected by technological integration needs to reflect and be inspired by this
continuing innovation in the industry.
Some limitations of the current study can be pointed out, and future research
directions can be identified. Firstly, the STCW signatory states differ in their
approach towards Maritime Education and Training (MET) and the application of
technological resources. The current study presented a proof of concept and was car-
ried out in a Norwegian maritime university offering three levels of maritime educa-
tion for the students. The assumptions towards the use of technological tools such as
smartphones or laptops to further support the acquisition of knowledge-related com-
ponents of B.Sc. in Nautical Sciences could differ from one geographical region to
another. The sample size of the study (n = 18), in addition to the university-specific
context, warrants caution in the exercise of generalization across other regions and
to other STCW signatory states. Furthermore, the usability data gathered was com-
pared with the generic benchmarks established in wider usability studies. However,
understanding towards application of AIEd tools in MET can further be benefitted

13
Design and implementation of AI chatbot for COLREGs training

by longitudinal studies involving the chatbot FLOKI using the same scale (SUS) and
comparing the obtained scores with other AIEd interfaces. The text gathered from
the numerous interactions of the chatbot FLOKI can also be subjected to conver-
sation analysis to uncover further the knowledge construction process that unfolds
while the maritime trainees attempt to establish their understanding of COLREGs. It
should also be noted that the objective of the paper was to illustrate AIEd tool appli-
cation and COLREGs training was selected as a use case. The COLREGs-related
content and its presentation would need further refinement currently to be deemed
ready for classroom deployment. Future research should be directed to further inves-
tigate the application of AIEd tools to support efficiency, competence development,
and self-directed learning in MET and provide a multi-faceted approach to tackle the
fast-paced nature of evolution for the required skillsets for professional settings as
the maritime domain.
In this study, a proof of concept of AI in maritime education and training—the
chatbot FLOKI—was designed and implemented in a maritime classroom. The
chatbot demonstrated a use case in the COLREGs training for B.Sc. in Nautical
Science students. The 10-item SUS was utilized to gather the usability data con-
cerning effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction. The usability data gathered for
the chatbot FLOKI shows overall satisfaction in its usage by the maritime students
with a usability score in the 3rd quartile of the established benchmark. The obtained
SUS score was found to be not dependent on any prior experience of navigation or
chatbot interaction by the maritime students. Future research should be directed in
further investigation of the potential of AI chatbots such as FLOKI for supporting
knowledge components of the B.Sc. in Nautical Sciences education and investiga-
tion of avenues in MET at large for application of AIEd to promote efficiency and
competence development.

Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable insights
during the review process. The first author would like to thank Charlott Sellberg and Sashidharan Koman-
dur for their feedback on an initial version of the manuscript. This study was supported through the PhD
project no. 2700077 at the Department of maritime operations, University of South-Eastern Norway.

Funding Open Access funding provided by University Of South-Eastern Norway

Declarations

Conflict of interest The authors declare no competing interests.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License,
which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as
you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Com-
mons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article
are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the
material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is
not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission
directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://​creat​iveco​mmons.​org/​licen​
ses/​by/4.​0/.

13
 A. Sharma et al.

References
Adamopoulou, E., & Moussiades, L (2020) An overview of chatbot technology. Paper presented at: 16th
International Conference on Artificial Intelligence Applications and Innovations. 5–7 June 2020
Halkidi, Greece. Springer
Alop A (2019) The challenges of the digital technology era for maritime education and training. Paper
presented at: 2019 European Navigation Conference (ENC). 9-12 April 2019 Warsaw, Poland. IEEE
Baldauf M, Schröder-Hinrichs JU, Kataria A, Benedict K, Tuschling G (2016) Multidimensional simula-
tion in team training for safety and security in maritime transportation. J Transp Saf Sec 8(3):197–
213. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​19439​962.​2014.​996932
Bangor A, Kortum PT, Miller JT (2008) An empirical evaluation of the system usability scale. Intl J
Human-Comp Interact 24(6):574–594. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​10447​31080​22057​76
Brooke, J (1986) “SUS: a “quick and dirty” usability scale”. In: P. W. Jordan, B. Thomas, B. A. Weerd-
meester, & A. L. McClelland (eds.). Usability evaluation in industry. London: Taylor and Francis
Brooke J (2013) SUS: a retrospective. J Usability Stud 8(2):29–40
Buchanan C, Howitt ML, Wilson R, Booth RG, Risling T, Bamford M (2020) Predicted influences of
artificial intelligence on the domains of nursing: scoping review. JMIR Nursing 3(1):e23939. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​2196/​23939
Burke R, Clott C (2016) Technology, collaboration, and the future of maritime education. Paper pre-
sented at: RINA Education & Professional Development of Engineers in the maritime industry con-
ference. 20–21 September 2016. Singapore
Card D, Nelson C (2019) How automation and digital disruption are shaping the workforce of the future.
Strateg HR Rev 18(6):242–245. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​SHR-​08-​2019-​0067
Chauvin C, Lardjane S, Morel G, Clostermann JP, Langard B (2013) Human and organisational factors
in maritime accidents: analysis of collisions at sea using the HFACS. Accid Anal Prev 59:26–37.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​aap.​2013.​05.​006
Chen L, Chen P, Lin Z (2020) Artificial intelligence in education: a review. IEEE Access 8:75264–75278.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1109/​ACCESS.​2020.​29885​10
EMSA (2021) Link: http://​www.​emsa.​europa.​eu/​newsr​oom/​latest-​news/​downl​oad/​6955/​4266/​23.​html.
Date accessed: 06.03.2022
Ferreira FG, Gandomi AH, Cardoso RT (2021) Artificial intelligence applied to stock market trading: a
review. IEEE Access 9:30898–30917. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1109/​ACCESS.​2021.​30581​33
Goksel N, Bozkurt A (2019) Artificial intelligence in education: current insights and future perspectives.
In: S. Sisman-Ugur, & G. Kurubacak (Eds.). Handbook of research on learning in the age of tran-
shumanism. 224–236. Hershey, Pennsylvania, USA. IGI Global
IBM (2022) Watson Assistant: intelligent virtual agent. Link: https://​www.​ibm.​com/​no-​en/​produ​cts/​wat-
son-​assis​tant Date accessed: 03.03.2022
IMO (2021) Link: https://​www.​imo.​org/​en/​About/​Conve​ntions/​Pages/​COLREG.​aspx. Date accessed:
03.03.2022
Janssen TJ, Baldauf M, Müller-Plath G, Kitada M (2021) The future of shipping: a shore-based experi-
ence? Paper presented at: The 1st International Conference on Maritime Education and Develop-
ment. 24–24 November 2020. Durban, South-Africa. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​978-3-​030-​64088-0_5
Kitada M, Baldauf M, Mannov A, Svendsen PA, Baumler R, Schröder-Hinrichs JU, ... Lagdami K (2019)
Command of vessels in the era of digitalization. Paper presented at: International Conference on
Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics. 21–25 July 2018. Orlando, USA. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
978-3-​319-​94709-9_​32
Knowles MS (1975) Self-directed learning: a guide for learners and teachers. Prentice Hall/Cambridge.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA
Kouziokas GN (2017) The application of artificial intelligence in public administration for forecasting
high crime risk transportation areas in urban environment. Transp Res Procedia 24:467–473. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​trpro.​2017.​05.​083
Long D, Magerko B (2020) What is AI literacy? Competencies and design considerations. Paper pre-
sented at: 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 25–30 April 2020. Hono-
lulu, USA. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1145/​33138​31.​33767​27
Luckin R, Holmes W; Griffiths M, Forcier, LB (2016) Intelligence unleashed: an argument for AI in edu-
cation. London, U.K. Pearson Education

13
Design and implementation of AI chatbot for COLREGs training

MCA (2021) Link: https://​www.​gov.​uk/​gover​nment/​publi​catio​ns/​min-​653-m-​deck-​oral-​exam-​sylla​bus.

Date accessed: 03.03.2022
McCarthy J, Minsky ML, Rochester N, Shannon CE (2006) A proposal for the Dartmouth Summer
Research Project on artificial intelligence, august 31, 1955. AI Mag 27(4):12–14. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1609/​aimag.​v27i4.​1904
Mohovic D, Mohovic R, Baric M (2016) Deficiencies in learning COLREGs and new teaching meth-
odology for nautical engineering students and seafarers in lifelong learning programs. The J Navig
69(4):765–776. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1017/​S0373​46331​50009​6X
Nunnally J, Bernstein L (1994) Psychometric theory. New York, USA. McGraw-Hill Higher, INC.
Okonkwo CW, Ade-Ibijola A (2021) Chatbots applications in education: a systematic review. Comput Ed:
Artificial Intell 2:1–10. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​caeai.​2021.​100033
Owoc ML, Sawicka A, Weichbroth P (2021) Artificial intelligence technologies in education: benefits,
challenges and strategies of implementation. Paper presented at: IFIP International workshop on
Artificial Intelligence for Knowledge Management. 11 August 2019. Macau, China. Springer
Pedro F, Subosa M, Rivas A, Valverde P (2019) Artificial intelligence in education: challenges and
opportunities for sustainable development. UNESCO working paper. Link: https://​unesd​oc.​unesco.​
org/​ark:/​48223/​pf000​03669​94. Date accessed: 06.03.2022
Rahm L (2021) Education, automation and AI: a genealogy of alternative futures, Learning, Media and
Technology 1-19.https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​17439​884.​2021.​19779​48
Rapp A, Curti L, Boldi A (2021) The human side of human-chatbot interaction: a systematic literature
review of ten years of research on text-based chatbots. Int J Hum Comput Stud 151:102630. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ijhcs.​2021.​102630
Rotatori D, Lee EJ, Sleeva S (2021) The evolution of the workforce during the fourth industrial revolu-
tion. Hum Resour Dev Int 24(1):92–103. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​13678​868.​2020.​17674​53
Samuelis L (2007) Notes on the components for intelligent tutoring systems. Acta Polytechnica Hunga-
rica 4(2):77–85
Schiff D (2021) Out of the laboratory and into the classroom: the future of artificial intelligence in educa-
tion. AI & Soc 36(1):331–348. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00146-​020-​01033-8
Schröder-Hinrichs JU, Hollnagel E, Baldauf M (2012) From Titanic to Costa Concordia—a century of
lessons not learned. WMU J Marit Aff 11(2):151–167. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s13437-​012-​0032-3
Sharma GD, Yadav A, Chopra R (2020) Artificial intelligence and effective governance: a review, cri-
tique and research agenda. Sustainable Futures 2:100004. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​sftr.​2019.​100004
Sharma A, Kim TE (2021) Exploring technical and non-technical competencies of navigators for autono-
mous shipping. Marit Pol Manag 1-19https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​03088​839.​2021.​19148​74
Suta P, Lan X, Wu B, Mongkolnam P, Chan JH (2020) An overview of machine learning in chatbots. Int J
Mech Eng Robot Res 9:502–510. https://​doi.​org/​10.​18178/​ijmerr.​9.4.​502-​510
Thirslund S (1997) Sailing directions of the North Atlantic Viking age (from about the year 860 to 1400).
J Nav 50(1):55–64. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1017/​S0373​46330​00235​84
Timms MJ (2016) Letting artificial intelligence in education out of the box: educational cobots and smart
classrooms. Int J Artif Intell Educ 26(2):701–712. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s40593-​016-​0095-y
Weizenbaum J (1966) ELIZA—a computer program for the study of natural language communication
between man and machine. Commun ACM 9:36–45. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1145/​365153.​365168
Zawacki-Richter O, Marín VI, Bond M, Gouverneur F (2019) Systematic review of research on artifi-
cial intelligence applications in higher education–where are the educators? Int J Educ Technol High
Educ 16(1):1–27. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s41239-​019-​0171-0
Ziarati R (2006) Safety at sea–applying Pareto analysis. Paper presented at: 8th International Naval Engi-
neering Conference. 6–10 March 2006. London, UK. IMarEST

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

13
Article 4
Sharma, A. (2022). Evaluation of digital skills for maritime students. Paper presented at 14th
International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies (EDULEARN’22), 3-6 July
2022, Palma, Spain. DOI: 10.21125/edulearn.2022.2039 (Extended Version)
 Author’s personal copy

Evaluation of digital skills for maritime students

Amit Sharma1
1
Department of maritime operations, University of South-Eastern Norway (Norway)

Abstract
Digital skills have become increasingly important in various sectors such as marine
transportation. Changing job demands require the proficiency in digital skills to thrive in an
increasingly complex 21st century work environments. Maritime domain has witnessed steady
changes in the way education and training is delivered for preparing its future workforce. Novel
ways of e-learning and mobile-assisted learning solutions have the potential to transform
educational models and facilitate innovation in learning processes. Recently, impact due to
Covid-19 and mitigation measures towards continuation of educational delivery also led to
accelerated efforts to integrate technology in the maritime classrooms. The prospective
maritime students and their digital skills will play a key role in this arena.
The evaluation of the digital skills of maritime students can promote efforts toward greater
digital literacy and in turn optimal utilization of novel learning sources. In this study, a standard
and validated scale – Youth Digital Skills Indicator (yDSI) was used to evaluate the digital skills
of students from a major maritime manpower supplying nation - the Philippines. The digital
skills of the maritime students were evaluated along four dimensions – (1) Technical and
operational skills (2) Information navigation and processing skills (3) Communication and
interaction skills and (4) Content creation and production skills. A total number of 234 valid
responses were obtained in this research study. The findings illustrate the relative scores of the
students in these four dimensions of digital skills. Furthermore, a Confirmatory Factor Analysis
(CFA) was also carried out to assess the measurement model. The statistical findings such as
the measurement model fit indices and the descriptive results shed light on the level of digital
skills for maritime students in the selected country and can inform the Maritime Education and
Training (MET) stakeholders on the potential challenges associated with the digitalization of
maritime education.

Keywords: Maritime Education and Training, Digital skills, Digitalization, Industry 4.0

1 Introduction
One of the discernible characteristics of working in 21st-century environments is the emphasis
on digitalization. Digitalization can be referred to as incorporating digital technologies into the
working environment to improve efficiency and innovate the work processes. In addition to
domain-specific skills, digital skills are becoming increasingly important for workers to thrive
in these environments [1]. The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
(UNCTAD) have remarked that the digital skills are no more optional in modern work
environments [2]. Correspondingly, the educational institutes emphasize using and inculcating
digital skills for the trainees undertaking various programs to join the mainstream workforce.
Digitalization in education through the usage of advanced Information and Communication
Technologies (ICTs) is aimed to meet these objectives. ICT is an umbrella term for digital
devices such as personal computers, smartphones, laptops, and tablets interconnected through
 Author’s personal copy

various networks such as the internet, satellite links, radio waves, etc. Essentially, the learners
utilizing ICTs can connect in common platforms whether they are physically co-located or are
remotely connected with the learning platform. This phenomenon has therefore led to improved
access to education and its delivery on a much greater scale. The global e-learning market has
witnessed consistent growth in recent years. It is estimated to reach a total value of 400 billion
USD in the year 2026, almost doubling from the size of 200 billion USD in 2019 [3]. The
presence of multimedia in learning content also allows a richer experience of interaction for the
students when compared to traditional methods. It enables adaptive learning with greater
control over the pace of learning for the students and the possibility to communicate with their
peers in various modes, in addition to regular face-to-face dialogue. For the teachers and
educators, such advances allow them to track better the learning and engagement metrics of
their classroom and the program. Notwithstanding these benefits of digitalization in education,
some challenges and limitations have also correspondingly emerged out of these advancements.
The use of technology can only benefit the learning outcomes if its integrated strategically and
pro-actively [4]. Certain additional factors that may impact the realization of potential benefits
can be - institutional support, infrastructure, and orientation of instructors [5]. Consequently,
there is ongoing debate regarding the efficacy and utilization of digital solutions to training and
education [6]. However, it is evident that digitalization transforms the learning experience for
both learners and instructors. For the instructors, it offers new modes of learning content
delivery as well assessment of learning outcomes. Whereas for the students, it offers
personalized learning experience with possibility of online collaboration with peers. The recent
impact of Covid-19 and corresponding mitigation measures caused an accelerated push toward
the introduction of digitalization in education [7]. To comply with pandemic protocols, it
became necessary and compulsory to conduct some part of training and education online for
most educational institutions. During such scenario, the approach to offer remote learning
solutions differed among institutions as per the level and type of education offered. It was noted
that vocational education and training sector required additional considerations in this regard,
due to skill based and practical nature of education, as well as its central role in global economy
[8].
The Maritime Education and Training (MET) domain can be described as a type of vocational
education and training sector that caters to the need of maritime industry. The Maritime industry
is responsible for about 90% of the international trade and movement of valuable goods across
the globe [9]. The maritime industry is often characterized as a truly global industry. For
example, a ship can be built and commissioned in one country and be manned by seafarers of
another country while carrying cargo for a third country, between any two ports in the world
[10]. Additionally, the maritime industry has unique operational requirements due to its
dynamic nature of work. Therefore, digitalization in operations is naturally expected to be
leveraged in the maritime industry to maintain adequate communication and operational links
with the high value asset such as ships. The safe and efficient operation of ships depends on the
knowledge and skillset of the seafarers onboard to a considerable extent. The seafarers
employed in such high value assets need to have high standards of professional education and
training due to safety aspects. In recent years, the training and education framework for the
seafarers working in the ship has witnessed an evolution to match the changing operational
aspects of shipping [11,12]. Nonetheless, the seafarers are operating in an increasingly
technology-rich environment. In addition, due to advances in ship technologies, maritime
education is being offered as a combination of on-the-job training and shore-based training. The
MET can be described as having both theoretical and practical components which the seafarers
need to be proficient in [13]. Usually, the theoretical component of education and training is
conducted on shore while the practical component is mastered onboard. However, due to
 Author’s personal copy

improved internet and satellite connectivity, it is now possible for seafarers to continue some
aspects of theoretical training in the form of Computer Based Training (CBT) even while
onboard. Conversely, some practical components can be acquired through the use of simulators
while at shore. These developments have enabled ubiquitous learning solutions and continuous
professional development. Some noticeable advances in this regard have been the use of mobile
learning solutions enabled by smartphones and tablets and the use of Virtual and Augmented
Reality for simulation [14]. The use of such digital technologies, as mentioned above, also
allows the trainees to jointly partake in the learning exercises and even enables them to take the
initiative in the experience. A noticeable trend towards increasing use of digital learning
solutions whether onboard or at shore is observed. Despite these developments, it is noted that
emphasis on digital literacy or digital skills of the maritime trainees is not explicitly addressed
in the current Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping (STCW) framework [15].
As the maritime industry enters the era of industry 4.0, the mode of vessel control and operation
will witness a fundamental shift towards those marked by interconnected digital systems with
the role of seafarers relegated to increasingly supervisory control [16]. Proficiency in digital
skills will form an important component for the transition and reorganization of job roles for
the seafarers.
Considering these facets of shipping, it is of considerable interest for Maritime Education and
Training (MET) institutions and stakeholders to take into account the digital skills of the
maritime trainees along with the regular operational skills. Lack of focus towards digital skills
could lead to a digital divide for the MET community which could eventually translate into
skills gap [17]. Furthermore, the need for maritime trainees to possess adequate digital skills is
also related to their future employability and career progression. To support the development
of digital skills for the maritime trainees and charting out a roadmap to address some of the
above discussed issues, it is first necessary to identify frameworks which allows adequate
measurement and evaluation of these digital skills. The present study is aimed to contribute to
this specific thematic area in MET. In this paper, a standardized and validated scale – Youth
Digital Skills Indicator (yDSI) is utilized to measure the digital skills of the maritime trainees
[18]. The yDSI measures the digital skills of the respondents in four dimensions – (1) Technical
and operational skills (2) Information navigation and processing skills (3) Communication and
interaction skills and (4) Content creation and production skills. The primary research question
which was posed was – What is the current level and proficiency in digital skills of maritime
trainees? For the purpose of this study the scope was narrowed down to include an example
case of a major maritime workforce supplier nation – the Philippines. It is recognized as one of
the largest suppliers of both officers and ratings in the global pool of working seafarers [19,20].
In the next section, the need for focusing on the digital skills of the maritime trainees is
described in greater details along with the generic 21st century skills requirements for modern
vocational education and training, before describing the methodology and findings originating
from the current work.

2 Background and Literature Review

The labor market for any domain is usually in a state of constant flux as it evolves and adapts
to the global economy, which itself is bound to change due to a variety of factors. In the
contemporary era, some of the factors which are impacting the labor market in general can be
listed as – globalization, demographic shifts, digitalization and climate change [21]. An
unforeseen but equally impactful factor has been the Covid-19 pandemic which dramatically
affected the functioning of various industries and businesses. While the impact of Covid-19
 Author’s personal copy

pandemic has been disruptive and complex to assess in certain instances, a noticeable trend had
been the adoption on digital technologies for carrying out various job functions to comply with
pandemic protocols. It has led to increase in emergence of activities such as remote work, online
education and e-commerce to name a few. However, it can be argued that Covid-19 pandemic
merely acted as a catalyst to already existing mega-trends in the global economy where
digitalization as a phenomenon was occurring for the past few years. The current era of
industrial transformation is also referred to as “Industry 4.0” which can be defined as
“organizational and technological changes along with value chains integration and new
business models development that are driven by customer needs and mass customization
requirements and enabled by innovative technologies, connectivity and IT integration.” [22,
p.849]. A key characteristic in industry 4.0 is the inter-connectivity of various sub-systems
enabled by the Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) as well as the focus on
automation of various job functions which leads to less labor-intensive alternatives. The
operational environments and businesses are increasingly embracing digitalization as a measure
to improve their overall efficiency. As a result of industry 4.0 related developments,
corresponding changes in the work profile and job requirements are occurring in some of the
impacted sectors. While the overall effect following the use of new technology is improvement
in efficiency, the process also leads to changes in the job profiles and consequently the skills
requirements for the new roles [23]. Digitalization leads to a decrease in “lower” skill
requirements while the routine and repetitive aspects of work are automated. Whereas it leads
to demand in “higher” skills which are related to monitoring, interaction and decision making
with the digital systems. As the job requirements change for any role, there is corresponding
need for the employees to be trained for performing in the new and adapted roles. Failure to
respond to the new job requirements can lead to a deficiency in supply and demand of these
new roles, which in simple terms can be described as a situation of skills mismatch in the
industry. Skills mismatch in the industry, at various levels is undesirable, as it translates to
losses in economy and value creation in society at large. Furthermore, there is usually a time
lag between the changing skills demand and the response in equivalent training delivery.
According to the International Labor Organization (ILO), one of the most important
preventative measures to avoid skills mismatch is to anticipate future skill gaps [24]. It is
important for the industry stakeholders and policy makers to determine the future skills
requirement for ensuring that the industry remains competitive and resilient in the face of
disruptive changes due to the advancement of technologies and other external factors.
The maritime industry has also experienced operational changes as the result of the industry 4.0
transformations. Some of the key trends in relation to industry 4.0 and maritime domain has
been developments in relation to - smart ports, digital twins, blockchain adoption, autonomous
vessels and 3D printing to name a few [25,26]. From an operational perspective, the trend
regarding the development of autonomous vessels is the most relevant in terms of anticipating
future skill requirements, as it can have impact on the employment of the seafarers working at
the sharp end. Autonomous vessels, as the name suggest, describe a type of ships that are highly
automated and operate quasi-independently with only monitoring from human operators being
required. The conceptualization of such vessels is materializing in the maritime domain with
the projects such as - Yara Birkeland and Zhi Fei [27]. However, it can also be stated that
developments in relation to increasing automation and consequently a reduction in crew size
have been taking place in maritime domain for few decades, and autonomous shipping
represents the next step change of such trends. For example, during the second half of 20th
century, due to factors such as - mechanization of deck, unitization of cargo, automated boiler
control, development of RADAR/GPS and other advances, significant reduction of crew size
in merchant shipping was observed [28]. At the start of the 21st century, the ships experienced
 Author’s personal copy

continuous digitalization due to advances such as e-navigation and unmanned machinery spaces
which led to further reorganization of job tasks and overall reduction of crew size [29,30].
Consequently, the training of the seafarers also changed as a response. The navigation officers
onboard are now trained in the use of systems such as - Electronic Chart Display and
Information System (ECDIS), Automatic Identification System (AIS), Global Positioning
System (GPS) and so on. For example, the act of determining position of the vessel which used
to be a process taking several steps and involving paper charts, has now transformed into only
monitoring of the processed information by the bridge equipment on the digital screens. The
priority for navigation officers is now given towards training them for operating such digital
systems, understanding their limitations and managing cognitive resources through Bridge
Resource Management (BRM) and similar measures. The domain of Maritime Education and
Training (MET) has also witnessed changes in the way, seafarers are prepared for these new
roles. For example, a trainee navigation officer, in addition to onboard training, can also
complete a significant amount of training through the use of simulators. The immersivity and
fidelity of the maritime simulators have correspondingly increased to offer more realistic
recreation of operational environments over the years [31]. Additionally, due to improved
internet connectivity and proliferation of digital devices such as desktop and laptop computers,
Computer-Based Training (CBT) has also been widely adapted for the purposes of instructional
delivery [32]. These trends show increasing impact of digitalization in both operational and
educational aspects of maritime industry.
There are several research articles that have drawn attention to the new operational environment
where prospective seafarers will operate due to ongoing automation and digitalization in the
maritime domain. For example, Shahbakhsh et al. [33] recognized the important trends in the
shipping sector with regard to continuous digitization and indicated that the next generation of
shipping will demand significant mediation of human and technology agents through digital
interfaces. In such a scenario, the demand for basic digital literacy as a core knowledge for the
seafarers would be a realistic necessity. Similarly, Alop [34] argued that competency in ICT
skills, in addition to the conventional maritime operational knowledge, will be critical in
preparing the maritime industry for an intelligent shipping environment. However, all of the
aforementioned papers are conceptual in nature, and the MET stakeholders are yet to develop
a more realistic approach to identifying the significance of digital skills for potential maritime
trainees. Corresponding efforts towards upskilling of the maritime students are required to
ensure fulfillment of job requirements. Improved digital literacy or proficiency in digital skills
can assist the maritime trainees to meet the job and training demands and succeed in the
evolving environment of this safety critical domain. An initial step in this regard would also be
to conduct investigation regarding the present levels of digital skills and identify standard
frameworks and instruments to measure the same.
The need for the digital skills of the maritime trainees should also be considered in light of the
changing skills requirements for the technical vocational education and training arenas in
general [35]. A generic set of skills, commonly referred to as the 21st century skills have been
described by educational stakeholders and policy makers to be vital for preparing the workforce
for future. 21st century skills refer to a particular set of skills that educational researchers claim
are necessary to succeed in the modern knowledge based economy. There are various
frameworks and definitions given in the existing literature regarding what specific skills might
comprise in this set. For example, The Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD) in their 2009 working paper stated that the 21st century skills can be
divided broadly into two dimensions – (1) information dimension and the (2) communication
dimension [36]. They further describe distinct skills which belong to these two dimensions.
 Author’s personal copy

Skills such as information literacy, creativity and innovation, problem solving, decision making,
research and enquiry, and media literacy were listed as belonging to the information dimension.
Whereas skills such as critical thinking, collaboration, flexibility, ethics and social
responsibility were denoted as belonging to the communication dimension. In contrast, the
European Union (EU) have put forth a number of “key competences” for life-long learning that
will be necessary in the 21st century. It is stated that these key competences consist of well-
defined knowledge, skills and attitudes and are equal in their importance for all round
development of the EU citizens. The key competences are listed as – literacy competence,
multilingual competence, mathematical competence and competence in science, technology
and engineering, digital competence, personal, social and learning to learn competence,
citizenship competence, entrepreneurial competence, and lastly, cultural awareness and
expression competence [37]. Another highly cited source with reference to the 21st century
skills is the P21 (Partnership for 21st century skills) framework [38]. The P21 Framework for
21st Century Learning was established with input from academics, education experts, and
industry leaders to describe and illustrate the skills, knowledge, expertise, and social
infrastructure students require to succeed in their careers, lives, and citizenship. It divides the
required 21st century skills into three distinct themes – (1) Learning and Innovation skills (2)
Information, media & technology skills and (3) Life & Career skills. Some examples given
under learning and innovation skills include – creativity & innovation, communication, critical
thinking and collaboration. Examples of Information, media & technology skills include –
Information literacy, media literacy and ICT literacy. Whereas examples of life & career skills
are given as – flexibility, adaptability, productivity, accountability, social & cross-cultural skills
and so on. As can be seen in the above frameworks, the requirements related to digital skills
have been consistently mentioned as being necessary for 21st century work environments.
Digital skills will play a vital role in work and civic life in the coming years as the industry and
society gradually adapt digitalization and transform itself.
There are various existing frameworks which have been devised for the purpose of assessing
the digital skills of individuals. Carretero, Vuorikari and Punie [39] have classified them into
four types – (1) performance assessment (2) knowledge-based assessment (3) Self-assessment
(4) Secondary data gathering and analysis. For the purpose of this research, only self-
assessment-based frameworks were considered. In this regard, there are some established
questionnaires and instruments available. For example, EU project administered by Joint
Research Centre has formulated a framework called - The Digital Competence Framework for
Citizens, also referred as “DigiComp”. It measures the digital skills of the respondents in five
dimensions – such as (1) Information and Data literacy (2) Digital Content Creation (3) Problem
Solving (4) Communication and Collaboration and (5) Safety. The project was piloted in 2010
and has now had four iterations with the latest framework known as DigiComp 2.2 which was
released in 2022. It has been useful for the purposes of creating training materials, identifying
individual profiles and designing competence assessment tools [40]. The International
Telecommunication Union (ITU) has formulated a digital skills toolkit which divides the digital
skills of an individual into three levels – (1) Basic (2) Intermediate and (3) Advanced which
captures the proficiency in digital skills from a foundational level which involves basic digital
tasks such as operating the digital devices and handling the data to relatively advanced topics
such as - mobile app development, handling big data and knowledge related to artificial
intelligence. However, as the focus of the investigation in this paper was towards measuring the
self-reported proficiency of students with clear operational definition of digital skills related to
learning and teaching tasks, the framework as developed by Helsper et al. [18] was selected.
The yDSI indicator originated recently from an EU project titled ySKILLS, with its aim to
maximize the digital skills development of the youth. The yDSI scale is a cross-nationally
 Author’s personal copy

validated scale which has 25 items based on conceptualization of various dimensions of the
digital skills that should be acquired by the students for enabling them to utilize the digital
resources for their learning.

3 Methods
The Youth Digital Skills Indicator (yDSI) questionnaire was digitalized for administering to
maritime students enrolled in Bachelor of Science courses at several Maritime Education and
Training (MET) institutes in the Philippines to achieve the research objective. As described
earlier, yDSI questionnaire assesses digital abilities in four dimensions: (1) technical and
operational skills, (2) information navigation and processing skills, (3) communication and
interaction skills, and (4) content creation and production skills. The questionnaire was
digitalized using the Nettskjema platform and delivered via the network of the industrial partner
of the affiliated institute - TERP AS. The industrial partner is an established digital solutions
provider for MET in the Philippines. The questionnaire included a brief explanation of the
project's goal and acquired informed consent from all respondents. The information was
gathered between the dates of 10.03.22 and 20.03.22. There were 270 responses received in
total. Due to straight-lining, 36 responses were eliminated, leaving 234 responses to be
considered for the final data analysis. There are various guidelines regarding the minimum
sample size for CFA. Usually, studies suggest a sample size of at least 200 responses when
conducting CFA and this condition was adequately met [41,42]. Thereafter, software packages
SPSS©, SmartPLS4© and MS Excel© were used to examine the data. First a frequency and
percentage distribution of responses as rated by the participants from “Not at all true of me” (1)
to “Very true of me” (5) was tabulated. It should be noted that the questionnaire had two
additional responses such as - “I do not want to answer” and “I do not know what you mean”
also included to cater for social desirability bias. Therefore, the respondents had the opportunity
to choose from 7 values in the scale. The obtained responses were then categorized accordingly
using descriptive statistics and visualized in the form of bar graphs as shown in Figures 1-4.
The demographic data of the respondents, in terms of age, gender and discipline (B.Sc. Nautical
science or B.Sc. Marine engineering) is given below in Table 1:
Table 1. Demographics of the respondents
Gender Male Female
221 (94.4%) 13 (5.6%)
Discipline B.Sc. Nautical B.Sc. Mar.Eng.
210 (89.7%) 24 (10.3%)
Avg. Age 21.11 years S.D = 0.73

Further a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to evaluate the measurement model in
addition to collecting descriptive data. CFA is a popular statistical approach in the
research literature for providing support for construct validation [43]. For calculating the CFA
fit indices and the path diagram, SPSS AMOS version 23 software package was utilized. The
path diagram as given in the Figure 5 was drawn with four dimensions of the digital skills as
described in the yDSI scale were drawn in AMOS with each having six related items under
them. An error term “u” was assigned for each variable (item) and its regression weight value
was set to 1. Subsequently, under the “Object properties” menu, calculate estimates button was
selected and checkboxes of desired relevant parameters such as standardized estimates and
squared multiple correlations were ticked before clicking on the button to view the final output.
 Author’s personal copy

4 Results
The obtained results are described below in the form of bar graphs, tables and CFA model
along with the fit indices.
4.1 yDSI – Technical and Operations skills

Figure 1. Technical and Operational Skills – Frequency percentage distribution

Table 2. yDSI scale dimension Technical and Operational skills

S.no Item description Factor Itm-tot. AVE CR Cronb.

loading corr.
α
TO1 I know how to adjust privacy setting 0.614 0.569

TO2 I know how to turn off the location 0.664 0.696

settings on mobile devices

TO3 I know how to protect a mobile 0.682 0.693

device (e.g. with a PIN, a screen
pattern or a finger-print)
TO4 I know how to have the same 0.687 0.714 0.434 0.821 0.849
documents, contacts and apps on all
devices that I use

TO5 I know how to use private browsing 0.599 0.598

(e.g. incognito mode)

TO6 I know how to block unwanted pop- 0.699 0.547

up messages or ads
 Author’s personal copy

4.2 yDSI – Information Navigation and Processing skills

Figure 2. Information Navigation and Processing Skills – Frequency percentage distribution

Table 3. yDSI scale dimension Information Navigation and Processing skills

S.no Item description Factor Itm- tot. AVE CR Cronb

loading corr.
α

IN1 I know how to choose the best keywords 0.732 0.584

for online searches

IN2 I know how to find a website I have 0.626 0.654

visited before

IN3 I know how to find information on 0.778 0.666

a website no matter how it is designed

IN4 I know how to use advanced search 0.770 0.685

functions in search engines 0.464 0.836 0.872

IN5 I know how to check if the information I 0.605 0.759

find online is true
IN6 I know how to figure out if a website 0.541 0.693
can be trusted
 Author’s personal copy

4.3 yDSI – Communication and Interaction skills

Figure 3. Communication and Interaction Skills – Frequency percentage distribution

Table 4. yDSI scale dimension Communication and Interaction skills

S.no Item description Factor Itm- tot. AVE CR Cronb.

loading corr.
α

CI1 Depending on who I want to communicate 0.710 0.744

with, I know which medium or tool to use
(make a call, send a WhatsApp message,
send an email, etc.)

CI2 I know when to mute myself or disable 0.766 0.780

video in online interactions

CI3 I know which images and information of 0.846 0.783

me it is OK to share online

CI4 I know when it is appropriate and when it 0.754 0.774

is not appropriate to use emoticons (e.g. 0.524 0.867 0.910
smileys, emojis) or text speak or capital
letters

CI5 I know how to report negative content 0.573 0.677

relating to me or a group to which I
belong

CI6 I know how to recognize when someone is 0.662 0.750

being bullied online
 Author’s personal copy

4.4 yDSI – Content Creation and Production skills

Figure 4. Content Creation and Production Skills – Frequency percentage distribution

Table 5. yDSI scale dimension Content Creation and Production

S.no Item description Factor Itm-tot. AVE CR Cronb.

loading corr.
α

CP1 I know how to create something which 0.528 0.621

incorporates different digital media
(images, music, video, GIFs)

CP2 I know how to edit existing online 0.587 0.652

images, music and videos
CP3 I know how to ensure that many people 0.448 0.642
will see what I put online

CP4 I know how to change the things I put 0.621 0.728

online depending on how other people
react to it 0.389 0.787 0.857
CP5 I know how to distinguish sponsored 0.758 0.665
and non-sponsored content

CP6 I know when I am allowed to use 0.740 0.582

content covered by copyright
 Author’s personal copy

4.5 yDSI – Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) results

Figure 5. CFA path diagram of the yDSI scale

 Author’s personal copy

Table 6. CFA fit indices

Indices Value

χ2 597.75

df 246

Sig. 0.000

RMSEA 0.078

RMR 0.063

CFI 0.895

TLI 0.882
Note - χ2 = Chi square, df = degrees of freedom, Sig = significance level, RMSEA = root mean square
error of approximation, RMR = root mean squared residual, CFI = comparative fit index and TLI =
Tucker-Lewis index

4.6 Reliability and Validity

The theoretical structure of yDSI was also evaluated through confirmatory factor analysis. The
description of each item from the four dimensions of the yDSI scale and the values obtained
from the confirmatory analysis are provided in Tables 2-5. For the ease of description, the short
form of the factors is provided such as - TO, IN, CI and CP. Each of the factor in turn have 6
items under its description as given in Tables 2-5. Therefore, each item falls under one of these
categories: TO (1-6), IN (1-6), CI (1-6) & CP (1-6). As can be observed, except CP3, all other
items demonstrated a factor loading greater than 0.5 for their respective dimensions. The item-
total correlation for all the items were between 0.5 - 0.8, demonstrating adequate internal
consistency. For assessing the convergent validity, which is measured using Average Variance
Extracted (AVE), a threshold of 0.5 is often set. It can be seen that except the dimension
communication and interaction skills, none of the remaining dimensions exceeded this
threshold. However, if the AVE is less than 0.5 of a factor, but its composite reliability is greater
than 0.6, the convergent validity is observed as adequate [44]. The composite reliability (CR)
values of the factors ranged between 0.79 – 0.87. The Cronbach’s alpha values which indicated
reliability measure of the factors ranged between 0.85 – 0.91, indicating a good level of
reliability [45]. The path coefficient values between the item and the factor and between the
factors themselves ranged between 0.56 to 0.82 as can be seen in the Figure 5. The CFA fit
indices are summarized in the Table 6. As can be observed in the table, the χ2 to df ratio is 2.43,
which is below the established threshold of 3 and therefore is deemed acceptable [46]. The
RMSEA value obtained was 0.078. The preferred RMSEA value in the literature is 0.05,
however, a value below 0.08 is acceptable and represents reasonable error of approximation
[47]. Similarly, the RMR value of 0.063 was below the commonly used threshold of 0.08. The
CFI and TLI values were 0.895 and 0.882. Although for these indices a value equal or greater
than 0.90 is preferred, the obtained values as can be seen are close to cut-off [48]. A greater
sample size could have been more suitable for evaluating fit; however, it can be seen from the
obtained indices that a reasonable performance of the theoretical model was observed.
 Author’s personal copy

5 Discussions
As observed from the descriptive results and the bar graphs of the four dimensions of digital
skills, it can be noted that the students have rated their proficiency in technical and operational
skills and communication and interaction skills higher than their proficiency in information
navigation and processing along with content creation and production skills. For example, if
we observe the proportion of responses obtained for the Likert scale value “4”, which would
imply that the statement is “Mostly true” for the student, indicating a reasonable level of
proficiency in digital skill item in question, as given in Figures 1-4. For the dimension –
technical and operational skills, these values ranged from 46-68%. Whereas, for the dimension
– communication and interaction skills, the values ranged from 50-60%. In contrast for the
dimension – information navigation and processing skills, the value ranged only between 23-
43%. Similarly for the dimension content creation and production skills, these values ranged
from 29-40%. An avenue of potential improvement can therefore be identified in the latter two
dimensions. It indicates that the students are relatively unsure regarding how to seek pertaining
information during interacting with digital media and evaluate its credibility. Furthermore,
relatively low scores in the content creation and production dimension indicates that the
students are unsure regarding how to produce digital content which can be incorporated in their
education and related copyright issues. While the students feel relatively confident in
elementary uses of technology such as operating the digital devices, manipulating the files,
navigating the system architecture, using the ICT technologies for everyday communication
and sharing the resources, they might feel less proficient for transformational uses of the same
technology for creating their own learning resources, editing them, verifying accuracy of
information obtained and understanding handling of intellectual property. For the former case,
it implies that to support the higher order discussions in the classroom instruction and
curriculum design, relative low score on the above-mentioned dimensions could present a
possible bottleneck for orienting students to create and evaluate knowledge. Due to an increase
in digital distributed modes of learning content delivery, novel opportunities to create scenarios
and exercises would present themselves where the self-directed learning process can be led by
the students and facilitated by the instructors. Without catering to these factors related to digital
content engagement by students, any proposed solutions in instructional delivery or effort in
educational innovation will have only limited impact. However, relatively less score on the
latter dimension can also translate to unforeseen results such as cybersecurity lapses. For
example, the “NotPetya” cyber-attack on the shipping company Maersk in 2017, led to not only
heavy losses to the organization, but also presented a logistical challenge for several ports
around the world [49]. It is difficult to foresee how the new risks in the maritime cyber-security
domain would evolve. Despite this, the basic awareness of cyber-security for the maritime
students can be built on an adequate level of digital proficiency in this regard, specially related
to information navigation and its processing. The relatively low levels of digital skills in the
information navigation and content creation dimensions of digital skills can also be compared
with the pedagogical model given by Bloom [50]. According to the Bloom’s taxonomy, there
are six hierarchical levels of cognitive processes which should be tied with specific educational
objectives – (1) Remember (2) Understand (3) Apply (4) Analyze (5) Evaluate and (6) Create.
The low levels of information navigation and content creation skills could potentially affect the
levels 5 & 6 of the Bloom’s taxonomy. In other words, while the students may perform
satisfactorily with the elementary level of tasks, relatively higher level of engagement with the
learning content may not occur on the account of low skills in these dimensions. It may have
implications for introducing and adapting digital medium in the maritime classrooms and
therefore requires cognizance from the MET stakeholders to address this area satisfactorily.
Targeted training and workshops by the shipping management companies for their crew could
 Author’s personal copy

be argued as a possible response, however, more favorable changes could come through
regulatory advances related to maritime education and training, which explicitly take into
account the need to cultivate digital skills of seafarers.
The present study was an exploratory study which evaluated the digital skills of maritime
trainees using a standardized instrument. Some existing limitations of this research study should
also be acknowledged. Firstly, a greater sample size could have resulted in better generalization
of the results. The obtained results from the CFA analysis indicates a satisfactory level of model
fit. However, an even greater number of sample size could have added further evidence.
Furthermore, the data was collected from only one of the maritime human resource supplier
nations. Therefore, the results should be interpreted only in this narrow context. The data
collection and comparison from geographical regions, other than the Philippines can shed
further light on the level of digital proficiency of MET domain as a whole. It is also to be noted
that the study was quantitative in nature. The collection of additional qualitative data through
interviews or focused group discussions can add further perspective to the findings. Further
studies are required to anticipate the skills requirement of the seafarers which could lead to
more perspectives regarding the future education and training efforts needed to prepare the
maritime workforce.
With increasing instances of technology being integrated in regular classrooms and on-the-job
training, the maritime trainees would be expected to acquire, critique and construct knowledge
along with their peers and therefore them having consideration of digital skills proficiency can
facilitate the learning experiences. An understanding of digitalization and its impact is also
necessary for the instructors who are facilitating learning and education in maritime classrooms,
as well as the MET stakeholders at large, to ensure that the learning objectives can be met. The
e-learning and distance learning solutions will enable the content to be produced or shared
irrespective of the geographical barriers and therefore an effort towards assessing digital skills
is also necessary. Future research could be directed to measuring and comparing the digital
skills in other geographical regions that are also playing key role in human resource
development for the maritime community.

6 Conclusion
In the present study, a standardized and validated scale – Youth Digital Skills Indicator (yDSI)
was used to measure digital skills of the maritime trainees from the Philippines. The result
indicate that the students rate their information navigation and processing skills along with the
content creation and production skills lower than their technical and operation skills and the
communication and interaction skills in the overall framework of digital skills. The reliability
and validity of the yDSI questionnaire was found to be reasonable in the present context. Future
research should be directed to comparison of similar data from other geographical regions as
well as in-depth interviews and other qualitative studies that could further contribute in the
ongoing efforts to address the digitalization related challenges and opportunities for the
Maritime Education and Training sector.

Acknowledgements
The author would like to acknowledge funding support for the PhD project. 2700077 from the
Department of maritime operations, University of South-Eastern Norway. The author would
also like to thank the industrial partner TERP AS in assistance regarding data collection.
 Author’s personal copy

References
[1] S. Billett, “Developing a Skillful and Adaptable Workforce: Reappraising
Curriculum and Pedagogies for Vocational Education” in Vocational education
and training in the age of digitization: challenges and opportunities (E. Wuttke,
J. Seifried, & H.M. Niegemann (eds.)), 250-272, Toronto, Canada: Barbara
Budrich, 2020.
[2] UNCTAD. Link: https://unctad.org/news/digital-skills-are-not-optional-todays-
tech-savvy-world. Date accessed: 07.05.23.
[3] Statista. Link: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1130331/e-learning-market-
size-segment-worldwide/#statisticContainer. Date accessed: 07.05.23
[4] K. S. Moser, “The Challenges of Digitalization in Higher Education Teaching”.
In: University Continuing Education: Facts and Future. (T. Zimmermann, W.
Jütte & F. Horvath (eds.)), Bern: Hep Verlag. 2016.
[5] S. Harrell & Y. Bynum, “Factors affecting technology integration in the
classroom.” Alabama Journal of Educational Leadership, 5, 12-18. 2018
[6] J. Busse, M. Lange & M. Schumann, "Effects of digitalization on vocational
education and training: First results of a qualitative study” in DELFI 2019 (N.
Pinkwart & J. Konert (eds.)), 67- 72, Bonn, Germany: Gesellschaft für
Informatik, 2019.
[7] V. J. García-Morales, A. Garrido-Moreno, & R. Martín-Rojas “The
transformation of higher education after the COVID disruption: Emerging
challenges in an online learning scenario”, Frontiers in Psychology, 12 (1), 1-6,
2021.
[8] S. J. Daniel, “Education and the COVID-19 pandemic”. Prospects, 49(1), 91-96.
2020.
[9] OECD. Link: https://www.oecd.org/ocean/topics/ocean-shipping/. Date accessed:
07.05.23.
[10] N. Ellis & H. Sampson, “The Global Labour Market for Seafarers Working
Aboard Merchant Cargo Ship”. SIRC 2008. Cardiff University, UK. 2008
[11] A. Sharma & T. E. Kim, “Exploring technical and non-technical competencies of
navigators for autonomous shipping.” Maritime Policy & Management, 49(6),
831-849. 2021
[12] Z. Lušić, M. Bakota, M. Čorić, & I. Skoko, “Seafarer market–
challenges for the future” Transactions on Maritime Science, 8 (1), 62-74,
2019.
[13] M. E. Manuel, “Vocational and academic approaches to maritime education and
training (MET): Trends, challenges and opportunities.” WMU Journal of
Maritime Affairs, 16, 473-483. 2017
[14] A. Sharma, T.E. Kim, & S. Nazir, “Implications of Automation and Digitalization
for Maritime Education and Training” In Sustainability in the Maritime Domain
 Author’s personal copy

(A. Carpenter, T.M. Johansson & J.A. Skinner (eds.)) 223-233. Cham,
Switzerland: Springer, 2021.
[15] J. Scanlan, R. Hopcraft, R. Cowburn, J.M. Trovåg & M. Lützhöft, “Maritime
Education for a Digital Industry.” NECESSE. Royal Norwegian Naval Academy.
Monographic Series, 7(1), 23-33. 2022
[16] Y. Ichimura, D. Dalaklis, M. Kitada & A. Christodoulou, “Shipping in the era of
digitalization: Mapping the future strategic plans of major maritime commercial
actors”. Digital Business, 2(1), 100022. 2022.
[17] I. Peña-López, “From laptops to competences: Bridging the digital divide in
education” RUSC. Universities and Knowledge Society Journal, vol.7, no.1, 21-
32, 2010.
[18] E. J. Helsper, L.S. Schneider, & A. J. van Deursen, “The Youth Digital Skills
Indicator: Report on the conceptualisation and development of the ySKILLS
digital skills measure” KU Leuven. Leuven, Belgium: ySKILLS, 2020.
[19] H. L. McLaughlin, “Seafarers and seafaring” in The Blackwell companion to
maritime economics
[20] H. Leggate, “The future shortage of seafarers: will it become a reality?” Maritime
Policy & Management, 31(1), 3-13. 2004.
[21] World Bank. Link: https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/labormarkets. Date
accessed: 07.05.23.
[22] K. Nosalska, Z. M. Piątek, G. Mazurek & R. Rządca, “Industry 4.0: coherent
definition framework with technological and organizational
interdependencies”. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 31(5),
837-862. 2019.
[23] S. Bazylik & M.B. Gibbs “How is new technology changing job design?”. IZA
World of Labor. DOI: 10.15185/izawol.344.v2. 2022.
[24] International Labour Organization, “Conclusions on skills for improved
productivity, employment, growth and development”. 96th Session of the ILC.
Geneva. 2008.
[25] D. Razmjooei, M. Alimohammadlou, H. A. Ranaei Kordshouli & K. Askarifar,
“Industry 4.0 research in the maritime industry: a bibliometric analysis”. WMU
Journal of Maritime Affairs, 1-32. 2023.
[26] I. de la Peña Zarzuelo, M.J.F. Soeane & B. L. Bermúdez, “Industry 4.0 in the port
and maritime industry: A literature review”. Journal of Industrial Information
Integration, 20, 100173. 2020.
[27] Ø. J. Rødseth, D. A. Nesheim, A. Rialland & E.A. Holte “The Societal Impacts of
Autonomous Ships: The Norwegian Perspective”. In: Autonomous Vessels in
Maritime Affairs: Law and Governance Implications (pp. 357-376). Cham:
Springer International Publishing. 2023.
[28] National Research Council. Crew size and maritime safety. 1991.
[29] T. F. Sanquist & J. D. Lee, “Voyage planning and track keeping with Paper and
electronic charts: A case study of maritime navigation tasks”. In: Proceedings of
 Author’s personal copy

the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting (Vol. 37, No. 9, pp.
564-568). Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications. 1993.
[30] J. King, “Technology and the seafarer”. Journal for Maritime Research, 2(1), 48-
63. 2000.
[31] T. E. Kim, A. Sharma, M. Bustgaard, W.C. Gyldensten, O.K. Nymoen, H. M.
Tusher & S. Nazir, “The continuum of simulator-based maritime training and
education”. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs, 20(2), 135-150. 2021.
[32] H. M. Helal, “Computer based training: a global survey of current developments
and its application to maritime education and training”. WMU Dissertations.
2002.
[33] M. Shahbakhsh, G. R. Emad & S. Cahoon, “Industrial revolutions and transition
of the maritime industry: The case of Seafarer’s role in autonomous
shipping” The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics, 38(1), 10-18. 2022.
[34] A. Alop, “Smart shipping needs smart maritime education and training”. In: The
1st International Conference on Maritime Education and Development:
ICMED (pp. 131-142). Springer International Publishing. 2021.
[35] J. Markowitsch & J. Bjørnåvold, “Scenarios for vocational education and training
in Europe in the 21st century”. Hungarian Educational Research Journal. 2022.
[36] K. Ananiadoui & M. Claro, “21st century skills and competences for new
millennium learners in OECD countries”. OECD Publishing. 2009.
[37] European Union. Link: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-
/publication/297a33c8-a1f3-11e9-9d01-01aa75ed71a1. Date accessed: 07.05.23.
[38] Battle for Kids. Link: https://www.battelleforkids.org/networks/p21. Date
accessed: 07.05.23.
[39] R. Vuorikari, Y. Punie, S. Carretero Gomez & G. Van Den Brande, “DigComp
2.0: The Digital Competence Framework for Citizens. Update Phase 1: the
Conceptual Reference Model”. Publications Office of the European Union; EUR
27948 EN. Luxembourg. JRC101254. DOI: 10.2791/11517. 2016.
[40] Joint Research Centre. Link: https://joint-research-
centre.ec.europa.eu/digcomp_en. Date accessed: 07.05.23.
[41] K. A. Bollen, “Structural models with latent variables”, Wiley. New York. 1989.
[42] A. Boomsma, “The robustness of LISREL against small sample sizes in factor
analysis models”. In: Systems under indirect observation: Causality, structure,
prediction. (K. G. Jöreskog & H. Wold (Eds.)), (pp. 149-173). Amsterdam: North-
Holland. 1982.
[43] C. DiStefano & B. Hess, “Using confirmatory factor analysis for construct
validation: An empirical review”. Journal of Psychoeducational
Assessment, 23(3), 225-241. 2005.
[44] C. Fornell & D.F. Larcker, “Evaluating structural equation models with
unobservable variables and measurement error” Journal of marketing research,
18 (1), 39-50. 1981.
 Author’s personal copy

[45] J.C. Nunnally, Psychometric theory. New York, USA: McGraw hill Book
Company, 1978.
[46] R.P. Bagozzi & Y. Yi “On the evaluation of structural equation models” Journal
of the academy of marketing science. 16 (1), 74-94, 1988.
[47] B.M. Byrne, Structural equation modelling with AMOS: basic concepts,
applications and programming. New York, USA: Taylor and Francis Group,
2010.
[48] R.B. Kline, Principles and practice of structural equation modelling. New York,
USA: Guilford press. 2015.
[49] I. Mraković & R. Vojinović, “Maritime cyber security analysis–how to reduce
threats?”. Transactions on maritime science, 8(1), 132-139. 2019.
[50] D.W. Krathwohl “A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An Overview” Theory into
Practice, 41 (4), 212-218. 2002.
View publication stats