It is no longer a surprise for maritime trainers to see their academically brilliant student coming back with mediocre reports from their superiors, while some average students earn a reputation of being trustworthy professionals, notes Capt. S. V. Sule Principal, Anglo Eastern Maritime Academy, Karjat, India
For a teacher, it gives a feeling of twofold failure: failing to train that bright student in the skills s/he would need at sea, and failing to see the makings of a professional in that unassuming student he often ignored. Is this the failure of the individual teacher/trainer or the roots of this paradox go deeper than that? To answer this question, a few more questions need to be asked and that will show us the way.
- Did the teacher decide which topics should be taught in the classroom? (No)
- Did the teacher decide how the topic should be taught? (No)
- Did the teacher have adequate experience in the subject being taught? (Yes)
- Did the teacher undergo adequate training in teaching and assessment? (No)
- In an ideal world the answers to all these questions should have been. (Yes)
A majority of maritime trainers have extensive sailing experience and hence have a good understanding of what knowledge and skills are needed at sea, and what is superfluous; however, their knowledge about the process of learning is limited. For example, in India where I have taught for nearly two decades, a typical maritime trainer receives two weeks of instructions by way of a “Trainer and Assessor” course, which is far from sufficient for making a sailor into a teacher. This paper examines the feasibility of application of ‘Problem-based Learning’ to maritime teaching/ training; and the subsequent discussion is on maritime training and assessment.
The gap between classroom curricula and the real-life challenges facing marine professionals is ever widening. The major reason for this, is the evolution of the syllabi and teaching methodologies of maritime training are not able to keep pace with the rapid technological advancements and other challenges in the real world. There is urgent need to do some hard introspection, and to find if any changes in the existing curriculum-content as well as teaching and assessment methodologies will be helpful in addressing this situation. Curriculum designing must be a dynamic process undertaken jointly by senior marine professionals and educationists.
On investigation, ‘Problem-based Learning’ (PBL) approach, tried out successfully in the fields of medical education and management studies, appears suitable for the environment of maritime education. The author has experimented with this approach for over a decade and is keen to share own experiences. Further, the need for systematic orientation of senior seafarers to the field of maritime education, before taking up the responsible position of a maritime teacher must be addressed.
Unfortunately, maritime education and training has a strong element of ‘regimental thinking’. The syllabi are often reactive, having been shaped by accidents, rather than being designed proactively by foreseeing the future. Further, those who design these syllabi are far removed in time and space from the trainees. Although their professional knowledge is beyond questioning, their understanding of matters related to education and the learning process leaves much to be desired.
Bloom and the levels of learning
Benjamin Bloom professed six levels of learning viz. knowledge, understanding, application, analysis, evaluation and creation. In that hierarchy, knowledge (read ‘remembering facts’) is at the lowest level. For a professional to perform effectively, s/he has to ascend at least two more rungs of this proverbial ladder and those are ‘Comprehension’ (understanding) and ‘Application’ (using). To achieve this, the teaching methodology as well as the assessment system has to undergo a sea-change (pun intended!).
Experiments in application of PBL to Maritime Education
What if the student begins learning at the highest level, namely to create? Here are some examples which I have used in my classrooms.
Example 1 Ship Construction
Problem: A ship suffered heavy-weather damage to the shell plating in the fore-peak region. What constructional features could have prevented this damage?
To solve the above problem, the team of learners will have to first find out about the structure of the ship’s fore part, what stresses it is exposed to and how to strengthen it. It is not necessary that every team will eventually rediscover the “only correct answer that is panting beams”. There is every possibility that each team will come up with some innovative ideas. Even if nine out of ten solutions may not be feasible, this process itself will take the students through the various levels of learning and help them build a robust base of underpinning knowledge. This discussion will pose the right opportunity for introducing the concept of ‘Section Modulus’ and how to enhance it by utilizing various design features.
As compared to the traditional method wherein a student learns the names of various strength members, learns to draw the midship section plan of a ship,, learns the various motions and stresses that a ship is exposed to in rough seas and finally reads case studies such as this one, in this case we begin with the case study, posing it as a problem which the students attempt to solve, discovering the above en route.
PBL thus holds within its delicate folds the ‘aha’ moment for the learners, not to mention the sense of discovery experienced by them, problem solving and naturally, a better understanding of the above. In a practical field like shipping, understanding and applying knowledge in real life situations is often far more important than being able to reproduce it in a test paper.
Example 2: Ship-handling (Simulator-based exercise)
Task: To maneuver the given ship to the designated anchoring position through vessels anchored in shallow water, in strong current.
Here, the students are required to study the maneuvering characteristic of the ship, to appreciate the set and drift of the prevailing current, influence of shallow water effect and anticipate the ship’s response to it, rather than following a ‘castin-stone’ kind of procedure dictated by the trainer. The trainee is allowed to discuss and plan the task with team-mates, make mistakes, weigh pros and cons, understand the principles involved, and then come upon a safe and repeatable maneuver. This is Self-Directed Learning and makes the students rather than the trainer the focus. The trainer’s role here becomes that of a guide.
Conclusion
Having observed the shortcomings of the present-day system of maritime education and assessment, it is evident that some major changes are necessary not only to the system but also to the teachers and trainers who are involved in its implementation. The current training imparted to the maritime trainers about education is grossly inadequate. A systematic regime for the maritime trainers is absolutely necessary and the most appropriate method may be problem-based, self-driven learning under expert tutelage.
We, the maritime training community, need to closely examine our curricula and teaching methodologies to ensure maximum relevance to the challenges of the seafaring profession. A systematic study needs to be jointly undertaken by experts in the fields of shipping and pedagogy, for this purpose. Case studies of nationalities other than the Commonwealth seafaring countries, implementing very different systems of maritime education will be helpful in understanding the bigger picture and changing our system for better. This process will be meaningful only when the maritime trainers get involved in the process of continuous introspection and upgradation of their pedagogic skills.
The views being expressed in this article are of the author and may not necessarily reflect those of his/her employer and SAFETY4SEA
Above article has been initially published in GlobalMET newsletter and is reproduced here with kind permission.