Next Article in Journal
Swarm Game and Task Allocation for Autonomous Underwater Robots
Next Article in Special Issue
Sailboat Test Arena (STAr): A Remotely Accessible Platform for Robotic Sailboat Research
Previous Article in Journal
Dynamic Traction of Deep-Sea Polymetallic Nodule Collector
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JMSE
Volume 11
Issue 1
10.3390/jmse11010147
jmse-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Immersive and Non-Immersive Simulators for the Education and Training in Maritime Domain—A Review

by
Mohammud Hanif Dewan
1,
Radu Godina
2,3,*,
M Rezaul Karim Chowdhury
4,
Che Wan Mohd Noor
1,
Wan Mohd Norsani Wan Nik
1 and
Mustafa Man
1
1
FTKKI-UMT, Department of Maritime Technology, Faculty of Ocean Engineering Technology and Informatics, Universiti Malaysia Terengganu, Kuala Terengganu 21030, Malaysia
2
UNIDEMI—Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Science and Technology (FCT), Universidade NOVA de Lisboa, 2829-516 Almada, Portugal
3
Laboratório Associado de Sistemas Inteligentes, LASI, 4800-058 Guimarães, Portugal
4
FMS-UMT, Department of Maritime Law and Policy, Faculty of Maritime Studies, Universiti Malaysia Terengganu, Kuala Terengganu 21030, Malaysia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11(1), 147; https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse11010147
Submission received: 6 December 2022 / Revised: 27 December 2022 / Accepted: 30 December 2022 / Published: 7 January 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue New Trends in Marine Robotics: Virtual Experiments and Remote Access)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
In the domain of Marine Education and Training (MET), simulators have been utilized for the purpose of training seafarers in the norms for avoiding collisions or for developing the skill of ship manoeuvrability, and even the operation of machinery in the engine room, as well as for conducting research on the subject matter of ship structure, specialized vessel operation, working principle of equipment, and shipboard safety training. These tools are even more important when facing disruptive events such as the COVID-19 pandemic. In MET institutions, full-mission bridge and engine room simulators have been utilized for teaching seafarers for more than a decade. A Systematic Literature Review (SLR) was conducted to identify immersive and non-immersive simulator applications produced over the previous ten years to improve seafarers’ experiential teaching and learning, in the maritime domain. We retrieved 27 articles using the four stages of PRISMA paradigm: Identification, Screening, Eligibility, and Inclusion. The selected papers were read and analyzed according to the training type, the area of training, and the technologies used. The utilization of immersive and non-immersive simulators in the context of the MET domain has been identified and mapped. A few research studies (9 out of 27) compared immersive and non-immersive simulator-based training with conventional training. The quality and efficacy of immersive and non-immersive simulator training at MET institutions have been studied. A model from the learner’s perspective is essential and recommended for future research to assess efficiency and efficacy.

1. Introduction

The world is rapidly transforming due to the proliferation of new ideas and technologies. To keep up with the needs of an ever-evolving world, education systems worldwide have undergone significant transformations, particularly in the areas of technical and higher education [1]. Since the beginning of the 21st century, considerable research has been carried out worldwide to develop strategies and technologies that make learning more effective and efficient. As a result of the findings of these studies, several innovative methods and technologies have become available for use in the field of education [2,3,4]. It has been well documented that the recent COVID-19 pandemic has caused several tutors to strongly recommend several virtual reality technologies to be incorporated into teaching and learning as the standard in the future [5]. Needless to say, as a positive response to the COVID-19 pandemic, digital technologies are being deployed such as online Virtual Learning (VL) and Remote Teaching (RT) approaches as appropriate tools [6].
There are a number of advanced learning methods available, such as advanced learning (AL), e-learning, computer-based training (CBT), simulations, and immersion technologies, among others. Immersion technology, considered advanced technology, has already been well established, is drawing fresh attention, and is surprisingly changing how learning and teaching are accomplished in the modern world. Immersive technology operates by exchanging sensory input from the outside world with the digital sensory feedback produced by a computer, such as images and sounds [7]. When a user is applying immersive technology, he feels the presence in the virtual world and reacts to being immersed in a virtual environment in the same manner as his brain and nervous system operate when he is engaged in the same circumstance in the real world [8].
The term Augmented Reality (AR) refers to the addition of information to the real world. The term augmented reality (AR) refers to a live image of the surrounding real-world environment that has been supplemented and enriched with computer-generated information, such as two-dimensional (2D) or three-dimensional (3D) graphics, video, and music, etc. Users of AR are aware of what is happening in the actual world when utilizing AR [9]. On the other hand, with the use of a Head-Mounted Display (HMD), users may immerse themselves in a computer-generated, three-dimensional (3D) graphical depiction of a world known as virtual reality (VR). The user’s eyes are completely covered by the HMD, which offers stereoscopic vision. Users using virtual reality HMDs, are unable to view the real environment around them. The term “mixed reality” (MR) refers to the process of creating artificial environments in which both real and virtual elements coexist and interact in real time such as Microsoft HoloLens [10].
AR and VR are becoming more indispensable to our everyday lives. The use of immersive technology has been shown to enhance learning experiences [11], increase interest in the collaborative activity [12], and increase innovativeness and commitment, according to studies conducted over the last 20 years in a variety of disciplines, including education [13], marketing, entertainment, and healthcare [14]. According to research on virtual and augmented reality that Goldman Sachs published, the number of people using virtual reality technology for educational purposes is expected to increase to around 15 million by the year 2025 [15].
To provide a clear and vivid experience, AR and VR have been extensively used in various industries, including the defense, manufacturing, aviation, and healthcare [16]. AR and VR have been employed in combat training to get around some of the drawbacks of actual training situations. The trooper’s ability to navigate and see the battlefield from all sides during conflict may be enhanced by virtual maps and 360-degree camera vision. In the healthcare industry, augmented reality and virtual reality technology enable medical professionals to teach, diagnose, and treat patients in various scenarios where actual training may not be accessible. AR and VR have been employed for diagnosis and therapy applications with less invasive procedures in the past two decades. Adult learners often use AR and VR technologies to support their learning. AR and VR are helpful learning aids in a variety of adult education sectors. AR may give supplementary information to make the learning themes in history and archaeology more engaging and realistic [17]. Students in chemistry may practice hazardous chemical experiments without real risk by playing with 3D simulations of molecules.
Non-immersive simulation technology has been employed in Marine Education and Teaching (MET) over last two decades for training in collision avoidance rules, understanding ship maneuverability, operating engine room machinery, and researching the relevant content of ship construction, equipment functioning principle, and mutual impact among different components [18]. MET institutions have used full-mission bridge and engine room simulators for more than a decade. Institutions of higher education in the maritime sector are spending significant funds on developing and maintaining full-mission Bridge and Engine Room simulators, to meet the standards set out by the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification, and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW) of the International Maritime Organization (IMO).
The cost-effective immersive simulators (AR/VR/MR) are widely used and becoming very popular as effective teaching and learning tools due to their handy software and hardware solutions, indicating a paradigm shift of learning in maritime education among disruptive events such as COVID-19 Pandemic [19]. To design immersive technology experiences that improve experiential teaching and learning in the maritime sector, it is vital to discover currently established applications, research their effectiveness and impact in marine education and training (MET), and find the implications of adding immersive technologies for education and training. But a few studies have been found in the MET sector for this purpose. This study is aimed to review the utilization of immersive and non-immersive simulators in maritime education and training by MET institutes, summarizing the information for their effectiveness on experiential teaching and learning, and making a comparison between these two modern technologies, mostly their pros and cons, in the following sections:
This study is organized as follows. Section 2: Outlines research methodology, formulation of research questions, search strategy, selection criteria, and data collection and extraction. Section 3: Results and findings by summarizing finally selected articles. Section 4: Utilization of immersive and non-immersive simulators in experiential teaching and learning. Section 5: Simulator-based Training in the Context of MET, governing administration and requirements, introduction and utilization of immersive and non-immersive simulators, comparison, and effectiveness. Section 6: Conclusion and guidelines for future works.

2. Methodology

A literature review methodology is used in this paper for reviewing and synthesizing complex, multidimensional data in the field of immersive and non-immersive simulators for the education and training in the maritime domain, and for communicating findings in a way that is accessible and understandable to diverse audiences. As the authors in [20] state, there is a need for a clear research question, the use of a structured and systematic approach to review and synthesis, and the importance of transparency and rigor in the review process. As such, in this paper, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), a standardized reporting guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses, is used. PRISMA provides a set of guidelines and recommendations for the reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the biomedical literature, with the goal of improving the transparency, reliability, and reproducibility of these studies [21].
This review paper covers only peer-reviewed research papers describing pertinent experimental or qualitative studies that are documented. This paper has followed the systematic review methodology step by step in Section 2.1, Section 2.2, Section 2.3 and Section 2.4.

2.1. Formulation of Research Questions

For this study, the following two Major Research Questions (MRQ) were developed:
MRQ1: What are the types of training being provided in MET institutions by immersive and/or non-immersive simulators?
Finding the answer toMRQ1 can help us identify the current status of the application of immersive and non-immersive simulators for experiential teaching and learning in the MET sector.
MRQ2: How effective is using immersive and/or non-immersive simulators in MET for experiential teaching and learning in the MET sector?
The answer to MRQ2 can provide us with evidence of the effectiveness of using immersive and/or non-immersive simulators in MET for experiential teaching and learning, and also find experimental evidence of whether this improves the training outcomes.

2.2. Search Strategy

A keyword search was performed using Academic Search Complete, the world’s most extensive scholarly, interdisciplinary database, which includes all relevant topics from January 2013 to August 2022. Boolean search phrases (Table 1) were used to do a keyword search of 2 indexes: Scopus and Web of Science, and three interdisciplinary databases: Science Direct, Springer Link, and Taylor and Francis Online.
The utilized search strings are shown in Table 1. Due to limited published papers in the MET field, the authors determined the search strings by generating an extension of strings using the features associated with the search. Multiple test searches using other combinations of keywords (such as “immersive” and “immersion”, “simulators” and “technologies”, and “maritime” and “marine”) were conducted to verify the search string. Only articles in peer-reviewed journals were included in the search. This review is restricted to the present use (2013–2022) of immersive simulators in maritime education and training (MET) only, and only research published in English was considered. The last search was limited to the Subject Area: Engineering, Computer Science, and Social Science; Article Type: Research Paper and Conference Paper; Publication Stage: Final; Keywords Used: Virtual Reality, E-Learning, Personal Training, Augmented Reality, Mixed Reality, Engineering Education, Simulator, Education, Training, Maritime Education and Training, Marine Education, and Immersive and Immersion Technologies; and Source Type: Conference Proceeding, Journal.
A total of 549 references were generated from our searches. Scientific journal articles, conference papers, book chapters, and books were found in our search criteria—an additional 26 articles were identified through snowballing and added for the first screening. Our 1st screening found 88 references, excluding duplicates, published online theses, Conference book chapters, and books. Then by screening in the second round, we got 48 articles, excluding all review articles and conference papers without full text. By the third round of screening, the full text and data from 38 articles were selected to be read all, the way through, by carefully reading the articles’ titles and abstracts. After careful reading of the full texts of all 38 articles, 29 articles were selected for reading of the complete text, which could answer our research questions in Section 2.1. We doubted the inclusion of 3 papers, so we decided to read the full text. By reading those 3 articles, only 1 article was found satisfactory and added to the final selected list for full reading and data extraction. Therefore, finally, a total of 27 articles were chosen for this review study.
This study followed the Systematic Literature Review (SLR) and the flowchart of SLR, illustrated in Figure 1, adapted from the PRISMA method [22] by considering four main phases of the PRISMA paradigm:
  • The first phase, “Identification”, is searching for strings across many databases, establishing basic criteria for inclusion, and filtering out duplicates, which are possible next steps. We have also used the snowballing method to find further publications based on the citations of chosen papers from the first search. In this stage, the snowball effect might go both ways.
  • The second phase, “Screening”, is done by assessing titles and abstracts according to the inclusion criteria.
  • For the third phase, “Eligibility” is done by using predetermined parameters and evaluating the full text.
  • In the fourth phase, “Inclusion”, full-text articles are chosen, as well as papers, by reading the whole article. The articles were selected and divided into groups based on the utilization of immersive or non-immersive simulators, the training content used during the experiment or qualitative analysis, and the types of studies (such as safety training, navigation training, marine engineering training, etc.) carried out in the maritime education and training (MET) sector.
Jmse 11 00147 g001 550
Figure 1. Method flowchart followed in the Systematic Literature Review (SLR) Process.
Figure 1. Method flowchart followed in the Systematic Literature Review (SLR) Process.
Jmse 11 00147 g001
To be clear, only publications detailing an immersive simulator for use in MET, including data on evaluating a simulator’s efficacy via actual experiments or qualitative research for experiential teaching and learning were considered for inclusion. Table 2 displays the findings of the present investigation. To get the index rate, we divided the number of papers used in this research by the total number of papers in the databases. The accuracy rate was determined by determining the proportion of included items relative to the total number of items recovered. In our study, Scopus, Springer Link, Web of Science, Science Direct, and Taylor and Francis Online were the leading sources for finding papers on the particular subject. The best search accuracy was found in Web of Science (WoS) and Science Direct, demonstrating that these two sources can more precisely and accurately search for the sought-after material.

2.3. Selection Criteria

A significant number of papers are available to study immersive and non-immersive simulators utilized in education and training fields. Many peer-reviewed articles are available for experimental and qualitative studies to check their effectiveness for experiential teaching and learning in the aviation sector, medical field, nursing training, military training, pedagogy teaching, etc. But in the education and training in the maritime domain, a few studies have been found on immersive technologies to check their effectiveness for experiential teaching and learning. However, to be included in this study, a paper had to pass each of the 6 stages of our screening process. Here are the requirements:
  • The complete text is available and can be downloaded.
  • The paper must be published in the English language.
  • The study was carried out especially in the MET sector with immersive or non-immersive simulators.
  • The paper describes either relevant experimental or qualitative studies of the educational use of immersive or non-immersive simulators.
  • The paper presents new information that has not been previously reported or analyzed by the same authors.
  • Articles must be peer-reviewed and published between 1 January 2013–7 August 2022.
Finally, out of 83 papers, only 27 met all above mentioned six criteria and were selected in the final list for this review study.

2.4. Data Collection and Extraction

During the stages of the research that included collecting data and extracting relevant information, the documents found during the review process were narrowed down to a final number of records that were relevant to answering the two MRQs. Additional screening was performed using inclusion/exclusion criteria. The following information was collected from each article:
  • The publication’s citation information
  • The scope of the study and which sector of MET the study was carried out for
  • Attendees in the research
  • The type of training or program investigated in the study
  • The primary and subsidiary research questions
  • The approach used in the research
  • The criteria for analyzing the results
  • The research objectives and challenges

3. Results and Findings

Many experimental and qualitative studies have been carried out in the last decade in MET to find the effective media of experiential teaching and learning by using immersive and non-immersive simulators. The summary of the results and findings are described in Table 3.
From Table 3, we can get the status of utilization of immersive and non-immersive simulators in the MET sector in the last decade. Figure 2 illustrates that immersive simulators were used in 15 studies in MET, non-immersive simulators were used in 11 studies, and both immersive and non-immersive simulators were used in only 1 study.

4. Utilization of Immersive Simulators in Experiential Teaching and Learning

Simulation is an instructional method that supports experiential learning; it is not just technology [48]. It is common practice to employ computer programs to carry out simulation-based operations. A simulation is a live model depiction that often combines hardware for control and display with links to physical devices. When using immersion technology, users can feel completely immersed in a virtual environment since the lines between the real and virtual worlds are effectively erased [49]. Immersive technologies now come in a wide variety, including AR, VR, and MR (Mixed Reality) [50]. AR combines virtual digital information with the actual physical environment [51]. Augmented reality permits the integration of computer-generated digital data to the learner’s real surroundings [17]. AR on mobile devices has the potential to change the training process. This technology enables the animation of instructional texts, films, and 3D virtual objects over critical components [31]. In addition, it can identify drawings and essential objects in a single shot and offer operating and maintenance instructions.
Virtual reality (VR) is a technology that provides a computer-generated simulation of an environment, allowing users to interact with it as if they were in the actual world [49]. Non-immersive and immersive VR are two different categories of VR technology. In conventional computer-generated media, non-immersive virtual reality information is presented on a computer screen, and keyboards and mice are utilized for interaction. Users do not require equipment, or a head mounted display (HMD) for the non-immersive VR. Non-immersive VR includes web-based virtual reality games such as Second Life and Minecraft. With Immersive VR, the user is completely submerged in a digital virtual world while wearing an HMD. By placing the user in a virtual reality (VR) simulation, their reactions may be captured and analyzed in a safe, contained environment. While immersive VR requires a device to be worn as an HMD, AR guarantees more flexibility by offering an open-space learning environment [16].
The MR intersects real life and digital content [52]. MR users can interact with and modify both real and simulated objects and settings by using innovative sensing and imaging technology. With the use of a head-mounted display (HMD) and several sensing devices, users of MR may see and feel as if they are really in the virtual world while also manipulating virtual objects with their own hands. Furthermore, the use of game design elements in training has the potential to boost output and employee engagement [53]. “Gamification” may be used in a wide variety of situations to motivate participants, such as adding elements of competition and challenge to production or introducing time limits to emergency training scenarios [54]. Researchers discovered that virtual reality-based gamification systems might benefit persons aging with disabilities by delivering task-specific training and physical exercises [55]. Figure 3 illustrates a variety of immersive and non-immersive simulators for experiential training and learning.
The adage states, “a picture is worth a thousand words”. The use of AR aids the reader in accomplishing this. A picture is worth a thousand words while trying to understand a chapter’s worth of text. Using AR, students may learn more and gain deeper insights about a subject. Students are engaged because Augmented Reality provides interaction opportunities, increasing their motivation to study. Virtual reality (VR) lets users control and explore a virtual environment that may mimic the real world using an HMD [56]. AR and VR deliver varied degrees of MR by immersing users in a synthetic environment where real and virtual elements coexist. As a result, developers now have the tools they need to build hybrid worlds in which virtual items may interact with and be embedded inside the physical world. It’s a subset of Human machine interface (HMI) that puts the user’s perceptual-motor abilities to work in the virtual environment. The tactile interface, whether digital or physical, is responsible for this. There is a novel method for tasks like simulation, training, help, telemanipulation, and communication [9].

5. Simulator-Based Training in the Context of MET

Generally, the MET institutes are responsible for teaching and training seafarers with their traditional training facilities, computer-based training (CBT), and simulators. To educate, train, and certify seafarers, MET is distributed by approved educational organizations and institutions, such as maritime schools, institutions, training service providers, and various organizations, which need support from the maritime administration of a country. The country must be a party country of the IMO and must sign the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification, and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW), 1978. Most maritime education and training are conducted in classrooms, vessels, and simulated environments [57]. To ensure quality training by using the simulators, the IMO’s STCW code has provided the required regulations and guidelines. Regulation l/12 states: use of simulators, Section-A-l/12 states: standards governing simulator use, and Section-B-l/12 states: guidance about simulator use [10].
According to the requirements of the STCW code, marine watchkeeping officers and engineers must develop themselves with a well-designed IMO-approved pre-sea training curriculum at MET institutes for required institutional education and practical training before joining onboard ships [58]. Analyzing the STCW Convention 1978 of IMO along with its subsequent amendments, including major revisions in 1995 and 2010, reveals that for professional knowledge, understanding, and proficiency (KUP) building, the STCW has created options for onboard recorded training or institutional training or equipment-based workshop/shipyard or simulator-based environments to develop the required skills and proficiency.
The necessary KUP may be assessed in a variety of ways, including via written and oral examinations, as well as using simulators and other tools. The STCW regulates competency assessments in MET, and Regulation I/12 specifies that they must be conducted in a simulator [46]. In Chapter II, “Master and Deck Department”, Chapter III, “Engine Department”, Chapter IV, “Radiocommunication and radio operators”, Chapter V, “Special training requirements for employees on certain types of ships”, and Chapter VI, “Emergency, occupational safety, security, medical, and survival duties”, the regulations pertaining to the training, assessment, and certification of seafarers are outlined. Chapter VII discusses the quality, integrity, and standards of simulation. This chapter focuses on the system perspective. Regulations in Chapter I ensure that simulators continue to meet all of their systemic quality, integrity, and criterion requirements. These regulations include I/6: Training and Assessment, I/8: Quality Standards, and I/12: Simulator Use [58,59].
Ships are now developed to be very large in size and completely automated, to make them more energy efficient, by adopting cutting-edge designs and technology. To operate such advanced vessels effectively and safely, the maritime sector requires highly trained seafarers, specifically seagoing officers [60]. In MET, theoretical education, hands-on workshop, and lab training have equipped seafarers with the practical experience necessary to compete for maritime employment. The MET schools designed their curriculum to meet the STCW Code’s Knowledge, Understanding, and Proficiency (KUP) requirements by combining conventional classrooms, textbooks, and theory assignments with hands-on practical training in laboratories or workshops, virtual training through simulators, and practical on-the-job-training at sea [24]. Convenience in maritime simulations has led to the increased usage of full-mission bridge and engine room simulators for more realistic training [61].
The complexity of the ship’s system has expanded significantly due to the widespread use of innovative technology and the incorporation of automated processes [37]. Consequently, sailors are exposed to cutting-edge technology when working on board ships. By receiving on-the-job training (OJT) from the shipping industry, they must learn how to handle their duties. On the other hand, the Shipping sector is highly technological and operates in a variety of complex socioenvironmental scenarios characterized by shifting operational norms, rules, politics, national and global economies, and international situations [10]. Seafarers need highly technical and technologically focused knowledge and abilities to operate aboard ships. Seafarers need to continuously grow and update their knowledge and skills via formal maritime education and training throughout their professional lives, since they must adapt to work with ever-changing technology aboard ships [62]. To operate and manage the complexities of this sector, seafarers need comprehensive training and expertise. Modern simulation technology allows for learning complex tasks in a virtual environment, similar to reality and improves the efficacy of training and education.

5.1. Utilization of Immersive and Non-Immersive Simulators in the Context of MET

In 1967, researchers in Göteborg, Sweden, created the first maritime simulator to study ship crew behavior, ship architecture, and port design. Training in a simulated situation facilitates the learning of complex tasks in a virtual environment equivalent to the real world, providing real-world experiences and knowledge. According to [63], simulators are becoming more popular in the marine training industry since they improve training efficacy and learning results. With the addition of simulator-based training by adopting modern technologies, the traditional maritime education and training system is still present in MET institutions worldwide. The modern simulators permit the pre-sea students to rehearse and develop their maritime professional skills before ever going onboard a real ship and doing any work. The maritime sector has traditionally relied on simulators for educating ship workers in crucial aspects of safety-related operations [64]. Since the last decade, the MET institutions have extensively used computer-based non-immersive simulators to train seafarers. Simulations provide a context for training that facilitates exercises in an educational setting since bridge simulators are designed to fit into a maritime environment [65].
Working in the shipping industry, either onboard ships or ashore needs continuous updating of knowledge and specialized skills [10]. Therefore, the demand by the modern shipping industry trains seafarers well before joining onboard ships. They must undergo on-the-job and institutional training and assessments of their competence, certification, and recertification for onboard promotions throughout their professional career. The environment in which maritime user interfaces are utilized on MET is critical. When starting out with user-centered design, it might be challenging to recreate a successful ship operating or marine safety situation. In Arctic waters, specialized vessel operations face challenging climatic circumstances, technological limitations, and a lack of adequate navigational data. Ref. [23] explained in their paper how virtual reality is used to train seafarers in Arctic Water. Ref. [24] studied two simulators on engine room simulation students’ skill improvement and found that students are more motivated and prefer immersive simulator training over traditional training.
The simulators have been used in almost all sectors of MET for training, simulation, and assessment of seafarers’ education and training systems for the last two decades. Ref. [33] investigated alternative evaluation procedures suggested by the STCW Code for onboard training, employment experience, lab equipment, practical tests, etc., utilizing simulators to conduct realistic seafarers’ education and training assessments. Ref. [40] explored how students and a professional marine pilot performed professional roles and established a simulated framework for learning how to navigate and handle the vessel. Immersive and non-immersive simulators have been using various specialized education and training in the maritime domain for the last two decades. During the ship’s energy efficiency (EE) training using immersive gamification tools, it was found that 78% liked it, and 81% learned more about EE measures [38].
Ref. [28] examined user behavior in the VR training system to measure their understanding of ship communications and navigational equipment, as well as their ability to complete the assigned task. In a recent research, Ref. [44] assess the factors essential to promote seafarers’ skill development in preparation for the inevitable shift to autonomous maritime operations. By summarizing all recent research findings, Ref. [10] concluded that introducing and integrating immersive technologies (AR, VR, and MR) into maritime education, training, and operations, give new opportunities and paradigms to help ship operators onshore and aboard ships. Figure 4 shows simulator training in various sectors of MET for institutional and industrial training of STCW and Non-STCW courses for seafarers.

5.2. Comparison of Immersive and Non-Immersive Simulators Used in MET

A well-designed Maritime education and training (MET) program is required to train and develop competent ship crews to work safely and efficiently onboard ships. Utilizing ever-innovative technologies have a streamed impact on the shipping industry and the traditional works of seafarers [66]. The 3D view in the simulator can eliminate the gap between virtual simulation and real-life demonstration. Advanced simulator-based training enhances the student’s learning outcomes, improves the effectiveness of movement, and reduces errors of the trainee in real life [67]. But the effectiveness and efficiency of training service from the MET institution’s perspective require additional characteristics, such as investment costs, operational expenses, number of trainees in training, and intensity of use [68]. Additionally, simulator-based training builds up students’ observation and evaluation of hazardous circumstances, improves preparing results in contrast with customary study classroom-based activities [69], and makes more cooperative, basic reasoning and case-based learning [70]. The immersive simulation improves learning performance, according to the study by [71]. Ref. [72] discovered that learners wearing the HMDs were more engaged and took VR simulations more seriously than others.
Effective utilization of cost-effective immersive technology may motivate seafarers’ learning outcomes. The cost-effective immersive simulator device and software might become cheaper over time. The authors in [73] compared VR technology from 2006 and 2014: $50,000 in 2006, $1300 in 2014. Mobile technology may lower the direct and indirect expenses of seafarer training, including travel, overtime, and compensation. The simulator procurement, operation, and maintenance for MET institutions need considerable economic resources. VR, AR, and MR technologies used by mobile and HMD might save time at conventional MET facilities by providing user access while onboard, traveling, or at home, expanding immersive simulator training options [10]. With portable mobile VR HMD simulators onboard, crewmembers may rehearse virtually difficult offshore operations and procedures before doing them in real life. Figure 5 shows the comparison of STCW complaint immersive and non-immersive simulators used in the education and training in the maritime domain.

5.3. Effectiveness of Immersive and Non-Immersive Simulators Used in MET

Cost-effective simulation training is a powerful tool that allows trainers to replicate diverse scenarios for training the students in a virtual world that may not be possible to train in real-life exercises due to safety, economic, and ethical constraints [64], especially in cases of disruptive events such as the outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic, in which these techniques gain increased relevance. According to the study of [40], MET institutions offering marine programs seem to be doing well. They have significantly lower student dropout rates due to the extensive use of simulators and close practice through interaction with exercise. The recent study by [74] on DMSVLCC3D simulator evaluation results shows that it has a promising and beneficial impact on developing the trainees’ professional skills, and the majority of participants find it to be an engaging and valuable learning tool. [31] studied the marine engineering learning process using real object 3D mapping technology with a challenge-based learning (CBL) approach. They deployed AR technology in CBL settings to encourage collaborative learning since it can show all the vital information over a real object, which is more engaging for students and enables them to apply the obtained knowledge rapidly. Embedded information with a 3D animated picture in AR technology gives students a better understanding, improving learning outcomes.
For immersive simulators, fidelity is a concerning factor that directly affects the student’s learning outcomes [75]. The “fidelity” of a simulator refers to its realism or how well it replicates the feeling of working in a natural setting [24]. The study, [30], showed that fidelity in simulated work assignments might be essential for simulating the activity system of a ship’s bridge. Because of this, practical simulator training closely examines whether the level of fidelity satisfies the needs of the contextual work activities and educational objectives. Immersive technologies have advanced dramatically daily since they are becoming popular in both the entertainment and education sectors. Full Mission maritime simulator is an immersive Visual Reality (VR) system for MET that fosters the skills and capacities of seafarers [76]. Their investigation is centered on an Online-based Training Environment in the maritime sector that was built by combining online technology, high-fidelity simulation, and e-learning tools.

6. Conclusions and Future Research Recommendations

Immersive experiences might be a step in the right direction to the industry’s demand for more engaging training methods, since these experiences effectively simulate real-world conditions. With the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, such types of digital technologies are being repurposed as a fitting alternative to traditional training methods. Additionally, training using immersive technology allows students to include risky emergency scenarios in training, which is impossible in traditional classrooms. Only nine research articles were found out of 27 in which the quality and efficacy of immersive and non-immersive simulator training at the MET domain have been compared with traditional training. The researchers utilized full mission bridge or engine room simulators, AR, VR, MR, or gamification tools to train the trainees in MET institutes and used qualitative studies to check the effectiveness of the immersive or non-immersive simulator-based training with conventional classroom-based training with real-life hands-on practical with equipment. According to [68], the evaluation of the immersive experience entirely depends on six different performance criteria. Several things are considered, such as the amount of time spent, the number of errors, the number of clues, the number of times instructions were repeated, what happened, and how the equipment was identified. The limitation of this study is that it did not find any survey to evaluate the trainees’ immersive experience, using the six performances mentioned above. However, a model from the trainees’ perspective in the MET domain is essential and is recommended for future research to evaluate efficiency and efficacy. The study’s drawback is the lack of studies using the six performance criteria described above to assess trainees’ immersive experiences. However, it is crucial for future studies to determine effectiveness and efficiency using a model from the perspective of the trainees in the MET domain.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.H.D. and M.R.K.C.; methodology, C.W.M.N.; software, M.H.D. and M.R.K.C.; validation, M.M., W.M.N.W.N. and C.W.M.N.; formal analysis, M.R.K.C.; investigation, M.H.D.; resources, W.M.N.W.N. and R.G.; data curation, M.R.K.C.; writing—original draft preparation, M.H.D.; writing—review and editing, R.G.; visualization, R.G.; supervision, W.M.N.W.N. and M.M.; project administration, W.M.N.W.N. and M.M.; funding acquisition, W.M.N.W.N. and M.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Radu Godina would like to acknowledge financial support from Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia, grants UIDB/00667/2020 (UNIDEMI).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

In this section, you can acknowledge any support given which is not covered by the author contribution or funding sections. This may include administrative and technical support, or donations in kind (e.g., materials used for experiments).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Alam, A. Employing Adaptive Learning and Intelligent Tutoring Robots for Virtual Classrooms and Smart Campuses: Reforming Education in the Age of Artificial Intelligence. In Advanced Computing and Intelligent Technologies; Shaw, R.N., Das, S., Piuri, V., Bianchini, M., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2022; pp. 395–406. [Google Scholar]
  2. Wörner, S.; Kuhn, J.; Scheiter, K. The Best of Two Worlds: A Systematic Review on Combining Real and Virtual Experiments in Science Education. Rev. Educ. Res. 2022, 92, 911–952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Kapilan, N.; Vidhya, P.; Gao, X.-Z. Virtual Laboratory: A Boon to the Mechanical Engineering Education during COVID-19 Pandemic. High. Educ. Future 2021, 8, 31–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. de Vries, L.E.; May, M. Virtual laboratory simulation in the education of laboratory technicians–Motivation and study intensity. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 2019, 47, 257–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Shambare, B.; Simuja, C. A Critical Review of Teaching with Virtual Lab: A Panacea to Challenges of Conducting Practical Experiments in Science Subjects Beyond the COVID-19 Pandemic in Rural Schools in South Africa. J. Educ. Technol. Syst. 2022, 50, 393–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Anthony, B., Jr.; Noel, S. Examining the adoption of emergency remote teaching and virtual learning during and after COVID-19 pandemic. Int. J. Educ. Manag. 2021, 35, 1136–1150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Freina, L.; Ott, M. A literature review on immersive virtual reality in education: State of the art and perspectives. In Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference Elearning and Software for Education, Bucharest, Romania, 23–24 April 2015; Volume 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Slater, M. A Note on Presence Terminology. Emotion 2003, 3, 1–5. [Google Scholar]
  9. Azuma, R.; Baillot, Y.; Behringer, R.; Feiner, S.; Julier, S.; MacIntyre, B. Recent advances in augmented reality. IEEE Comput. Graph. Appl. 2001, 21, 34–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Huang, T.K.; Yang, C.H.; Hsieh, Y.H.; Wang, J.C.; Hung, C.C. Augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR) applied in dentistry. Kaohsiung J. Med. Sci. 2018, 34, 243–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Vicent, L.; Villagrasa, S.; Fonseca, D.; Redondo, E. Virtual learning scenarios for qualitative assessment in higher education 3D arts. J. Univers. Comput. Sci. 2015, 21, 1086–1105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Frank, J.A.; Kapila, V. Mixed-reality learning environments: Integrating mobile interfaces with laboratory test-beds. Comput. Educ. 2017, 110, 88–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Suh, A.; Prophet, J. The state of immersive technology research: A literature analysis. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2018, 86, 77–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. BBC. Goldman Sachs Virtual & Augmented Reality; BBC: London, UK, 2016; Volume 24. [Google Scholar]
  16. Oh, J.; Han, S.J.; Lim, D.H.; Jang, C.S.; Kwon, I.T. Application of Virtual and Augmented Reality to the Field of Adult Education. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Adult Education Research Conference, Victoria, BC, Canada, 8–10 June 2018; pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  17. Baratè, A.; Haus, G.; Ludovico, L.A.; Pagani, E.; Scarabottolo, N.; Giovanni, I.; Antoni, D. 5G Technology for Augmented and Virtual Reality in Education. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Education and New Developments, Porto, Portugal, 22–24 June 2019; pp. 512–516. [Google Scholar]
  18. Shen, H.; Zhang, J.; Cao, H. Research of marine engine room 3-D visual simulation system for the training of marine engineers. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. 2017, 20, 229–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Ochavillo, G.S. A Paradigm Shift of Learning in Maritime Education amidst COVID-19 Pandemic. Int. J. High. Educ. 2020, 9, 164–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Snilstveit, B.; Oliver, S.; Vojtkova, M. Narrative approaches to systematic review and synthesis of evidence for international development policy and practice. J. Dev. Eff. 2012, 4, 409–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Page, M.J.; Moher, D.; McKenzie, J.E. Introduction to PRISMA 2020 and implications for research synthesis methodologists. Res. Synth. Methods 2022, 13, 156–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G.; Altman, D.; Antes, G.; Atkins, D.; Barbour, V.; Barrowman, N.; Berlin, J.A.; et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009, 151, 264–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Aylward, K.; Dahlman, J.; Nordby, K.; Lundh, M. Using operational scenarios in a virtual reality enhanced design process. Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Renganayagalu, S.K.; Mallam, S.C.; Nazir, S.; Ernstsen, J.; Haavardtun, P. Impact of simulation fidelity on student self-efficacy and perceived skill development in maritime training. Transnav 2019, 13, 663–669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Grabowski, M.; Rowen, A.; Rancy, J.P. Evaluation of wearable immersive augmented reality technology in safety-critical systems. Saf. Sci. 2018, 103, 23–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Ernstsen, J.; Nazir, S. Performance assessment in full-scale simulators—A case of maritime pilotage operations. Saf. Sci. 2020, 129, 104775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Sanfilippo, F. A multi-sensor fusion framework for improving situational awareness in demanding maritime training. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2017, 161, 12–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Bingchan, L.; Mao, B.; Cao, J. Maintenance and Management of Marine Communication and Navigation Equipment Based on Virtual Reality. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2018, 139, 221–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Longo, F.; Chiurco, A.; Musmanno, R.; Nicoletti, L. Operative and procedural cooperative training in marine ports. J. Comput. Sci. 2015, 10, 97–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Hontvedt, M. Professional vision in simulated environments—Examining professional maritime pilots’ performance of work tasks in a full-mission ship simulator. Learn. Cult. Soc. Interact. 2015, 7, 71–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Luis, C.E.M.; Marrero, A.M.G. Real object mapping technologies applied to marine engineering learning process within a CBL methodology. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2013, 25, 406–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Baldauf, M.; Schröder-Hinrichs, J.U.; Kataria, A.; Benedict, K.; Tuschling, G. Multidimensional simulation in team training for safety and security in maritime transportation. J. Transp. Saf. Secur. 2016, 8, 197–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Ghosh, S. Can authentic assessment find its place in seafarer education and training? Aust. J. Marit. Ocean Aff. 2017, 9, 213–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Koh, L.Y.; Li, X.; Wang, X.; Yuen, K.F.; Wang, X. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management Key knowledge domains for maritime shipping executives in the digital era: A knowledge-based view approach. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2022, 7, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Baldauf, M.; Kitada, M.; Mehdi, R.; Dalaklis, D. E-Navigation, Digitalization and Unmanned Ships: Challenges for Future Maritime Education and Training. In Proceedings of the 12th International Technology, Education and Development Conference, Valencia, Spain, 5–7 March 2018; pp. 9525–9530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Markopoulos, E.; Lauronen, J.; Luimula, M.; Lehto, P.; Laukkanen, S. Maritime Safety Education with VR Technology (MarSEVR). In Proceedings of the 2019 10th IEEE International Conference on Cognitive Infocommunications (CogInfo-Com), Naples, Italy, 23–25 October 2019; pp. 283–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Nazir, S.; Øvergård, K.I.; Yang, Z. Towards Effective Training for Process and Maritime Industries. Procedia Manuf. 2015, 3, 1519–1526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Oliveira, M.; Costa, J.; Torvatn, H. Tomorrow’ s On-Board Learning System (TOOLS). In Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning and Collaboration Technologies, Toronto, ON, Canada, 17–22 July 2016; Volume 1, pp. 528–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Zhang, M.; Zhang, D.; Yao, H.; Zhang, K. A probabilistic model of human error assessment for autonomous cargo ships focusing on human–autonomy collaboration. Saf. Sci. 2020, 130, 104838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Hontvedt, M.; Arnseth, H.C. On the bridge to learn: Analysing the social organization of nautical instruction in a ship simulator. Int. J. Comput.-Support. Collab. Learn. 2013, 8, 89–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Fan, H.; Yang, S.; Suo, Y.; Zheng, M. Simulation Research on Operation of Union Purchase System in Navigation Simulator. J. Shanghai Jiaotong Univ. Sci. 2020, 25, 606–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Li, B.; Su, W. Long short-term memory network-based user behavior analysis in virtual reality training system—A case study of the ship communication and navigation equipment training. Arab. J. Geosci. 2021, 14, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Kim, T.; Sharma, A.; Bustgaard, M.; Gyldensten, W.C.; 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Chan, J.P.; Norman, R.; Pazouki, K.; Golightly, D. Autonomous maritime operations and the influence of situational awareness within maritime navigation. WMU J. Marit. Aff. 2022, 21, 121–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Hoem, Å.S.; Veitch, E.; Vasstein, K. Human-Centred Risk Assessment for a Land-Based Control Interface for an Autonomous Vessel; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2022; Volume 21, ISBN 0123456789. [Google Scholar]
  46. Sellberg, C. Pedagogical dilemmas in dynamic assessment situations: Perspectives on video data from simulator-based competence tests. WMU J. Marit. Aff. 2020, 19, 493–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Frydenberg, S.G.; Nordby, K. Virtual fieldwork on a ship’s bridge: Virtual reality-reconstructed operation scenarios as contextual substitutes for fieldwork in design education. Virtual Real. 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Gore, T.; Thomson, W. Use of simulation in undergraduate and graduate education. AACN Adv. Crit. Care 2016, 27, 86–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Lee, H.G.; Chung, S.; Lee, W.H. Presence in virtual golf simulators: The effects of presence on perceived enjoyment, perceived value, and behavioral intention. New Media Soc. 2013, 15, 930–946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Handa, M.; Aul, E.G.; Bajaj, S. Immersive Technology—Uses, Challenges and Opportunities. Int. J. Comput. Bus. Res. ISSN Online 2012, 6, 2229–6166. [Google Scholar]
  51. Javornik, A. Augmented reality: Research agenda for studying the impact of its media characteristics on consumer behaviour. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2016, 30, 252–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Milgram, P.; Kishimo, F. A taxonomy of mixed reality. IEICE Trans. Inf. Syst. 1994, 77, 1321–1329. [Google Scholar]
  53. Liu, M.; Huang, Y.; Zhang, D. Gamification’s impact on manufacturing: Enhancing job motivation, satisfaction and operational performance with smartphone-based gamified job design. Hum. Factors Ergon. Manuf. 2018, 28, 38–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Patriarca, R.; Falegnami, A.; De Nicola, A.; Villani, M.L.; Paltrinieri, N. Serious games for industrial safety: An approach for developing resilience early warning indicators. Saf. Sci. 2019, 118, 316–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Lange, B.S.; Requejo, P.; Flynn, S.M.; Rizzo, A.A.; Valero-Cuevas, F.J.; Baker, L.; Winstein, C. The potential of virtual reality and gaming to assist successful aging with disability. Phys. Med. Rehabil. Clin. N. Am. 2010, 21, 339–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Zeng, W.; Richardson, A. Adding dimension to content: Immersive virtual reality for e-Commerce. In Proceedings of the 27th Australasian Conference on Information Systems (ACIS), Wollongong, NSW, USA, 5–7 December 2016; pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  57. Ai-Lim Lee, E.; Wong, K.W.; Fung, C.C. How does desktop virtual reality enhance learning outcomes? A structural equation modeling approach. Comput. Educ. 2010, 55, 1424–1442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. IMO. Adoption of the Final Act and Any Instruments, Resolutions and Recommendations Resulting from the Work of the Conference—Attachment 1 to the Final Act of the Conference Resolution 1—STCW/CONF.2/33; International Maritime Organization (IMO): London, UK, 2010.
  59. ITF STCW: A Guide for Seafarers. Int. Transp. Work. Fed. 2014, 78.
  60. Erdogan, O.; Demirel, E. New Technologies in Maritime Education and Training, Turkish Experiment. Univers. J. Educ. Res. 2017, 5, 947–952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Ernstsen, J.; Nazir, S. Consistency in the development of performance assessment methods in the maritime domain. WMU J. Marit. Aff. 2018, 17, 71–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Sharma, A.; Nazir, S.; Wiig, A.C.; Sellberg, C.; Imset, M.; Mallam, S. Computer Supported Collaborative Learning as an Intervention for Maritime Education and Training; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; Volume 785, pp. 3–12. ISBN 978-3-319-93881-3. [Google Scholar]
  63. Castells, M.; Ordás, S.; Barahona, C.; Moncunill, J.; Muyskens, C.; Hofman, W.; Cross, S.; Kondratiev, A.; Boran-Keshishyan, A.; Popov, A.; et al. Model course to revalidate deck officers’ competences using simulators. WMU J. Marit. Aff. 2016, 15, 163–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Hjelmervik, K.; Nazir, S.; Myhrvold, A. Simulator training for maritime complex tasks: An experimental study. WMU J. Marit. Aff. 2018, 17, 17–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Sellberg, C.; Lundin, M. Tasks and instructions on the simulated bridge: Discourses of temporality in maritime training. Discourse Stud. 2018, 20, 289–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Mallam, S.C.; Lundh, M.; MacKinnon, S.N. Supporting participatory practices in ship design and construction—Challenges and opportunities. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, USA, 19–23 September 2016; pp. 1003–1007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Salas, E.; Tannenbaum, S.I.; Kraiger, K.; Smith-Jentsch, K.A. The Science of Training and Development in Organizations: What Matters in Practice. Psychol. Sci. Public Interest Suppl. 2012, 13, 74–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Garcia Fracaro, S.; Glassey, J.; Bernaerts, K.; Wilk, M. Immersive technologies for the training of operators in the process industry: A Systematic Literature Review. Comput. Chem. Eng. 2022, 160, 107691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Nazir, S.; Manca, D. How a plant simulator can improve industrial safety. Process Saf. Prog. 2015, 34, 237–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Bhardwaj, S.; Pazaver, A. Establishing the underpinning theories of maritime education and training for on-board competencies. AMET Marit. Joural Jan-June 2014, 13, 55–73. [Google Scholar]
  71. Jensen, L.; Konradsen, F. A review of the use of virtual reality head-mounted displays in education and training. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2018, 23, 1515–1529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Loup, G.; Serna, A.; Iksal, S.; George, S. Immersion and persistence: Improving learners’ engagement in authentic learning situations. In Adaptive and Adaptable Learning; Lecture Notes in Computer Science; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016; Volume 9891, pp. 410–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Hodgson, E.; Bachmann, E.R.; Vincent, D.; Zmuda, M.; Waller, D.; Calusdian, J. WeaVR: A self-contained and wearable immersive virtual environment simulation system. Behav. Res. Methods 2015, 47, 296–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Shen, H.; Zhang, J.; Yang, B.; Jia, B. Development of an educational virtual reality training system for marine engineers. Comput. Appl. Eng. Educ. 2019, 27, 580–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. de Oliveira, R.P.; Carim Junior, G.; Pereira, B.; Hunter, D.; Drummond, J.; Andre, M. Systematic Literature Review on the Fidelity of Maritime Simulator Training. Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, 817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Liu, X.; Xie, C.; Jin, Y. Multi-level virtual reality system for marine education and training. In Proceedings of the 2009 First International Workshop on Education Technology and Computer Science, Washington, DC, USA, 7–8 March 2009; Volume 2, pp. 1047–1050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Jmse 11 00147 g002 550
Figure 2. Status of Utilization of Immersive and Non-immersive simulators in MET.
Figure 2. Status of Utilization of Immersive and Non-immersive simulators in MET.
Jmse 11 00147 g002
Jmse 11 00147 g003 550
Figure 3. Types of Immersive and Non-immersive Simulators Utilized in Experiential Education and Training.
Figure 3. Types of Immersive and Non-immersive Simulators Utilized in Experiential Education and Training.
Jmse 11 00147 g003
Jmse 11 00147 g004 550
Figure 4. Simulator training in various sectors of MET for institutional and industrial training of STCW and Non-STCW courses for seafarers.
Figure 4. Simulator training in various sectors of MET for institutional and industrial training of STCW and Non-STCW courses for seafarers.
Jmse 11 00147 g004
Jmse 11 00147 g005 550
Figure 5. Comparison of STCW Complaint Immersive and Non-Immersive Simulators Using in Maritime Education and Training.
Figure 5. Comparison of STCW Complaint Immersive and Non-Immersive Simulators Using in Maritime Education and Training.
Jmse 11 00147 g005
Table
Table 1. Search Sources and Strings Used.
Table 1. Search Sources and Strings Used.
DatabaseSearch inString
ScopusTITLE-ABS-KEYTITLE-ABS-KEY {(immersive OR immersion) AND (simulator OR technology) AND (maritime OR marine) AND (education OR training)}
Science DirectAll Fieldsimmersive simulator, maritime education, and training, Year: 2013–2022
Web of ScienceAll FieldsALL = (immersive simulator, maritime education, and training)
Springer LinkAll Fieldsimmersive AND simulator, AND maritime AND education AND training
Taylor and Francis OnlineAll Fieldsimmersive AND simulator, AND maritime AND education AND training
Table
Table 2. The systematic review results in search sources for the accuracy rate of searches.
Table 2. The systematic review results in search sources for the accuracy rate of searches.
DatabaseFoundAccepted
(Scrn#1)		Discarded
(Scrn#1)		DuplicateAccepted
(Final)		Discarded
(Final)		Index RateAccuracy Rate
SpringerLink39642283738340.2960.020
Scopus57262476200.2220.105
Web of Science4310300.1110.750
Science Direct4510296730.2590.156
Taylor and Francis Online7375214340.1110.041
Total5758838910027611.0001.072
Table
Table 3. List of Selected Articles, their Data Source, Field of studies, Simulator Used.
Table 3. List of Selected Articles, their Data Source, Field of studies, Simulator Used.
Articles and SourceField of StudySimulator UsedImmersive/
Non-immersive
1. [23]
Source: Web of Science		Utilizing virtual reality to study the training of seafarers for ship operation in Arctic watersfull mission bridge simulator, recreated in VRImmersive
2. [24]
Source: Web of Science		Examine the effects of two kinds of simulators on students’ perceived skill growth during engine room simulation trainingImmersive and non-immersive simulators
Type: Both		Immersive and non-immersive
3. [10]
Source: Web of Science		Traditional MET methods and simulators may benefit from adopting and incorporating VR, AR, and MR technology.AR, VR, and MR with HMDsImmersive
4. [25]
Source: Science Direct		Evaluating WIAR technology in safety-critical systems for Maritime NavigationWearable Immersive Augmented Reality (WIAR)Immersive
5. [26]
Source: Science Direct		Analyze the validity and credibility of a proposed computer-aided performance assessment (CAPA) tool for marine pilotage assessment.computer-aided performance assessment (CAPA) toolNon-immersive
6. [27]
Source: Science Direct		Improving Situation awareness and reduction of risk by practical scenario-based training by Subsea Simulator developed by the OSCOffshore Simulator Centre (OSC) SoftwareNon-immersive
7. [28]
Source: Science Direct		Development and use of a virtual reality-based management and maintenance system for maritime communication and navigation toolsVirtual Reality (VR)Immersive
8. [29]
Source: Science Direct		Cooperation in training harbor pilots and traffic controllers in marine ports, using ship’s bridge simulators and control tower simulatorsSimulators for ship bridges and control towersNon-immersive
9. [30]
Source: Science Direct		The experiences of professional marine pilots who used a ship simulator to train for Azipod propeller navigation in strong windsShip bridge simulatorNon-immersive
10. [31]
Source: Science Direct		Marine engineering learning process using real object 3D mapping technology with challenge-based learning (CBL) approach3D mapping AR technology and Metaio ToolboxImmersive
11. [32]
Source: Taylor and Francis Online		Study a simulator that replicates demanding shipboard circumstances and apply learning-oriented simulation training to gain experience and appropriate skills in shipboard emergencies.Non-immersive Simulator for Safety and security trainingNon-immersive
12. [33]
Source: Taylor and Francis Online		Current assessment methods approved by the STCW Code for measuring a seafarer’s competence utilizing traditional approaches and current simulation methods.Seafarer’s competence assessment by using traditional and simulation methodsNon-immersive
13, [34]
Source: Taylor and Francis Online		Research for virtual, augmented, and mixed realities demonstrate that simulation may be used to prepare shipping sector management for different operational and emergencies.Digitalization of knowledge and training by AR, VR, and MR technologiesImmersive
14. [35]
Source: Scopus		A simulation study that investigated for the first-time traffic scenarios including conventional manned vessels and unmanned ships in the futureVTS AIS/radar data was used for non-immersive simulator studyNon-immersive
15. [29]
Source: Scopus		Cooperative training of employees in operational and procedural tasks at maritime portsShip Bridge simulator and Control Tower simulatorImmersive
16. [36]
Source: Scopus		The use of VR training for the shipping industry and proof-of-concept using MarSEVR (Maritime Safety Education with VR). Utilization of VR with immersive training scenarios.Immersive
17. [37]
Source: Scopus		Effectiveness of acquiring new skills through establishing and developing training regimes and adding training simulators to the curriculum for Maritime trainees.Non-immersive training simulatorNon-immersive
18. [38]
Source: Scopus		Simulator-based Ship Energy Efficiency training programs utilized non-immersive simulators to employ gamification elements where seafarers made decisions in realistic settings.Simulator-based training on ship’s energy efficiencyNon-Immersive
19. [39]
Source: Scopus		Using a probabilistic model to evaluate human error on autonomous cargo vessels looks at human cooperation with autonomy as an essential aspect of human error evaluation.Third-degree human autonomy collaborationNon-Immersive
20. [40]
Source: Springer Link		The study investigated the interaction between a student and a professional maritime pilot in a simulated learning environment for navigation.Full mission Bridge simulatorImmersive
21. [41]
Source: Springer Link		A study on simulation research on the operation of the union purchase to improve special operation training for realistic union purchase freight handling.VR Navigation simulator added with Union Purchase 3D ops Immersive
22. [42]
Source: Springer Link		Virtual reality simulators for teaching and training in maritime domain: a long-term memory network study of user activityVR training and 3D semantic Trajectories for LSTM behavior analysis modelImmersive
23. [43]
Source: Springer Link		Future MET practices and the rise of VR and cloud-based simulators in the education and training in the maritime sector.VR and Cloud based simulatorsImmersive
24. [44]
Source: Springer Link		The effect of autonomous marine operations and situational awareness on maritime navigationHuman Automation relationship on Navigation SimulatorImmersive
25. [45]
Source: Springer Link		Assessment of the risk related to the use of land-based interfaces for autonomous ships from a human-centered perspective.Land-based control center for autonomous vessel Immersive
26. [38,46]
Source: Springer Link		Simulator-based competency tests for the seafarers implementing the method of video-stimulated recall.Simulator-based competency testsNon-immersive
27. [47]
Source: Springer Link		Used VR-reconstructed operation scenarios (VRROS) for arctic-bound ships to supplement and replace the contextual features of field research in constructing interactive learning environments.VR-reconstructed operation scenarios (VRROS)Immersive
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Dewan, M.H.; Godina, R.; Chowdhury, M.R.K.; Noor, C.W.M.; Wan Nik, W.M.N.; Man, M. Immersive and Non-Immersive Simulators for the Education and Training in Maritime Domain—A Review. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2023, 11, 147. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse11010147

AMA Style

Dewan MH, Godina R, Chowdhury MRK, Noor CWM, Wan Nik WMN, Man M. Immersive and Non-Immersive Simulators for the Education and Training in Maritime Domain—A Review. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering. 2023; 11(1):147. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse11010147

Chicago/Turabian Style

Dewan, Mohammud Hanif, Radu Godina, M Rezaul Karim Chowdhury, Che Wan Mohd Noor, Wan Mohd Norsani Wan Nik, and Mustafa Man. 2023. "Immersive and Non-Immersive Simulators for the Education and Training in Maritime Domain—A Review" Journal of Marine Science and Engineering 11, no. 1: 147. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse11010147

APA Style

Dewan, M. H., Godina, R., Chowdhury, M. R. K., Noor, C. W. M., Wan Nik, W. M. N., & Man, M. (2023). Immersive and Non-Immersive Simulators for the Education and Training in Maritime Domain—A Review. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 11(1), 147. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse11010147

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop