Experimental Design

The DT methodology was applied to the new SBML dataset as a means to evaluate the effectiveness of this training approach. The efficacy of the SBML training program can be determined in three ways: 1) analyzing the SBML trained participants’ performance scores in the test scenarios, 2) by comparing the decision tree depiction of the participant’s understanding of emergency egress to the intended learning objectives, and 3) by comparing the SBML decision strategies with those identified by Musharraf et al. (2018) for the LBT experiment. The two decision tree comparisons are explored in this paper. This section describes the participants, AVERT simulator, how the SBML training was applied to AVERT, and the process used to develop the DTs.

3.5.1.1. Participants

Two separate experiments were used to test the SBML and LBT pedagogical approaches.

Fifty-five naïve participants were trained using the SBML approach (42 participants were male and 13 participants were female). The SBML participants’ ages ranged from 18-54 years (M = 27 years, SD = ± 7.9 years). The LBT experiment had 36 participants. These participants were divided into two treatment groups for different training exposures: LBT1, which represented multiple training exposures, and LBT2, which represented a single training exposure. This paper includes the results of 17 participants from LBT1 (13 participants were male and 4 participants were female). The LBT participants’ ages ranged from 19-39 years (M = 27 years, SD = ± 5.0 years). All participants had no prior offshore experience and no exposure to the simulator prior to the study. The majority of participants for both experiments were undergraduate and graduate students.

3.5.1.2. AVERT Simulator

Both the SBML and LBT experiments trained participants in offshore emergency egress using the All-hands Virtual Emergency Response Trainer (AVERT). AVERT is a first-person perspective desktop VE that provides participants with a naturalistic representation of an offshore Floating Production Storage and Offloading (FPSO) vessel (House et al., 2014). Participants use a gamepad controller (Xbox) to control their avatar of an offshore worker and interact with the virtual FPSO platform. Participants were provided with general instructions by reading short tutorial slides before starting the in-simulation training scenarios. The current configuration of AVERT is intended to train general personnel in

responsibility during an emergency is to muster at their designated muster stations. The core learning objectives include familiarity with the platform layout, emergency alarms, egress routes, safety protocols, and mustering procedures.

3.5.1.3. SBML applied to AVERT

The SBML training involved an initial habituation stage and four training and testing modules as depicted in Figure 3.3. The habituation stage trained participants on how to use the AVERT controls and introduced participants to the offshore platform. Subsequent to the habituation stage, participants proceeded to the training and testing modules. Each module was designed to train specific learning objectives and gradually taught participants the platform layout, how to recognize alarms, what to do in the event of blocked routes, and how to assess the situation and avoid hazards while evacuating the platform. The learning objectives were developed with guidance from subject matter experts to address both spatial and procedural knowledge.

Figure 3.3: SBML training and testing stages

Each training and testing module involved 1 to 3 training scenarios and 1 test scenario. As shown in Figure 3.3, the SBML training consisted of 12 scenarios in total (8 practice and 4 testing scenarios). As part of the SBML training, participants were required to demonstrate competence in each scenario before they could advance to scenarios that were more complex. Module 1 taught participants the platform layout and all the available egress routes from the cabin. Participants were tested on their spatial knowledge in scenario T1 by asking them to meet their supervisor at their designated lifeboat station. Module 2 taught participants the different alarm types on the platform: general platform alarm (GPA), prepare to abandon platform alarm (PAPA), and mustering procedures. Participants were tested on their spatial and procedural knowledge in scenario T2 by asking them to safely respond to a muster drill. Module 3 reminded participants of the alternative routes from the

obstructed. Module 4 taught participants the emergency protocols necessary to respond to emergency scenarios with hazards such as smoke and fire. Test scenarios T3 and T4 tested the participants’ ability to respond to emergency conditions and re-route if their planned route was blocked by hazards.

After each training module in AVERT, the participants’ performance was assessed using test scenarios. In the scenarios, participants were tasked with responding to muster drills or emergency alarms and selecting the safest egress route from their cabin. There were two main routes for participants to choose from: primary or secondary. Each route had multiple decision points along the path. Participants were instructed to listen to the alarm, pay attention to the public address (PA) announcements, and follow the safest route to their muster or lifeboat station. Participants were assessed on their ability to recognize the alarm, take their safety equipment, follow the safest egress route, avoid exposure to hazards, reach the correct muster location, and register at the temporary safe refuge area.

Participants received corrective feedback on their performance after each scenario attempt.

To achieve demonstrated competence, some participants required multiple attempts at the scenarios.