EVALUATING SELF-EFFICACY ON MARITIME JUNIOR OFFICER DECISION-MAKING John Sitka III
A Research Plan Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for EDUC 715
Abstract
The bridge of a commercial vessel at sea, is usually manned by a single officer. This person job is to make the critical decision in the absence of the master. There are international requirements that direct this officer to notify the master of the vessel to get help in maneuvering and decision-making under special circumstance. Studies have suggested that the majority of maritime accidents are the results of human error and most of those incidents are attributed to the bridge officer. The purpose of this correlation research design study is to test if inappropriate decision-making in junior offers is related to low self-efficacy. The study will test 50 junior officers at an east coast maritime school, simulating a critical situation using a full bridge simulator. The dependent variable is decision-making will be generally defined as the process of choosing one or more options. The dependent variable will be generally defined as a person’s belief in one's ability to succeed in specific situations or self-efficacy. The participant is required to call the ship’s master when a special circumstance occurs. When the participant fails to make the decision to call the master, it is hypothesized that it is a result of low self-efficacy.
Keywords: maritime education, self-efficacy, decision-making, human factors, competence,
Evaluating Self-Efficacy on Maritime Junior Officer Decision-Making
Introduction
Unlike many industries, one watchstander or one decision-maker controls bridge operations of most vessels. The displays and indicators are as numerous and complex as a Boeing 747 cockpit. Other transportation industries such as; commercial airlines have both a pilot and co-pilot for decision-making, railways have both and engineer and a conductor in the cab to make decisions. Ships can be as small as a tug to as large as a 6000 passenger ship, or 1300-foot container ship. These vessels are small cities on the water. The maneuverability of these large vessels may require over 5 miles to turn, accelerate, or decelerate.
The Master of the vessel has sole responsibility for the ship, but it is impractical for this person to be on the bridge of the ship 24 hours a day. The junior officer on watch is the Master’s representative for carrying out the functions of shipboard operations and decision-making. It is required by international standards and the Master’s standing orders to notify the Master when the officer on watch needs additional help or guidance (IMO, 2011; Iordanoaia, 2010). This study will determine if self-efficacy has any relationship on a junior officer’s decision-making as to whether or not they call the Master. Studies in self-efficacy have been conducted in many areas, except the maritime industry and education.
Establishing the Importance
structure and the ship’s Master has ultimate and final responsibility in all operations of the ship (Rothblum, 2006; Wang, & Zhang, 2000).
Giziakis, et al. (2012) analysis suggested that despite the development of international standards in maritime education and assessment, the numbers of marine accidents attributed to the human element, has not been reduced. Several factors in the human element have been identified as potential causes of maritime casualties, such as: (1.) Lack of training, (2.) Lack of experience and of that vessel, (3.) Fatigue, (4) Stress, and (5) Excessive workload (Lin, 2006; Rothblum, 2006; Wang, & Zhang, 2000). When these and other factors arise, it is vital that the officer on watch calls the Master for assistance when a special circumstance occurs (IMO, 2011).
A United Kingdom Protection and Indemnity Club study of 1993 found that, in the majority of human error accidents aboard ships were caused by deck officers (Giziakis et al. 2012). A study by Lin (2006) conducted research on decision-making of seniors officers when maneuvering the ship to avoid collisions. His study found that, although no collisions occurred, 17.5% of the total tracks in good visibility exercises had a Closest Point of Approach (CPA) of less than 0.2 miles, which is classified as near misses (Lin, 2006,). One of Lin’s conclusions states; “… ship officers make their decision to avoid collision is related to their personal characteristics” (Lin, 2006, p. 230).
Even when the officers had sufficient sea room, with no obstacle and a large safety margin through early action and/or a large change of course, five subjects took avoiding action resulting in a CPA of less than one mile in all the exercises. The goal is to stay out of the way of an approaching ship as far as possible. If there is any failure by human actions or ships
adjusted educational techniques may assist in avoiding marine casualties (Emad, & Roth, 2008; Giziakis et al. 2012; Iordanoaia, 2010). Considering this is first of a kind study for maritime education, a clarification of the concepts of self-efficacy is in order.
Efficacy
Albert Bandura, who is also noted for his work in Social Cognitive Theory, theorized the concept of efficacy (Miller, 2011; Ponton, & Rhea, 2006). Bandura has defined self-efficacy as a person’s belief in one's ability to succeed in specific situations. He states that people generally avoid tasks when their self-efficacy is low, but where self-efficacy is high, the
individual believes they can take on the tasks (Bandura 2006). It has been observed, that people when they have low self-efficacy, they become erratic and unpredictable when engaging in a task (Brown, 1999; Bruce, Sachin, Srivastava, & Stellern, 2007; Ely, & Sitzmann, 2011. To describe in Bandura’s words,
A person will have little incentive to act, or preserve in the face of difficulties, unless they believed their actions would produce the desired effect. Any other reasons that serve as guides and motivators are rooted in the core belief that they have the power to effect changes by their actions. It is self-efficacy that is the key to personal change, resource, and development. Efficacy has an impact on cognitive, affective, motivational, and decision-making processes. Self-efficacy determines whether an individual will think optimistic or pessimistic in self-enhancing or debilitating ways (Bandura 2006).
Current Studies in Self-Efficacy Theory and Decision-Making
2012a; Feltz, and Hepler, 2012b, conducted research in the sports field on time-sensitive, and heuristic decision-making and self-efficacy. Their findings suggest that when people are in a dynamic and time-pressured environment, they rely on the heuristics in making decisions. These decisions were not random, but purposeful. They also found that self-efficacy was significant and a positive predictor in the time to make their first decision. “In other words, participants with low self-efficacy took longer to make their decisions than those confident in their decision-making capabilities” (Feltz, & Hepler, 2012b, p. 160).
Another part of their findings concluded that self-efficacy was a significant constant predictor of decision-making speed and that it was beyond the influence of past performance (Feltz, & Hepler, 2012a). They also recognize that their study has implications outside of sports, “While the current study explored Time To First (TTF) decision in the sports domain, we believe that specific characteristics of the task, such as time pressure, dynamic conditions, and risk allow the results to generalize to similar decision tasks outside of sport” (Feltz, & Hepler, 2012b, p. 160,).
performance for self-efficacy in situation awareness and environment management, but not for team management and decision-making (Boscardin, et al., 2011, p. 587).”
Research question: Does a student’s self-efficacy effect students ability to make correct decision-making while navigating a ship in a simulator in critical situations?
H1: There is a significant statically relationship between a student’s successful decision-making and those scoring less than 30 points on the general self-efficacy scale to notify the Master as required by regulations while performing in a simulated ship exercise (Schwarzer, 2007).
H0: There is no significant statically relationship between a student’s successful
decision-making and those scoring less than 30 points the general self-efficacy scale to notify the Master as required by regulations while performing in a simulated ship exercise.
Participants
A study Giziakis et al. (2012) identified that the majority of accidents on a vessel are due to the deck officer on the bridge. This study will focus solely on junior officers since they have the least experience. The US Coast Guard (2005) determined that there are 204,835 mariners, of which there were a total 5,107 mariners considered junior deck officers. Junior officers, whether coming up through the ranks or graduating from a maritime academy, have minimal experience and skills for standing a bridge watches in a decision-making position.
Of those participants, the intent is to test 5 Asian/Pacific, 1 Indian/Alaskan, 5 Hispanics, 2 Black, and 37 Caucasians. The students come from a variety of social-economic backgrounds and cultures. The study will include both male and female participants. The study should take six months to collect data from a sufficient amount of participant’s.
Setting/Site
The test will be conducted at an east coast maritime academy. The assessment will be derived from a group of assessments that are issued by the United States Coast Guard for Officer-In-Charge of a Navigational Watch. The assessment number is OICNW-2-3C, which addresses the augmentation of the watch, in which the junior officer is to recognize the need for additional personnel on the bridge and notify the Master (Christensen, 2011). The conditions are to be performed in a full-mission ship simulator of an exercise at sea, when help is needed because of restricted visibility, vessel traffic, or safety of navigation. The classes associated with the assessment are the Officer-In-Charge of a Navigation Watch program.
Instrumentation General self-efficacy questionnaire.
Schwarzer (2007), reports a correlation between self-efficacy and other personality traits and found a failure or action orientation r=0.43, decision or action orientation r =0.49, and hope for success r=0.46. The sample were derived from 180 university students. The correlations are considered highly significant. Test items refer to successful coping and imply an internal-stable attribution of success. The test samples come from 23 nations, Cronbach’s alphas ranged from .76 to .90, with the majority in the high .80s (Schwarzer 2008). Schwarzer states that, “The scale is uni-dimensional. Criterion-related validity is documented in numerous correlation studies where positive coefficients were found with favorable emotions, dispositional optimism, and work satisfaction. (Lanigan, 2008; Schwarzer 2008)”
Decision-making assessment
The U. S. Coast Guard assessment OICNW 3-2C is conducted in a ship simulator during an exercise at sea, in restricted visibility, with additional traffic, or safety of navigation; see Appendix B (Christensen, 2011). The candidate is expected to call the master for assistance. Both scenarios take approximately 20 minutes to assess one candidate.
the road, the maneuver will be considered a near miss (a collision does not occur), and a failure to comply with the requirement.
When executing the assessment there will be two observers; the senior simulator
instructor and the researcher to validate the observations and actions taken by the junior officer. The senior simulator instructor and the researcher have over 60 years of combined experience on the bridge of ships at sea. It is important to conduct the observation under normal conditions to prevent a false positive if the student is aware that they are being observed for study.
Research Design
Gall, Gall, and Borg, (2007) would suggest that this study should be a correlation design, since it purpose is to determine a relationships between variables through the use of correlation statistics. The sample will be a sample of convenience and will be reasonably homogenous.
Procedures
Before conducting this study, permission will be obtained from the institutional review board. Once permission from both the institutional review board and the maritime educational facility management has been granted, and then a meeting with simulator staff and the instructor to brief them on the purpose of the study and what will be expected of them.
Staff training will take a day, to ensure that the participants are not queued into making any action or decision that will affect the study. The simulator instructor and the researcher will go over, review the parameters of the scenario, and practice on volunteer students attending the school so that both the simulator instructor and the researcher agree on the criteria of when a participant fails to make the correct decision.
Navigation Watch program. The study will use junior officers that are attending school and observe their actions while performing assessment OICNW 3-2C (Christensen, 2011).Upon completion of the assessment, the researcher will ask the student if they would like to participate in a research project. The intent is not to deceive, but to ensure that the exact purpose of the study does not influence the experiment or the posttest. If the student agrees, they will be ask to sign the disclosure statement and then explained how to fill-out the GSE. The researcher will explain the importance of the study and questionnaire. The participant will be briefed that no personal information will be released since their personal identification is not required for the study. They will be asked for some demographics information to validate the study’s diversity. Once that has been completed, each participant will be given a complete disclosure of the purpose of the study and if they agree, sign a release form.
Decision-making performance task.
The normal procedure is to brief the student on the simulator controls and discuss the requirements as set forth in the assessment. The visual system of the simulator produces a
seascape of 240 degrees in a horizontal view and 40 degrees in a vertical view. When visualizing the ship’s movement produced on the simulator, its visual effects simulates or mimics a ship’s motion and has been known to cause swaying of the body and vertigo (seasickness). The bridge has identical consoles, controls, and displays that replicate the equipment on an actual vessel. The bridge team consists of a mate and a helmsman. The mate is the subject and the helmsman is a non-participant to the research. The helmsman is there to follow orders to maneuver the ship.
min). 11 small targets (identified as a group of fishing boats) are maneuvering on various courses and speeds in the vicinity of the ownship track. In order to effectively avoid all the fishing
vessels, the own ship must maneuver, despite being “stand-on” vessel.
A second simulator scenario is also available to the instructor. Simulator scenario is daytime in open sea during overcast, rain, weather with visibility 5 miles, light winds, minimal sea swells. Vessel is a Training Ship that is 17,000 tons, with a maximum speed of 18.9 knots. The ships course is 090° true at 18.9 knots. There are three targets on radar. Target 1 is at 088° true, 8.0 miles, on course 090° true, 5.0 knots. Target 2 is at 092° true, 8.5 miles, course 272° true, and 7.0 knots. Target 3 is at 137° true, 8.3 miles course 045° true, 13.6 knots. As the candidate is evaluating the radar targets, the visibility begins to decrease gradually to less than one mile. Candidate is expected to take actions required in restricted visibility and call master.
General self-efficacy questionnaire
The general efficacy questionnaire measures a general sense of perceived self-efficacy with the aim of predicting coping skills/abilities. The 10-item questionnaire asks participants to rate their confidence in their ability to perform various decision-making skills. The response format is from 1 = Not at all true to 4 = Exactly true (Schwarzer 2008).
Analysis
The analysis that will be use a point biserial correlation (rpbis), which will be able to calculate a correlation for a true dichotomy; Y variable and a continuous X variable. Since there is a close relationship to the Pearson r, a coefficient of determination, which forms of r pbis 2, will be used to determine strength of the relationship for drawing conclusions from the data. The following intervals for values of r2 apply equally to r pbis 2; very strong ≥ .81, strong .49-.80, moderate .25-.48, and weak 00-.08 (Apex Dissertations, 2010; Gall et al., 2007).
Another statistical calculation for a true dichotomy Y variable is a logistic regression, which measures the relationship between a categorical dependent variable and one or more independent variables, which are usually on a continuous scale. The probability scores could be used as predictors of the dependent variable (Gall et al., 2007).
Limitations
The correlation study design has several limitations, such as; even though the study may lead to a cause and effect relationship between variables, it would be difficult to come to a concrete or strong conclusion. Another limitation could be causal limitations, where a plausible inference maybe the age of the student and previous shipboard experience. Other issue with this experiment is the lack of a pretest, no control or comparison group, and the lack of
randomization of participants. The instrument used is a self-reporting measure that has the potential threat of dishonest responses or skewed answers to make the participant look better (Gall et al., 2007).
That self-efficacy has an influence on making specifically, critical decision-making. The nature of self-efficacy is unique to the individual and their experiences. Decision-making is based up one’s knowledge, experiences, and confidence.
Methodological assumption
Even though the sample is a sample of convenience, the lack of randomization selection is based upon that the institution does not select or prevent students from attending the classes. Many of the students are from all part of the United States. Solicitation of the desired population is voluntary; therefore, it could be similar to those studies that solicit for participants of the study online or in a newspaper. What is randomized is the scenario selected for the simulation.
The control group was rejected, since the study is a correlation of self-efficacy and decision-making. If a control group had been created, then the study would be testing the self-efficacy of junior officers instead self-self-efficacy and decision-making. The decision to not conduct a pretest is correct for pretest sensitization that could potentially affect the outcomes of the experiment and the posttest.
Timeline
In the first 30 to 45 day, acquire permission from the institutional review board for the procedure and use of the GSE. During this period, meet with the maritime educational facility management to discuss the purpose of the study. Obtain permission from the management for the use of the simulator and access to their students and staff for a period of six months
References
Apex Dissertations (2010). An explanation of point-biserial correlation: Criteria and application of the concept. Retrieved from
http://apexdissertations.com/articles/point-biserial_correlation.html
Baldauf, M., Nakazawa, T., & Prasad R. (2011). Collaborative learning for professional development of shipboard engineers. International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology, 3(3). 2308-2319.
Bandura, A., & Wood R. (1989). Effect of Perceived Controllability and Performance Standards on Self-Regulation of Complex Decision Making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 56(5), 805-814.
Bandura, A. (2006). Toward a psychology of human agency. Association for Psychological Science, 1(2), 164-180. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00011.x
Boscardin, C. K., O’Sullivan, P. S., Plant, J. L., Sliwka, D. C., & van Schaik, S. M. (2011). Validation of a self-efficacy instrument and its relationship to performance of crisis resource management skills. Advances in Health Science Education. 16, 579–590. DOI:10.1007/s10459-011-9274-7
Brown, B. L. (1999). Self-efficacy beliefs and career development. ERIC Digest No. 205. ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult Career and Vocational Education Columbus OH. Retired from http://www.ericdigests.org/1999-4/self.htm
Bruce, M. A., Sachin, J., Srivastava, N., & Stellern, J. (2007). Self-efficacy as a function of attributional feedback. Journal of School Counseling, 5(4). Retrieved from
Christensen, E. P. (2011) Qualification via "the Hawsepipe" for STCW endorsements as Officer In Charge of a Navigational Watch on ships of 200 GRT/500 GT or more. United States
Coast Guard, CG-543 Policy Letter: 11-07. Washington, DC.
Ely, K., & Sitzmann, T. (2011). A meta-analysis of self-regulated learning in work-related training and educational attainment: What we know and where we need to go. Psychological Bulletin, 137(3), 421-442. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/10.1037/a0022777
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 10.1108/00400910810874026
Feltz, D. L., & Hepler, T. J. (2012a). Path analysis examining self-efficacy and decision-making performance on a simulated baseball task. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 83(1), 55-64.
Feltz, D. L., & Hepler, T. J. (2012b). Take the first heuristic, self-efficacy, and decision-making in sport. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied. 18(2), 154–161.
DOI:10.1037/a0027807
Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2007). Educational research: An introduction (8th ed.). New York: Allyn & Bacon.
IMO (2011). International convention on standards of training, certification and watchkeeping for seafarers (STCW), and the STCW code, includes 2010 Manila amendments. London
England: International Maritime Organization.
Iordanoaia, F. (2010). Master of the ship, manager, and instructor. Management & Marketing, 1, 133 – 155. Retrieved from www.mnmk.ro/documents/2010special/13IORDANOAIA-LUCRAREFFF.pdf
Lanigan, M. L. (2008). Are self-efficacy instruments comparable to knowledge and skills tests in training evaluation setting? Performance Improvement Quarterly, 20(3/4), 97–112. doi: 10.1002/piq.20005
Lin, B. (2006). Behavior of ship officers in maneuvering to prevent a collision. Journal of Marine Science and Technology, 14(4), 225-230. Retrieved from
mst.ntou.edu.tw/marine/14-4/225-230.pdf
Ponton, M. K. & Rhea, N. E. (2006). Autonomous learning from a social cognitive perspective. New Horizons in Adult Education & Human Resource Development, 20(20), 38-49.
Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/docview/194643221 Rothblum, A. M. (2006). Human error and marine safety. U.S. Coast Guard Research &
Development Center, Retrieved from http://www.geovs.com/resources/publication
Schunk, D.H. (1996). Self-Efficacy for Learning and Performance. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY, April 8-12, 1996. Retrieved from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?ERICExtSearch_SearchVa
Schwarzer, R. (2007). Everything you wanted to know about the General Self-Efficacy Scale but were afraid to ask. [Freie Universität Berlin website]. Retrieved from http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~health/materials/faq_gse_5mar2007.pdf
Schwarzer, R. (2008) Psychometric Scales. [Freie Universität Berlin website]. Retrieved from http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/health/
United States Coast Guard. (2005).Marine Credentials. Proceedings, 62(2), 38-40. Retrieved from http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/archive/2005/
Wang, J., & Zhang, S. M. (2000). Management of human error in shipping operations. Professional Safety, 45(10). Retrieved from
Appendix A
General Self-Efficacy (GSE) assessment English version by Ralf Schwarzer & Matthias Jerusalem, 1995
1. I can always manage to solve difficult problems if I try hard enough. 2. If someone opposes me, I can find the means and ways to get what I want. 3. It is easy for me to stick to my aims and accomplish my goals.
4. I am confident that I could deal efficiently with unexpected events.
5. Thanks to my resourcefulness, I know how to handle unforeseen situations. 6. I can solve most problems if I invest the necessary effort.
7. I can remain calm when facing difficulties because I can rely on my coping abilities. 8. When I am confronted with a problem, I can usually find several solutions.
9. If I am in trouble, I can usually think of a solution. 10. I can usually handle whatever comes my way.
Response Format
Appendix B
TABLE A-II/1 Specification of Minimum Standard of Competence OFFICER IN CHARGE OF A NAVIGATIONAL WATCH
ASSESSMENT NO. OICNW-2-3C
FUNCTION: Navigation at the Operational Level
COMPETENCE: Maintain a safe navigational watch
KNOWLEDGE, UNDERSTANDING & PROFICIENCY: Watchkeeping -- Thorough
knowledge of effective bridge teamwork procedures
TASK: BRM – Recognition of watch condition
PERFORMANCE CONDITION: On a ship at sea or a full mission ship simulator during
an exercise at sea, when help is needed because of restricted visibility, vessel traffic or safety of navigation.
Simulator scenario 1: Open sea. Evening twilight. Vessel: Training Ship (17,000 tons, max spd 18.9 kts)
Own ship on cse 090 @ 18.9 kts. Target 1 is a large container ship bearing 030T @ 3.2 miles (own ship is stand on; CPA in 15 min).
11 small targets (identified as a group of fishing boats) are maneuvering on various courses and speeds in the vicinity of ownship track.
In order to effectively avoid all fishing vessels, own ship must maneuver, despite being “stand on” for container.
Candidate expected to call master for assistance.
Time to assess one candidate: 20 min
Simulator scenario 2: Open sea. Wx: overcast, rain, visibility 5 miles, light airs, small sea. Day time. Vessel: Training Ship (17,000 tons, max spd 18.9 kts). Course 090, speed 18.9.
Three targets on radar.
Target 1 @ 088, 8.0 miles, cse 090, 5.0 kts Target 2 @ 092, 8.5 miles, cse 272, 7.0 kts Target 3 @ 137, 8.3 miles cse 045, 13.6 kts
As candidate is evaluating radar targets, visibility decrease gradually to less than one mile.
Candidate expected to take actions required in restricted visibility and call master.
Time to assess one candidate: 20 min
entrance. Clear weather.
Vessel: Container Ship 1 (33,000 tons, max sped 19.4 kts) On cse 265 @ 19.4 knots.
Other ships in vicinity include:
Navy destroyer bearing 100 @ 2.7 nm, cse 270 @ 25 kts, overtaking ownship to port Survey vessel bearing 250@ 4.2 nm, cse 000 @ 5 kts, crossing ahead of ownship Integrated tug-barge unit bearing 270 @ 2.0 nm, cse 266 @7.5 kts, ownship is overtaking
As ownship nears ITB, the ITB makes an erratic maneuver and will not answer VHF.
Candidate expected to call master for assistance.
Time to assess one candidate: 20 min
Simulator scenario 4: Approaches to New York in Nantucket Sea Lane. 12 miles from Ambrose Channel entrance. Clear weather.
Vessel: Container Ship 1 (33,000 tons, max sped 19.4 kts) On cse 265 @ 19.4 knots.
Other ships in vicinity include:
Navy destroyer bearing 100 @ 2.7 nm, cse 270 @ 25 kts, overtaking ownship to port Survey vessel bearing 250@ 4.2 nm, cse 000 @ 5 kts, crossing ahead of ownship Integrated tug-barge unit bearing 270 @ 2.0 nm, cse 266 @7.5 kts, ownship is overtaking Container ship bearing 246 @ 6.3 nm, cse 036 @ 27 kts
Container ship is in separation zone proceeding wrong way into inbound lane and maneuvering so as to cause concern; gives confusing, broken-English responses on VHF.
Candidate expected to call master for assistance.
Time to assess one candidate: 20 min
Total time to assess four candidates: 1 hr, 20 min.
PERFORMANCE BEHAVIOR: Recognize the need for additional personnel on the
bridge and notify the master.
PERFORMANCE STANDARD:
The candidate notifies the master immediately if:
1. The vessel encounters or expects to encounter restricted visibility;
2. There is cause for concern because of vessel traffic density or the movements of other ships;
3. The vessel will transit restricted waters with vessel traffic; or
