Journal Archive

The questionnaire is arranged in two parts: Part I has two questions about the last semester shipboard training - duration and where did they performed their previous training – onboard merchant ship or from training ships. Part II is composed of four questions about the current training onboard the training ship ‘Sae Nuri’. To test the reliability of the questionnaire, the study carried out a “Test and Re-test” method of Part II only where it was given to the students twice because questions in Part II have more relevance with the aim of the study. There was a 3-week interval in the administration of the first test and the re-test. The result of the Tests showed consistency on the rankings to all the questions asked, hence, ranking correlation calculations intended (Spearman rho) is deemed un-necessary.

Although, the participants are asked to be objective, there seem to be a bias towards their last merchant ship experience (see Section 3.1 and the compilation of their remarks in Section 4.1). To prove reliability and objectivity, a follow-up survey should carried out with those cadets who had their training ship experience in the first phase.

Part I of the questionnaire is about the students last shipboard experience from the previous semester. They were asked “what type of ship” were their past training: from merchant ship or one of the university training ships, usually from T/S ‘Sae Yudal’.

The university has two-phase shipboard training program for cadets. The first phase is done on the second semester of the current school year where about half of the junior cadets shall embark on merchant ships and the other half onboard the training ships. On the first semester of the preceding school year, the cadets senior year, it is reversed. Those from the merchant ships will continue their STCW required one-year shipboard training aboard the training ships and their contemporaries shall board the merchant ships. This survey was carried out at the first semester, hence, the respondents had already experienced the first phase, the merchant sea-life and training.

<Table 1> shows that majority, 85%, had merchant ship experience while only 13% came from training ship and 3% (3 cadets) never embarked at all.

Question no. 2 asks about the duration of cadets stay on merchant or training ships during the previous semester. This question was asked to gauge cadets period of stay onboard where they can objectively answer the succeeding questions.

[Fig. 1] graphs the duration of past experiences. Both deck and engine cadets almost equal in the more than 6-months sea-time (73/76 respectively), followed by 5-month sea-time. The study deemed this as sufficiently reliable for the cadets to make an objective assessment of the survey questions.

[Fig. 1] 
Duration of previous semester shipboard training

The third question deals with “Effective shipboard training sequence” The cadets are asked which sequence, based on their over-all shipboard experiences: merchant and training ships, is more effective.

Most of the cadets, 68%, preferred the “first merchant ship then training ship” sequence. This is shared almost equally by navigation and engine cadets. The “training ship first” flow has only 25%, again, almost equal on both departments. “No Opinion” has 9 responses. (See above [Fig. 2])

[Fig. 2] 
Effective shipboard training sequence according to senior cadets onboard T/S ‘Sae Nuri’

This section deals with the effectiveness of the training curriculum and activities onboard the training ship. The question asked was: “In your opinion, rate the teaching methodology onboard the training ship of each subject-matter, on its effectiveness to prepare you as future merchant ship officer” Each department has different groups of subject matter based on the standards of STCW.

3.2.1 Navigation (Deck) Department

STCW ‘78, as amended lists the competency requirements for the candidates to acquire the sufficient skills. Chapter II, Section A-II/1 “Mandatory minimum requirements for certification of officers in charge of a navigational watch on ships of 500 G/T or more” Tabulated list is shown in Table A-II/1 with the different ‘Functions’ at operational level.

Based on these requirements, the navigation cadets were asked to rate the subjects-matter taught onboard according to the following weights: “Very Adequate”, “Fairly Adequate”, and “Inadequate” shown in <Table 2>. [Fig. 3] graphs the degree dispersion of effectiveness of the subject-matter taught in navigation.

<Table 2> 
Subjects taught to deck cadets with weighted ranks

Navigation / Deck Subjects-Matter Taught	Very Adequate	Fairly Adequate	Inadequate
Bridge-Nav & Comm	37	27	1
Deck Opn & Works	18	28	19
Cargo – Lecture based	10	24	31
Safety & Emer Preparedness	20	36	9
Totals	85	115	60

[Fig. 3] 
Effectiveness of Subject-Matter taught for navigation cadets

For this survey question, the study wants to establish whether there are significant relationships in the quality of training specifically among these four major subjects taught onboard. To answer this hypothesis, the responses gathered from this question are statistically analyzed using the Chi-square (χ²) test1 for significance of the major subjects taught onboard.

x2=∑O-E2E

Null Hypothesis. There is no significant difference between subjects taught in Navigation cadets onboard the T/S ‘Sae Nuri’The 4 major navigation subjects are independent from each other.

Test Method. Chi-square (χ²)

Significance Level. Let ∝ = 1%

Sample distribution. N = 260 with df = 6 [(C-1)(R-1)]

Region of Rejection. The null hypothesis is rejected if Chi-square (χ²) value is same or greater than the tabulated value at df 6 and 1% level of significance.

Where,

O = observed frequency
E = expected frequency
N = number of samples
C = columns
R = rows
df = degree of freedom

The topics were assigned the following: (A) Bridge Works (Navigation and Communication), (B) Deck Operations and Works (Deck maintenance, anchoring and mooring operations, seamanship and deck maintenance), (C) Cargo Work – Lecture based only (Cargo handling and care, and stability calculations), (D) Safety and Emergency Preparedness (Safe working practices and emergency drills). These subjects are patterned from the requirements for competency of the STCW Ch. II and the Functions at Table A-II/1 of the same Code. The calculations phases are presented by <Table 3>, <Table 4> and <Table 5> below.

<Table 3> 
Navigation assigned topics and weighted ranks

Weights	A	B	C	D	Total
Very Adequate	37	18	10	20	85
Fairly Adequate	27	28	24	36	115
Inadequate	1	19	31	9	60
Total	65	65	65	65	260

<Table 4> 
Expected frequency calculations

Very Adequate	Fairly Adequate	In-Adequate
37 = 21.25	27 = 28.75	1 = 15.00
18 = 21.25	28 = 28.75	19 = 15.00
10 = 21.25	24 = 28.75	31 = 15.00
20 = 21.25	36 = 28.75	9 = 15.00

<Table 5> 
Calculation of Chi-square (χ²) value (Deck Data)

	O	E	O-E	(O-E)2	(O-E)2/E
	37	21.25	15.75	248.063	11.67
	18	21.25	-3.25	10.563	0.50
	10	21.25	-11.25	126.563	5.96
	20	21.25	-1.25	1.563	0.07
	27	28.75	-1.75	3.063	0.11
	28	28.75	-0.75	0.563	0.02
	24	28.75	-4.75	22.563	0.78
	36	28.75	7.25	52.563	1.83
	1	15.00	-14.00	196.000	13.07
	19	15.00	4.00	16.000	1.07
	31	15.00	16.00	256.000	17.07
	9	15.00	-6.00	36.000	2.40
Total	260	260	0		54.54
The tabulated value of Chi-Square (χ²) at df 6, ∝1% :					16.81

The result shown in <Table 5> can be interpreted as that the computed chi-square (χ²) value of 54.54 is greater than the tabulated value of 16.81 with the degree of freedom of 6 (df) at 1% level of probability. Therefore, it is significant. This means that the Null hypothesis is rejected and there are significant differences in the four major Navigation subjects taught onboard T/S ‘Sae Nuri’The four major subjects taught are independent from each other.

3.2.2 Engine Department–Marine Engineer Cadets

STCW also has competency requirements for marine engineering cadets. Chapter III, Section A-III/1 and Table A-III/1 that tabulates the different ‘Functions’ required of an engineering candidate.

Similar to the navigation cadets survey result, the responses from the engine cadets are analyzed using the Chi-square (χ²) test for significance. It also follows the same process, differing only on the major subjects asked at the survey. The null hypothesis, test method, level of significance and region of rejection have the same parameters except on the “Sample distribution” where N = 257 with the same df of 6 [(C-1)(R-1)].

Weighted ranks similar to deck department are also assigned to each four major subjects taught to engine cadets. <Table 6> is shown below.

<Table 6> 
Engine department ranked weights of assigned topics

Engine Department Subject-Matter Taught	Very Adequate	Fairly Adequate	In-Adequate
Engine Work (Watchkeeping)	20	41	4
Engine Operations: (Main/Aux, etc.)	26	34	4
Eng Maintenance (Main/Aux, etc.)	27	35	2
Safety & Emergency Preparedness	28	35	1
Total	101	145	11

Codes were likewise assigned to the topics used in <Table 7>: (A) Engine works (watch-keeping at sea and in port) with 65 responses, (B) Engine Operations: (Main/Aux engines, Boilers, Ref Plant, Elect, etc.) 64 responses, (C) Engine Maintenance (Main/Aux engines, Pumps, Boilers, etc.) 64 responses, and (D) Safety & Emergency Preparedness, 64 responses.

The effectiveness of the four major topics taught to engine cadets shown in the calculations of <Table 7>, <Table 8> and <Table 9> resulted with 4.81 chi-square (χ²) value. This value is much less than the tabulated value of 16.81 with the degree of freedom of 6 (df) at 1% level of probability. This means that the Null hypothesis patterned with the navigation thesis is accepted. There is no significant difference in the four major engineering subjects taught onboard T/S ‘Sae Nuri’ The four major subjects taught are dependent on each other. This can be proved by the [Fig. 4] graph showing the subjects-matter taught for engine cadets have no significant differences except the Safety and Emergency Preparedness where most cadets ranked it “Inadequate”

<Table 7> 
Engine assigned topics and weighted ranks

Weights	A	B	C	D	Total
Very Adequate	20	26	27	28	101
Fairly Adequate	41	34	35	35	145
Inadequate	4	4	2	1	11
Total	65	64	64	64	257

<Table 8> 
Expected frequency calculations (Engine Data)

Very Adequate	Fairly Adequate	In-Adequate
20 = 25.54475	41 = 36.67315	4 = 2.7821
26 = 25.1518	34 = 36.1089	4 = 2.7393
27 = 25.1518	35 = 36.1089	2 = 2.7393
28 = 25.1518	35 = 36.1089	1 = 2.7393

<Table 9> 
Calculation of Chi-square (χ²) value (Engine Data)

	O	E	O-E	(O-E)2	(O-E)2/E
	20	25.5447	-5.545	30.744	1.20
	26	25.1518	0.848	0.720	0.03
	27	25.1518	1.848	3.416	0.14
	28	25.1518	2.848	8.113	0.32
	41	36.6732	4.327	18.722	0.51
	34	36.1089	-2.109	4.448	0.12
	35	36.1089	-1.109	1.230	0.03
	35	36.1089	-1.109	1.230	0.03
	4	2.7821	1.218	1.483	0.53
	4	2.7393	1.261	1.589	0.58
	2	2.7393	-0.739	0.547	0.20
	1	2.7393	-1.739	3.025	1.10
Total	257	257.000	0.000		4.81
The tabulated value of Chi-Square (χ²) at df 6, ∝1% :					16.81

[Fig. 4] 
Engine subject-matter taught effectiveness

This question asks the cadets which, in their opinion and past shipboard experiences, is the most effective training method to prepare them as future maritime professionals. The three choices offered are “Practical (Actual)”, “Lecture-based” instructions and “Others” for those with different method in mind. Among the choices, the “Practical” method was overwhelmingly preferred by both deck and engine cadets as shown in <Table 10>.

To test the relationship of this item, the study used the Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient (rxy)3 to determine the degree of association between the deck and engine responses as shown by <Table 10> and subsequent calculation.

The 0.99 Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient (rxy) indicates of a very high relationship between the deck and engine responses.

The respondents clearly demonstrate that practical approach to their training onboard is the best method in this phase of their education. It means that a high percentage of cadets from both departments prefer a more active approach in their training than the passive learning way through lecture-based delivery.

The last question in the survey deals with “who are the effective trainers” onboard. As shown in <Table 11> and the graph of [Fig. 5], the cadets almost unanimously (94%) chose the training ships’ professors and each respective departments’ officers as their best trainers onboard rather than the training be delivered solely by ship’s professors. The remarks shown in Section 4.4, likewise, indicate that the inclusion of Deck and Engine Officers is more advantageous in their training onboard.

[Fig. 5] 
Graph of the preferred effective trainers onboard