Abstract

This study aims to strengthen the interpersonal skills of future global maritime professionals through a collaborative e-learning initiative focused on Effective Communication, which is related to one of the focus areas of the Body of Knowledge (BoK) of the Global Maritime Professional (GMP) Initiative (IAMU, 2019). Specifically, this research explores the potential of collaboration among IAMU member universities in delivering the learning outcomes stated in the BoK, as a teaching and learning strategy. Employing an action research methodology, instructors and students from different Maritime Education and Training (MET) member universities participated in determining the content and educational approaches needed to improve students’ interpersonal communication skills. Subsequently, a collaborative e-learning course incorporating the content and various Teaching and Learning Activities (TLA) emerged and underwent testing and evaluation with students representing three different MET institutions. The findings underscore pressing educational needs within MET, particularly in verbal and written communication skills. The study highlights the value of implementing communication courses with students from different nationalities, revealing that despite time zone disparities, culture and language barriers, students not only enhance their communication skills but also cultivate essential social skills crucial for a Global Maritime Professional. IAMU member universities have faced numerous challenges in implementing the GMP and BoK. This study proposes alternative ways for GMP implementation, emphasizing the potential of member universities coming together to deliver BoK’s focus areas and their learning outcomes effectively. .

Executive summary

The research project, "Educating Global Maritime Professionals: An Action Research to Implement Courses on Effective Communication," led by Research Coordinator Hoang Nguyen Vuong from University of Transport Ho Chi Minh City, aims to enhance the interpersonal communication skills of future maritime professionals through a collaborative e-learning course. This initiative explored the focused area of “interpersonal communication” in the Body of Knowledge (BoK) of the Global Maritime Professional (GMP) Initiative set forth by the International Association of Maritime Universities (IAMU) in 2019. Objectives To achieve this goal, the project established several objectives. 1. Understand the needs of maritime academic institutions regarding effective interpersonal communication, 2. Develop e-learning course that can complement the institutions’ curriculum regarding communication skills, 3. Deliver and evaluate the outcomes of the course in collaboration with partnered institutions, 4. Suggest the way forward for the course to be maintained as a periodic learning activity for MET institutions. Methodology Action research was employed as the primary methodology in this study. The project involved instructors, curriculum developers, and students from three IAMU member universities: University of Transport Ho Chi Minh City (UTH), Maritime Academy of Asia and the Pacific (MAAP), and Batumi Navigation Teaching University (BNTU). This research was conducted following a three-phase action research cycle: Phase 1: Understanding the status quo and the needs Phase 2: Deliberating and implementing the intervention Phase 3: Evaluation and Feedback Key Findings The findings of the project follow the structure of an action research cycle: Phase 1: The findings reflect the current state of and need for communication training in participating institutions, including several main themes: • Appreciation of communication skills • Different approach to communication training • E-learning prospects for communication training • Effect of the lower-level education • Insufficient curriculum coverage • Lack of confidence among students • Interest in international communication courses Phase 2: The researcher developed a collaborative e-learning course based on the findings of Phase 1, suggestions and feedback from participants, and literature review. The course has three intended learning outcomes and various learning activities, including reading materials, writing emails, video critiques, and debates. Phase 3: The implications of the course are demonstrated in the following themes: • Enhancing life-long learning skills • Valuable multinational learning environment • Lack of communication activities in universities’ curriculum • Importance of practicing communication • Flexibility of asynchronous learning • Variety of learning content increases attention span

Keywords

Global Maritime Professional; Body of Knowledge; Interpersonal Communication, Action research, E-learning － 3 －

References

1. UNCTAD, “Review of Maritime Transport 2022.” Accessed: Mar. 27, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://unctad.org/rmt2022
2. A. Alop, “The Challenges of the Digital Technology Era for Maritime Education and Training,” in 2019 European Navigation Conference (ENC), Apr. 2019, pp. 1–5. doi: 10.1109/EURONAV.2019.8714176. https://doi.org/10.1109/EURONAV.2019.8714176
3. E. Simmons and G. McLean, “Understanding the paradigm shift in maritime education: The role of 4th Industrial Revolution technologies: an industry perspective,” Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 90–97, Jan. 2020, doi: 10.1108/WHATT-10-2019-0062. https://doi.org/10.1108/WHATT-10-2019-0062
4. P. M. G. B. De Água, A. D. Da Silva Frias, M. D. J. Carrasqueira, and J. M. M. Daniel, “Future of maritime education and training: blending hard and soft skills,” Pomorstvo (Online), vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 345–353, Dec. 2020, doi: 10.31217/p.34.2.15. https://doi.org/10.31217/p.34.2.15
5. M. E. Manuel, “Vocational and academic approaches to maritime education and training (MET): Trends, challenges and opportunities,” WMU J Marit Affairs, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 473–483, Sep. 2017, doi: 10.1007/s13437-017-0130-3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13437-017-0130-3
6. A. Stefani and L. Apicella, “A new educational model for Marine 4.0 technologies,” 2022.
7. F. Maria Chala and N. Bouranta, “Soft Skills Enhance Employee Contextual Performance: The Case of the Maritime Industry,” KSS, Nov. 2021, doi: 10.18502/kss.v5i9.9890. https://doi.org/10.18502/kss.v5i9.9890
8. P. Chen, S. Cahoon, H. Pateman, P. Bhaskar, G. Wang, and J. Parsons, “Employability skills of maritime business graduates: industry perspectives,” WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs, vol. 17, no. 2, Jun. 2018, Accessed: Apr. 14, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://trid.trb.org/View/1517402
9. J. Bolmsten, M. Manuel, A. Kaizer, K. Kasepõld, D. Sköld, and M. Ziemska, “Educating the Global Maritime Professional—a case of collaborative e-learning,” WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs, vol. 20, Jan. 2021, doi: 10.1007/s13437-020-00224-w. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13437-020-00224-w
10. International Maritime Organization, STCW including 2010 Manila amendments: STCW Convention and STCW Code, 2017 edition. London: International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978.
11. International Association of Maritime Universities, Global Maritime Professional Body of Knowledge. Tokyo, Japan: International Association of Maritime Universities (IAMU), 2019.
12. International Maritime Organization, “Resolution A.918(22) – IMO STANDARD MARINE COMMUNICATION PHRASES.” International Maritime Organization, 2002.
13. U. G. Schriever, “Maritime communication in an international and intercultural discourse,” thesis, University of Tasmania, 2008. doi: 10.25959/23245388.v1. https://doi.org/10.25959/23245388.v1
14. T.-Y. Jeon, B.-G. Kim, N. Kim, and Y.-C. Lee, “Have Non-Native English-Speaking Marine Cadet Engineers Been Educated Appropriately?,” JMSE, vol. 10, no. 8, p. 1018, Jul. 2022, doi: 10.3390/jmse10081018. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse10081018
15. A. J. James, U. G. Schriever, S. Jahangiri, and S. C. Girgin, “Improving maritime English competence as the cornerstone of safety at sea: a focus on teaching practices to improve maritime communication,” WMU J Marit Affairs, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 293–310, Jun. 2018, doi: 10.1007/s13437-018-0145-4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13437-018-0145-4
16. F. Y. Vyas, “Developing Effective Communication Skills,” vol. 2, no. 1, 2015.
17. S. Kurteš, T. Larina, and V. Ozyumenko, “CONSTRUCTIVIST APPROACH TO INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION TEACHING AND LEARNING,” presented at the International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies, Barcelona, Spain, Mar. 2017, pp. 591–597. doi: 10.21125/edulearn.2017.1127. https://doi.org/10.21125/edulearn.2017.1127
18. E. G. Carr, “Behavioral Approaches to Language and Communication,” in Communication Problems in Autism, E. Schopler and G. B. Mesibov, Eds., Boston, MA: Springer US, 1985, pp. 37–57. doi: 10.1007/978-1- 4757-4806-2_3. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-
19. I. S. John Vijayakumar and J. Karthikeyan, “A Cognitive System Process Approach: ELT Pedagogy for a Hybrid Communication Model,” in Advances in Automation, Signal Processing, Instrumentation, and Control, V. L. N. Komanapalli, N. Sivakumaran, and S. Hampannavar, Eds., Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore, 2021, pp. 2649–2654.
20. J. Ammentorp, M. Chiswell, and P. Martin, “Translating knowledge into practice for communication skills training for health care professionals,” Patient Education and Counseling, vol. 105, no. 11, pp. 3334–3338, Nov. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2022.08.004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2022.08.004
21. C. Robson, Real world research: a resource for social scientists and practitioner-researchers, 2nd ed. Oxford, UK ; Madden, Mass: Blackwell Publishers, 2002.
22. M. Brydon-Miller, D. Greenwood, and P. Maguire, “Why Action Research?,” Action Research, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 9–28, Jul. 2003, doi: 10.1177/14767503030011002. https://doi.org/10.1177/14767503030011002
23. P. Coughlan and D. Coghlan, “Action research for operations management,” International journal of operations & production management, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 220–240, 2002.
24. A. Abeysiriwardhane, “Learning and Learning-to-Learn by Doing: An Experiential Learning Approach for Integrating Human Factors into Maritime Design Education,” Marit. Technol. Res., vol. 3, no. 1, Jul. 2020, doi: 10.33175/mtr.2021.241912. https://doi.org/10.33175/mtr.2021.241912
25. A. Abeysiriwardhane, M. Lützhöft, and S. Ghosh, “An action research and scaffolding based approach for maritime design education: a contribution towards shaping ships for people,” Australian Journal of Maritime & Ocean Affairs, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 159–180, 2020.
26. N. H. Vuong, “Improving e-learning in maritime education and training: action research in the Vietnam maritime context,” World Maritime University, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://commons.wmu.se/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2762&context=all_dissertations
27. Y. Dittrich, K. Rönkkö, J. Eriksson, C. Hansson, and O. Lindeberg, “Cooperative method development: Combining qualitative empirical research with method, technique and process improvement,” Empir Software Eng, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 231–260, Jun. 2008, doi: 10.1007/s10664-007-9057-1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-007-9057-1
28. A. Rahimi and R. Askari Bigdeli, “Challenges of action research: Insights from language institutes,” Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 3–15, 2016.
29. M. Harorani, A. Jadidi, S. Zand, T. Khoshkhoutabar, F. Rafiei, and S. Z. Beheshti, “Spiritual care in hospitalized patients in Iran: An action research study,” Journal of Religion and Health, vol. 61, no. 5, pp. 3822– 3839, 2022.
30. V. Braun and V. Clarke, “Using thematic analysis in psychology,” Qualitative Research in Psychology, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 77–101, Jan. 2006, doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
31. Riessman, Catherine Kohler, Narrative Analysis, vol. 3. Sage, 1993.
32. J. Lapadat and A. Lindsay, “Transcription in Research and Practice: From Standardization of Technique to Interpretive Positionings,” Qualitative Inquiry – QUAL INQ, vol. 5, pp. 64–86, Mar. 1999, doi: 10.1177/107780049900500104. https://doi.org/10.1177/107780049900500104
33. J. Biggs and C. Tang, “Applying constructive alignment to outcomes-based teaching and learning,” in Training material for “quality teaching for learning in higher education” workshop for master trainers, Ministry of Higher Education, Kuala Lumpur, 2010, pp. 23–25.
34. J. R. Johnson and L. A. Kusmierek, “The status of evaluation research in communication training programs,” Journal of Applied Communication Research, vol. 15, no. 1–2, pp. 144–159, Mar. 1987, doi: 10.1080/00909888709365265. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909888709365265
35. M. Montagne, “Evaluating Educational Programs: A Comparative Design,” Eval Health Prof, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 477–488, Dec. 1982, doi: 10.1177/016327878200500409. https://doi.org/10.1177/016327878200500409