Embarking on collaborative action research, a Training of Trainers’ Course is being developed at the Malaysian Maritime Academy. Although the framework for the course is based on the IMO Model Course 6.09 (Training Course for Instructors – 2001), some changes are being made to update the content. Changes would reflect the present‐day teaching and learning practices in the MET institutes, which have undergone substantial overhaul during the last decade. The paper describes the process of this collaborative semester‐long work undertaken by a group of academic staff at the academy. The work is based on the cyclic Kemmis model of action research and constitutes weekly classroom activities, where some of the participants also take turn to act as facilitators. The course framework is thus reviewed through a community‐based reflective practice in a process of democratic enquiry. The objective of the project is to develop the course specification and the methodology of the course delivery. There are suggestions for inclusion of theories of learning, ICT in teacher education and replacement of instructionist approaches with opprtunities for constructionist practices in teaching and learning. The emerging proposed skeletal framework will be included in the paper.

1.
Training of Trainers’ Course Development through Collaborative Action
Research at the Malaysian Maritime Academy
Kalyan Chatterjea, Capt. Mazlan Hamid B Hamzah, Lau Seng Chuan, Chua Kim Muar,
Capt. Cheng Kim Choon, Lt. Cdr.(Retd.) Iman Fiqrie B Mohammed, Capt. Lee Ghim Teck
Malaysian Maritime Academy, Batu 30, Tanjung Dahan
78200, Kuala Sungai Baru, Melaka, Malaysia
http://www.alam.edu.my
Abstract
Embarking on collaborative action research, a Training of Trainers’ Course is being developed at the Malaysian
Maritime Academy. Although the framework for the course is based on the IMO Model Course 6.09 (Training
Course for Instructors – 2001), some changes are being made to update the content. Changes would reflect the
present‐day teaching and learning practices in the MET institutes, which have undergone substantial overhaul
during the last decade. The paper describes the process of this collaborative semester‐long work undertaken
by a group of academic staff at the academy. The work is based on the cyclic Kemmis model of action research
and constitutes weekly classroom activities, where some of the participants also take turn to act as facilitators.
The course framework is thus reviewed through a community‐based reflective practice in a process of
democratic enquiry. The objective of the project is to develop the course specification and the methodology of
the course delivery. There are suggestions for inclusion of theories of learning, ICT in teacher education and
replacement of instructionist approaches with opprtunities for constructionist practices in teaching and
learning. The emerging proposed skeletal framework will be included in the paper.
1. Introduction
Training Course for Instructors is an IMO Model Course (6.09) and when in mid‐2009 we
considered developing a formal course for training of new trainers at the Malaysian
Maritime Academy, this Model Course was invariably referred to for setting the course
framework. IMO Model Course 6.09 sets out a ten‐day course involving sixty hours for the
lectures and activities to train the trainers for Maritime Education and Training (MET)
Institutes. It was found that we could not incorporate the ten‐day course model as we
normally have two or three new trainers joining the Academy at any one time. We needed
more participants to make the course viable. As teaching and learning skills can be
sharpened at any time during the tenure of a teacher’s professional career, we requested
some of our experienced teachers to join the course for honing their pedagogic proficiency
while helping to develop this course at the same time. After discussion, it was agreed that
we will run this course for a semester using a weekly two‐hour slot. For reasons of
practicality, a weekly‐course is considered more manageable and the time in‐between could
then be used for classroom practices. The participants, of whom 80% were experienced
trainers, would take turn to be the facilitator for the week and share his/her experience. The
course structure would follow the framework suggested by the IMO Model Course 6.09 and
participant would then critically evaluate and reflect on the appropriateness of the content,
presentation style and also the methods for demonstrating competence. Thus, the course
was to run as a collaborative activity among colleagues searching for ways to improve the
course content as well as the delivery and assessment methods and associated procedures.
Page 1 of 10

2.
The way the course was run could be referred to as action research. Lewin (1948) is
generally accepted to have coined the term ‘action research’ to describe work that did not
separate the investigation from the action needed to solve the problem (McFarland &
Stansell, 1993, p. 14). Instead of theoretical approaches, action research permits
practitioners to deal with concerns that are important to them and where they can have
influence to make changes (Eileen, 2000, p.6). The processes followed are (1) general plan,
(2) intervention, (3) observation and finally (4) reflection and revision. Quoting Dadds (1998,
p. 41)
“…practitioner research [refers] to forms of enquiry which people undertake in their own working
contexts and, usually, on their professional work, in whatever sphere they practice. The main
purpose of the enquiry is to shed light on aspects of that work with a view to bringing about some
benevolent change”.
This is frequently referred to as ‘action research’. We followed the action research protocol
after Kemmis, which is cited in Hopkins, 1985 and is explained in detail later. We have
completed 12 weeks of these reflective sessions and the paper shares the on‐going findings
of this novel way of collaborative course development, where each session is reviewed
through a community‐based reflective practice in a process of democratic enquiry. In the
next sections, we first describe the methodology of our process using the Kemmis protocol
and follow up with some details of the 12 sessions. An emerging draft of the proposed
course outline replacing the existing table (IMO Course Model 6.09, p.8) is also included.
2. Action Research Protocol after Kemmis (cited in Hopkins, 1985)
Figure 1. Depicts the nature of
Action Research
(after Kemmis)
A – Before Class
B,C,D – In Class
Figure 1 displays the nature of action research along with the major steps of planning,
action, observation and reflection before revising the plan. Most of the planning (A) was
done before the classroom sessions, while the presentation (action), observation and
reflection were done collaboratively during each classroom session. According to Panitz
(1996), as reported by Fandiño (2007), collaboration is a philosophy of interaction and
personal lifestyle where individuals are responsible for their actions, including learning about
and respecting the abilities and contributions of their peers. It suggests a way of dealing with
people, which respects and highlights individual group members’ abilities and contributions.
There is a sharing of authority and acceptance of responsibility among group members for
the group actions. Collaboration ties into the social movement, asserting that group
Page 2 of 10

3.
members should base both knowledge and authority of knowledge upon consensus building
through cooperation.
Here, we report some of the details of the weekly sessions, which were lively and enjoyable
and over the weeks we increased the number of active participants, who came forward to
take part in these academic exchanges.
3. Weekly Reflective Sessions
A table from the IMO Model Course is extracted Existing Table (IMO Model Course 6.09. p.8.)
at the right for ready reference. Our sessions Subject Area Hours
follow the general structure as indicated by this Lecture Activity
table. However, there was debate at the very 1. Understand and describe how 2 ‐
STCW 95 requires competence‐
start. Some of the participants felt that there based training
was a need for strating the programme with an 1.1 Describe the competence‐based
introduction to learning theories, while others training requirements of STCW 95
2. Plan an effective teaching 5 4
wanted to emphasize on competencies. The
environment
second group argued that maritime training is 2.1 Plan the learning process
about outcome‐based approaches as specified 2.2 Demonstrate a knowledge of the
factors which affect student
under STCW documentation and one may not learning
need theories to implement this IMO Model 3. Use a range of teaching
Course. However, it was finally agreed to methods effectively 6 10
3.1 Demonstrate a range of teaching
continue with a session on learning theories.
methods appropriate to the
Quoting Szuberla (1997) could perhaps shed needs of the trainee seafarers
some light to this dilemma, 4. Use appropriate training aids 3 9
4.1 Demostrate a range of teaching
aids
“The summer preceding my preservice teacher 4.2 Select appropriate training aids
training, a recently retired school superintendent 5. Produce a relevant lesson plan 3 6
offered me a bit of fatherly advice he was, after all, 5.1 Identify outcomes for a lesson
5.2 Recognise factors to consider
my father, ‘I'll tell you the same thing I told all of my
when planning a lesson
administrative interns. Study the works of the finest 6. Evaluate teaching & learning
academic theoreticians and serve your apprenticeship 6.1 Analyse the uses of evaluation 2 4
under the best practitioners in the field you can find.’ 6.2 Identify measurements of
He was communicating to me that theory and performance
6.3 Select appropriate evaluation
practice each hold a position of central importance in methods
the educative process. They are not separate pillars 6.4 Identify the need for quality
upon which education is poised; rather, they are management
intertwined roots, each necessary for growth. As I 7. Design a course of study
3 3
7.1 Identify the factors to be
embarked on my teaching career in the Teachers For
considered when designing a
Alaska program at the University of Alaska Fairbanks ‐ learning programme
a combined regimen of practical, lecture, discussion 7.2 Deliver a new course of study
and professional reading ‐ I found his advice firmly
supported in the literature (e.g. Knowles et al., 1994, Total Hours 24 36
pp. 5‐8 and references therein).”
The point emphasized at the classroom session was the fact that a look at adult education
would not be complete without a view of the theories shaping the way we learn and the
way we teach. While our trainers may have heard that various learning theories exist, few
are aware of the differences between the theories and how they affect the way we learn
Page 3 of 10

4.
and also teach. An overview into the different theories highlights the characteristic
differences, and implications of each approach, which could be helpful for a new teacher in
setting out his strategies for teaching as discussed by Dubin, S. S. and M. Okun (1973). With
this knowledge, we can identify which theory is appropriate for our needs and which we
should look to when evaluating instructional programs.
We debated the theories and their implications for teaching and learning for maritime
students. We concurred that that the existing practice of performance measurement of a
trainer in class is predominantly based on learning theory of behaviourism. This
measurement indirectly shapes the new trainer to have a biased view of learning based on
behaviourism and mostly teacher‐centred activities. It was argued that learning theories
such as cognitivism and constructivism should be added to the new trainers’ skill‐sets, which
will open their mind and enable them to select the best approach when facilitating the
sessions. It was also discussed that the feedbacks from students are very important
regarding the various learning theories. However, it became clear that without preparing
the class for student‐centred activities, constructivist approaches may not bear fruit as the
students maybe more used to top‐down instructionist ways and could be wary of other
approaches in a time‐critical curriculum. On scrutiny, we also found that these aspects are
covered in 6.09 without the specific mention of the learning theories (IMO Model Course
6.09, p.23 – our observations are in italics):
When teaching a competence‐based course to adult trainees an instructor should try to:
• Help them to decide how they learn best {refers to individual learning style}
• Use methods which make learning as active, i.e. practical as possible { constructivism is often associated
with pedagogic approaches that promote active learning, or learning by doing}
• Encourage them to participate as much as possible {when in learning there is assistance sought through
social constructivism (Vygotsky as referenced in Wilhelm et al., 2001), e.g. through capable peers and facilitator,
learning potential is realised – learning in the Zone of Proximal Development}
• Help them to take responsibility for their own learning {refers again to constructivist practices in learning}
• Encourage them to think about what they have learned { refers to cognitivism, which focuses on the inner
mental activities – opening the “black box” of the human mind is valuable and necessary for understanding how
people learn. Mental processes such as thinking, memory, knowing, and problem‐solving need to be explored.}
The session on competency‐based education and introduction to STCW to new trainers did
not pose much problem. In the Model Course 6.09, the section Describe the competence‐
based training requirements of STCW 95 (p.12) provides the details and this is further
explained under Session2: Training requirements under STCW 95 and Notes for Session 2.
The extract of the table (Model Course 6.09, p.12) is shown below left with the observations
of the group given at the right.
Knowledge, understanding and proficiency Observations
1.1 Describe the competence‐based training requirements Generally, the group agreed with the suggested detailed
of STCW 95 syllabus. However, there were some cautionary remarks
.1 explain the outcome based approach to maritime expressed by some members of the group with respect to
training
actual implementation of the outcome‐based approach to
.2 explain how skills required to operate a ship have
been identified as "competences" grouped training, which was not elaborated under Notes for the
together as "functions" Session 2 (p. 17).
Page 4 of 10

5.
.3 explain how "ccompetences" are e specified by the The group f felt that outcomme‐based approa ach has its
competence ta ables in the STCW
W Code, and how strength wh hen it is confined to task‐orienteed learning
the competences are divided int to specific tasks common to o the ‘technical’ domain of learn ning. In theory,
and skills
competenc cy‐based education should comb bine theory with h
.4 explain how thhe competence tables in the STCW
Code specify ccriteria for knowledge, understandin ng practice and reduce the gap between the m mind and the
and proficienccy, methods for deemonstrating hands. How wever, in practice, there is a dannger that the
competence, a and criteria for eva
aluating model may y be conceptualis sed in behavioural terms, when
competence the compet tence is broken down into the p performance of
.5 explain the rolle of seagoing serv
vice and on board discrete tas sks. It is claimed that behavioura al models ignore e
training connection n between tasks s and according t to Hyland (1994)
.6 se responsible for training and
state that thos these connections are impo ortant for performance where
assessment must be appropriate ely qualified
synthesis of knowledge and d skills are neces
ssary. The group p
concurred t that in the yearss ahead, a lot of drill & practice
skills are lik
kely to be replacced by other skills which will
challenge s seafarers’ cognitive competencie es.
The sessi section Plan an effective
ions on the s e teaching en nvironment (Model Course 6.09,
p.12) cov
ver a large se
egment of a new trainer r’s curriculum
m and we deeliberated fo
or a while in
developing the discuussion pointss. The follow
wing sessions s were undertaken with the chosen
on points as indicated:
discussio
1. Tasks in designingg effective coourses
a. Analyse stud
A dent needs, t their backgroound, their
expectations
e s
b. D Decide on coourse goals a and course oobjectives
c. Select content, learning activities, te
S eaching
methods and
m d resources relevant to g goals and
objectives placing emphasis on what
o t a trainee
will be expec
w cted to do.
d. D Develop stud dent assessm ment (formative &
summative) ‐ those direc
s ctly address the learning g
objectives an
o nd demonstr rate the skill
ls to a
specified level of competence.
s
e. Implement the cour rse plan, cre
eating a learn
ning environ nment and a community y
ners
of learn
f. Revise t
the plan afte
er assessmennts and evaluations.
2. Fa
actors affect
ting student t learning
a.
. Diversity & Academ mic Culture
i. Family b background, race, politic cal opinion, g
gender etc.
ii. Establishhment of a “ “safe” enviro
onment
b. Teachin ng & Learning Styles
i. Individual difference es represent ted by perso
onality types
s
ii. Inductivve & deductiv ve learners, expanding sstudents’ wa
ays of
thinkingg
c.
. Aptitude, abilities
d. Memorization skills s, study skills
s
e. Nature of instructio on
The grouup observed that the awareness of c content was necessary w while plannin
ng an
effective teaching an
nd learning e
environment t. Hence, somme aspects oof preliminary course
content wwere introdu
uced at this stage, whichh is seen in D
Design a cou
urse of study
y under
Page 5 of 1
10

6.
section 7. This is also seen in the Model Course 6.09, e.g. Session 3, which has components
from Section 2, 3 as well as 4 and again Session 6, which has components from Sections 2 as
well as 3. So, a sequential approach is not followed based on the Framework Table shown in
the Model Course (p.8) or the detailed teaching syllabus (pp. 12‐14).
Use a range of teaching methods effectively under Section 3 (see the extract below), posed
considerable debate among group members. Our reflective observations are at the right of
the table.
Knowledge, understanding and proficiency Observations
3 Use a range of teaching methods effectively The Guidance notes for these sessions are not explicit in the
3.1 Demonstrate a range of teaching methods
Model Course 6.09. It is first covered under Session 4, when
appropriate to trainee seafarers’ needs Informal talks were mentioned. Later under Session 6 there
.1 deliver teaching sessionsusing variety of teaching
is mention of Verbal and non‐verbal communication. Under
styles
.2 manage and lead group learning Session 9, there are Question and answer techniques.
.3 relate styles to size of groups Finally, under Session 11 – The Lecture is mentioned; under
Session 12 – The Lecture – Practical work is mentioned.
The group found this quite haphazard. We looked elsewhere for guidence. We found a good starting point in a paper by Ho
or
Kam‐Fai (1973) entitled “Preferred Teaching Method: Lecture, Discussion on Tutorial?” It is worth worth quoting Ho Kam‐
Fai on teaching methods, where he explains the rationale for the method selection:
The search for an effective teaching method is a perennial concern and goal for a responsible educator. Teaching
is not an end in itself, but rather a means to an end. Therefore, the effectiveness of a teaching method has to be
evaluated by the degree of its attainment of specified goals. However, this means‐end relationship is not a direct,
linear one, but is intervened by a third variable, i.e. the learner and a set of elements associated with the learner’s
learning.
We also referrred to Atsusi Hirumi (2002), who gave the following guiding table based on Honebein’s (1996) Constructivist
Learning Environments and Gagné’s (1974, 1977) Nine Events of Instruction, which would be applicable in various
methods.
Honebein’s (1996) Constructivist Learning Environments Gagné’s (1974, 1977) Nine Events of Instruction
1. Provide experience with knowledge construction 1. Gain attention
process 2. Inform learners of objective(s)
2. Present multiple perspectives 3. Stimulate recall of prior knowledge
3. Embed learning in authentic context 4. Present stimulus materials
4. Encourage ownership and voice in learning process 5. Provide learning guidance
5. Embed learning in social experience 6. Elicit performance
6. Encourage use of multiple modes of representation 7. Provide feedback about performance
7. Encourage reflection and self‐awareness of 8. Assess performance
knowledge construction process. 9. Enhance retention and transfer
Finally, we decided on the following six sessions for teaching methods:
• Overview of teaching methods in practice
• Making lectures more interesting
• Supporting tutorials and group work
• Strengths of case studies and role playing
• Use of multimedia (video + graphics) in teaching & learning
• Why do we need to know about the learning styles of our learners & how to use
learning style index?
We also included ten hours of practical activities per participant. It was suggested that the
participants practice the various methods discussed during these six sessions for their own
Page 6 of 10

7.
teaching and make a report of their implementations in their classes and their reflections of
the usefulness of the method(s) used.
Our next sessions will cover the Use of appropriate training aids. These could pose a
problem as the Model Course 6.09 covers limited ICT usage, although Session 25 mentions
The Internet as a teaching and learning resource, which bears well for the authors of the
Model Course considering that it was probably conceptualized in 2000 and published in
2001. Perhaps we need to strike a balance here as extensive ICT usages could be quite
daunting for new MET teachers, who have limited IT exposure at sea.
4. Conclusions
The paper described the collaborative effort of a team of MET academics in deliberating the
content of a Training Course for Instructors. We understand now that the updating of the
Model Course 6.09 will require a substatial effort given the complexities of maritime
training, dynamics of our industry and different backgrounds or our new entrants. However,
in a collaborative mode, we certainly feel the task to be less daunting and we would like to
encourage the readers (Martech participants) to contribute and join the discussion in this
collaborative development work. A very preliminary revised course framework is attached
to trigger further discussions in the subject area. We will end with a thought provoking
extract from Wapedia (2010) on Constructivism (learning theory).
Where a teacher gives a didactic lecture which covers the subject matter, a facilitator helps the learner to get to his or her
own understanding of the content. This dramatic change of role implies that a facilitator needs to display a totally different
set of skills than a teacher (Brownstein, 2001).
• A teacher tells, a facilitator asks;
• A teacher lectures from the front, a facilitator supports from the back;
• A teacher gives answers according to a set of curriculum, a facilitator provides guidelines and creates
the environment for the learner to arrive at his or her own conclusions;
• A teacher mostly gives a monologue, a facilitator is in continuous dialogue with the learners (Rhodes &
Bellamy, 1999).
Page 7 of 10

8.
References
Brownstein, B. (2001) Collaboration: The Foundation of Learning in the Future. Education,
122 (2), 240.
Dadds, M. 1998. Supporting practitioner research: A challenge. Educational Action Research,
Vol. 6 (1) pp. 39‐52.
Dubin, S. S. and M. Okun (1973). Implications of learning theories for adult instruction. Adult
Education, 24 (1). p. 8.
Fandiño, Y. J. (2007). Action research and collaboration: a new paradigm in social research
and language education. GIST – The Colombian Journal of Bilingual Education, Vol. 1, 90‐97.
Ferrance, Eileen. (2000). Action Research in Themes in Education. Northeast and Islands
Regional Educational Laboratory at Brown University. Brown University.
Hirumi, A. (2002). Student‐Centered, Technology‐Rich Learning Environments (SCenTRLE):
Operationalizing Constructivist Approaches to Teaching and Learning. Jl. of Technology and
Teacher Education (2002) 10(4), 497‐537.
or
Ho Kam‐Fai (1973). Preferred Teaching Method: Lecture, Discussion on Tutorial? Studium:
The Bulletin of the School of Education, The Chinese University of Hong Kong. Vol. 4 No. 1
(1973 May)
Hopkins, D. (1985). A teacher's guide to classroom research. Philadelphia: Open University
Press.
Hyland, T. (1994). “Competence, Education and NVQs: Dissenting Perspectives”. London,
Cassell.
Knowles, J.G., Cole, A.L., & Presswood, C.S. (1994). Through preservice teachers' eyes:
Exploring field experiences through narrative and inquiry. New York: Macmillan.
Lewin, K. (1948) Resolving social conflicts; selected papers on group dynamics. Gertrude W.
Lewin (ed.). New York: Harper & Row, 1948. Pp. 202‐203.
McFarland, K.P., & Stansell, J.C. (1993). Historical perspectives. In L. Patterson, C.M. Santa,
C.G. Short, & K. Smith (Eds.), Teachers are researchers: Reflection and action. Newark, DE:
International Reading Association.
Rhodes, L. K. And Bellamy, G. T. (1999). Choices un Consequences in the Renewal of Teacher
Education. Journal of Teacher Education, 50 (1), 17.
Szuberla, C. A. L (1997). Learning Theory and the Preservice Teacher. Education; Spring97,
Vol. 117 Issue 3, p381, 5p.
Wilhelm, J., Baker, T., and Dube, J. (2001). Strategic Reading: Guiding Students to Lifelong
Literacy. Heinemann, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc., New Hampshire, USA.
An edited version available at:
http://www.myread.org/scaffolding.htm (retrieved on 15th March 2010)
Page 8 of 10

9.
Annex ‐ I
Suggested Part Course Framework
Extract from IMO Model Course 6.09 [pp. 12‐13] Preliminary Suggestions from Academic Group at
Malaysian Maritime Academy
1 Understand implications for teaching
practice of the key ideas from learning
theories
Required performance:
1.1 Describe the learning theories and their
implications for teaching and learning
.1 explain teaching and learning approaches in
behaviourism, cognitivism and constructivism
.2 list areas of maritime training where these
approaches would be suitable
.3 explain how learning could be conceived as a
process of active construction
.4 describe why students’ prior knowledge is an
important determinant of what they will learn
.5 explain how organizing information into a
conceptual framework helps students remember
and use knowledge
.6 explain how learning could be seen as a social
phenomenon
.7 state that learning is context‐specific
.8 explain why students’ metacognitive skills
(thinking about thinking) are important to their
learning
1 Understand and describe how STCW 95 2 Understand and describe how STCW 95
requires competence‐based training requires competence‐based training
Required performance: Required performance:
1.1 Describe the competence‐based training 2.1 Describe the competence‐based training
requirements of STCW 95 requirements of STCW 95
.1 explain the outcome based approach to maritime .1 explain the outcome based approach to maritime
training training and its limitations
.2 explain how skills required to operate a ship have .2 explain how skills required to operate a ship have
been identified as "competences" grouped been identified as "competences" grouped
together as "functions" together as "functions"
.3 explain how "competences" are specified by the .3 explain how "competences" are specified by the
competence tables in the STCW Code, and how competence tables in the STCW Code, and how
the competences are divided into specific tasks the competences are divided into specific tasks
and skills and skills
.4 explain how the competence tables in the STCW .4 explain how the competence tables in the STCW
Code specify criteria for knowledge, understanding Code specify criteria for knowledge, understanding
and proficiency, methods for demonstrating and proficiency, methods for demonstrating
competence, and criteria for evaluating competence, and criteria for evaluating
competence competence
.5 explain the role of seagoing service and on board .5 explain the role of seagoing service and on board
training training
.6 state that those responsible for training and .6 state that those responsible for training and
assessment must be appropriately qualified assessment must be appropriately qualified
2 Plan an effective teaching environment 3 Plan an effective teaching environment
Required performance: Required performance:
2.1 Plan the learning process 3.1 Plan for an effective course implementation
.1 list the requirements for the effective planning of a .1 analyse student needs, their background, their
course expectations
.2 identify the factors which affect teaching .2 list out course goals and course objectives
.3 list the qualities required by an instructor .3 list out content, learning activities, teaching
.4 organise the classroom environment to assist methods and resources relevant to goals and
learning objectives placing emphasis on what a trainee will
be expected to do.
.4 develop student assessment (formative &
summative) ‐ those directly address the learning
Page 9 of 10

10.
Extract from IMO Model Course 6.09 [pp. 12‐13] Preliminary Suggestions from Academic Group at
Malaysian Maritime Academy
Required performance: objectives and demonstrate the skills to a specified
2.2 Demonstrate a knowledge of the factors that level of competence.
affect student learning .5 implement the course plan, creating a learning
.1 identity the factors which influence student environment and a community of learners
motivation .6 revise the plan after assessments and evaluations.
.2 discuss individual learning needs within a group
.3 demonstrate effective use of communication skills 3.2 Demonstrate a knowledge of the factors that
.4 adjust teaching practice for cultural differences affect student learning
.1 identity the factors which influence student
motivation (e.g. family background, race, political
opinion, gender, establishment of a ‘safe’
environment)
.2 discuss individual learning needs within a group
(e.g. teaching & learning styles, inductive &
deductive learners, aptitudes, abilities)
.3 demonstrate effective use of communication skills
.4 adjust teaching practice for cultural differences
3 Use a range of teaching methods effectively 4 Use a range of teaching methods effectively
Required performance: Required performance:
3.1 Demonstrate a range of teaching methods 4.1 Demonstrate a range of teaching methods
appropriate to trainee seafarers' needs appropriate to trainee seafarers' needs
.1 deliver teaching sessions using a variety of .1 deliver teaching sessions using a variety of
teaching styles teaching styles (e.g. lectures with quizzes and
.2 manage and lead group learning discussions, case studies, role playing, videos and
.3 relate styles to size of group use of graphics and use of interactive learning
material)
.2 manage and lead group learning (e.g. projects and
research‐based group work)
.3 relate styles to size of group
Page 10 of 10