Abstract
The aviation model of simulator training emphasises realistic physical conditions and practice of emergency responses. Its apparent success has led to the adoption of simulators in other industries such as rail. Relatively light levels of use of the simulators in that industry indicate that simulators may not fit well in all industries, no matter how similar their operations may seem. This leads us to ask what needs to be simulated in workplace development settings and whether better-targeted simulation might expand the ways in which simulators can be used. Much of the existing technical discussion of simulators comes from a human factors perspective which focuses on micro-processes in performance. We argue for a more socio-cultural and socio-technical position that simulators can develop workforce competency only when jobs are understood in their socio-cultural settings and the role of technology is understood as relative to and determined by that setting. We also present ways in which industry can approach the identification of targets for simulator use and implementation strategies. These suggestions have the potential not only to save money but also contribute to a more professional and engaged workforce.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency. Future focus: 2013 national workforce development strategy. Canberra: AGPS.
Bell, H., & Waag, W. (1998). Evaluating the effectiveness of flight simulators for training combat skills: A review. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 8(3), 223–242.
Dahlstrom, N., & Dekker, S., & et al (2009). Fidelity and validity of simulator training. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 10(4), 305–314.
Dahlstrom, N., & Nahlinder, S. (2009). Mental workload in aircraft and simulator during basic civil aviation training. Journal of Aviation Psychology, 19(4), 309–325.
De Figueiredo, A. D., & Afonso, A. P. (2006). Managing learning in virtual settings: The role of context. Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing.
Dunn, N., & Williamson, A. (2012). Driving monotonous routes in a train simulator: The effect of task demand on driving performance and subjective experience. Ergonomics, 55(9), 997–1008.
Evans, R. (2009). Locomotion no. 1 to simulation: A brief history of train driver training on Britain’s railways. London: Rail Safety and Standards Board.
Franklin, R. (2003). Prediction in forensic and neuropsychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kavanagh, L., & Jolly, L., et al. (2013). P4.103 evaluation of simulators—Final report. Brisbane: CRC for Rail Innovation.
Klabbers, J. (2009). Terminological ambiguity: Game and simulation. Simulation & Gaming, 40(4), 446–463.
Magnusson, S. (2002). Similarities and differences in psychophysiological reactions between simulated and real air-to-ground missions. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 12(1), 49–61.
McInerney, P. (2001). Special commission of inquiry into the glenbrook rail accident: Final report. Sydney: Special Commission.
Morris, M., & Moore, P. (2000). The lessons we (don’t) learn: Counterfactual thinking and organizational accountability after a close call. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 737–765.
National Research Council. (2004). On evaluating curricular effectiveness: Judging the quality of K–12 mathematics evaluations. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Pawson, R., & Tilley, N. (1997). Realistic evaluation. London: Sage.
Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (1989). Are cognitive skills context-bound? Educational Researcher, 18(1), 16–25.
Rail Safety and Standards Board (2007). Recent advances in simulation training and assessment for the rail industry: Results and case studies. Crawley. UK: Conation Technologies.
Schuhfried. (2009). Vienna test system—VTS. http://www.schuhfried.at/en/products/vienna-test-system-vts.html. Accessed 2 July 2009
Tibbits, G., & Jolly, L., et al. (2010). Educational technologies and learning objectives. In: Proceedings of the 2010 conference of the Australasian Association for Engineering Education, Sydney, 5–10 December.
Tichon, J., & Diver, P. (2012). Interactive simulator training in civil construction: Evaluation from the trainer’s perspective. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 23(2), 143–163.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Singapore
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kavanagh, L., Jolly, L., O’Moore, L., Tibbits, G. (2014). Simulating Work: Can Simulators Help Develop a Workforce?. In: Harris, R., Short, T. (eds) Workforce Development. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-4560-58-0_16
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-4560-58-0_16
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-4560-57-3
Online ISBN: 978-981-4560-58-0
eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsBusiness and Management (R0)