A Qualitative Analysis of Bus Simulator Training on Transit Incidents – A Case Study in Florida

Abstract

The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the information presented herein. This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the

Ergological Perspectives for the Use of Driving Simulators

“…The training programmes used regularly by companies that transport products and/or people have been positively evaluated by the users, whether they are learners (Aginaga-Garcia, Iriarte-Goni, Pintor-Borobia, Ros-Ganuza, & San Miguel-Indurain, 2013), instructors, or directors of road transport industries (Brock et al, 2001;Reep, Staes, & Perk, 2013). The following observations were also made: In the case of fuel effi ciency training, there was a gain in the driver's economic performance, with improvements of 4.5% to 6.1% (Kihl, Herring, Wolf, Finn, & Yang, 2007); for learners, the simulated response of the controls is more important than how closely these controls physically resemble the real controls (Brook-Carter, Luke, & Parkes, 2004); and the type of simulator can infl uence learning performance, which means that companies must be aware of which skills they need to train before purchasing training simulators (Brock et al, 2001).…”

“…Regarding methodological perspectives, the most frequently cited are analysing the driving via feedback and debriefi ng, analysing any errors, and demonstrating examples with a nonpunitive attitude Reep et al, 2013;Victor et al, 2011); progressive and developmental learning (Bonch-Bruevich et al, 2010;Reep et al, 2013;Romoser & Hirsch, 2012); repetitions of exercises and tasks, varying scenarios for the development of a single skill (Aginaga-Garcia et al, 2013;Goode et al, 2013;Uhr et al, 2003); and exercises based on performance in simulators, indicating tailored learning (Bonch-Bruevich et al, 2010;Tarr & Whitmire, 2008). Simulators are also designed as instruments for verifying performance and evaluating training needs (Reep et al, 2013;Tarr & Whitmire, 2008;Victor et al, 2011), but there are rare cases when they are used more playfully, such as those based on games (Bonch-Bruevich et al, 2010), or in training that involves collective analysis (Lang, Diels, Grüneberg, & Helmchen, 2011), reinforcing the idea that some potential uses remain unexplored.…”

“…The following aspects were recognised as important: their enthusiasm for the instrument; their evaluation, documentation, and attitude of openness and acceptance towards their students' performance; their continual feedback to learners; their attitude of confi dence, emotional support, honest criticism, and ability to promote individual and collective refl ections and engagement; and their encouragement of critical ex-changes regarding common experiences and lessons among learners Kihl et al, 2007;Reed et al, 2007;Victor et al, 2011). However, there is little clarity regarding how to train instructors Reep et al, 2013), given that employing instructors who are not prepared to use simulators does not necessarily produce good training results (Lang et al, 2011). These authors also found that debriefing is a fundamental methodological ally to effective training.…”

“…Making this distinction, we found that the publications and studies that discuss professional training in road transport, even if not explicitly, approach the use of simulators from a primarily behaviourist conception, with behavioural and corporeal training as the main objectives (e.g., Reep et al, 2013;Victor et al, 2011). A few seem more in line with constructivist perspectives, suggesting scenarios that gradually adapt to the users' knowledge (e.g., Bonch-Bruevich et al, 2010;Romoser & Hirsch, 2012).…”

“…Because the use of simulators depends less on their technological development and more on the compatibility between the skills that are to be trained and what the equipment seeks to develop (Brock et al, 2001), placing the primary focus on the instrument -rather than its method of use -may reveal an underlying notion that technological capacity is what gives rise to training effects. This also indicates disregard for a debate that, in practice, may create diffi culties when trying to combine these instruments with already existing training methods (Mitsopoulos-Rubens, Lenné, & Salmon, 2013b; Neukum et al, 2003;Reep et al, 2013). For this reason, Mitsopoulos-Rubens et al (2013b) suggest returning to the theoretical discussion on the uses of simulators as a strategy for improving their potential.…”