DESIGNING THE EDUCATIONAL OBJECTIVES FOR “RISK ASSESSMENT IN SEAFARING” COURSE USING BLOOM’S TAXONOMY

In 2019, the International Association of Maritime Universities submitted to International Maritime Organization (IMO) its publication under the title of «Global Maritime Professional: Body of Knowledge». The publication sets out the guidelines for the promotion of Bloom’s modified taxonomy in the cognitive and affective areas of educational activity, as well as Simpson’s taxonomy in the psychomotor area for designing curriculums in Maritime Education and Training field. Bloom’s taxonomy has widely established in the world as an effective tool for setting educational objectives and assessing the results of education. The IMO’s Human Element, Training and Watchkeeping (HTW) Subcommittee currently considers the inclusion of Bloom’s taxonomy in developing the STCW’78 Convention model courses. The application of Bloom’s taxonomy for mastering the «Risk Assessment in Seafaring» course, hold by Navigation Department of «Maritime Academy» (Admiral Makarov State University of Maritime and Inland Shipping), is analyzed in the paper. The functions of participants involved into educational process in terms of Bloom’s cognitive levels are also examined and the degree of difficulty in mastering the course material by students depending on the hierarchy of cognitive levels is analyzed in the paper. It helps to obtain feedback for the correction of the course teaching methodology and its adaptation to students’ contingent, as well as illustrates the relationship of Bloom’s cognitive levels with the planned learning outcomes of “Risk Assessment in Seafaring” course and with a formal safety assessment algorithm, used as a basis for the development of ship forms for risk assessment and decision making.

maritime education, training, risk assessment, formal safety assessment, Bloom’s taxonomy, cognitive domain

1. Global Maritime Professional. Body of knowledge. - Tokyo: IAMU 2019. - 144 p.

2. MSC-MEPC.2/Circ.12/Rev.2. Revised guidelines for FSA for use in the IMO rule-making process. - London: IMO, 2018. - 71 p.

3. Kontovas C. Formal Safety Assessment. Critical Review and Future Role / C.Kontovas; National Technical University of Athens. School of Naval Architecture & Marine Engineering. Division of Ship Design and Maritime Transport. - 2005. - 163 p.

4. Kontovas C. A. Formal safety assessment: a critical review / C. A. Kontovas, H. N. Psaraftis // Marine technology. - 2009. - Vol. 46. - Is. 1. - Pp. 45-59.

5. Goerlandt F. Risk analysis in maritime transportation: principles, frameworks and evaluation: doctoral dissertations / F. Goerlandt. - Aalto University publication series, 2015. - 73 p.

6. Goerlandt F. Maritime transportation risk analysis: Review and analysis in light of some foundational issues / F. Goerlandt, J. Montewka // Reliability Engineering & System Safety. - 2015. - Vol. 138. - Pp. 115-134. DOI: 10.1016/j.ress.2015.01.025.

7. Goerlandt F. On the reliability and validity of ship-ship collision risk analysis in light of different perspectives on risk / F. Goerlandt, P. Kujala // Safety science. - 2014. - Vol. 62. - Pp. 348-365. DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2013.09.010.

8. Goerlandt F. A risk-informed ship collision alert system: framework and application/ F. Goerlandt, J. Montewka, V. Kuzmin, P. Kujala // Safety Science. - 2015. - Vol. 77. - Pp. 182-204. DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2015.03.015.

9. Kristiansen S. Maritime Transportation: Safety Management and Risk Analysis / S. Kristiansen. - 1st Edition. - London: Routledge, 2005. - 252 p.

10. Anderson L. W. A Taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessment. A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives / L. W. Anderson, D. R. Krathwohl, P. W. Airasian, K. A. Cruikshank, R. E. Mayer, R. Pintrich,.J. Raths, M. C. Wittrock. - Addison Wesley Longman, Inc., 2001. - 333 p.