ASPECTS OF COGNITIVE ERGONOMICS IN FORESTRY ENGINEERING EDUCATION
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17770/etr2025vol3.8545Keywords:
cognitive ergonomics, engineering education, logging industry, work capabilitiesAbstract
One of the most pressing problems in education in Latvia today is to prepare specialists to participate in the labour market and become specialists who respect and ensure occupational safety for those working in the national economy. The study analysed the aspects of cognitive ergonomics for students in the framework of the professional practice of “Motor tools”. Working with a chainsaw can create dangerous situations, significantly endangering a person’s health or even life, as well as affecting his or her working capacity. The well-being of the employee significantly affects the quality and performance of work, because cognitive aspects – fatigue, stress - affect a person’s working capacity. Different methods were used to evaluate the impact of cognitive ergonomics on students’ work abilities: a survey, key indicator method (A, B and C), the method of determining the psychological climate, the method of work ability index, quick exposure check method, expert interviews, as well as the NASA-TLX method. Kendall correlation coefficient calculation methods were used. Work abilities were analysed at the beginning and end of the internship for both full-time and part-time students. The results of the study show that during professional practice students have an increased workload, as well as a significantly increased physical load, causing overload to be possible for individuals with normal physical fitness. Fatigue and reduced performance appear at the end of the practice, especially when it was necessary to make decisions about action in emergency situations. Based on the consensus of experts as characterized by the Kendall correlation coefficient, (p < 0.05) cognitive aspects significantly affect a safe work environment, negatively affecting work productivity and human performance, and response to emergency situations. Currently, due to physical unpreparedness, students often face ergonomic overload caused by a lack of experience and knowledge of work safety, which manifests itself in physical fatigue. Instructors need to pay more attention and point out incorrect or non-ergonomic actions and movements in order to promote a more balanced and safer work environment. As well, students themselves need to pay more attention to their work performance.
References
International Ergonomics Association. What is ergonomics? [Online]. Avaiable: https://iea.cc/about/what-is-ergonomics/ [Accessed: Sep. 10, 2024].
L. Bulotaite, D. Šoryte, S. Vičaite, R. Šidagyte, S. Lakiša, I. Vanadziņš, L. Kozlova, M. Eglīte, L. Hopsu, A. Salmi, and J. Lerssi – Uskelin, “Workplace health promotion in health care setting in Finland, Latvia, and Lithuania“,Medicina, vol. 53, no. 5, p. 348 +, December 2017. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medici.2017.10.002. [Accessed Feb. 23, 2024],
U. Karlsons and R. Putans, “Cognitive workload for administrative workers“, presented at 82nd International Scientific Conference on University of Latvia, Riga, Latvia, 2024.
V. Kalakoski, S. Selinheimo, T. Valtonen, J.Turunen, S. Käpykangas, H. Ylisassi, P. Toivio, H. Järnefelt, H. Hannonen, and T. Paajanen, “Effects of a cognitive ergonomics workplace intervention (CogErg) on cognitive strain and well-being: A cluster-randomized controlled trial. A study protocol “, BMC Psychology, vol. 8, no 1, p.1 +. Available: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-019-0349-1 [Accessed Feb. 23, 2024].
I. Potočnik and A. Poje, “Forestry Ergonomics and Occupational Safety in High Ranking Scientific Journals from 2005–2016.” Croatian journal of forest engineering, 38(2):291-310, 2017. Available: [Abstract]. Available: Scopus https://www-scopus-com. [Accessed Feb. 23, 2024].
M. Bačić, M. Matija Landekić, Z. Pandur, M. Šušnjar, M. Šporčić, H. Nevečereland, K. Lepoglavec, “Forestry Ergonomics Publications in the Last Decade”. A Review. Forests 15(4):616, 2024. Available: [Abstract]. Available: Scopus https://www-scopus-com. [Accessed Jan. 23, 2024] DOI: 10.3390/f15040616.
C. D. Spielberger and E. C. Reheiser. Measuring Occupational Stress: The Job Stress, 2nd ed. CRC Press, pages 19, eBook ISBN9781003072430, 1995.
D. Sharek, “A useable, online NASA-TLX tool”, Sage Journals, vol.55,issue1, Sep. 2011. [Online]. Available: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1071181311551286, [Accessed Sep. 30, 2023] https://doi.org/10.1177/1071181311551286.
L. Paura and I. Arhipova, “Nonparametric methods: SPSS computer program“.Jelgava: LLKC, p. 148, 2002.
K. J. Preacher, “Calculation for the Chi – Square Test” [Online]. Available: https://quantpsy.org/chisq/chisq.htm
V.Kaļķis, Methods for assessing workplace risks.. Riga, Latvian Education Foundation, 2008.
A. Houichi and D. Sarnou, “Cognitive Load Theory and its Relation to Instructional Design: Perspectives of Some Algerian University Teachers of English “. Arab World English Journal, 11 (4) 110-127, 2020. [Abstract]. Available: Scopus https://www-scopus-com [Accessed Jan., 2025], DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol11no4.8
S. Koudsia and M. Kirchner, “Reducing Cognitive Overload for Students in Higher Education: A Course Design Case Study. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice Vol. 24(10) 2024. [Online]. Available: https://articlegateway.com/index.php/JHETP/article/view/7382. [Accessed Dec. 13, 2024], https://doi.org/10.33423/jhetp.v24i10.7382
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Dace Brizga, Baiba Jansone, Uldis Karlsons, Elīza Hermane

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.