This study introduces the Three-Memory-Model (Cherry, 2019) in education into Maritime Simulator- based training in Sri Lanka and conducts empirical research. In simulator-based education what is disseminated as knowledge during the Briefing, Scenario and Debriefing phases must be transferred from short-term, across working memory to long-term-memory. Working memory gained during the scenario phase, could be encoded into long-term-memory through rehearsal probes. But the number of probes which could be tolerated by the participants of simulator-based training has not undergone empirical investigation. Thus, selecting the Open Sea scenario phase as its setting the research questions aim to identify tolerance limits in the participants for the number of freezes and the number of probes introduced during each freeze. The methodology selects a population of seafarers (n = 60). Through stratified random sampling this population was subdivided based on experience at sea as Group A (n = 30): Mean of 2 years and Group B (n = 30): Mean of 13.6 years of sea experience. The duration of the open sea scenario phase is 35 minutes with freezes at 10-minute intervals. The number of probes were given a range of 7 to. Data analysis utilized SPSS. The highest percentage mean value was obtained for three freezes for the Open Sea scenario phase while two freezes had the next highest percentage mean value. The mean value of the tolerance limits for questions during one freeze is approximately 9 and 6 probes for Group A and B respectively. Citing prior research on working memory, visuo-spatial vs. verbal working memory, reaction time and age this study raises a counter argument against the findings: the self-declared tolerance limits of the number of questions the participants feel comfortable to answer during each freeze. The findings of this research are valuable to maritime Simulator-based instructional designers outside and within Sri Lanka.

Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Methodology
    2.1 Population
    2.2 Sampling mode
    2.3 Instruments:
    2.4 Procedure:
    2.5 Sample simulated Activity
    2.6 Data Collection
    2.7 Ethical Considerations
3. Results and analysis
4. Discussion
Acknowledgement
References

• S Medawela Disanayaka(Dept. of Marine Simulation, CINEC Campus (Pvt.) Ltd., Malabe, Sri Lanka) Corresponding author
• P Sedrick(Dept. of Marine Simulation, CINEC Campus (Pvt.) Ltd., Malabe, Sri Lanka)
• R Widyalankarae(Dept. of English, CINEC Campus (Pvt.) Ltd., Malabe, Sri Lanka. Rohini)
• H Perera(Dept. of Marine Simulation, CINEC Campus (Pvt.) Ltd., Malabe, Sri Lanka)
• P Medagama(Dept. of Marine Simulation, CINEC Campus (Pvt.) Ltd., Malabe, Sri Lanka)