Advertisement

The Factors Affecting the Quality of Learning Process and Outcome in Virtual Reality Environment for Safety Training in the Context of Mining Industry

  • Shiva PedramEmail author
  • Pascal Perez
  • Stephen Palmisano
  • Matthew Farrelly
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 780)

Abstract

The ultimate aim of training is to improve task performance towards expert level. Novices and experts differ in their capability to understand and make sense of sensory information (for example, perception on environmental hazard). Computer-aided training, from online course to immersive simulation such as Virtual Reality (VR) [1]. van Wyk and de Villiers [2] define VR-based training environments as “real-time computer simulations of the real world, in which visual realism, object behavior and user interaction are essential elements”. The use of VR-based training environments assumes that Human-Machine interaction stimulates learning processes through better experiencing and improved memorization, leading to a more effective transfer of the learning outcomes into workplace environments. However, there are many human factors (internally and externally), which have impact on the quality of the training and learning process which need to be identified and investigated. The present study was conducted with Coal Services Pty Ltd, a pioneering training provider for the coal mining industry in NSW, Australia. The research focussed on 288 rescuers and the specific training programs developed for them. In this article, initially factors affecting the quality of the training and learning process for underground mine rescuers have been identified and then measured by using pre- and post-training questionnaires. We attempted to determine how much of the trainees’ perceived learning could be explained by pre-training (9 in total) and post-training (16 in total) factors. The relatively small size of the sample (288 observations for 17 predictors) and the high level of correlation between variables led us to Principal Component Analysis (PCA). Principle Component Analysis (PCA) has been used to investigate the underlying relationship among different variables. This technique results in factor reduction based on hidden relationships. Based on the nature of the pre-training factors mostly contributing to each component we have used the first 3 Components to create 3 new aggregated variables: “Positive State of Mind” (Component 1), “Negative State of Mind” (Component 2) and “Technology Experience” (Component 3). Similarly, based on the nature of the post-training factors mostly contributing to each component we have used the first 3 Components to create 3 new aggregated variables: “Positive Learning Experience” (Component 1), “Negative Learning Experience” (Component 2) and “Learning Context” (Component 3).

Keywords

Human factors Virtual Reality Training Evaluation Mining industry 

References

  1. 1.
    Newton, D., Hase, S., Ellis, A.: Effective implementation of online learning: a case study of the Queensland mining industry. J. Workplace Learn. 14(4), 156–165 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    van Wyk, E., de Villiers, R.: Virtual reality training applications for the mining industry. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Computer Graphics, Virtual Reality, Visualisation and Interaction in Africa. ACM (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pithers, R.T.: Improving Learning Through Effective Training. Social Science Press, Katoomba (1998)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dewey, J., Boydston, J.A.: Essays on Philosophy and Education: 1916–1917. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale (1985)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ericsson, K.A., Krampe, R.T., Tesch-Römer, C.: The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychol. Rev. 100(3), 363 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tichon, J., Burgess-Limerick, R.: A review of virtual reality as a medium for safety related training in mining. J. Health Saf. Res. Pract. 3(1), 33–40 (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Blignaut, C.: The perception of hazard II. the contribution of signal detection to hazard perception. Ergonomics 22(11), 1177–1183 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Starkes, J.L., Lindley, S.: Can we hasten expertise by video simulations? Quest 46(2), 211–222 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Williams, A.M., Grant, A.: Training perceptual skill in sport. Int. J. Sport Psychol. 30(2), 194–220 (1999)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chapman, P., Underwood, G., Roberts, K.: Visual search patterns in trained and untrained novice drivers. Transp. Res. Part F: Traffic Psychol. Behav. 5(2), 157–167 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bell, P.C., Taseen, A.A., Kirkpatrick, P.F.: Visual interactive simulation modeling in a decision support role. Comput. Oper. Res. 17(5), 447–456 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jou, M., Wang, J.: Investigation of effects of virtual reality environments on learning performance of technical skills. Comput. Hum. Behav. 29, 433–438 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Raskind, M., Smedley, T.M., Higgins, K.: Virtual Technology Bringing the World Into the Special Education Classroom. Interv. School Clin. 41(2), 114–119 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chen, I.Y.L., Chen, N.-S.: Kinshuk: Examining the factors influencing participants’ knowledge sharing behavior in virtual learning communities. Educ. Technol. Soc. 12(1), 134+ (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Meadows, D.L.: Tools for understanding the limits to growth: comparing a simulation and a game. Simul. Gaming 32(4), 522–536 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nutakor, D.: Design and Evaluation of a Virtual Reality Training System for New Underground Rockbolters. ProQuest, Ann Arbor (2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Taylor, G.S., Barnett, J.S.: Training Capabilities of Wearable and Desktop Simulator Interfaces (2011). DTIC DocumentGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Witmer, B.G., Singer, M.J.: Measuring presence in virtual environments: a presence questionnaire. Presence: Teleoper. Virtual Environ. 7(3), 225–240 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kennedy, R.S., et al.: Simulator sickness questionnaire: an enhanced method for quantifying simulator sickness. Int. J. Aviat. Psychol. 3(3), 203–220 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Matthews, G., et al.: Validation of a comprehensive stress state questionnaire: Towards a state big three. Personal. Psychol. Eur. 7, 335–350 (1999)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    McAuley, E., Duncan, T., Tammen, V.V.: Psychometric properties of the intrinsic motivation inventory in a competitive sport setting: a confirmatory factor analysis. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport 60(1), 48–58 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Slater, M.: Measuring presence: a response to the Witmer and Singer presence questionnaire. Presence: Teleoper. Virtual Environ. 8(5), 560–565 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shiva Pedram
    • 1
    Email author
  • Pascal Perez
    • 1
  • Stephen Palmisano
    • 1
  • Matthew Farrelly
    • 2
  1. 1.University of WollongongWollongongAustralia
  2. 2.Mines Rescue, Coal ServicesWollongongAustralia

Personalised recommendations