697 integration2010 proceedings

Proceedings of Regional Conference on Knowledge Integration in ICT 2010 697

THE LEARN ABILITY OF VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENT TRAINING (VET)

Ima Shanaz Binti Wahidin

Fakulti Teknologi dan Sains

Informasi

Kolej Universiti Islam

Antarabangsa Selangor,

Bangi, Selangor

[email protected]

Nur Muizz Mohamed

Salleh


Informasi

Kolej Universiti Islam

Antarabangsa Selangor,

Bangi, Selangor

[email protected]

Abdul Nasir Zulkifli


Maklumat,

Universiti Utara Malaysia.

Sintok, Kedah

[email protected]

Abstract

Virtual Environment Training (VET) is a virtual world that makes the user feel that they are

being there. It enables user to experience the environment without having to take any risks by

interacting with the computer in real time. VET is a non-immersive desktop application. It

allows user to walk-through the environment and explores the environment freely. It is

integrated with multimedia elements such as realistic graphic 3D environment, audio, video,

text and animation. Within the environment, the users will be provided with some

information that might be useful for the training that covers the topic of one module of the

course. At the end of the training, there will be an evaluation session to evaluate the learn

ability of VET among TM Trainees.

1.0 Introduction

According to Wikipedia, Virtual Environment is a ―computer-based simulated environment

intended for its users to inhabit and interact via avatars. This habitation usually is represented

in the form of two or three-dimensional graphical representations of humanoids (or other

graphical or text-based avatars).‖(Oliviera et al., 2000). Virtual Environments (VEs) have

many potential applications, including education, training, design and prototyping,

entertainment, rehabilitation, and research. The utility of VEs for many applications increases

that spatial judgments are similar in the VEs as in the real world.(Betty, Creem-Regehr, &

B.Thompson., 2006)

The effectiveness of a VE might be defined in terms of enhancement of task performance,

effectiveness of training, improvement of data comprehension and so on. (Micheal Meehan,

2002).VE can bring simulation-based training environments closer to real-life

experience.(Jeff Rickel, 1995). Virtual environments have been increasingly used for a

variety of contexts: teaching in the lab, informal learning, distance learning, business, and e-

commerce to name a few.(Selim & Elif, 2004).

3D in contrast to 2D computer graphics are graphics that use a three-dimensional

representation of geometric data that is stored in the computer for the purposes of performing

calculations and rendering 2D images. Such images may be for later display or for real-time

viewing.(Bowman, Johnson, & Hodges, 2001) has carried out systematic research about 3D

interaction techniques in the context of virtual reality systems. He and his colleagues have

suggested that general 3D tasks in virtual environments can be viewed as compositions of

more primitive tasks, such as object selection, object manipulation, navigation and system

control.

(Singhall and Zyda, 1999) has been studied some benefits of 3D that can be discerned:

mailto:[email protected]




A shared sense and understanding of the space, i.e. the trainee have an illusion of

being located in the same space with other users and with objects or models. Those

objects not only provide a visual representation of information, but also a meaningful,

shared context for co -operation, since they can be observed from multiple and

flexible viewpoints. In fact, the space might be formed from nothing but information.

A shared sense of being the person through their avatars. This allows user to be aware

of himself/herself in their activities since both direct and indirect awareness modes are

supported.

A shared sense of time, i.e. ability to observe and react correctly to the activities of

others in real -time when the activity takes place.

A way to share objects and models in the space, and respectively gain mutual

understanding of work activities. It should be noticed that ―the way to share‖

complements ―the sense of space‖ and ―the way to communicate‖ by providing means

to modify the objects and work upon them.

3D Virtual Environment Training for TM Trainee is a PC-based, non-immersive VR system

that allow user to view and interact with the computer. It provides a user-friendly 3D virtual

environment that is integrated with multimedia elements such as audio, video, text, graphic

and animation. The training consist of the courses that are involved the highly cost equipment

and devices that are very limited to be use frequently.

The training syllabus will be covered all the topics listed in the course. The user can interact

with the model in real-time environment by using the functions provided. The functions

includes rotating the object, view the object in different angle, walk-through and freeplay.

2.0 Objective

This study aims to investigate the following:

Question Method Focus

What are the advantages

of Virtual Environment

Training compared to

normal training?

Literature Review

To study the development


Training.

What are the features

required to develop the

Virtual Environment

Training?

Literature Review

To understand the

differences of Virtual

Environment Training and

normal training.

How to develop the

Virtual Environment

Training?

Methodology To develop the prototype of

VET.

How does the learn ability


Training affects the

trainees?

Evaluation

To conduct the learn ability

study of the VET among

trainees.

Table 2.1 : Research Question Table

The objectives of the study are:


To study the development of Virtual Environment Training.

To identify the differences between Virtual Environment Training compared to

normal training.

To develop a prototype of an effective Desktop Virtual Environment for Training.

To determine the learn ability of Virtual Environment Training for training

individuals in a safe and vigilant manner.

3.0 Literature Review

Virtual environment is a computer generated three dimensional model, where participant can

interact intuitively in real time with the environment or objects within it and to some extent

have a feeling of actually ‗being there‘(John R.Wilson, 1998). To produce a real environment

in every single aspect would demand incredible computational and graphics performance

(Kalawsky, 1993). It is likely to be some time before this level of performance become

available. Therefore, virtual environments typically represent a simplification of

reality(S.P.Smith & D.J.Duke, 2000). This simplification can be in the presented sensory

information (e.g., vision and audio and etc) and in the level of interaction provided. The

appearance and behavior of objects give strong cues to interaction in an environment and are

therefore associated to usability issues (S.P Smith, D.J Duke, & J.S Willians, 2000).

3D in contrast to 2D computer graphics are graphics that use a three-dimensional

representation of geometric data that is stored in the computer for the purposes of performing

calculations and rendering 2D images. Such images may be for later display or for real-time

viewing (Bowman, Johnson, & Hodges, 2001) has carried out systematic research about 3D

interaction techniques in the context of virtual reality systems. He and his colleagues have

suggested that general 3D tasks in virtual environments can be viewed as compositions of

more primitive tasks, such as object selection, object manipulation, navigation and system

control.

Some benefits of 3D that has been discerned:

A shared sense and understanding of the space, i.e. the trainee have an illusion of

being located in the same space with other users and with objects or models. Those

objects not only provide a visual representation of information, but also a meaningful,

shared context for co -operation, since they can be observed from multiple and

flexible viewpoints. In fact, the space might be formed from nothing but information.

A shared sense of being the person through their avatars. This allows user to be aware

of himself/herself in their activities since both direct and indirect awareness modes are

supported.

A shared sense of time, i.e. ability to observe and react correctly to the activities of

others in real -time when the activity takes place.

A way to share objects and models in the space, and respectively gain mutual

understanding of work activities. It should be noticed that ―the way to share‖

complements ―the sense of space‖ and ―the way to communicate‖ by providing means

to modify the objects and work upon them.

To insert multimedia design in VE, there are three issues that concern multimedia

specifically:

Matching the media to the message, by selecting and integrating media so the user

comprehends the information content effectively.


Managing users attention so key items in the content are noticed and understood and the

user follows the message thread across several media.

Navigation and interaction so the user can access, play and interact with media in an

engaging and predictable manner.

4.0 Methodology

4.1 Usability Evaluation

Usability evaluation is conducted to get the feedback or respond from the user. This study

used the Summative evaluation that occurred after the prototype development stage. The

evaluation for VSTE was conducted to thirty respondents that have been given an ample time

to learn and use the prototype. Before the training process begins, a short brief has been given

to them as to make sure the process is executed in a proper way. After the process of learning,

each of respondents gave feedback through the questionnaire given as in Appendix B.

4.2 Instrument for User Evaluation

User evaluation was conducted to determine user‘s perception on the usability aspect of

Virtual Streamyx Training Environment. The instruments was adapted from (J.Nielsen, 1994.

) and (Lin et al., 1997 ). The instruments evaluate on three dimensions: Learnability,

Perceived Ease of Use and Outcome/Future Use. A set of questionnaire that comprises the

General Information and these three dimensions has been conducted on thirty respondents.

General Information section is to gather some general background of respondent. Learnability

section measures the capability of learning VSTE. Two others section, Perceived Ease Use

measures the degree to which a person believes that using this application would be free of

effort while Outcome/Future Use is the degree of user willingness to use this prototype in the

future. A 5-point Likert scale has been applied in the questionnaire anchored by 1- Strongly

Disagree and 5-Strongly Agree.

5.0 Data Analysis

The respondent has been divided into two groups, TM trainer and Not a TM Trainer. The

purpose is to show the category of expert and novice. The terminology of validation adapted

from (Balci, 1994) is defined as involves substantiating that the model, within its domain of

applicability, behaves with satisfactory accuracy consistent with objective governing its use.

It relates to the comparison of model behavior with system behavior. According to (U.S

Department of Defense, 1996), validation refers to the process of determining the degree to

which a model is an accurate representation of the real world from the perspective of the

intended use of the model.

In general, reliability is the ability of a person or system to perform and maintain its functions

in routine circumstances, as well as hostile or unexpected circumstances (Wikipedia, 2008).

Cronbach Alpha has been chosen to measure reliability instrument in this study. It expressed

on scale from zero (very unreliable) to one (extremely reliable) (J.Kirakowski). SPSS version

13 has been used to calculate the data to determine the reliability of the prototype

Measure Number of items Cronbach Alpha

Learnability 8 0.820

Perceived Ease of Use 6 0.862

Outcome/Future Use 5 0.847

Table 5.1 : Cronbach Alpha Values for All Dimensions


Table 5.1 presents the Cronbach alpha value for each dimension: Learnability, Perceived

Ease of Use and Outcome/ Future Use. From the table, it shows that these three dimensions

have an alpha value greater than 0.7. These measures satisfy the internal reliability criterion.

Measure Number of items Cronbach Alpha

Learnability 8 0.820

Perceived Ease of Use 6 0.862

Outcome/Future Use 5 0.847

Table 5.2: Descriptive Statistics for All Measures

Above is the descriptive statistics for all measures presented in Table 5.2. A one-way Chi-

Square test of homogeneity was conducted on the responses for all items. As shown in Table

5.2, the results are positive with p-values significant at 0.01 for Learnability, Perceived Ease

of Use and Outcome/Future Use.

Item Mean Std.Deviation

LEARNABILITY

1. It was easy to learn to use VSTE. 3.6667 0.80230

2. The information provided by VSTE was easy to

understand.

3.6000 0.89443

3. The information provided in VSTE helped me in

training process.

3.6000 0.62146

4. It provides clarity of wording. 3.4333 0.77385

5. Data grouping is reasonable for easy training.

3.6000 0.56324

6. The ordering of information is logical. 3.7667 0.72793

7. The command names are meaningful. 3.6000 0.894430

8. It provides no-penalty training. 3.6667 0.84418

PERCEIVED EASE OF USE

1. Learning to operate VSTE would be easy for

me.

3.8000 0.88668

2. I would find it is easy to get VSTE to what I

want it to do.

3.5333 0.97320

2. My interaction with VSTE would be clear and

understandable.

3.4333 0.77385

4. I would find VSTE to be flexible to interact

with.

3.5000 0.86103

5. It would be easy for me to become skillful as

using VSTE.

3.2333 0.93526

6. I would find VSTE is easy to use. 3.8000 0.76112

OUTCOME/FUTURE USE

1. I was able to complete my training quickly

using VSTE.

3.7333 0.78492

2. I could effectively complete my training using

VSTE.

3.5333 0.68145

3. I was able to efficiently complete the training

using VSTE

3.7000 0.65126

4. I believe I could become productive quickly 3.4000 0.96847


using VSTE.

5. From my current experience with using VSTE, I

think I would use it regularly.

3.5333 0.93710

Table 5.3: Descriptive Statistics for All Items

Table 5.3 shows the descriptive statistics for all items. All of the items indicate that

respondents are neutral towards VSTE. However, based on the mean value, the respondents

agreed with all items. Overall of the result indicate VSTE has a good usability.

Measure Group N Mean Std.Dev

iation

Std.

Error

Mean

t Df Sig.

Learn

ability

Trainer 12 3.7083 0.7197 0.2078 0.4859 28 0.4824

Trainee 18 3.5555 0.7964 0.1877 0.501 24.963

Perceived

Ease Of

Use

Trainer 12 3.5417 0.8240 0.2379 -0.049 28 0.6072

Trainee 18 3.5556 0.8954 0.2110 -0.364 24.4217

Outcome /

Future Use

Trainer 12 3.6333 0.7196 0.2077 0.0146 28 0.2838

Trainee 18 3.5444 0.8466 0.1995 0.4022 24.9504

Table 5.4: Mean, Standard Deviation and Paired t-test for All Measures

Table 5.4 shows the means, standard deviations and paired t-test for all measures. Based on

the paired t-test, as the significance values are less than 0.05 (S.J.Coakes, 2005), there was no

significant difference between novice and expert groups for all measures.

6.0 Conclusion

As the conclusion, VET is a virtual world that enables the trainee to experience the operation

involved without having to be at the exact place. Based on the methodology proposed,

hopefully this VET can be developed within the period of time with the guidance of scope

and objective that have been stated above. The expectation of this project is to fulfill the

requirements and needs of the users as well as achieving the goals and objective by

developing an effective VET that can be applied to TM Company as soon as it finished.

7.0 References

Barbieri, T., Garzotto, F., Beltrame, G., Ceresoli, L., Gritti, M., & Misani, D. (2001). From

Dust to Stardust: a Collaborative 3D Virtual Museum of Computer Science.

Proceedings ICHIM, 1, 341–345.

Betty, J. M., Creem-Regehr, S. H., & B.Thompson., W. (2006). The Influence of Feedback

on Egocentric Distance Judgements in Real and Virtual Environments.

Bowman, D., Johnson, D., & Hodges, L. (2001). Testbed evaluation of virtual environment

interaction techniques,.

Card, S., J.Mackinlay., & B.Shneiderman. (1999). Information Visualization: Using Vision to

Think.

Charvat, J. (2003). Project Management Methodologies: Selecting, implementing and

supporting methodologies and process for projects: John Wiley & Sons,Inc.

Creswell, J. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions.

Di Blas, N., Hazan, S., & Paolini, P. (2003). The SEE experience. Edutainment in 3D virtual

worlds.


Di Blas, N., Paolini, P., & Poggi, C. (2005). A Virtual Museum where student can learn.

F.Polys., N., & A.Bowman, D. (2004). Desktop Information Rich Virtual Environments:

Challenges and Techniques.

F.Polys., N., Kim., S., & A.Bowman, D. (2005). Effects of Information Layout, Screen Size,

and Field of View on User Performance in Information-Rich Virtual Environments.

Gianpaolo U, C., John T, E., & J, R. E. (2000). Techniques for Handling Video Virtual

Environments.

Hosseini., M., & Nicolas D, G. (2001). Collaborative Virtual Environments for Training.

Jeff Rickel, W. L. J. (1995). Steve:An Animated Pegagogical Agent for Procedural Training

in Virtual Environments.

Jeffry L, W., Lonnies D, B., & Kevin C, D. (2004). System Analysis and Design Method: Mc

Graw Hill.

McConnell, S. C. (1995-2001). Rapid Application Development - Development Methodology

(RAD). Retrieved January 28, 2008, from http://www.credata.com/research/rad.html

Micheal Meehan, B. I., Mary Whitton, Frederick P.Brooks, JR,. (2002). Physiological

Measures of Presence in Stressful Virtual Environments.

Oliviera, J. C., Shirmohammad, Hosseini, S. M., Cordea, M., Geroganas, N. D., Petriu, E., et

al. (2000). Virtual Theater for Industrial Training: A Collaborative Virtual

Environment.

Paolini, P., Barbieri, T., Loiudice, P., Alonzo, F., Gaia, G., & Zanti, M. (1999). Visiting a

Museum together: How to share a visit to a virtual world.

Schlager, M. S. (1994). An Approach For Designing Virtual Environment Training Systems.

Selim, B., & Elif, A. (2004). Creating Virtual Environment in a Multidisciplinary Classroom.

Stiles, R., McCarthly, L., & Pontecorvo, M. (1995). Training Studio: A virtual environment

for training.

Wikimedia Corporation, I., US. (2008). Methodology. Retrieved January 28, 2008, from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodology

697 integration2010 proceedings

Documents