Comparing learning outcomes in physical and simulated learning environments

Abstract The use of 2D and 3D simulated learning environments in education and training has increased significantly in the past decade. Simulated learning environments provide several advantages over physical learning environments including increased safety and accessibility. Simulated learning environments can also be utilized in an online setting, increasing the efficiency of delivery, access, and supporting greater personalization of the learning process. Despite a long history of use in workforce education, researchers have questioned whether simulations provide learners with the same quality of education as physical learning environments. This research investigated how learning to construct electrical circuits using a 2D simulation, a 3D simulation or a physical breadboard impacted learning outcomes. Additionally, this study examined the influence of learner characteristics, cognitive ability and goal orientation, on the relationship between the simulated learning environments and learning outcomes. The study utilized a pretest-posttest between subjects design and included 48 participants. Results suggest that learning to construct a circuit with physical components results in higher self-efficacy, faster construction times, and higher odds of correct construction than learning in a 2D or 3D simulation. Participants in the three conditions achieved comparable results in terms of cognitive outcomes; the differences identified were based on cognitive ability and goal orientation. There were no significant differences in outcomes achieved between participants in the 2D and 3D simulations. Implications for the design of simulated learning environments and potential impact for online technical curriculum are discussed. Relevance to industry This study supports the evaluation of using online educational technology to learn technical skills. This is relevant to workforce education, especially with a diverse and distributed workforce that requires technical training.

[1]  R. Robins,et al.  PERSONALITY PROCESSES AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES Personality Predictors of Academic Outcomes: Big Five Correlates of GPA and SAT Scores , 2007 .

[2]  Traci Sitzmann.  A META-ANALYTIC EXAMINATION OF THE INSTRUCTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS OF COMPUTER-BASED SIMULATION GAMES , 2011 .

[3]  John R. Anderson.  Acquisition of cognitive skill. , 1982 .

[4]  Mitchel Resnick,et al.  Technologies for lifelong kindergarten , 1998 .

[5]  F. Prins,et al.  Intellectual ability, learning style, personality, achievement motivation and academic success of psychology students in higher education. , 2000 .

[6]  Alcínia Zita Sampaio,et al.  3D and VR models in Civil Engineering education: Construction, rehabilitation and maintenance , 2010 .

[7]  Natassia Goode,et al.  Simulation-based driver and vehicle crew training: applications, efficacy and future directions. , 2013, Applied ergonomics.

[8]  Barney Dalgarno,et al.  Effectiveness of a Virtual Laboratory as a preparatory resource for Distance Education chemistry students , 2009, Comput. Educ..

[9]  Robert V. Kenyon,et al.  Training in virtual and real environments , 1995, Annals of Biomedical Engineering.

[10]  J. Pratt,et al.  Playing an Action Video Game Reduces Gender Differences in Spatial Cognition , 2007, Psychological science.

[11]  E. Salas,et al.  Application of cognitive, skill-based, and affective theories of learning outcomes to new methods of training evaluation. , 1993 .

[12]  Douglas K. Detterman,et al.  ACT and General Cognitive Ability. , 2008 .

[13]  Winston Bennett,et al.  Factors That Influence Skill Decay and Retention: A Quantitative Review and Analysis , 1998 .

[14]  Robert E Wood,et al.  Feedback specificity, learning opportunities, and learning. , 2004, The Journal of applied psychology.

[15]  Robert J. Stone,et al.  Haptic Feedback: A Brief History from Telepresence to Virtual Reality , 2000, Haptic Human-Computer Interaction.

[16]  Wayne L. Shebilske,et al.  Virtual Reality: An Instructional Medium for Visual-Spatial Tasks. , 1992 .

[17]  I. E. Allen,et al.  Making the Grade: Online Education in the United States, 2006. , 2006 .

[18]  Marc Couture,et al.  Realism in the design process and credibility of a simulation-based virtual laboratory , 2004, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[19]  Tomi Jaakkola,et al.  A comparison of students' conceptual understanding of electric circuits in simulation only and simulation‐laboratory contexts , 2011 .

[20]  Chadwick A. Wingrave,et al.  The Value of Constraints for 3D User Interfaces , 2008, Virtual Realities.

[21]  Gregory L. Waddoups,et al.  The "Virtual ChemLab" Project: A Realistic and Sophisticated Simulation of Organic Synthesis and Organic Qualitative Analysis , 2005 .

[22]  R. Noe.  Trainees' Attributes and Attitudes: Neglected Influences on Training Effectiveness , 1986 .

[23]  G. Olympiou,et al.  Physical versus Virtual Manipulative Experimentation in Physics Learning. , 2011 .

[24]  R. Snow.  Aptitude-treatment interaction as a framework for research on individual differences in learning. , 1989 .

[25]  Denis Gillet,et al.  Personalised learning spaces and federated online labs for STEM Education at School , 2013, 2013 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON).

[26]  Jieun Kim,et al.  Personality and its effects on learning performance: Design guidelines for an adaptive e-learning system based on a user model , 2013 .

[27]  Lara M. Triona,et al.  Point and Click or Grab and Heft: Comparing the Influence of Physical and Virtual Instructional Materials on Elementary School Students' Ability to Design Experiments , 2003 .

[28]  John M. O'hara,et al.  The retention of skills acquired through simulator-based training , 1990 .

[29]  Rebecca K Scheckler.  Virtual labs: a substitute for traditional labs? , 2003, The International journal of developmental biology.

[30]  Deborah Richards,et al.  A Comparison of learning gains when using a 2D simulation tool versus a 3D virtual world: An experiment to find the right representation involving the Marginal Value Theorem , 2015, Comput. Educ..

[31]  John R. Bourne,et al.  The Effectiveness of Learning Simulations for Electronic Laboratories , 2002 .

[32]  C. Dweck,et al.  Goals: an approach to motivation and achievement. , 1988, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[33]  N. Selwyn,et al.  What works and why? Student perceptions of ‘useful’ digital technology in university teaching and learning , 2017 .

[34]  Noah S. Podolefsky,et al.  When learning about the real world is better done virtually: A study of substituting computer simulations for laboratory equipment , 2005 .

[35]  R. Clark.  Media will never influence learning , 1994 .

[36]  Sam Reid,et al.  A Study of Educational Simulations Part 1 - Engagement and Learning , 2008 .

[37]  Tomi Jaakkola,et al.  Fostering elementary school students' understanding of simple electricity by combining simulation and laboratory activities , 2008, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[38]  N. Dorans.  CORRESPONDENCES BETWEEN ACT™ AND SAT® I SCORES , 1999 .

[39]  B. de Raad,et al.  Personality in learning and education: a review , 1996 .

[40]  John R. Bourne,et al.  Online Engineering Education: Learning Anywhere, Anytime , 2005, Online Learning.

[41]  J. Mathieu,et al.  Goal Orientation in Organizational Research: A Conceptual and Empirical Foundation , 1996 .

[42]  Albert J. Rosa,et al.  The Role of the Laboratory in Undergraduate Engineering Education , 2005 .

[43]  James Guthrie,et al.  Individual and contextual influences on self-assessed training needs , 1994 .

[44]  Z. C. Zacharia,et al.  Comparing and combining real and virtual experimentation: an effort to enhance students' conceptual understanding of electric circuits , 2007, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[45]  Eduardo Salas,et al.  Effects of Training Goals and Goal Orientation Traits on Multidimensional Training Outcomes and Performance Adaptability. , 2001, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.

[46]  V. Shute,et al.  Adaptive E-Learning , 2003, Educational Psychologist.

[47]  Robert M. Bernard,et al.  The development of a questionnaire for predicting online learning achievement , 2004 .

[48]  B. Zimmerman,et al.  Self-Efficacy: An Essential Motive to Learn. , 2000, Contemporary educational psychology.

[49]  June Lee,et al.  Effectiveness of Computer-Based Instructional Simulation: A Meta Analysis. , 1999 .

[50]  Pilar Martínez-Jiménez,et al.  Learning in Chemistry with Virtual Laboratories , 2003 .

[51]  Richard E. Clark,et al.  Transfer of training principles for instructional design , 1985 .