detc2015- 47388 investigating the impact of interactive ... Â· investigating the impact of...

Download DETC2015- 47388 Investigating the Impact of Interactive ... Â· Investigating the Impact of Interactive Immersive Virtual Reality Environments in Enhancing Task Performance in Online

Post on 03-Feb-2018

218 views

Category:

Documents

3 download

Embed Size (px)

TRANSCRIPT

  • http://www.engr.psu.edu/datalab/ 11

    Investigating the Impact of Interactive Immersive Virtual Reality Environments in

    Enhancing Task Performance in Online Engineering Design Activities

    Ajay Bharathi, Graduate Student, Penn State University

    Conrad S. Tucker, Assistant Professor of Engineering Design and Industrial Engineering, Penn State University

    DETC2015- 47388

    08/03/2015

    {abg167, ctucker4}@psu.edu

    mailto:ctucker4@psu.edu

  • http://www.engr.psu.edu/datalab/ 2

    Presentation Overview

    INTRODUCTION

    RESEARCH MOTIVATION

    LITERATURE

    RESEARCH OBJECTIVE

    METHODOLOGY

    CASE STUDY

    CONCLUSIONS

    FUTURE WORK

  • http://www.engr.psu.edu/datalab/ 3Introduction

    Virtual Learning (e.g., CAD) Tactile Learning (e.g., Product Dissection)

    Engineers employ virtual and tactileapproaches during learning activities

    McKenna et al, 2008; Lewis and Simpson (2009); Grantham et al. 2010; Moore-Russo et al (2010); Kremer et al., 2013; Tucker et al., 2014; Toh et al. (2014)

  • http://www.engr.psu.edu/datalab/ 4

    Virtual Design in Industry

    Introduction

  • http://www.engr.psu.edu/datalab/ 5

    What is Virtual Reality?

    Real-time graphical simulation with which theuser interacts via some form of analog control,within a spatial frame of reference and withuser control of the viewpoints motion and viewdirection (Moshell and Hughes, 2002)

    Introduction

  • http://www.engr.psu.edu/datalab/ 6

    Virtual Reality Literature 3D virtual worlds are more effective than text-based

    or 2D environments and can lead to better student engagement in learning activities (Tashiro and Dunlap, 2007)

    VR enables students to visit virtual environments and interact with objects and space in real time, which overcomes the traditional distance, time, or safety constraints (aliskan, 2011; Ramasundaram et al., 2005)

    Literature Review

  • http://www.engr.psu.edu/datalab/ 7

    Types of Virtual Reality Paradigms

    Two major types of Virtual Reality (VR) Paradigms

    Research Motivation

    Non-immersive VR SystemImmersive VR System

  • http://www.engr.psu.edu/datalab/ 8

    Research Objective

    Hypothesis: There exists a statistically significantdifference in task completion times between studentsusing immersive VR and non-immersive VR system

    Research Objective

    Non-immersive VR SystemImmersive VR System

  • http://www.engr.psu.edu/datalab/ 9

    Methodology

    Methodology

  • http://www.engr.psu.edu/datalab/ 10

    Study Sample 54 undergraduate students

    Immersive VR Group (29 students)

    Head-mounted displays (Oculus Rift) + game joystick

    Non-Immersive VR group (25 students)

    Computer Screen + game joystick

    Activity Performed: Product Functional Assembly of Coffeemaker

    Case Study

  • http://www.engr.psu.edu/datalab/ 11

    Spatial Aspects of Immersive VR

    Case Study

  • http://www.engr.psu.edu/datalab/ 12

    Immersive VR Demo

    Case Study

    cst14Sticky NoteAccepted set by cst14

    cst14Typewritten TextClick to Play

    cst14Sticky NoteAccepted set by cst14

  • http://www.engr.psu.edu/datalab/ 13

    Experimental Setup

    Non-Immersive VR Group

    Immersive VR Group

    Random Classification of Students

    Product Functional Assembly in the Virtual

    Environment

    Record Task Completion

    Time and Perform

    Statistical Analysis

    Case Study

  • http://www.engr.psu.edu/datalab/ 14

    Task completion time has been used as a performance metric to evaluate the effectiveness of VR technology in research (Hwang et al., 2006) ; (Newmark et al., 2007) ; (Jennett et al., 2008); (Lendvay et al., 2013)

    Measure Task Completion Time

    Case Study

  • http://www.engr.psu.edu/datalab/ 15

    Test for Normality

    Samples do not follow normal distribution and sample sizes are not significantly large enough to assume normality Select a Non-Parametric test (Mann-Whitney U Test)

    Case Study

  • http://www.engr.psu.edu/datalab/ 16

    Difference in Task Completion Times

    Case Study

    Non-Immersive VR GroupImmersive VR Group

    140

    120

    100

    80

    60

    40

    20

    0

    Tas

    k C

    om

    ple

    tio

    n T

    ime

    (in

    sec

    on

    ds)

    23.21

    49.04

    31.02

    64.20

    Boxplot of Immersive VR Group, Non-Immersive VR Group

    GroupN

    (Sample Size)

    Median Completion Time

    (in Seconds)Group 1: Immersive VR 29 23.21Group 2: Non-Immersive VR 25 49.04

    Mann-Whitney U Test. (p-value = 0.0001)

    Immersive VR group

    students task completion

    time significantly less

    than non-immersive VR

    group students

  • http://www.engr.psu.edu/datalab/ 17

    Investigate Why Differences Exist

    Three other hypotheses were tested to explore the reasons for the observed difference in performance outcomes between the two groups of students:

    Gender

    Prior level of joystick experience

    Class Standing

    Case Study

  • http://www.engr.psu.edu/datalab/ 18

    Hypothesis: Gender Differences

    Hypothesis LevelsStatistical

    TestP value Conclusion

    Gender Male Mann-

    Whitney U Test

    0.0002Immersive VR students performed

    better than non-immersive VR students

    Male - Non-Immersive VR GroupMale - Immersive VR Group

    140

    120

    100

    80

    60

    40

    20

    0

    Task

    Co

    mp

    leti

    on

    Tim

    e (

    in s

    eco

    nd

    s)

    22.60

    47.55

    28.95

    58.93

    Boxplot of Male - Immersive VR Group, Male - Non-Immersive VR Group

    Case Study

  • http://www.engr.psu.edu/datalab/ 19

    >5 years - Non-Immersive VR>5 years - Immersive VR

    140

    120

    100

    80

    60

    40

    20

    0

    Tas

    k C

    om

    ple

    tio

    n T

    ime

    (in

    sec

    on

    ds)

    23.66

    42.66

    31.53

    56.55

    Boxplot of >5 years - Immersive VR, >5 years - Non-Immersive VR

    Hypothesis LevelsStatistical

    TestP value Conclusion

    Prior Level of Joystick

    Experience>5 Years

    Mann-Whitney U

    Test0.0066

    Immersive VR students performed better than non-immersive VR

    students

    Case Study

    Hypothesis: Joystick Experience Level

  • http://www.engr.psu.edu/datalab/ 20

    Hypothesis: Class Standing

    Hypothesis Levels Statistical test Conclusion

    Class Standing

    FreshmanMann-Whitney U

    test

    Immersive VR students performed better than non-immersive VR

    students*

    SophomoreMann-Whitney U

    test

    Immersive VR students performed identical to non-immersive VR

    students*

    JuniorMann-Whitney U

    test

    Immersive VR students performed better than non-immersive VR

    students*

    SeniorMann-Whitney U

    test

    Immersive VR students performed identical to non-immersive VR

    students*

    * - Tests performed using small sample sizes results need further validation

    Case Study

  • http://www.engr.psu.edu/datalab/ 21

    Summary of Students Feedback

    Case Study

  • http://www.engr.psu.edu/datalab/ 22

    Statement 3: Virtual reality technology such as Oculus Rift can be useful as a classroom tool

    Statement 4: I will be interested in enrolling in a class that uses virtual reality technology such as Oculus Rift

    Case Study

    Summary of Students Feedback

  • http://www.engr.psu.edu/datalab/ 23

    Product Design Medicine Flight Training

    Chemistry Physics Astronomy

    Conclusions

    Virtual Reality in Education

  • http://www.engr.psu.edu/datalab/ 24

    Data Mining Driven Design

    Research Extensions

    Environment Data Individuals Data

  • http://www.engr.psu.edu/datalab/ 25

    Conclusion and Future Work

    Performance outcomes of the students using immersive VR systems are significantly better than students using non-immersive VR systems

    Future work

    Integration of 3D interactive technology with immersive visual displays

    Effectiveness of immersive VR systems among users of different gender and age group

    Extension of immersive VR systems to MOOCs

    Conclusion

  • http://www.engr.psu.edu/datalab/ 26

    Acknowledgement & References

    Contributors:-Ajay Karthic Gopinath Bharathi (The Pennsylvania State University)

    -Conrad Tucker (The Pennsylvania State University)

    Acknowledgement:-Penn State Center for Online Innovation and Learning (COIL) Grant

    -Bryan Dickens, Steven Sellers, Gabe Harms, Owen Shartle

    (The Pennsylvania State University)

    References

    [1] Moshell, J.M., Hughes, C.E., 2002. Virtual environments as a tool for academic learning.

    Handbook of virtual environments: Design, implementation, and applications 893910

    [2] Tashiro, J.S., Dunlap, D., 2007, The impact of realism on learning engagement in educational

    games, in: Proceedings of the 2007 Conference on Future Play. ACM, pp. 113120.

    [3] Pantelidis, V.S., 1995. Reasons to use virtual reality in education. VR in the Schools 1 (1), 9.

    [4] aliskan, O., 2011. Virtual field trips in education of earth and environmental sciences. Procedia-

    Social and Behavioral Sciences 15, 32393243.

    [5] Ramasundaram, V., Grunwald, S., Mangeot, A., Comerford, N., Bliss, C., 2005. Development of

    an e

Recommended

View more >