INTERACTIVE VIRTUAL REALITY LEARNING SYSTEMS
ARE THEY A BETTER WAY TO ENSURE PROFICIENCY?
Captain James J. Fitzpatrick, Ed.D. Massachusetts Maritime Academy, 101 Academy Drive, Buzzards Bay, 02532, USA __________________________________________________________

Abstract

The increasingly more complex systems found in society today demands learning systems that not only ensure operator proficiency, but also provide a means for enhancing workplace learning. Throught the creation of an interactive virtual reality environment that more closely replicates the real world, a new learning system has been proposed for increasing worker proficiciency regarding the safe operation of complex equipment and machines found in todays workplace. This paper explores preliminary data associated with this new learning system, that is based on experiential learning theory, with a view toward how this new system for learning will impact educational reform in the workplace of the future.

__________________________________________________________

1. Introduction

Many learning systems have been employed over the course of years that propose to enhance the effectiveness of learning and increase proficiency within the complex technological world of today, but none have proven to significantly change the way people make meaning of a world with increasingly more complex machines with complicated operations and increased safety concerns; until the recent advent of interactive virtual reality learning systems. These learning systems have been made possible only recently through the leaps in technology associated with computer processing speeds and software development. This new approach to learning embraces, at its core, the concepts and models of learning from experience, by immersing learners in interactive 3D computer generated virtual reality environments.

According to educational theorists supporting learning from experience, which is the educational underpinnings this new system of learning is based upon, experiential learning considers the special needs of learners and provides activities that have the potential to involve the whole person in the education process. It differs from traditional instruction in that it uses a facilitator; rather than an instructor or teacher, to guide the learning process. The success of a system grounded in experiential learning lies in its experiential base. Each stage of the experiential learning cycle has objectives that move toward the ultimate goal of increasing the participant performance when faced with new or similar situations. Theorists refer to the 5 phases of experiential learning as:

1. Experiencing: To generate individual data from one or more of the sensing, thinking, feeling, wanting, or doing modes.
2. Sharing or Processing: To report and make sense of the data generated from the experience for both individuals and groups. This stage also includes a reflection part that in order for the experience to become meaningful, students have to think about the experience, and reflect upon it. Reflection is an essential phase in the learning process whereby students explore their experiences in a conscious manner in order to lead to a new understanding and perhaps a new behavior.
3. Generalizing: To develop testable hypotheses and abstractions from the data generated from the experience.
4. Developing a New Course of Action Developing a new course of action requires the participants to bridge the present and future by understanding and/or planning how these generalizations can be tested in a new place or situation.
5. Applying: Utilizing the new learning in real-world situations.

A learning system grounded in Interactive Virtual Reality (IVR) utilizes these tenets of learning and creates experiences that contribute to increasing participant proficiency by manufacturing an environment that very closely emulates operations and equipment found in the real world. The system of learning addresses repetition and reinforcement that assists the learner in mastering complex tasks by simplifying the concept or procedure to its essential components. It also employs what many people realize that in almost all instances where proficiency is required, that that improved performance requires practice and rehearsal along with sequential learning tasks that encourage and enable the learner to engage in sufficient repetition to achieve the desired level of mastery (Knox, 1980, p.396).

2. Interactive Virtual Reality (IVR)

2.1 The Method.

Interactive virtual reality stems from a combination of 3D computer modeling that is carefully organized and scripted under the supervision of educators proficient in the operations and procedures of specific equipment that is the basis for learning. It differs from computer based training (CBT) in that the learner is able to move freely within the computer-generated environment and view the experience from many different visual perspectives. The environment created is identical to that of the real world, in that all equipment is operated the same in both worlds, with the major difference being that incorrect procedures in IVR do not have life threatening consequences. The system allows for passive learning in the classroom through the demonstration mode as well as through active learning whereby learner's may access the program individually and rehearse procedures until mastery is accomplished. The system guides the sequence of learning activities through a series of learning tasks designed to enhance proficiency. The result is cumulative learning that results in concept and skill mastery.

2.2 Research Findings.

Preliminary investigations into this learning system found those students using IVR systems scored higher on practical examinations than those using more traditional learning systems at the Massachusetts Maritime Academy. Another interesting finding was that students with access to IVR revisited the site to refresh their skills and in post course testing retained a higher level of cognitive knowledge than those students did with no access to IVR. Interestingly, students tended to view the IVR learning system more in terms of a game that had instructional value as opposed to school work that was necessary for passing an examination required for graduation. The students found the learning environment IVR created enjoyable and an extremely rewarding experience.

3. Conclusion

Leaning theories tells us that experiential learning takes place when participants are engaged in tasks that embrace action, and reflection on action, and that students are able to achieve high levels of learning by being actively involved in the execution of tasks required for performing specific complex operations. The major limiting factor with experiential learning in the real world is the, cost and safety involved with creating experiences for students to learn from. Perhaps safety is the determining factor in some operations that are simply too dangerous to allow students to experiment with and as a result of this limiting factor learning must come to an end in the real world in order to keep the training environment safe. Viewed from a practical perspective, one could conclude from the findings presented that learning is enhanced when participants interact fully with their environment, and that IVR seems to be a learning system with the potential to create an environment that is so close to reality that it allows for learners to practice procedures, tasks and routines until mastery is achieved, and without fear of endangerment of the participant. The results of such a system of learning would appear to have the ability to better ensure learner proficiency because the system not only provides for the same learning experience found in the real world, but it also allows the learner to go into areas that would be prohibitive in the real world, thus allowing the learner to comprehend and experience perilous consequences resulting from actions that could not be allowed in the real world. The IVR learning system approach would appear to the author to be the next wave of education reform in high-tech workplace learning.

James J. Fitzpatrick is a Master Mariner (unlimited) and has served as master and pilot on various vessels. He holds a Bachelor of Science degree from the United States Merchant Marine Academy, a Master of Business Administration degree, and Master of Arts and Doctor of Education degrees in Workplace Education, Training, and Development from Columbia University. Additionally, he holds a Federal Communication Commission General Radiotelephone license with ship radar endorsement.

Currently, he is Associate Professor of Marine Transportation at the Massachusetts Maritime Academy.

References

Fitzpatrick, J. J., III (1996). Perceptions of adult learning in multinational maritime continuing higher education: A case study emphasizing the views of maritime faculty (Doctoral dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1996). Dissertation Abstracts International, 5702A0548.

Knox, A. (1980). Proficiency theory of adult education. Contemporary Educational Psychology.5 (4), 378-404..

Stice, J. E. (1987). Using Kolb's learning cycle to improve student learning. Engineering Education 77(5), 291-296.