1. Evaluation of Knowledge Transfer in an Immersive Virtual World Glynn Cavin, Ph.D. Mary Leah Coco, Ph.D. Krisanna Machtmes, Ph.D. Marty Altman, M.S. 1

2. » Why is this training intervention important? » The Experiment » Results & Recommendations 2 Highway Work Zone Flagger Training in an Immersive Virtual Learning Environment

3. » 720 Highway Work zone Deaths in 2008 ˃667 deaths in 2009 » 6,438 Highway Work zone Deaths since 2003. » We have a responsibility to help minimize the fatality and injury rate. 3 Why is this Important? The Practical Reasons:

4. 4 Accidents in Work Zones Have a Human Consequence: For Travelers For Employees

5. » Opportunity to Test a New Way to Transfer Knowledge » Opportunity to Explore new technology / New frontier: ˃Utilizes Experiential Learning ˃Student Centric vs. Teacher Centric ˃Is this a more meaningful learning experience for adult learners? 5 Why is this Important? The Scientific Reasons:

6. » Asks the question: ˃Does this new learning environment bridge the divide 6 Why is this Important? The Scientific Reasons: for a marginalized population of adult learners?

7. » Primarily lecture, multi-media, role – playing activities. ˃Auditory ˃Visual ˃Experiential (Sometimes) » Content is successfully delivered; however, active experimentation with concepts is limited. » Is there true Learning Transfer? ˃Do we move beyond memorization to conceptual understanding – From What to Why? 7

8. 8 Many adult learners dread returning to the context that did not engage them before! They bring these mental models with them. Strong Sense of Intimidation. This impacts their learning. Traditional Classrooms and Marginalized Learners

9. 9  Difficult to visualize the problem  Difficult to grasp the Abstract Concept  Difficult to transfer Abstract Concept to Real World Solutions Learning in the Flat World

10. Put Another Way » “…learners have to: ˃orient themselves ˃navigate within complex information spaces ˃search for and evaluate information ˃understand and integrate multiple representations to build coherent knowledge structures.” (Schnotz & Rasch) 10 Learning in the Flat World

11. » Have Been Around for a Long Ti me ˃Today - Often Impossible / Impractical » Now – Master & Apprentice are Virtual » Paradox of Virtual Learning Environments: ˃ Fundamentally the Same – Learn by Immersion & Experimentation ˃ Profoundly Different – Distance and Time Barriers Disappear 11

12. 12

13. » IVLE allows learner to move from concrete experience to reflective observation to abstract conceptualization to active experimentation ˃ AE never possible before for work zone training » IVLE’s provide: ˃A Sense of Safety: +Psychological Safety – No Intimidation - Not afraid to Participate +Physical Safety ˃A Sense of Being There, of being In the Flow 13

14. 14 ˃IVLE’s provide: +Easier Encoding: – “The more features of the job environment that are integrated into the interaction, the more likely the right cues will be encoded into long –term memory for later transfer.” (Clark & Meyer, 2003) – “…transfer is maximized when the conditions at retrieval (on the job) match those present at encoding (during learning) (Clark & Meyer) +When presented images evoke familiar cues and clues, learning is facilitated

15. » Cognitive Learning Theory ˃Knowledge is retained as Schemas (structured patterns of knowledge) ˃Stored Schemas are used to extract meaning from new information ˃New information received & processed in Working Memory (Cognitive Load) +Limited capacity +Search and Match process increases Cognitive Load (Plass, Moreno & Brunken) ˃Elements of information in Working Memory compared then integrated with stored existing schemata in Long Term memory (unlimited capacity) 15

16. » Is it possible that IVLE reduces: ˃Cognitive load in Working Memory ˃Because cues and clues easier to recognize/process, thus » New knowledge easier to associate and integrate with existing info retrieved from Long Term memory? 16

17. 17

18. » Guidelines for effective Practice in IVLEs ˃Immersion should mirror the thinking processes and environment of the job (Clark & Meyer) ˃“The more authentic and engaging…the more powerful the learning experience becomes for the participant.” (Kapp & O’Driscoll) ˃Cues and clues should be relevant to context of learning, should evoke strong recall and thus strong association with new learning » IVLE not the answer for all training needs 18

19. 19

20. Methodology » Experimental Design ˃Quasi-Experimental / Mixed Methodology ˃7 Control Groups (n = 140) ˃8 Experimental Groups (n = 165) +Total Sample Size – 305 ˃Diverse Sample 20

21. Methodology (continued) » Course Design / Development ˃Established / Short Course ˃Highly collaborative design and deployment process ˃SME Testing » Deployment ˃PC Lab 21

22. 22 The IVLE Context Look Familiar? Goal = Use a simple and familiar Interface Eliminate Keyboard / Mouse Apprehension

23. Early Avatar Movement 23 Later Avatar Movement Robust Telemetry Data

24. Findings ˃ Emergent Themes: – Realistic Training – Memorable Cues and Clues – Engaging Experience 24

25. Future Research » Seek better understanding of the Sample / Adult Participants: ˃Establish propensity to use technology in a classroom context » Go regional for accessible population, result: ˃Larger sample, maintains diversity ˃Increase generalizability to target population 25

26. Future Research » Continue Research to Find Optimum: ˃Level of Immersion ˃Interface Devices ˃Instructor Presence » Longitudinal study to determine sustained learning effectiveness 26

27. » New Frontier with Infinite Potential ˃Use of IVLE with Semi-Skilled Workers Enhances Traditional Classroom Activity Provides More Meaningful Interaction » Opportunity for: ˃Workforce Development ˃Innovation and Application of Technology ˃New Tech Businesses boost the Economy ˃Practical Application and Theoretical Research of Cutting Edge Adult Education 27

28. » Sources: ˃Clark, R. C. & Mayer, R. E. (2003). e-Learning and the Science of Instruction. San Francisco: Pfeiffer. ˃Kapp, T. M. & O’Driscoll (2010). Learning in 3D. San Francisco: Pfeiffer. ˃Mayer, R. E. & Moreno, Roxana (n.d.). A Cognitive theory of Multimedia Learning: Implication for Design Principles. (awaiting publication in Handbook of Applied Cognition). ˃Schnotz, W. & Rasch, T. (2005). Enabling, Facilitating, and Inhibiting Effects of Animations in Multimedia Learning: Why Reduction of Cognitive Load Can Have Negative Results on Learning. Journal of Educational Technology Research and Development, Vol. 53, No. 3, pp. 47-58. Retrieved 11/3/2010 http://www.springerlink.com/content/076x7qk8443494q0/fulltext.pdf 28