Learning in Affectively Intense Virtual Environments - LITE

Recommendations

Info

14 1.7.3. Pilot Research Method. Five participants were presented with a scenario where they were to assume the role of a first responder, which for the experiment was a fire fighter. Their task was to check all the rooms in the virtual computer science building and put out any fires during the course of their inspection of the building. Galvanic skin response was recorded as they completed their task and a “think aloud” procedure was used to elicit any comments from the participant during the test session, which lasted 10 minutes. Following their experience, a presence questionnaire was administered to determine the degree of presence experienced in the environment. A post test interview was conducted in order to obtain insight into the users’ thoughts and opinions on the virtual environment and testing procedure. 1.7.4. Pilot Test Results. The study showed that there was a marked increase in the GSR readings associated with explosions in comparison to periods when explosions were not occurring. There was also increased GSR activity due to frustration caused by inhibited locomotion and lack of lighting after it was turned off by a user in the virtual environment. Most participants stated that they recognized rooms where they had classes; one student found the environment so realistic that he was reluctant to put out the fires because “I never much liked the computer science building anyway”. One subject who had experience with computer games found the controls counter intuitive since all the controls were on the 5 button mouse (Hall et al., 2004). 1.7.5. Pilot Study Conclusions. The quantitative analysis of GSR levels indicated that arousal levels were dramatically higher following affectively intense events (explosions) in the environment as compared to the rest of the time participants were in the environment. There was a reasonably high level of presence detected in the participants with regard to the virtual environment. There was a methodology related issue with respect to the use of the task performed in the virtual environment as a measure of learning. There was a need for a criterion measure that was independent of the virtual environment. We developed such a measure for the present experiment. 1.8. THESIS EXPERIMENT 1.8.1. Overview. The present research followed similar methodologies and extended the pilot study in various ways. Some of the fundamental differences were: a) The training environment was experimentally manipulated and participants randomly
15 assigned to one of two conditions (affectively intense vs. affectively neutral); b) five times more subjects participated; c) A performance/testing component was added where users were tested in a non-virtual environment (i.e., the “real” computer science building); d) Participants used a head mounted display; e) The task to be performed in the virtual environment was more clear-cut and result oriented. The research focused on finding the factors that influenced affective intense learning (Figure 1.1). Figure 1.1. Research Model for Current Research 1.8.2. Experimental Questions. This research addressed eleven experimental questions representing five categories as follows: 1.8.2.1 Learning Outcomes as a function of experimental condition Do learning outcomes (location of dead and location of injured correctly identified) differ as a function of experimental condition (affectively intense vs. affectively neutral)?
Page 2 and 3: LEARNING IN AFFECTIVELY INTENSE VIR
Page 4 and 5: iii ABSTRACT The main purpose of th
Page 6 and 7: v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT .
Page 8 and 9: vii 3.2. QUALITATIVE RESULTS ......
Page 10 and 11: ix LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure Pag
Page 12 and 13: xi NOMENCLATURE Symbol Description
Page 14 and 15: 2 1.2. VIRTUAL REALITY IN EDUCATION
Page 16 and 17: 4 Chalmers conducted experiments us
Page 18 and 19: 6 Another example of using virtual
Page 20 and 21: 8 that will be needed to build "hum
Page 22 and 23: 10 1.6. VIRTUAL REALITY AND PRESENC
Page 24 and 25: 12 responder scenario for training
Page 28 and 29: 16 1.8.2.2 VR Experience as a Funct
Page 30 and 31: 18 Measure as developed by Larsen &
Page 32 and 33: 20 Figure 2.0. LITE Usability Lab S
Page 34 and 35: 22 On successful completion of the
Page 36 and 37: 24 3. RESULTS 3.1. QUANTITATIVE RES
Page 38 and 39: 26 Table 3.2. Pearson Correlations
Page 40 and 41: 28 ANOVA was statistically signific
Page 42 and 43: 30 reaching the objectives save one
Page 44 and 45: 32 GSR readings peaked in response
Page 46 and 47: 34 4. DISCUSSION 4.1. LEARNING OUTC
Page 48 and 49: 36 based on these findings, whether
Page 50 and 51: 38 to which the participants were c
Page 52 and 53: 40 5. CONCLUSION There is evidence
Page 54 and 55: 42 The individual difference, affec
Page 56 and 57: 44 1. When I feel happy, it is a st
Page 58 and 59: 46 1. Do you ever get extremely inv
Page 60 and 61: 48 APPENDIX C. HOW TO USE CONTROLS
Page 62 and 63: 50 APPENDIX D. PRESENCE QUESTIONNAI
Page 64 and 65: 52 APPENDIX E. SCENARIO
Page 66 and 67: 54 c. put out the fire. 4. At the e
Page 68 and 69: 56 Hays, R. T., & Vincenzi, D. A. (
Page 70: 58 VITA Lawrence M. Wilfred Date of

Learning in Affectively Intense Virtual Environments - LITE

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?