When simulated environments make the difference: the effectiveness of different types of training of car service procedures

Abstract

An empirical analysis was performed to compare the effectiveness of different approaches to training a set of procedural skills to a sample of novice trainees. Sixty-five participants were randomly assigned to one of the following three training groups: (1) learning-by-doing in a 3D desktop virtual environment, (2) learning-by-observing a video (show-and-tell) explanation of the procedures, and (3) trial-and-error. In each group, participants were trained on two car service procedures. Participants were recalled to perform a procedure either 2 or 4 weeks after the training. The results showed that: (1) participants trained through the virtual approach of learning-by-doing performed both procedures significantly better (i.e. p < .05 in terms of errors and time) than people of non-virtual groups, (2) the virtual training group, after a period of non-use, were more effective than non-virtual training (i.e. p < .05) in their ability to recover their skills, (3) after a (simulated) long period from the training--i.e. up to 12 weeks--people who experienced 3D environments consistently performed better than people who received other kinds of training. The results also suggested that independently from the training group, trainees' visuospatial abilities were a predictor of performance, at least for the complex service procedure, adj R2 = .460, and that post-training performances of people trained through virtual learning-by-doing are not affected by learning styles. Finally, a strong relationship (p < .001, R2 = .441) was identified between usability and trust in the use of the virtual training tool--i.e. the more the system was perceived as usable, the more it was perceived as trustable to acquire the competences.