Training of Procedural Tasks Through the Use of Virtual Reality and Direct Aids - Virtual Reality and Environments - page 62

Fig. 15. Evolution of the performance of the trainees (percentage of steps without non-solved
errors and without aids) in each group.
16 show that the percentage of correct steps (without non-solved errors and without aids)
increased along the training trials. Moreover, in the direct aids group the performance
obtained in the real task was a little better than in the last trial of the training process, even
though the real task was performed the day after of the training sessions. Additionally, the
statistical analysis demonstrates that there was not significant differences in the transition
from the MTS to the real task between both groups (t 36 =0.11, p=0.911). This fact demonstrates
that the controlled use of direct aids does not damage the trainees performance when they
change from the training platform (virtual task) to the real world (physical task) and therefore
it eliminates the main disadvantage of the use of direct aids reported in the bibliography
(Yuviler-Gavish et al. (2011)). It means, the controlled direct aids did not impede the transfer
of knowledge as it was hypothesised in this experiment.
Fig. 16. Detailed information about the performance of the trainees (percentage of correct
steps without non-solved errors and without aids) in the last training trial and in the real
task.
In relation to the last performance measure, Figure 17 shows the mean total training time at
each group where the statistical analysis demonstrates that there was not significant difference
between both groups (t 36 =-0.78, p=0.442). But, it is also interesting to analyze the training time