EVM: An Educational Virtual Reality Modeling Tool; Evaluation Study with Freshman Engineering Students
Source abstract
Abstract
Educational Virtual Modeling (EVM) is a novel VR-based application for sketching and modeling in an immersive environment designed to introduce freshman engineering students to modeling concepts and reinforce their understanding of the spatial connection between an object and its 2D projections. It was built on the Unity 3D game engine and Microsoft’s Mixed Reality Toolkit (MRTK). EVM was designed to support the creation of the typical parts used in exercises in basic engineering graphics courses with a special emphasis on a fast learning curve and a simple way to provide exercises and tutorials to students. To analyze the feasibility of using EVM for this purpose, a user study was conducted with 23 freshmen and sophomore engineering students that used both EVM and Trimble SketchUp to model six parts using an axonometric view as the input. Students had no previous experience in any of the two systems. Each participant went through a brief training session and was allowed to use each tool freely for 20 min. At the end of the modeling exercises with each system, the participants rated its usability by answering the System Usability Scale (SUS) questionnaire. Additionally, they filled out a questionnaire for assessment of the system functionality. The results demonstrated a very high SUS score for EVM (M = 92.93, SD = 6.15), whereas Trimble SketchUp obtained only a mean score of 76.30 (SD = 6.69). The completion time for the modeling tasks with EVM showed its suitability for regular class use, despite the fact that it usually takes longer to complete the exercises in the system than in Trimble SketchUp. There were no statistically significant differences regarding functionality assessment. At the end of the experimental session, participants were asked to express their opinion about the systems and provide suggestions for the improvement of EVM. All participants showed a preference for EVM as a potential tool to perform exercises in the engineering graphics course.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Virtual Reality Applications and Impacts · Augmented Reality Applications · Mechanics and Biomechanics Studies
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Departamento de Estructuras, Construcción y Expresión Gráfica, Campus Muralla del Mar, Universidad Politécnica de Cartagena, C/Doctor Fleming s/n, 30202 Cartagena, Spain
I3B, Universitat Politècnica de València, Camino de Vera s/n, 46022 Valencia, Spain
References (51)
Show source-provided references
1. Butterworth, J., Davidson, A., Hench, S., and Olano, M.T. (April, January 29). 3DM: A three dimensional modeler using a head-mounted display. Proceedings of the 1992 Symposium on Interactive 3D Graphics—SI3D ’92, Cambridge, MA, USA.10.1145/147156.147182 ↗
2. Holloway, R., and Lastra, A. (1993). Virtual Environments: A Survey of the Technology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
3. HoloSketch: A Virtual Reality sketching / animation Tool10.1145/210079.210087 ↗
4. James, P. (2021, November 26). The Oculus Rift DK2, In-Depth Review and DK1 Comparison. Available online: https://www.roadtovr.com/oculus-rift-dk2-review-dk1-comparison-vr-headset.
5. A survey of immersive systems for shape manipulation10.14733/cadaps.2019.1146-1157 ↗
6. (2021, November 26). Open Cascade Home Page. Available online: https://dev.opencascade.org.
7. (2021, November 26). ACIS Home Page. Available online: https://www.spatial.com/products/3d-acis-modeling.
8. A VR-CAD data model for immersive design
9. (2021, November 26). Dassault Systèmes CATIA Home Page. Available online: https://www.3ds.com/products-services/catia.
10. Exploration and evaluation of CAD modeling in virtual reality10.1080/16864360.2018.1462570 ↗
11. (2021, November 26). Autodesk Fusion 360 Home Page. Available online: https://www.autodesk.com/products/fusion-360/overview.
12. (2021, November 26). Autodesk Stingray Home Page. Available online: https://www.autodesk.com/products/stingray/overview.
13. Machuca, M.D.B., Asente, P., Stuerzlinger, W., Lu, J., and Kim, B. (2018, January 13–14). Multiplanes: Assisted freehand VR sketching. Proceedings of the Symposium on Spatial User Interaction, Berlin, Germany.10.1145/3267782.3267786 ↗
14. Machuca, M.D.B., Stuerzlinger, W., and Asente, P. (2019, January 12–15). Smart3DGuides: Making unconstrained immersive 3D drawing more accurate. Proceedings of the 25th ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology, Parramatta, NSW, Australia.10.1145/3359996.3364254 ↗
15. Drey, T., Gugenheimer, J., Karlbauer, J., Milo, M., and Rukzio, E. (2020, January 25–30). VRSketchIn: Exploring the design space of pen and tablet interaction for 3D sketching in Virtual Reality. Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Honolulu, HI, USA.10.1145/3313831.3376628 ↗
16. (2021, November 26). Gravity Sketch Home Page. Available online: https://www.gravitysketch.com.
17. (2021, November 26). Tilt Brush Home Page. Available online: https://www.tiltbrush.com.
18. (2021, November 26). Master Piece Home Page. Available online: https://masterpiecestudio.com.
19. (2021, November 26). Kodon Home Page. Available online: https://www.kodon.xyz.
20. (2021, November 26). ShapeLab Home Page. Available online: https://shapelabvr.com.
21. (2021, November 26). Adobe Medium Home Page. Available online: https://www.adobe.com/products/medium.html.
22. (2021, November 26). Flyingshapes Home Page. Available online: https://www.flyingshapes.com.
23. Conceptual modeling in product design within Virtual Reality environments10.14733/cadaps.2021.383-398 ↗
24. Immersive 3D sketching tools: Implications for visual thinking and communication10.1016/j.cag.2020.10.007 ↗
25. Experimental evaluation of sketching on surfaces in VR10.1145/3025453.3025474 ↗
26. Vlah, D., Čok, V., and Urbas, U. (2021). VR as a 3D modelling tool in engineering design applications. Appl. Sci., 11.10.3390/app11167570 ↗
27. Sadowski, M.A., and Sorby, S.A. (2015, January 14–17). Engineering graphics concepts: A delphi study. Proceedings of the 122nd ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Seattle, WA, USA.
28. Engineering and engineering technology student outcomes across different programs on an engineering graphics concept inventory
29. Kukk, P., and Heikkinen, S. (2015, January 18–20). Assignments, assessment and feedback in Engineering Graphics courses. Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), Tallinn, Estonia.10.1109/EDUCON.2015.7095955 ↗
30. Martín-Gutiérrez, J., Contero, M., and Alcañiz, M. (2010, January 14–18). Evaluating the usability of an augmented reality based educational application. Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.10.1007/978-3-642-13388-6_34 ↗
31. Camba, J.D., and Contero, M. (2013, January 23–26). Incorporating augmented reality content in Engineering Design Graphics materials. Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), Oklahoma City, OK, USA.
32. Camba, J.D., Otey, J., Contero, M., and Alcañiz, M. (2014). Visualization & Engineering Design Graphics with Augmented Reality, SDC Publications. [2nd ed.].
33. Virtual Blocks: A serious game for spatial ability improvement on mobile devices
34. Improving Visualization Skills in Engineering Education10.1109/MCG.2005.107 ↗
35. (2021, November 26). SketchUp Home Page. Available online: https://www.sketchup.com.
36. (2016, November 28). Unity Home Page. Available online: https://unity.com.
37. (2016, November 28). What Is the Mixed Reality Toolkit. Available online: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/mixed-reality/mrtk-unity/?view=mrtkunity-2021-05.
38. Polygonons have ears10.1080/00029890.1975.11993898 ↗
39. Comparison of radial and panel menus in virtual reality10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2933055 ↗
40. Lediaeva, I., and LaViola, J.J. (2020, January 28–29). Evaluation of body-referenced graphical menus in virtual environments. Proceedings of the Graphics Interface 2020, Ontario, ON, Canada.
41. Brooke, J. (1996). SUS: A “quick and rirty” usability scale. Usability Evaluation in Industry, CRC Press.
42. The System Usability Scale: Past, Present, and Future10.1080/10447318.2018.1455307 ↗
43. Enhancing the learning effect of virtual reality 3D modeling: A new model of learner’s design collaboration and a comparison of its field system usability10.1007/s10209-020-00750-7 ↗
44. Stadler, S., Cornet, H., Mazeas, D., Chardonnet, J.-R., and Frenkler, F. (2020, January 26–29). IMPRO: Immersive prototyping in virtual environments for industrial designers. Proceedings of the Design Society: DESIGN Conference, Cavtat, Croatia.10.1017/dsd.2020.81 ↗
45. Fechter, M., Schleich, B., and Wartzack, S. (2021). Comparative evaluation of WIMP and immersive natural finger interaction: A user study on CAD assembly modeling. Virtual Real.10.1007/s10055-021-00543-0 ↗
46. The effects of virtual reality learning environments on improving the retention, comprehension, and motivation of medical school students10.1007/978-3-030-25629-6_45 ↗
47. Abadia, R., Calvert, J., and Tauseef, S.M. (2018, January 26–28). Salient features of an effective immersive non-collaborative virtual reality learning environment. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Education Technology and Computers, Tokyo, Japan.10.1145/3290511.3290558 ↗
48. Motivational and cognitive benefits of training in immersive virtual reality based on multiple assessments10.1111/jcal.12375 ↗
49. Determining what individual SUS scores mean: Adding an adjective rating scale
50. “Wow-Factors” for boosting business10.1007/978-3-319-42070-7_55 ↗
51. Post-WIMP user interfaces10.1145/253671.253708 ↗