Toward the Implementation of Augmented Reality Training Charles Randall Mayberry Nova Southeastern University, [email protected]
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Nova Southeastern University NSUWorks CEC Theses and Dissertations College of Engineering and Computing 2013 Toward the Implementation of Augmented Reality Training Charles Randall Mayberry Nova Southeastern University, [email protected] This document is a product of extensive research conducted at the Nova Southeastern University College of Engineering and Computing. For more information on research and degree programs at the NSU College of Engineering and Computing, please click here. Follow this and additional works at: https://nsuworks.nova.edu/gscis_etd Part of the Computer Sciences Commons Share Feedback About This Item NSUWorks Citation Charles Randall Mayberry. 2013. Toward the Implementation of Augmented Reality Training. Doctoral dissertation. Nova Southeastern University. Retrieved from NSUWorks, Graduate School of Computer and Information Sciences. (237) https://nsuworks.nova.edu/gscis_etd/237. This Dissertation is brought to you by the College of Engineering and Computing at NSUWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in CEC Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of NSUWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Toward the Implementation of Augmented Reality Training by Charles R. Mayberry A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Computing Technology in Education Graduate School of Computing and Information Sciences Nova Southeastern University 2013 An Abstract of a Dissertation Submitted to Nova Southeastern University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Toward the Implementation of Augmented Reality Training by Charles R. Mayberry August 2013 The United States Air Force (USAF) trains C-130H Loadmaster students at Little Rock Air Force Base (AFB) through a civilian contract. The Aircrew Training System (ATS) contractor utilizes a Fuselage Trainer (FuT) to provide scenarios for the Loadmaster students to practice loading and unloading a simulated aircraft. The problem was the USAF does not have enough training devices and these devices are not at a high enough fidelity to accomplish many of the aircraft functions to meet the training objectives before flying on the actual aircraft. The ATS has moved the pilot’s initial training into the Weapon System Trainer (WST). The WST has nearly eliminated all the aircraft flights for pilot initial instrument training because the simulator is life-like enough to accomplish the training tasks to qualify the students in the device. The Loadmaster student flights are scheduled based upon the pilot’s flight training, thus forcing the Loadmaster students to utilize some other type of simulator device for their initial training. The goal was to investigate an efficient and effective AR training system to instruct Loadmaster skills before they train on the aircraft. The investigation examined the use of a prototype Helmet Mounted Display (HMD) AR device attached to the Loadmaster’s helmet. Three scenarios provided a basis to evaluate the different aspects of hardware and software needed to utilize an HMD as a Loadmaster training tool. The scenarios tested how the AR device may improve the C-130H Loadmaster training capabilities to learn normal and emergency procedures to students in the FuT. The results show a way to save the government thousands of dollars in fuel cost savings and open the eyes of the training contractor to a new way of training students using AR. Acknowledgments Dealing with military contracts for this dissertation went from a large project to a monumental task taking more time than expected. I would like to thank the many people that were involved in the project, directly or indirectly, with which I would have never finished the paper. First thanks to my advisor, Dr. Trudy Abramson, for sticking with me all these years with encouragement and candid feedback. My committee members, Dr. Helen St. Aubin and Dr. Marti Snyder for sticking with me from the first academic classes that gave me the original ideas for the project to the comments on my idea, proposal and final paper throughout this long ordeal. Thanks to Maj Gen Whitmore, Air Education and Training Command Director of Operations (AETC/A3) for sponsoring the LGTO. His staff understood the importance of the research not only for the AF, but for training using AR across many disciplines. Thanks to Larry Clemons who initiated the funds to get the prototype started and fought to continue the research for the LGTO. You will be missed, passed 12 Jun 13 Thanks to Jim Scotter at Lockheed Martin Global Training and Support for his folks participation in the study and Air Mobility Command Training Division (AMC/A3T) for the use of the C-130 ATS schoolhouse. Thanks to AETC/SAS for providing the support and guidance from their staff as they rotated through their assignments to assemble and collect the surveys. Thanks to MSgt Brandon Stike and TSgt Ben Cashion of the 714 TRS, Loadmaster SMEs, for greeting the participants and briefing them on the AR study. Thanks to Sheila Jaszlics at Pathfinder System Inc. for not only waiting for funding from the AF, but investing many extra hours to ensure the system worked during testing. Thanks to Todd Kohler and Jerry Pritt for pushing the concept to the instructors, setting up the system time after time and helping with the try-outs over the years. Thanks to Terry Warren for working through all the proof readings I asked him to do. And finally to my wife Rhonda for understanding and surviving all the TDYs and the long hours spent behind the computers. Thanks to my children Miranda, Chad and Carson for being there when I couldn’t. Chad we will always miss you, 19 Apr 87 to 22 Dec 06… I am at peace, my soul is free. Table of Contents Abstract iii Acknowledgments iv List of Tables vii List of Figures viii Chapters 1. Introduction 1 Context 1 Problem Statement 3 Goal 5 Research Questions 6 Relevance and Significance 7 Barriers and Issues 7 Scope of the Study (Limitations and Delimitations) 9 Acronyms 10 Definition of Terms 12 Organization of the Study 12 2. Review of the Literature 15 Simulation in Training 15 Learning Characteristics of Simulations 18 Augmented Reality Training 20 Relationship of the Literature to the Study 35 3. Methodology 37 Research Design 37 Instrument Development 47 Data Collection 55 Format for Presenting Results 56 Resources 59 Summary 61 4. Results 63 Overview 63 Volunteer Process 65 Demographics 72 Survey Data 74 Survey Results 89 Interview Data 94 Student and Contractor Instructor Interview Analysis and Results 112 Grade Book Data 118 Flight Instructor Interview and Student Grade Book Analysis and Results 122 Summary 124 5. Conclusions, Implications, Recommendations, and Summary 126 Conclusions 127 Limitations of the Study 139 v Implications 141 Recommendations for Future Studies 141 Summary 143 Appendixes A. Student Engine Start Survey Questions 152 B. Student Airdrop or Combat Offload Survey Questions 154 C. Training Squadron Brief for Participants 156 D. Contractor Instructor Survey Questions 157 E. Student Interview Questions 159 F. Contract Instructor Interview Questions 160 G. Flight Instructor Interview Questions 161 H. University Institutional Review Board Approval 162 I. USAF Institutional Review Board Approval 163 J. AFRL IRB closure for the use of human volunteers 166 K. NSU-IRB Closing Report 167 L. Student Start Engines Survey Calculations 170 M. Student Combat Offload Survey Calculations 172 N. Student Airdrop Survey Calculations 174 O. Contract Instructor Survey Calculations 176 P. Student Engine Start Interview Questions 178 Q. Student Combat Offload Interview Questions 181 R. Student HE Airdrop Interview Questions 184 S. Contractor Instructor Engine Start Interview Questions 187 T. Contractor Instructor FuT Interview Questions 189 U. Flight Instructor Interview Questions 191 V. LED Light and OptiTrack Camera 193 W. Old and New HMDs 194 References 195 vi List of Tables Tables 1. Training Evaluation Methods 38 2. Panel of Experts 47 vii List of Figures Figures 1. Visual diagram of the procedures in a study in which both quantitative and qualitative data were collected at the same time 37 2. Consolidated view of what students liked best about the engine start scenario 75 3. Consolidated view of what students liked least about the engine start scenario 76 4. Consolidated view of what students liked best about the Combat Offload scenario 80 5. Consolidated view of what students liked least about the Combat Offload scenario 81 6. Consolidated view of what students liked best about the Airdrop scenario 84 7. Consolidated view of what students liked least about the Airdrop scenario 85 8. Consolidated view of what the instructors liked best about the AR system 87 9. Consolidated view of what the instructors liked least about the AR system 88 10. Quantitative Process 89 11. Consolidated view of what the students liked best about the engine start scenario 95 12. Consolidated view of what the students liked least about the engine start scenario 96 13. Consolidated view of what the students liked best about the Combat Offload scenario 99 14. Consolidated view of what the students liked least about the Combat Offload scenario 100 15. What other things could we include that would help you out on the flight line 101 16. Consolidated view of what the students liked best and least about the HE airdrop scenario 103 17. Are there other things that you would of like to have trained in the fuselage trainer and classroom that would help you out on the flightline? 104 18. Consolidated view of what the instructors liked best and least about the engine start scenario 106 19. Consolidated view of what the instructors liked best and least about the engine start scenario 109 20. Qualitative Process 112 21. Augmented Reality Student Strengths 118 22. Augmented Reality Student Areas of Improvement 119 23.