8/12/2019 63644207

1/11

Using Virtual Instruments toTeach Surveying Courses: Application and Assessment

HUI-LUNG KUO, 1 SHIH-CHUNG KANG, 2 CHO-CHIEN LU, 2 SHANG-HSIEH HSIEH, 2

YONG-HUANG LIN 3

1 Department of Construction Engineering, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taipei, Taiwan

2 Department of Civil Engineering, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan

3 Department of Construction Engineering, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taipei, Taiwan

Received 29 August 2007; accepted 5 October 2008

ABSTRACT: This paper presents a feasibility study of using a virtual survey instrument, SimuSurvey, forsurveyor training. SimuSurvey was developed for visualizing and simulating surveying scenarios in a computer-generated virtual environment. In this research, we studied the feasibility of introducing the use of SimuSurvey inregular surveyor training courses. Both quantitative and qualitative evaluation methods were used. Thequantitative evaluation method included soliciting responses to a questionnaire from 323 students from fourdepartments in three different schools; and testing 205 students with an in-class quiz that followed a 25-mintraining session on SimuSurvey. The purpose of the questionnaire was to understand the attitudes of studentstoward using virtual surveying instruments in a training course. The results show that 91% of the students believethat using virtual surveying instruments in training will benet their learning experience. The results from the in-class quiz indicate that the employment of SimuSurvey can enhance learning outcomes of the students, withapproximately two-thirds of participating students being able to answer follow-up questions correctly. Thequalitative analysis was obtained from interviewing ve experienced instructors of different backgrounds. Theywere generally optimistic to the idea of including SimuSurvey in regular surveyor training. 2009 WileyPeriodicals, Inc. Comput Appl Eng Educ 19: 411 420, 2011; View this article online at wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ cae; DOI 10.1002/cae.20291

Keywords: virtual surveying instrument; survey; virtual reality; engineering education

INTRODUCTION

The main purpose of a surveying training course, especially theeld training section, is to help novice surveyors become familiarwith surveying instruments. However, to manipulate a surveyinstrument requires a clear understanding of the spatial relation-ship between the instrument and the target objects. A surveyingtask involves many imagined lines and other abstract concepts,such as zenith angle [1], azimuth angle and line of collimination.Instructors often find difficulty in providing clear explanations tonovice surveyors.

Traditionally, instructors teach a surveying course byfollowing three steps: (1) explain the theoretical backgroundeither by using an example from the course notes, or byillustrations on a chalkboard; (2) demonstrate the manipulation of

using a real instrument; and (3) ask the students to practice ingroups on the instruments. This three-step procedure has severaldrawbacks. First, many surveying instruments are requiredbecause each group of students needs at least one instrument onwhich to practice. The expense of purchasing and maintaining theinstruments can be very high. Second, the effectiveness of thelesson is often inuenced by the weather, location and time of day. Third, because many operations involve dedicated actions,instructors often face the difculty of clearly demonstrating everydetailed step to every student in the eld.

In order to solve these problems, many instructors haveintroduced electronic teaching aids in their classes. For example,Bai [2] used videos to demonstrate survey procedures. Yeh [3,4]employed virtual reality technologies to simulate the environmentfor surveying. Currently, SimuSurvey is being developed by Luet al. [5] and Shiul et al. [6]. It is a virtual tool that allows the userto simulate survey instrumentation on computers. Recently, theuse of virtual tools have also been found in many otherengineering courses. For example, Haque [7] introduced web-

Correspondence to S.-C. Kang (sckang@ntu.edu.tw).2009 Wiley Periodicals Inc.

411

8/12/2019 63644207

2/11

based visualization techniques in a structural design course andfound that the virtual tool significantly enhanced studentsunderstanding about the flexural and shear behavior of reinforcedconcrete beams. Peeyush et al. [8] developed a web-based virtuallab to facilitate students learning processes, especially onunderstanding the behavior of elements under different forces.Timothy and Richard [9] employed interactive software to

Mechanics and Material courses in which students benefitedfrom real-time feedback from the virtual tool. Other examples of using virtual tools have also been published by Marias et al. [10],Eckhoff et al. [11], Kukreti et al. [12], Timothy and Richard [9],and Timothy et al. [13].The previous investigators generally havepositive attitude toward the introduction of virtual tools incomplicated and abstract engineering courses.

COMPARISON BETWEEN TRADITIONAL ANDELECTRONIC TEACHING AIDS

Traditionally, surveying educators utilized course notes andsurveying instruments in classes to help students effectivelyunderstand the surveying concepts and master the skills for

manipulating the instrument. The course notes include themanipulation procedures for the instruments and illustrationsand photographs to demonstrate overall surveying tasks and thedetailed operations respectively. The instructors usually explainthe course notes and ask students to follow the procedure whenpracticing manipulating the survey instrument. Because of safetyand convenience considerations, most of the instrument practiceusually take place near the classroom.

Many instructors start using electronic teaching aids toenhance the teaching processes. We selected three majorelectronic teaching aids and compared them with the traditionalteaching methods described above. The three electronic teachingaids are (1) the demonstration videos produced by Bai [2], asurveying educator with more than 30 years of teachingexperience, (2) a virtual reality surveying environment developedby Yeh [3,4], and (3) a virtual surveying instrument, SimuSurvey,developed by Lu et al. [5]. From the interview of five experiencedinstructors, we summarized the following ten features of the toolsthat are important in teaching a surveying class.

1. Learning feedback: Whether the teaching aid helpsinstructors nd individual learning problems of thestudents during the teaching process.

2. Presentation of abstract concept: Whether the teachingaid effectively assists instructors to explain the abstractconcepts.

3. Support in-class demonstration: Whether the teaching aidcan support instructors to demonstrate the surveyingprocedures clearly.

4. Measurement reading: Whether the teaching aid helps thetraining of correctly reading measurements.

5. Detailed manipulation: Whether the teaching aid pro-vides a good training environment, in which students can

obtain experience similar to what they would obtain byusing real instruments.

6. Weather resistance: Whether this teaching aid remove theinuence of weather.

7. Repetitiveness: Whether this teaching aid allows studentsto view and practice the surveying procedures repeatedly.

8. Accessibility: Whether students can access and use theteaching aid after the class.

9. Virtual instrument: Whether the teaching aid is built in avirtual environment and can be reproduced easily andwith relatively low cost.

10. Owning cost: The cost for obtaining, maintaining,insuring and managing the teaching aid.

The comparison result is summarized in Table 1. From thecomparison listed in Table 1, we can see that the virtualinstrument has advantages in most of the items.

SIMUSURVEY AS TEACHING AID

This research targeted SimuSurvey to investigate the feasibility of introducing virtual instruments in regular survey courses.

SimuSurvey was developed to support teaching activities insurveying courses. Three major features were included in thesoftware: (1) a virtual survey instrument and correspondinginterface allowing users to manipulate the virtual instrument; and(2) a exible simulation environment which allows instructors todesign various teaching activities that satisfy the needs of the

survey training, and (3) a learning behavior recorder to record theoperation details of students. The following paragraphs willexplain the virtual survey instrument and teaching-supportfunctions.

Virtual Survey Instrument

SimuSurvey includes a virtual survey instrument modeled by asimplied geometric form of a real survey instrument. Thisvirtual instrument is treated as an articulated mechanism, inwhich a series of eleven rigid bodies are connected by joints. Therigid bodies are modeled by a combination of rectangular cubes,

Table 1 Features Comparison Between Teaching Aids

Criteria

Teaching media

Text book and real instrument Video Virtual reali ty Virtual instrument

Learning feedback No No Good Very goodPresentation of abstract concept No No Good Very goodSupport for instructors demonstration No Good Good Very goodMeasurement reading Very good No No GoodDetailed manipulation Very good No No GoodWeather resistance No Fair Good Very goodRepetitiveness No Fair Good Very goodAccessibility No Good Good GoodVirtual manipulation No No No YesOwning cost High Medium Low Low

412 KUO ET AL.

8/12/2019 63644207

3/11

cylinders or cones, using corresponding subroutines of theOpenGL graphics library; one of the most popular graphiclibraries in computer graphics applications.

In order to simulate the motion of the survey instrumentprecisely, a mathematical model was developed to describe thegeometrical relationship between the components (i.e., rigidbodies) whilst the survey instrument is in operation. Developers

of SimuSurvey therefore dened eleven reference coordinatesystems, one for each rigid body. These allow the model todescribe mathematically the motions of the survey instrument bycalculating relative linear and angular movements between thereferenced coordinate systems in a computer program.

The graphical user interface (GUI) provided in SimuSurveyallows the user to manipulate the virtual instrument withprecision. As shown in Figure 1, the manipulation functions aregrouped into six categories and represented by six tabs. Amongthem, the control and tripod tabs contain all the functionsnecessary for manipulating thevirtual survey instrument. Figure 1shows the GUI in the control tab. Users can use a computer mouseto control the vertical motion of the telescope, horizontal motionof the telescope, orientation of the telescope, and leg lengths of the tripod. While users manipulate the virtual instrument by usingthis GUI, SimuSurvey actually changes the variables in theaforementioned mathematical model and then renders it. Theusers therefore see the correct motions of the virtual instrument.

Simulation Environment

SimuSurvey provides functions for users to customize varioussimulation environments for performing different surveyingtasks. In general, because simulation environments are oncomputers, users are often confused by the rendered three-dimensional scenes, especially when they are trying to performcomplex surveying tasks. To facilitate the three-dimensionalnavigation, SimuSurvey provides a view controller to allow usersto change the viewpoint of the scene. User may select the top

view, front view, right view, or perspective view anytime duringoperation. Since the surveying tasks can be easily shown indifferent views, this function can also assist instructors indemonstrating examples and explaining surveying concepts moreclearly.

SimuSurvey also supports the training of two of the mostimportant surveying skills: aiming toward a target and readingthrough the telescopic eyepiece. It provides a scope view windowthat visualizes what a user will see when operating an actualsurvey instrument. Figure 2a shows a snapshot of the scope view

window in which users are able to zoom in and out on the scopeview by adjusting the telescope focus value on the virtualinstrument. In order to better visualize the horizontal and verticalalignment angles of the virtual instrument, two circles named V-circle and H-circle, are shown on the window for displaying thevalues of the vertical and horizontal angles respectively.Figure 2b,c shows the scene visualization top view andperspective view respectively. The top view provides an overviewof the surveying scene. It can help the students realize thegeometrical relationship between the instrument and the survey-ing targets. Instructors may also nd the top view scene usefulwhen designing survey activities because this is similar to theapproach currently taken by most instructors. The perspectiveview, as shown in Figure 2c, presents realistic visualizations of surveying scenes that help students gain practical skills visuallyin the virtual world.

Learning Behavior Recorder

Traditionally, the instructor of surveying courses assigns traineesa surveying task, and then examines whether or not they havesuccessfully completed this task. However, this method onlyallows the instructor to check whether the nal state of theinstrument is presenting a correct answer. Should the surveyingresult be incorrect, instructors have few clues to nd when orwhere the task was carried out incorrectly. Therefore, in

SimuSurvey, a function that records the history of the usersperformed operations was provided.

Figure 3a shows the interface of the Learning BehaviorRecorder. This interface allows users to record and playback operations performed on the virtual instrument. Instead of recording the animation frame by frame, SimuSurvey parameter-izes the operations and stores the data on the computers harddisk. In this way, the required storage space is signicantlyreduced. While users replay the operation, SimuSurvey will readthe time history of the parameters, as shown in Figure 3b, decode

Figure 1 The interface for controlling the virtual instrument.

Figure 2 Snapshots of SimuSurvey: (a) scope view, (b) top view, (c)perspective view.

Figure 3 Learning behavior record in SimuSurvey: (a) user interfaceand (b) time history of the parameters.

USING VIRTUAL INSTRUMENTS 413

8/12/2019 63644207

4/11

them and generate the animation in real time. This functionallows the instructor to review the details of each traineesoperations and locate when and where they went wrong. Studentscan also use this function to review standard procedures andpractice them for reinforcement.

RESEARCH SCOPE AND METHODS

Although virtual instruments can be ideal tools for use insurveying courses, the jury is still out on the result of introducingthis new tool into classrooms. In this research, we are particularlyinterested in the following three problems: (1) the studentsattitudes toward the novel learning tool; (2) the students learningperformance when a virtual instrument is introduced to teach anew concept; and (3) the instructors opinions on using a virtualinstrument in a real survey class.

We applied both qualitative and quantitative researchmethods to investigate these three issues. We developed aquestionnaire survey to identify students attitudes toward thenew tool both before and after using it. We also designed ateaching session, in which SimuSurvey was applied to teachstudents a survey topic similar to the one taught in traditionalsurveying classes. A follow-up test was conducted immediatelyafter the teaching session to assess students learning perform-ance. To investigate the instructors opinions on the application of the virtual survey instrument in a real class, we interviewedsurveying instructors who have different teaching backgrounds,seniority, and gender and summarized the common pointsobtained from the interviews. The following sections explainthe details of the research methodology.

SURVEY OF STUDENTS ATTITUDE

Questionnaire Design

The questionnaire was designed to gain an understanding of students attitudes toward using the virtual surveying instrumentin the surveying class. The survey subjects were expected toanswer all the questions within 20 min by themselves in anindoor environment. The 79 questions were separated into threesections.

The rst section had 12 questions designed to understand thebackground of the students, including gender, age, department,year of studies and experiences in survey-related courses. Wewanted to see the distribution of the students background, andalso would like to build good fundamentals for performingstatistical analysis.

The second section of the questionnaire had 37 questionsthat focused on investigating students learning attitudes toward asurveying training course (without the involvement of virtualinstruments). We particularly surveyed three issues: (1) theaverage time students spend on learning the skills required tooperate the surveying instrument once leaving the classroom; (2)the degree of interest students have in learning how to operate thesurveying instrument; and (3) the main challenge students face inlearning how to operate the surveying instrument.

The third part of the questionnaire had 30 questions. Theywere designed to identify students attitudes toward computer-based training in a surveying course. The questions in this partincluded three sets. The rst set of questions aimed to nd the

expected time for a student to spend in a surveying courselearning to use a virtual surveying instrument after class. Thesecond set of questions aimed to nd the expected effectiveness of learning by using virtual instruments. The third set of questionsaimed to nd the priority considerations during course selection.

Questionnaire Delivery Because we would like to compare the students attitude beforeand after the use of the virtual instrument, the surveyquestionnaires were delivered in two stages, a pre-survey and apost-survey. The pre-survey focused on students who had noexperience with using a virtual surveying instrument. Wesurveyed 323 students, selected from two vocational high schoolsand one college (three different schools and four differentdepartments). We sampled 208 students from the same educationinstitutes for the post-survey. The post-survey stage focused onthe students who had previously used SimuSurvey. To thispurpose, we performed a 3-h SimuSurvey session before the post-survey. The rst hour was a tutorial for SimuSurvey. In thefollowing 2 h, students worked on computers (one computer for

each student) to practice examples which helped them gainhands-on experience on the virtual survey instrument. The post-survey was conducted after the 3-h session.

Questionnaire Results

We used both descriptive and inferential statistical methods[14,15] to analyze the survey (531 surveys in total). Thedescriptive statistical methods were used to summarize the datacollected from the surveys and the inferential statistical methodswere used to draw the conclusions and generalize the resultsobtained from the surveys to the population.

The results from descriptive survey are summarized in thefollowing eight points:

1. The backgrounds of the students are diverse and thedistribution is similar between pre-survey section and post-survey section. In the pre-survey, 68% of the students aremale and 32% are female. Eighty ve percentage of thestudents major in architecture and the other 15% of thestudents major in construction. In the post-survey, 78% of the students are male and 22% are female. Seventy threepercentage of the students major in architecture and theother 27% of the students major in construction.

2. Students experiences in taking surveying courses aremixed and the grades in these courses are varied. In thepre-survey, 60% of the students have taken a basicsurveying course. Their grades are: 53% of the studentsobtained A, 20% obtained B, 15% obtained C, and theremaining 12% failed. In the post-survey, because weconducted the survey at the end of the survey course, all of the students have taken a basic surveying course. Theirgrades are: 60% of the students obtained A, 18% obtainedB, 14% obtained C, and the remaining 8% failed.

3. The time students are willing to spend on learningsurveying skills with real instruments after class aredistributed as follows: 18% of the students are willing tospend less than 1 h per week, 57% are willing to spend1 10 h per week, and 25% are willing to spend more than10 h per week.

414 KUO ET AL.

8/12/2019 63644207

5/11

4. The degrees of interest the students have in learning how tooperate the surveying machine is similar between pre-survey and post-survey. Both survey results slightly tendtoward the positive. In the pre-survey, students rate theirattitude as slightly positive (averaging 2.85 out of 4 with astandard deviation is 0.84) in the 13 questions that relatedto students attitude toward the survey class. In the post-

survey, students also rate their attitude as slightly positive(average 2.69 out of 4 and standard deviation is 0.82).

5. Using the samples in the pre-survey and post-surveysection, we summarized that the ve main challenges thatprevented students from learning the instrument operationsare, in order of signicance: (1) afraid of making mistakesor breaking the instruments (average 3.11 out of 4 with astandard deviation of 0.81); (2) cannot practice with theinstrument after the class (average 2.95 out of the 4 with astandard deviation of 0.74); (3) the teaching speed is toofast to master the operation skills (average 2.84 out of 4with a standard deviation of 0.78); (4) lack of learning aidsbefore using the complex instrument (average 2.83 out of 4with a standard deviation of 0.80); and (5) the uncomfort-able outdoor and weather conditions (average 2.81 out of 4with a standard deviation of 0.78).

6. Under the assumption that the virtual instrument can bedownloaded for practicing on personal computers, thetimes students are willing to spend on learning thesurveying skills after class are distributed as follows:21% of the students are willing to spend less than 1 h perweek, 54% are willing to spend 1 10 h per week and 25%are willing to spend more than 10 h per week.

7. In the pre-survey, although they have no experience withusing a virtual surveying tool, 39% of students stronglyagreed that the virtual instrument is helpful for theirlearning; 52% agreed with the argument; 7% disagreed;and 2% strongly disagreed with the argument. In the post-survey, students had experienced using the virtual survey-

ing tool; 35% of them strongly agreed that the virtualinstrument is helpful for their learning; 56% agreed withthe argument; 7% disagreed; and 2% strongly disagreedwith the argument.

8. The rst three considerations of taking surveying coursesare: (1) passing the course (average 3.22 out of 4 with astandard deviation of 0.85); (2) the score of the course(average 3.15 out of 4 with a standard deviation of 0.81); and (3) the availability of electronic learningmaterial (average 3.10 out of 4 with a standard deviationof 0.82).

We employed inferential statistical methods on the surveyresults to study the relationship between the students backgroundand their attitudes. The following conclusions were drawn:

1. The reliability of the questionnaire is high (Cronbachsa 0.74 0.88).

2. By applying a t -test [14,15], we found that gender has asignificant influence toward the preference of surveyingcourses before using SimuSurvey ( P 0.004) but aninsignificant influence after using SimuSurvey ( P 0.68).

3. We also found that both male and female students hadpositive attitudes toward using the virtual surveyinginstrument in the survey class ( P 0.81 in the pre-surveys,P 0.96 in the post-surveys).

4. By applying a one-way ANOVA [14,15], we found that it isinsignificant that students who had a higher GPA in asurveying course also had a more positive attitude towardusing SimuSurvey in both pre-survey and post-survey(P 0.76 in the pre-surveys, P 0.07 in post-surveys).

5. Using a t -test, we found that students who have experiencewith e-learning do not show a more positive attitude

toward SimuSurvey ( P 0.55 in the pre-surveys, P 0.26in the post-surveys).

6. Using correlation-checking methods [14,15], we foundthat students who are interested in the surveying courseare more likely to spend more time practicing theoperational skills after class ( r 0.30 in the pre-surveysand r 0.11 in the post-surveys). The details can be foundin Table 2.

STUDENTS LEARNING PERFORMANCE

To investigate the effect of introducing virtual instruments onstudents learning performance, we observed 205 students in sixregular surveying classes in which the instructors used SimuSur-vey. Two classes (77 students) were in the department of architecture in Hwa Hsia Institute of Technology, two classes (55students) were in the department of construction in Hwa HsiaInstitute of Technology, one class (38 students) was in thedepartment of architecture in JuiFang Industrial Vocational HighSchool, and the other one (38 students) was in the department of architecture technology in Daan Industrial Vocational HighSchool. To study student performance, we designed a trainingsession and a follow-up test. The following paragraphs introducethe details.

Training Session

In these classes, SimuSurvey was used to explain the measuringprocess for obtaining the included angle made by two imaginedlines connected from two measurement poles to the location of the surveying instrument. All classes were held in a classroomequipped with computers that had the SimuSurvey softwareinstalled. The total instruction time was 25 min, consisting of a10-min introduction to SimuSurvey and 15 min of practice. Themajor focus of the training session was to familiarize studentswith operating the virtual instrument.

Follow-Up Quiz

After the class, a 25-min follow-up quiz was conducted to assessthe students learning results. It consisted of a 5-min problemexplanation and 20 min for students to manipulate the virtualsurveying instrument and answer the problem. This procedurefollows the procedure in the ofcial surveyor certication test inTaiwan.

The quiz included four similar problems to test whether thestudents had learned how to operate the virtual instrument to ndthe included angles. One of the example problems in the quiz isshown in Figure 4. Given the coordinates of the four poles(numbered 1 4) and the coordinate of the instrument (point A),students needed to nd the included angle between the poles, thatis, 1A2, 2A3, and 3A4. Since a survey instrument can onlymeasure the azimuth angle (the angle measured from exact north)

USING VIRTUAL INSTRUMENTS 415

8/12/2019 63644207

6/11

of the poles, that is, j A1, j A2, j A3, j A4, students needed toknow how to calculate the included angle from azimuth angles.

Learning Results

From the 205 attempts of the quiz, 126 students (61%) obtainedfull marks (answered all four questions correctly), 12 students(6%) obtained 75 marks (answered three questions correctly), 8students (4%) obtained 50 marks (answered two questionscorrectly), 3 students (1%) obtained 25 marks (answered onequestion correctly), and 59 students (28%) obtained zero marks(no correct answers). The results are shown in Figure 5. Because

Table 2 The Results of the Questionnaire Survey

Topics

Results

ExplanationPre-survey Post-survey

(1) Using Cronbachs to measure the reliability

1 0.88;2 0.88

1 0.79;2 0.74

If 0.6 means thereliability is well

(2) The background of the

students

Gender-specic (male 68%,

female 32%); Age (85%18 years old; 15% 21 yearsold); Department (85%

Department of Architecture;15% Department of

Construction Engineering)

Gender-specic (male 78%,

female 22%); Age (74%18 years old; 26% 21 yearsold); Department (73%

Department of Architecture;27% Department of

Construction Engineering)

The result is

representative

(3) Using t -test to analyzewhether the gender influencesthe learning attitudes towardsurveying education

P 0.004; xmale 2 : 9; x female 2 : 8

P 0.68; xmale 2: 6; x female 2: 6

Pre-survey: P < 0.05significant;post-survey:P 0.05insignificant

(4) Using t -test to analyzewhether the gender influencesthe attitude toward theintroduction to virtualsurveying instrument

P 0.81; xmale 2 : 8; x female 2 : 9

P 0.96; xmale 2: 9; x female 2: 9

P 0.05;insignificant; x2:positive attitudes

(5) Using the one way ANOVAto nd the correlation betweenscore and using the virtualsurveying instrument insurveying learning

P 0.76; x 2 : 8

P 0.07; x 2 : 9

P 0.05;insignificant; x2:positive attitudes

(6) Using t -test to analyzewhether students who havee-learning experience find iteasier to accept the use of avirtual surveying instrument

P 0.55; xoption 2: 8; xNooption 2: 8

P 0.26; xoption 2 : 9; xNooption 2: 9

P 0.05; the resultis insignificant

(7) To nd the correlationbetween intention to spendmore time on surveyinglearning after the classroomlessons and interest in usinga virtual surveying instrument

R 0.3 R 0.11 R > 0; the resultappears to have apositive correlation

(8) Whether using the virtualsurveying instrument insurveying training increasesstudents incentive to take thesurveying course

x 3

:0

x 3

:0

x2; positive attitudes

(9) How helpful is it using thevirtual surveying instrumentin surveying training?

Very unhelpful 2%;unhelpful 7%; helpful52%; very helpful 39%

Very unhelpful 2%; fewunhelpful 7%; helpful55%; very helpful 36%

Point ratings: 4, strongly agree; 3, agree; 2, disagree; 1, strongly disagree.

Figure 4 Example problem for finding included angle.

416 KUO ET AL.

8/12/2019 63644207

7/11

the four questions werevery similar, the score graph appears as anMshape, concentrating on both full score and zero. This meansthose students who learned the measurement skills are capableof answering all four questions correctly. Otherwise, they maynot answer any of the questions. From the result, we nd thatapproximately two-thirds of the students fully understood theprocedure for nding the included angle using the virtualsurveying instrument.

Based on the instructors experiences, this learning result issignicantly better than those obtained using traditional teachingmethods. Using the virtual instrument in the training sessioncan potentially help two-thirds of students in a class understandthe topic well, while the traditional method potentially only helpsless than one-third of the students in the class understand thetopic from the experiences of the instructors. Furthermore, theinstruction time was only 1 h and without disturbances of outdoorweather conditions or the hassle of equipment setup. From theinstructors experience, using traditional teaching method mayneed approximately 9 h (three sessions) to introduce this topic. Inthe 9 h, students need to setup and collect the instruments for eachsession, take turns to practice to familiarize the skills of anglemeasurement, and nally take turns to take in-class tests. Hence,

the use of the virtual surveying instrument for surveyor training issignicantly more efcient and effective.

INSTRUCTORS OPINIONS

Interview Subjects

We interviewed ve experienced instructors from the threedifferent schools to obtain their opinions on using virtualinstruments in regular surveying courses. The backgrounds of these ve interviewees are listed in Table 3. The teachingexperience of the interviewees ranged from 4 to 12 years. Three

of them are male and two of them are female. One intervieweeteaches in a department of construction engineering while theothers teach in a department of architecture.

Interview Process

During each interview, we rst overviewed the concept of thevirtual instrument, and then demonstrated the major functions of SimuSurvey. The interviewees were encouraged to ask questionsand try out the functions of SimuSurvey. Once the intervieweesbecame familiar with how to apply this tool in the surveyingcourse, we asked them to compare the differences between usingthe virtual instrument as a teaching aid and the traditionalteaching method. We also asked them to provide their thoughtsfor how to integrate the innovative tool with existing educationmethods to improve students learning performances.

Summary of the Interviews

During the interviews, all ve instructors, even with their verydifferent backgrounds, have generally positive attitudes toward

the use of the virtual instrument. Their comments are summarizedas follows:

* SimuSurvey provides for better interaction betweeninstructors and students when compared with the existingoutdoor survey class in related wider areas. The instructorsare able to observe and nd each students learningproblems by viewing the students monitor and providingfeedback immediately.

* SimuSurvey signicantly reduces the difculty of explain-ing complicated concepts, especially those involving thegeometrical relationship between the survey targets in thescene. The virtual surveying instrument provides high-delity visualizations for instructors to illustrate surveytasks on the computer screen, which greatly benets theexplanation processes.

* SimuSurvey is particularly useful for demonstrating themanipulation of the survey instrument, which involvessynchronizing the operation of the instrument with theviews obtained from the telescope. Because the telescopecan only be viewed by the operator, instructors often nd itdifcult to clearly demonstrate operations using a realinstrument to up to fty students in a surveying class.

* The virtual surveying instrument provides functions thatcan record the operations performed by the students. Bycomparing this with the standard procedure, students areable to discover their individual problems with operating

Figure 5 Quiz scores and distribution.

Table 3 Backgrounds of the Interviewees

School Department Teaching seniority Teaching courses Gender

Taipei Municipal Da-AnVocational High School

Archit ecture 4 years Engineer ing surveying pract ice,computer aided drawing

Male

Hwa Hsia Insti tute of Technology ConstructionEngineering

8 years Surveying, engineeringsurveying practice

Male

National Jui-Fang IndustrialVocational High School

Archit ecture 12 years Engineer ing surveying, advanceengineering surveying

Male

Hwa Hsia Insti tute of Technology Archit ecture 12 years Engineer ing surveying pract ice,computer aided drawing

Female

National Jui-Fang IndustrialVocational High School

Archit ecture 12 years Engineer ing surveying pract ice,computer aided drawing

Female

USING VIRTUAL INSTRUMENTS 417

8/12/2019 63644207

8/11

the instrument and can practice until they are familiar withthe instrument.

* The virtual surveying instrument is unaffected by weatheror light conditions. Using physical instruments, instructorsneed to cancel or reschedule the class on rainy days.Moreover, some classes, such as the ones in continuingeducation, are preferably scheduled to run at night-time.

SimuSurvey increases the exibility of course coordinationfor these special situations.

* The cost of a virtual instrument is relatively low. With asufcient number of computers, students can practice theiroperation skills on individual virtual instruments. If theyhave personal computers, they can even download thesoftware and practice surveying skills after class. Comparedwith costly survey instruments and annual maintenancecontracts, the virtual instrument is an economical andeffective solution for smaller teaching institutes.

Although having advantages in many aspects, SimuSurveystill needs to be improved to better the support actual surveyoreducation. These experienced instructors pointed out theadditional functions that need to be added. They are listed asfollows:

* Because students need to master the skill of reading themeasurement data correctly in the class, it is critical tovisualize the scales of the measurement pole in SimuSurvey.

It will help students familiarize themselves with theoperating-and-reading procedure to obtain the correct resultefciently.

* It would be benecial to develop an interface to importrealistic three-dimensional terrain. Although SimuSurveyprovides an interface to plan the virtual scene on the planview, it only allows users to create a two-dimensional

scenario, without the height dimension in the terrain. If three-dimensional terrain is added to the system, instructorsare able to create various scenarios which students are likelyto face while performing surveying tasks in practice.

During the interview, the interviewees also compared surveytraining with the virtual instrument to one with real instruments.We organized the results in the comparison table in Table 4.

LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE STUDY

SimuSurvey is a virtual surveying instrument that can support thetraining of surveyors. To study the feasibility of introducing thisvirtual tool into a regular surveying course, we developed aquestionnaire to nd out students attitudes toward the virtualsurveying instrument. We also designed a 25-min training sessionand conducted a follow-up quiz to assess students learningoutcomes. Also, ve face-to-face interviews were carried out,with interviewees being experienced surveying instructors but of

Table 4 Comparison Between Traditional Surveying Training and Survey Training With Virtual Instrument

Compared dimensions Survey t raining with a virtual instrument Survey t raining without a virtual instrument

Interact ive and feedback The instructors are able to observeand nd individual students learningproblems by viewing the students monitor

In traditional teaching, the chalkboard and slideprovide little functions for interaction andreal-time feedback for students

Visualize the abstract conceptThe virtual surveying instrument

provides a high-delity interface

for instructors to design teachingactivities to address abstractconcept visually

Instructors demonstrate abstract concepts

by sketching on the chalkboard.Sometimes it is very difcult to present

the concept wellClass management Since virtual surveying instrument allow

instructors to demonstrate the surveyingprocess on individual computer screens,students will focus more in the class

It is very difcult for instructors todemonstrate operations using a realinstrument to as many as 50 students

The reading training of themeasurement data

The developed virtual surveyinginstrument allows students to readmeasurement data displayed bycharacter sets easily; but, this methodperhaps does not help students to learnhow to read the measurement data

Students read the measurement data on areal surveying instrument. They mustbe familiar with the procedure forreading the level ruler during training

The detail of the instrumentoperation procedure

The virtual surveying instrumentprovides a simulated environment.

Some details about the instrument

operation are missing

The real surveying instrument providesphysical interface for students to learnthe operation procedures

The inuence of weather conditions The virtual surveying instrumentis unaffected by weather conditions

The real surveying instrument is sensitiveto weather conditions

Tracing learning processes The vir tual surveying instrumentprovides functions that can recordthe operation history for students

The real surveying instrument has acomplicated structure makingit difcult for students to learn theoperational skill or to practice repeatedly

The use-efciency of the instrument The cost for providing a virtualinstrument for each student afterclass is very low

It is almost impossible to provide areal instrument for students to practiceafter the class

The owning cost of the instrument The owning cost of the virtualsurveying instrument is very low

The purchasing and maintenance cost of realsurveying instruments is often expensive

418 KUO ET AL.

8/12/2019 63644207

9/11

different backgrounds. The interviews helped us identify thedifferences between the traditional methods of survey trainingwith the surveying course that integrated the virtual surveyinstrument. The lessons learned are summarized in the followingsix points.

1. From the surveying results, we found that the majority of

the students (91%) have positive attitudes toward usingSimuSurvey and similar electronic teaching aids insurveying classes.

2. The follow-up quiz showed that student learning perform-ance using SimuSurvey is signicantly better than thatwhere traditional teaching aids are used. The reasons forthis improvement can be found in the results of our surveyof students learning attitudes. By introducing SimuSur-vey, students are able to watch the instructors demon-stration clearly during the learning processes and practicethe use of the virtual instruments as many times as needed.

3. Many experienced instructors agreed that SimuSurveyprovides a exible interface to effectively demonstrateabstract concepts related to the manipulation of theinstruments. They also found that SimuSurvey indicateswhen a student has a learning problem on a computerscreen, which allows instructors to adjust the teachingspeed dynamically.

4. SimuSurvey increases the exibility of course coordina-tion. Because the use of virtual instruments is notconstrained by the weather or daylight, instructors mayconduct the classes during rainy days or even at night-time.This can be benecial for scheduling survey classes duringrainy seasons or for students of continuing education.

5. The introduction of SimuSurvey can increase teachingspeed. Because instructors can teach by using SimuSurveyin a computer classroom, students have a longer effectivelearning time. This comes from the time saved inpreparing, setting, and collecting the equipment, which

currently takes approximately 1 h for each tutorial session.6. SimuSurvey allows students to have a personal andportable tool with lower costs. When compared with usingreal instruments, the introduction of SimuSurvey can savemore than two thirds of the total budget. The advantagesfrom the cost saving may greatly benet smaller teachinginstitutes or short training courses, which need only basicsurvey training.

CONCLUSIONS

We have investigated the application of SimuSurvey, a virtualsurveying instrument, to real classroom surveying lessons. Theresults indicate that using a virtual surveying instrument insurveyor training is valuable to both students and instructors.Students, regardless of their experiences on computer-aidededucation tools, have positive attitudes toward the introduction of virtual instruments. They also showed better learning perform-ance when the instructors use SimuSurvey to teach a new topic.From interviews with experienced instructors, the authorsconcluded that using a virtual surveying instrument cansignicantly improve the explanations of the abstract conceptsrequired in surveying classes. The virtual surveying instrumentsnot only allow for class arrangement with greater exibility, butalso solve the problem of the high cost of bulk instrument

purchases and maintenance. The instructors in the investigationalso pointed out the limitations of using the virtual surveyinstruments. Because some features of the physical world aredifcult to reproduce in the virtual world, several important skills,such as reading measurement data or decision-making forsurveying procedures in a three-dimensional environment, cannotbe trained using SimuSurvey, or at least not with the current

version. The instructors may need to develop complementarylearning sessions or add some classes with real instruments tocompensate for these problems.

FUTURE WORK

The authors suggest that more sophisticated course materials thatintegrate virtual surveying instruments with traditional surveyingeducation need to be developed in order to support a wider rangeof teaching activities. We also suggest that the current version of SimuSurvey be expanded by adding different types of surveyinstruments, such as rangender and Global Positioning Systems(GPS). After different types of virtual instruments and relatedmaterials have been established, both instructors and students willbenet from a richer learning environment with greater diversity.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors appreciate the valuable comments from Mr. De-Chang Sun, Mr. Cho-Chien Lu, Mrs. Mei-Wen Liao, and Mrs. Yu-Lien Chang.

REFERENCES

[1] W. G. Crawford, Construction surveying and layout, CreativeConstruction Publishing, Lafayette, IN, 2003.

[2] J. C. Bai, The teaching video of the theodolite settingprocedure National Cheng-Kung University, Taiwan, April, 2007,Available: http://www.geomatics.ncku. edu.tw/lesson-4.php (inChinese).

[3] I. C. Yeh, Virtual reality learning system for surveying practice,National Science Council, Taiwan, Tech. Rep., NSC93 2520-S-216 001, July, 2005 (in Chinese).

[4] I. C. Yeh, Virtual environment for surveying practice, NationalScience Council, Taiwan, Tech. Rep., NSC94 2520-S-216 001,July, 2006 (in Chinese).

[5] C. C. Lu, S. C. Kang, and S. H. Hsieh, SimuSurvey: A Computer-based Simulator for Survey Training, proceedings of the 2007 W78Conference, Maribor, Slovenia, June 26 29, 2007.

[6] R. S. Shiul, C. C. Lu, S. C. Kang, and S. H. Hsieh, Using auser-centered approach to redesign the user interface of acomputer-based surveyor training tool, proceedings of the 2007.ASCE Computing in Civil Engineering conference, Pittsburgh, PA,2007.

[7] M. E. Haque, Web-based visualization techniques for structuraldesign education, Proceedings of the 2002 American Society forEngineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Mon-treal, Quebec, Canada, June 16 19, 2002.

[8] B. Peeyush, A. John, C. Christine, and Z. Alan, Web-based virtualtorsion laboratory, Comput Appl Eng Educ 14 (2006), 1 8.

[9] A. P. Timothy and H. H. Richard, Animated instructional softwarefor mechanics of materials: Implementation and assessment,Comput Appl Eng Educ 14 (2006), 31 43.

[10] M. E. Marias, V. M. Cazared, and E. E. Ramos, A virtual laboratoryfor introductory electrical engineering courses to increase the

USING VIRTUAL INSTRUMENTS 419

8/12/2019 63644207

10/11

student performance, Proceedings of the ASEE/IEEE Frontiers inEducation Conference, October 10 13, 2001.

[11] E. C. Eckhoff, V. M. Eller, S. E. Watkins, and R. H. Hall,Interactive virtual laboratory for experience with a smart bridgetest, Proceedings of the 2002 American Society for EngineeringEducation Annual Conference & Exposition, Montreal, Quebec,Canada, June 16 19, 2002.

[12] A. R. Kukreti, M. Zaman, K. Gramoll, and J. H. Lee, Virtuallaboratory modules for undergraduate strength of materials course,Proceedings of the 2002 American Society for Engineering

Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Montreal, Quebec,Canada, June 16 19, 2002.

[13] A. P. Timothy, H. H. Richard, H. Nancy, and E. F. Ralph,Using games to teach statics calculation procedures: Applicationand assessment, Comput Appl Eng Educ 13 (2005), 222232.

[14] R. P. Robert Understanding, statistics in the behavioral sciences, 7thedition, Thomson, Inc., Taipei, 2005.

[15] E. Babbie, The practice of social research, 10th edition, WadsworthPub Co, Inc., Belmont, CA, 2004.

BIOGRAPHIES

Hui-Lung Kuo is a lecturer in the Departmentof Construction Management at the Hwa HsiaInstitute of Technology. He received a masterdegree from National Taiwan University of Science and Technology in 1997,and currentlyis a PhD Candidate there. He teachesConstruction management, Construction sur-veying and layout, Construction estimate,Reinforced concrete structures design and

Project management.

Shih-Chung (Jessy) Kang is an assistantprofessor in Department of Civil Engineeringat National Taiwan University (NTU). Hereceived PhD degree from department of Civiland Environmental Engineering at StanfordUniversity in 2005. Dr. Kang specializescomputer visualization and human-computerinteraction. He is interested in using theinnovative visualization tool to enhance engi-

neering education. From 2006, Dr. Kang participated in the develop-ment of SimuSurvey, a computer-based training platform forsurveying. From 2008, he and his research team started building avirtual lab for hydraulic experiments. Current, five virtual experi-

ments have been created.

Cho-Chien Lu was born in Chiayi City,Taiwan, in 1978. He received his MS andPhD degrees in department of Civil Engineer-ing at National Taiwan University, in 2002 and2008 respectively. He is currently a teacher inthe Department of Architecture Technique atTaipei Municipal Da-An Vocational HighSchool. His research interests include, CAD,CAI, user-centered design (UCD), Data min-

ing, and their industrial applications. In 2006, he participated in thedevelopment of SimuSurvey, a computer-based training platform forsurveying.

Shang-Hsieh Hsieh obtained his MS and PhDdegrees from the School of Civil and Environ-mental Engineering at Cornell University in1990 and 1993, respectively. From 1993 to1995, Dr. Hsieh worked as a PostdoctoralResearch Associate in the School of CivilEngineering at Purdue University. He returnedto Taiwan and joined NTU in 1995. He is now aprofessor in the Computer-Aided Engineering

Group of Department of Civil Engineering at NTU. Dr. Hsieh has awide range of research interests, which include engineering &construction simulations, engineering information & knowledgemanagement systems, computer-aided instruction in engineeringand parallel/distributed engineering computing.

Yong-Huang Lin is a professor in the Depart-ment of Construction Engineering at theNational Taiwan University of Science andTechnology, and the director of The Construc-tion Safety and Health Center. He received aME degree from Waseda University, Japan in1974. He teaches Project Management, Safetyand Health Management, Construction Man-agement, Quality Management.

420 KUO ET AL.

8/12/2019 63644207

11/11

Copyright of Computer Applications in Engineering Education is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and

its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's

express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.