Patka, M A; Bugalia, N and Mahalingam, A (2025) Effectiveness of virtual reality in construction quality training: Comparative study. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 151(10): 04025145, ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Although virtual reality (VR) technology has been used for training in various aspects of construction, the evidence of its effectiveness in construction quality training has yet to be examined. The current study develops a novel high-fidelity VR-based defect identification training module using minute details of construction defects to assess participants' learning experience for construction quality-related training vis-à-vis conventional classroom training. Actual quality-related defect data from two construction projects was classified, and selected defects were modeled to create three-dimensional (3D) objects in an interactive VR environment. A robust sample of 121 Indian civil engineering students were recruited and categorized into three cohorts: No Training, Classroom Training, and VR Training. The data from these participants - data from questionnaires on perceptions and conceptual knowledge and scores in an innovative VR-based defect identification testing module - were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test. In a context with no previous empirical examination of VR-based education in construction quality, this study reveals that high-fidelity VR training improves participants' conceptual knowledge of construction defects. However, VR does not show a specific advantage compared to classroom training for conceptual knowledge retention, a finding that is attributable to the similarity in training materials between VR and conventional methods. Based on a robust methodology in the current study, these results amplify a somewhat limited perspective in the literature on the effectiveness of VR-based training and cautions against the potential overestimation of the effectiveness of VR for improvements in conceptual knowledge among study participants. The most significant contributions of this study lie in advancing the VR training literature, of which only a handful of studies have focused on assessing the practical knowledge gained by training recipients. Notably, this study reveals a 32.8% improvement in VR-based practical learning outcomes for the VR cohort compared to the no-training cohort, suggesting that VR could provide hands-on skills for navigating quality-related challenges in the construction industry.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction quality; defect identification; skill development; virtual reality; VR training |
| Index terms: | methodology, classroom, construction project, questionnaire, evidence, construction quality, skills development, virtual reality in construction, virtual reality, comparative study, effectiveness, module, testing, construction industry, learning experience, learning outcome, retention, construction defect |
| Subjects: | research methods, architectural elements, production management, quality assurance, digital engineering, evaluation and assessment methods, construction type, professional practice, performance management, management, personnel development, student development, industry analysis, virtual reality, research design and methodology, data collection methods, learning methods, contract obligations |
| Topics: | Construction Technology, Research Practice, Digital Applications, Design Practice, Human Resources, Engineering Principles, Project Management, Education, Legal Issues, Quality Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here