8
understanding that VR has the potential to improve mine
safety and health training was apparent. Though opinions
about NIOSH as the developer of VR-MRT were not
explicitly solicited—the only direct statement recorded was
“NIOSH is good”—some level of trust in NIOSH can be
inferred by the willingness of the teams to participate in the
demonstration and the overwhelmingly positive responses
to the surveys and interviews. Furthermore, NIOSH has
been working on immersive training for decades, creating
products that offer both the realism and engagement lev-
els that are critical to be effective [1, 13, 20, 23, 49, 26,
28]. However, one participant still did underscore the
need to have effectiveness data specifically for this training.
Researchers plan to address this through effectiveness and
implementation studies that will demonstrate the potential
impact of VR-MRT for mine rescue training as well as its
general effectiveness.
Participants were also predominately positive about the
Relative Advantage of VR-MRT. Participants describe the
benefits in terms of logistics, cost savings, content, realism,
safety, appeal, and the ability to assess trainees. Many of the
participants talked about how VR training is more efficient,
allowing them to complete more repetitions and the pos-
sibility to do other training in the time saved. When com-
pared to the field-based scenarios, there is minimal set-up
time between problems VR-MRT allows trainers to load a
new scenario in seconds as opposed to the 30+ minutes it
would take to reset a field. They also noted that the breadth
and depth of the content could cover “one million things,”
making it better than the fixed content of videos or presen-
tations typically used during new miner or annual refresher
training (30 C.F.R. Part 48/46). Almost all the participants
also mentioned the realism of VR-MRT as a major ben-
efit. One person specifically mentioned that VR is better
because it “allows trainees to see actions make a difference.”
Several other participants also mentioned that the ability to
“experience” things that would be dangerous to do or see in
real life is important. This not only reduces risk to trainees,
but also increases the amount of practice they receive with
dangerous tasks, which the literature has shown improves
both learning and retention [50]. Another point that par-
ticipants brought up was the appeal of VR as a medium
that is good for a new generation of students that would
rather be physically doing something as opposed to sitting
in a classroom. NIOSH researchers are acting upon this
sentiment in their university implementation pilot, where
VR-MRT is being used in both classroom and outreach
events. Lastly, participants acknowledged the advantage of
being able to objectively assess trainees. Again, this is well
documented in the literature as a critical component to
effective training [51]. NIOSH researchers plan to further
integrate assessment in VR-MRT through the automatic
mine rescue scoring as the development is finalized.
Participants balanced their positive feedback to
VR-MRT with a discussion of the implementation chal-
lenges as barriers to adoption. Participants discussed con-
cerns around VR-MRT as a replacement for current training
in that 1) remote contests would reduce team networking
and team camaraderie and that 2) VR-MRT lacked cer-
tain physical aspects such as being able to wear a breath-
ing apparatus. Researchers plan to address these concerns
in a few different ways. First, VR-MRT is intended to be
a supplemental training that focuses on decision making.
It is not intended to replace hands-on or in-person train-
ing. Additionally, the intended deployment mechanism for
VR-MRT is for the team to be collocated (i.e., in the same
physical space) and remote practice is intended as a backup,
which incidentally, was mentioned as an important facilita-
tor for adoption. Furthermore, the researchers would like to
see VR-MRT added as an additional event at mine rescue
competitions. This would still allow teams to get together
and interact while still capturing the realism and experience
of VR. Lastly, researchers have also spoken to breathing
apparatus manufacturers about the potential to make a half
mask that would fit below the HMD. If completed, this
would allow apparatus training during VR-MRT training.
The complexity of the innovation was identified as a
potential adoption barrier for VR-MRT. Participants spoke
about resistance to technology, concerns about execution
and maintenance, and the difficulties of generating new
content.
Resistance to change and difficulties in execution
were discussed by all types and levels of participants. As
excerpted in Table 4, the concerns focused on not wanting
to use the technology, the technology being too difficult,
and the intervention being too time consuming as well as
concerns over the lack of support needed to implement and
maintain its use. Resistance to technology occurs for many
of the same reasons as resistance to organizational change in
general: fear of loss, lack of trust, low tolerance for change,
and differing perceptions [52]. However, these may differ
across individuals as well as organizations. Techniques for
reducing resistance to change vary widely and should be
considered based on the type and source of resistance. These
techniques include both positive and negative reinforce-
ment like education and communication, participation,
facilitation and support, negotiation, manipulation and co-
optation, and coercion [53]. Education, communication,
and participation may be particularly helpful in the case
of VR-MRT. As seen in the usability data, users with VR
understanding that VR has the potential to improve mine
safety and health training was apparent. Though opinions
about NIOSH as the developer of VR-MRT were not
explicitly solicited—the only direct statement recorded was
“NIOSH is good”—some level of trust in NIOSH can be
inferred by the willingness of the teams to participate in the
demonstration and the overwhelmingly positive responses
to the surveys and interviews. Furthermore, NIOSH has
been working on immersive training for decades, creating
products that offer both the realism and engagement lev-
els that are critical to be effective [1, 13, 20, 23, 49, 26,
28]. However, one participant still did underscore the
need to have effectiveness data specifically for this training.
Researchers plan to address this through effectiveness and
implementation studies that will demonstrate the potential
impact of VR-MRT for mine rescue training as well as its
general effectiveness.
Participants were also predominately positive about the
Relative Advantage of VR-MRT. Participants describe the
benefits in terms of logistics, cost savings, content, realism,
safety, appeal, and the ability to assess trainees. Many of the
participants talked about how VR training is more efficient,
allowing them to complete more repetitions and the pos-
sibility to do other training in the time saved. When com-
pared to the field-based scenarios, there is minimal set-up
time between problems VR-MRT allows trainers to load a
new scenario in seconds as opposed to the 30+ minutes it
would take to reset a field. They also noted that the breadth
and depth of the content could cover “one million things,”
making it better than the fixed content of videos or presen-
tations typically used during new miner or annual refresher
training (30 C.F.R. Part 48/46). Almost all the participants
also mentioned the realism of VR-MRT as a major ben-
efit. One person specifically mentioned that VR is better
because it “allows trainees to see actions make a difference.”
Several other participants also mentioned that the ability to
“experience” things that would be dangerous to do or see in
real life is important. This not only reduces risk to trainees,
but also increases the amount of practice they receive with
dangerous tasks, which the literature has shown improves
both learning and retention [50]. Another point that par-
ticipants brought up was the appeal of VR as a medium
that is good for a new generation of students that would
rather be physically doing something as opposed to sitting
in a classroom. NIOSH researchers are acting upon this
sentiment in their university implementation pilot, where
VR-MRT is being used in both classroom and outreach
events. Lastly, participants acknowledged the advantage of
being able to objectively assess trainees. Again, this is well
documented in the literature as a critical component to
effective training [51]. NIOSH researchers plan to further
integrate assessment in VR-MRT through the automatic
mine rescue scoring as the development is finalized.
Participants balanced their positive feedback to
VR-MRT with a discussion of the implementation chal-
lenges as barriers to adoption. Participants discussed con-
cerns around VR-MRT as a replacement for current training
in that 1) remote contests would reduce team networking
and team camaraderie and that 2) VR-MRT lacked cer-
tain physical aspects such as being able to wear a breath-
ing apparatus. Researchers plan to address these concerns
in a few different ways. First, VR-MRT is intended to be
a supplemental training that focuses on decision making.
It is not intended to replace hands-on or in-person train-
ing. Additionally, the intended deployment mechanism for
VR-MRT is for the team to be collocated (i.e., in the same
physical space) and remote practice is intended as a backup,
which incidentally, was mentioned as an important facilita-
tor for adoption. Furthermore, the researchers would like to
see VR-MRT added as an additional event at mine rescue
competitions. This would still allow teams to get together
and interact while still capturing the realism and experience
of VR. Lastly, researchers have also spoken to breathing
apparatus manufacturers about the potential to make a half
mask that would fit below the HMD. If completed, this
would allow apparatus training during VR-MRT training.
The complexity of the innovation was identified as a
potential adoption barrier for VR-MRT. Participants spoke
about resistance to technology, concerns about execution
and maintenance, and the difficulties of generating new
content.
Resistance to change and difficulties in execution
were discussed by all types and levels of participants. As
excerpted in Table 4, the concerns focused on not wanting
to use the technology, the technology being too difficult,
and the intervention being too time consuming as well as
concerns over the lack of support needed to implement and
maintain its use. Resistance to technology occurs for many
of the same reasons as resistance to organizational change in
general: fear of loss, lack of trust, low tolerance for change,
and differing perceptions [52]. However, these may differ
across individuals as well as organizations. Techniques for
reducing resistance to change vary widely and should be
considered based on the type and source of resistance. These
techniques include both positive and negative reinforce-
ment like education and communication, participation,
facilitation and support, negotiation, manipulation and co-
optation, and coercion [53]. Education, communication,
and participation may be particularly helpful in the case
of VR-MRT. As seen in the usability data, users with VR