An empirical analysis was performed to compare the effectiveness of different approaches to training
a set of procedural skills to a sample of novice trainees. Sixty-five participants were randomly
assigned to one of the following three training groups: i) learning-by-doing in a 3D desktop virtual
environment, ii) learning-by-observing a video (show-and-tell) explanation of the procedures, and iii)
trial-and-error. In each group participants were trained on two car service procedures. Participants
were recalled to perform a procedure either two or four weeks after the training. The results showed
that: i) participants trained through the virtual approach of learning-by-doing performed both
procedures significantly better (i.e., p <.05 in terms of errors and time) than people of non-virtual
groups. ii) The virtual training group, after a period of non-use, were more effective than non-virtual
training (i.e., p <.05) in their ability to recover their skills. iii) After a (simulated) long period from the
training – i.e., up to 12 weeks – people who experienced 3D environments consistently performed
better than people who received other kinds of training. The results also suggested that independently
from the training group, trainees’ visuospatial abilities were a predictor of performance, at least for
the complex service procedure, Adj R2= .460, and that post-training performances of people trained
through virtual learning-by-doing are not affected by learning styles. Finally, a strong relationship
(p<..001 R
2 =.441) was identified between usability and trust in the use of the virtual training tool –
i.e., the more the system was perceived as usable, the more it was perceived as trustable to acquire the
competences