Understanding preservice teachers' affective responses to VR-enabled scientific experiments

Abstract

Preservice teachers' preparedness, perception, and affect toward certain technology systems influence the student acquisition of science knowledge, process skills, teaching innovation, and willingness to use technology in their classroom. The purpose of this study was to explore teachers' affective responses to a virtual reality-enabled scientific experiment (VaSE) system. Fifty-one preservice teachers majoring in educational technology participated in the study. They were divided into two groups, and their reactions were measured separately on two occasions. The first occasion used a standard system following the principle of Donald Norman's affective design model (ADM). The VaSE system was then revised with a strict version of ADM before the participants' reactions were measured for a second time. The positive and negative affect scale (PANAS) was utilized for affective state evaluation. Semi-structured interviews that focused on affective experiences were organized using an ADM framework and conducted immediately after the participants used VaSE. The results indicated that the positive affect experienced by the preservice teachers was significantly enhanced, and the negative affect was significantly weakened. Academic level, gender, and prior experience were important random effect factors that impacted the affective experience. It was also revealed that participants were more likely to be affected by immersion and interactivity in terms of enhancing positive affect and were more likely to be affected by behavioral layer elements in terms of weakening negative affect. A conclusion has been drawn to provide theoretical and practical suggestions for training preservice teachers in ways that improve their ability to integrate technology into the classroom.

How virtual reality, augmented reality and mixed reality facilitate teacher education: A systematic review

“…Of them, most studies examined teachers' self‐efficacy after experiencing XR technologies ( n = 7) (e.g., Bautista & Boone, 2015; Gundel et al, 2019; Nissim & Weissblueth, 2017; Pendergast et al, 2022). Several studies also examined the effect of class size on teachers' physiological and psychological stress reactions (Huang et al, 2023b), motivational affordance (Jong, 2023), affective state (Xie et al, 2022), emotional and mood states (Stavroulia et al, 2019), and the effect of the shot size on the psychical distance between virtual characters and their viewers (Kim et al, 2017).…”

“…Regarding XR technologies, 33 studies reported applying VR technologies in teacher education, followed by MR ( n = 14) and AR ( n = 5). About 58% studies reported to construct XR learning environments based on various platforms, including TLE TeachLivE™ (Bautista & Boone, 2015; Dawson & Lignugaris Kraft, 2017; Dieker et al, 2019; Fraser et al, 2020; Judge et al, 2013; Pas et al, 2016), Mursion (Gundel et al, 2019; Gundel & Piro, 2021; Piro & O'Callaghan, 2019; Rosati‐Peterson et al, 2021), Unity 3D (Arican & Özçakir, 2021; Huo et al, 2021; Stavroulia et al, 2016, 2019; Stavroulia & Lanitis, 2020; Xie et al, 2022), Breaking Bad Behaviours (Chen, 2022; Lugrin et al, 2018; Seufert et al, 2022), SketchUp 3D (Stavroulia et al, 2016; Sveinbjörnsdóttir et al, 2019), iSee (Pendergast et al, 2022), Didascalia Virtual‐Classroom (Manero et al, 2022), Google Expeditions app (Artun et al, 2020), SIMLab™ (Rappa, 2019), Second Life (Cheong, 2010), Superscape (Katz, 1999), StoryBoard Artist 7 (Kim et al, 2017), Heart AR (Celik et al, 2020), Diva Distro (Nissim & Weissblueth, 2017), and TaleBlazer (Aivelo & Uitto, 2016).…”