Pre-Service and In-Service Science Teachers’ Technological Acceptance of 3-D, Haptic-Enabled Virtual Reality Instructional Technology

Combined three-dimensional, haptic-enabled, virtual reality (3D HE VR) systems allow students to actively engage and explore various science concepts by leveraging user-friendly and immersive interfaces. Successful implementation of these learning tools in science classrooms hinges upon teachers' perceptions of the technology’s potential as a viable pedagogical tool. Prior studies using the Technology Acceptance (TA) Model (TAM) suggest pre-service teachers have greater TA compared to in-service teachers. This study sought to explore how 3D HE VR designed to diminish Ease of Use (EOU) issues, influenced TA (through reported preferences) between pre-service and in-service science teachers. Five pre-service and five in-service teachers reported Perceived Utility (PU) and EOU upon using a 3D HE VR system (zSpace) to learn science concepts. Quantitative data were collected from preand post-test content assessments. Qualitative data were collected and transcribed from field notes and interviews. Both teacher groups evidenced learning gains and reported EOU using zSpace. However, preference for the technology compared to traditional methods varied between teacher groups. Sampled pre-service teachers held a significant preference for hands-on activities for instruction whereas in-service teachers reported greater TA, citing its potential to increase student interest in science and opportunity for personalized learning. This research suggests that when perceived EOU is mitigated, PU may more readily mediate TA among in-service teachers as they can envision the use of 3D HE VR technology use in teaching practices. Further exploration is needed to leverage in-service teachers’ classroom experience to implement novel forms of technology into their science instruction. Hite, Jones, Childers, Chesnutt, Corin & Pereyra 2 Electronic Journal of Science Education ejse.southwestern.edu

[1]  Hsin-Kai Wu,et al.  Modelling a Complex System: Using novice‐expert analysis for developing an effective technology‐enhanced learning environment , 2010 .

[2]  Fred D. Davis.  Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology , 1989, MIS Q..

[3]  Timothy Teo,et al.  Understanding pre-service teachers' computer attitudes: applying and extending the technology acceptance model , 2007, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[4]  Timothy Teo,et al.  Assessing the intention to use technology among pre-service teachers in Singapore and Malaysia: A multigroup invariance analysis of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) , 2009, Comput. Educ..

[5]  Peter A. Todd,et al.  Understanding Information Technology Usage: A Test of Competing Models , 1995, Inf. Syst. Res..

[6]  A. N. Ezeife,et al.  Preservice teachers’ preparedness to integrate computer technology into the curriculum , 2008 .

[7]  Mary Hegarty,et al.  Usability of concrete and virtual models in chemistry instruction , 2013, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[8]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models , 1989 .

[9]  Soner Yıldırım.  Effects of an Educational Computing Course on Preservice and Inservice Teachers , 2000 .

[10]  T. Teo.  Pre-Service Teachers' Attitudes towards Computer Use: A Singapore Survey. , 2008 .

[11]  William E Garrett,et al.  Improving residency training in arthroscopic knee surgery with use of a virtual-reality simulator. A randomized blinded study. , 2014, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[12]  Andreas H. Gomoll,et al.  Surgical Experience Correlates with Performance on a Virtual Reality Simulator for Shoulder Arthroscopy , 2007, The American journal of sports medicine.

[13]  Timothy Teo,et al.  Modelling technology acceptance in education: A study of pre-service teachers , 2009, Comput. Educ..

[14]  Keng Siau,et al.  3-D Virtual Worlds in Education: Applications, Benefits, Issues, and Opportunities , 2008, J. Database Manag..

[15]  Peggy A. Ertmer.  Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? , 2005 .

[16]  M. G. Jones,et al.  Haptics in Education: Exploring an Untapped Sensory Modality , 2006 .

[17]  Rebecca Lyn Hite.  Perceptions of Virtual Presence in 3-D, Haptic-Enabled, Virtual Reality Science Instruction , 2016 .

[18]  Peggy A. Ertmer.  Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration , 1999 .

[19]  Viswanath Venkatesh,et al.  Determinants of Perceived Ease of Use: Integrating Control, Intrinsic Motivation, and Emotion into the Technology Acceptance Model , 2000, Inf. Syst. Res..

[20]  L. Schauble,et al.  Design Experiments in Educational Research , 2003 .

[21]  Pierre Dillenbourg,et al.  Technology for Classroom Orchestration , 2010 .

[22]  Steve Bryson,et al.  Virtual reality in scientific visualization , 1993, CACM.

[23]  Judi Harris,et al.  What Is Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge , 2009 .

[24]  Shih-Ching Yeh,et al.  Evaluation of a haptics-based virtual reality temporal bone simulator for anatomy and surgery training , 2014, Comput. Methods Programs Biomed..

[25]  Young Hoan Cho,et al.  Physical and social presence in 3D virtual role-play for pre-service teachers , 2015, Internet High. Educ..

[26]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  A critical assessment of potential measurement biases in the technology acceptance model: three experiments , 1996, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[27]  M. Levin,et al.  Emergence of Virtual Reality as a Tool for Upper Limb Rehabilitation: Incorporation of Motor Control and Motor Learning Principles , 2014, Physical Therapy.

[28]  Mike Sharples,et al.  Creating Personal Meaning through Technology-Supported Science Inquiry Learning across Formal and Informal Settings , 2012 .

[29]  Youngkyun Baek,et al.  What makes teachers use technology in the classroom? Exploring the factors affecting facilitation of technology with a Korean sample , 2008, Comput. Educ..

[30]  M. Prensky.  Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants Part 1 , 2001 .

[31]  Barney Dalgarno,et al.  What are the learning affordances of 3-D virtual environments? , 2010, Br. J. Educ. Technol..

[32]  Frank Fischer,et al.  Orchestration is nothing without conducting - But arranging ties the two together!: A response to Dillenbourg (2011) , 2013, Comput. Educ..

[33]  Michael J. Singer,et al.  Measuring Presence in Virtual Environments: A Presence Questionnaire , 1998, Presence.

[34]  Timothy Teo,et al.  Unpacking teachers' acceptance of technology: Tests of measurement invariance and latent mean differences , 2014, Comput. Educ..

[35]  Hiroshi Ishii,et al.  SpaceTop: integrating 2D and spatial 3D interactions in a see-through desktop environment , 2013, CHI.

[36]  Donn Ritchie,et al.  What factors facilitate teacher skill, teacher morale, and perceived student learning in technology-using classrooms? , 2002, Comput. Educ..

[37]  Yong-Gu Lee,et al.  Smoothing haptic interaction using molecular force calculations , 2004, Comput. Aided Des..

[38]  Anita Woolfolk Hoy,et al.  Changes in teacher efficacy during the early years of teaching: A comparison of four measures , 2005 .

[39]  Symeon Retalis,et al.  Enhancing primary school children collaborative learning experiences in maths via a 3D virtual environment , 2012, Education and Information Technologies.

[40]  Lan Li,et al.  How and Why Digital Generation Teachers Use Technology in the Classroom: An Explanatory Sequential Mixed Methods Study , 2015 .

[41]  Mikael Collan,et al.  Lazy User Theory: A Dynamic Model to Understand User Selection of Products and Services , 2009, 2009 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.