Main Article Content
Introducing virtual reality technology into the chemistry teachers' workshops can motivate teachers immersion and participation in workshop, and promote the research effect of the workshops, which is beneficial the professional development of teachers. Based on the characteristic of chemistry subject, this paper focus on the scheme and effect of introduction virtual reality technology into teachers' workshop. A comparative experiment is used to discuss the practical effect of teachers' workshop. By designing a framework strategy, virtual reality technology is introduced in teachers' workshop, the experimental group (51) and the control group (58) was established for comparative study. Adopt the method of quantitative analysis to evaluate the quantitative and qualitative data of knowledge sharing. Particularly, by utilizing the Kappa value estimated the consistency of table that measures the quality of knowledge sharing. The experimental group is superior to the control group in terms of login frequency, average online time and quality of knowledge sharing content. It logged in 2.5 times a day for an average of 1.7 hours, however, the control group with an average of 0.9 hours. The experimental group average 1.38 posts were greater than the control group with average 0.78 posts which issued by each teacher. Then, the average score of "theme" in the experimental group was higher than the experimental group about 1.7344 point, in the quality of knowledge sharing. And, the average score of contribution in the experimental group was higher than the control group too. The experimental results show that the introduction of virtual reality technology in the workshop can effectively improve the enthusiasm and participation of teachers, the teachers' research effect in this designed workshop also was increased significantly.
Mohammed K, Mohammed A, Yahaya JA, Mohammed LA, Tanko A, Mohammed BS, Ukaegbu JB, et al. Andragogy and effective teacher education in colleges of education in North Central Nigeria: An overview. Journal of Education, Society and Behavioural Science. 2018;24(3):1-12.
Rochelle IL, Michael AP, Aristotle U, Raymond GT, Kathleen A, Krista DY. An AHP-based evaluation method for teacher training workshop on information and communication technology. Evaluation and Program Planning. 2017;63:93-100.
Akerson VL, Cullen TA, Hanson DL. Fostering a community of practice through a professional development program to improve elementary teachers’ views of nature of science and teaching practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2009;46(10):1090-1113.
Soo HK. Preparing English learners for effective peer review in the writers’ workshop. Reading Teacher. 2015;68(8): 580-657.
Roni M, Bat SE. Teaching physics in junior high school: Crossing the borders of fear. European Journal of Teacher Education. 2009;32:135-150.
Howlin P, Gordon RK, Pasco G, Wade A, Charman T. The effectiveness of Picture Exchange Communication System (PECS) training for teachers of children with autism: A pragmatic, group randomised controlled trial. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 2007;48(5):473-481.
Nwokolo CN, Nkanu SM, Akunne LI. Availability and utilization of information communication technologies by special education teachers to enhance inclusive education goals. Journal of Education Society and Behavioural Science. 2018;28(1):1-7.
Sheila T, Anne B. Empowering science teachers. Science. 2012;336(6081):519-519.
Maschke U. Learning from the students: Collaborating on a virtual language learning space after the common European framework of reference. ADFL Bulletin. 2009;76-85.
Bailenson JN, Yee N, Blascovich J, Beall AC, Lundblad N, Jin M. The use of immersive virtual reality in the learning sciences: Digital transformations of teachers, students and social context. Journal of the Learning Sciences. 2008;17(1):102-141.
Cheng Y, Wang S. Applying a 3D virtual learning environment to facilitate student's application ability - The case of marketing. Computers in Human Behavior. 2011;27: 576-584.
Dawid P, Karolina K, Alicja W, Marcin W. Strengthening the perception of the virtual worlds in a virtual reality environment. ISA Transactions; 2020.
Maxine S. Great teachers for STEM. Science. 2009;325(5944):1047.
Diane E, Terry LD, Janet H, Jennifer LM, Tammy ML, Sarah EJ. What we say is not what we do: Effective evaluation of faculty professional development programs. Bioscience. 2011;61(7):550-558.
Crosier JK, Cobb SVG, Wilson JR. Experimental comparison of virtual reality with traditional teaching methods for teaching radioactivity. Education and Infor-mation Technologies. 2000;5(4):329-343.
Prince M. Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education. 2004;93:223-231.
Assaf YD, Meir S, Patrice LTW. Reaching within video-capture virtual reality: Using virtual reality as a motor control paradigm. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking. 2006;9(2):133-136.
Jonathon BF, Joseph PC, Dillon RM, Kyle TM, Magenta H, Ramya S, Xiao Z, Alexander W, Jianing L, Severin TS. Chemical exploration with virtual reality in organic teaching laboratories. Journal of Chemical Education. 2019;96(9):1961-1966.
Waldrop MM. Education online: The virtual lab. Nature. 2013;499(18):268-270.
Barnett M, Yamagata LL, Keating T, Barab SA, Hay EK. Using virtual reality computer models to support student understanding of astronomical concepts. Journal of Computers in Mathematics & Science Teaching. 2005;24(4):333-356.
Hawkins I, Phelps JA. Virtual laboratory vs traditional laboratory: Which is more effective for teaching electrochemistry? Chemistry Education Research and Practice. 2013;14(4):516-523.
Jong TD, Linn CM, Zacharias C. Physical and virtual laboratories in science and engineering education. Science. 2013; 340(6130):305-308.
Koh J, Kim YG. Knowledge sharing in virtual communities: An E-business perspective. Expert Systems with Applications. 2004;26(2):155-166.
Agresti A. Modelling patterns of agreement and disagreement. Statistical Methods in Medical Research. 1992;1(2): 201-218.
Agresti A, Lipsitz S, Lang JB. Comparing marginal distributions of large, sparse contingency tables. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis. 1992;14(1):55-73.
Moore JW, Zielinski TJ, Holmes LJ. Chemical education digital library: Online resources, services and communities. Journal of Chemical Education. 2009;86: 122.
Liu X, Wu J, Wang J, Liu X, Zhao S, Li Z, Kong L, Gu X, Luo J, Gao G. WebLab: A data-centric, knowledge-sharing bio-informatic platform. Nucleic Acids Research. 2009;37(2):33-39.
Mmühan AY, Yasemin KU. Knowledge building and the quantity, content and quality of the interaction and participation of students in an online collaborative learning environment. Computers & Education. 2016;97:31-48.
Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin. 1979;86: 420-428.