Publications-Theses
Article View/Open
Publication Export
-
題名 混合實境於虛實整合化學實驗室之發展及教學應用
Development and Applications of a Chemistry Laboratory with Virtual and Physical Integration based on Mixed Reality作者 涂家政
Tu, Chia-Cheng貢獻者 陳志銘
Chen, Chih-Ming
涂家政
Tu, Chia-Cheng關鍵詞 混合實境
探究式學習
混合實境結合探究式學習
化學實驗室安全教育
物件辨識技術
Mixed reality
Inquiry-based learning
Mixed reality integrated inquiry-based learning
Chemistry laboratory safety education
Object detection technology日期 2022 上傳時間 1-Aug-2022 17:44:41 (UTC+8) 摘要 在化學實驗室安全教育中，採用傳統教師講授的教學模式進行教學，仍存在僅能口頭說明，嚴禁學生進行危險操作，難以讓學生真實體驗的缺點與限制。而隨著具有虛實整合特性之混合實境技術的快速發展，已逐漸發展出許多的創新教學應用，並被證實能夠有效地促進學習成效。因此，本研究基於探究式學習模式與混合實境技術開發「基於混合實境之化學實驗室安全教育自學系統」輔以進行化學實驗室安全教育學習，讓學習者得以在虛擬環境中安全且自由地進行探究式實驗操作，避免發生在現實化學實驗室當中可能發生的安全問題，並透過系統所提供的感官體驗與互動效果，讓學習者勇於嘗試錯誤操作，而對於實驗危險後果更加印象深刻。本研究採用準實驗研究法，以台北市某高中二年級兩個班級的學生共 36 名作為研究對象，並隨機分派為兩組進行化學實驗室安全教育，其中 17 名學生為採用「基於混合實境之化學實驗室安全教育自學系統」輔以學習的實驗組，剩餘 19 名學生則為採用「教師實體授課方式」輔以學習的控制組。透過教學實驗的實施，探討採用不同學習模式輔以進行化學實驗室安全教育的兩組學習者，在學習成效、實驗安全態度、學習動機，以及學習滿意度上是否具有顯著的差異。另外，也以實驗室安全先備知識和實驗室安全初始態度為背景變項，進一步探討不同背景變項之兩組學習者，在學習成效、實驗安全態度、學習動機，以及學習滿意度上是否具有顯著的差異。此外，也以半結構式深度訪談瞭解學習者對於不同學習模式的感受與看法，以及對於本研究發展之混合實境系統應用於教學上的改善建議。實驗結果發現，相較於採用「教師實體授課方式」輔以進行化學實驗室安全教育的學習者，採用「基於混合實境之化學實驗室安全教育自學系統」的學習者更能夠顯著提升其在化學實驗室安全主題上的學習成效。此外，在實驗安全態度分析中得知，兩組學習者均在教學實驗結束後對於實驗安全的態度感受具有顯著的提升。而在學習動機與學習滿意度分析方面，兩組學習者之間並無呈現顯著的差異，但對於這兩種學習模式均持正面肯定的態度，但從訪談結果中發現，學習者仍較傾向於採用「基於混合實境之化學實驗室安全教育自學系統」輔以進行化學實驗室安全教育學習，並且普遍認為透過混合實境沉浸式的操作體驗，更能夠加深其對於危險操作的警覺性與實驗室安全觀念的養成。整體而言，本研究發展之「基於混合實境之化學實驗室安全教育自學系統」在輔助化學實驗安全知識的養成與提升上，不但具有成效，並且具有在學習模式上的創新貢獻。
In chemistry laboratory safety education, the traditional lecture model still remains some drawbacks and limitations on adopting verbal explanations and prohibiting students from performing dangerous operations, thus making it difficult for students to learn real experiences on chemistry laboratory safety. With the rapid development of mixed reality (MR) technology integrating virtual and physical space, many innovative teaching and learning applications with MR support have been successfully developed and proven their effectiveness in promoting learning performance. Therefore, this study develops a novel autonomous learning system for chemistry laboratory safety education based on mixed reality to assist chemical laboratory safety education, allowing learners to conduct inquiry-based experimental operations in a virtual environment by using a free and safe way so that safety problems in real chemical laboratories that may hurt learners can be avoided. Through the sensory experience and interactive effects offered by the system, learners can try the wrong operations as possible as they can in a virtual chemistry laboratory that is similar to a physical chemistry laboratory, thus getting more impressive experiences in chemistry laboratory safety education.With a quasi-experimental research method in this study, a total of 36 Grade 11 students from two classes of a senior high school in Taipei City, Taiwan were randomly assigned into the experimental and control groups for chemistry laboratory safety education. A total of 17 students were randomly assigned to the experimental group that adopted the autonomous learning system for chemistry laboratory safety education to support chemistry laboratory safety education and the remaining 19 students were assigned to the control group that adopted the traditional physical teaching method with a teacher. An instruction experiment was conducted to examine whether there were significant differences in learning effectiveness, attitudes toward laboratory safety, learning motivation, and learning satisfaction when learners of two groups were assigned above-mentioned two different learning models to support chemistry laboratory safety education. Furthermore, prior knowledge of laboratory safety and initial attitude of laboratory safety are regarded as the background variables to discuss the differences in learning effectiveness, attitudes toward laboratory safety, learning motivation, and learning satisfaction of learners of two groups. In addition, semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted to understand learners’ perceptions and suggestions towards using different learning models to assist chemistry laboratory safety education.The research results show that, compared to learners who adopted the traditional physical teaching method for chemistry laboratory safety education, learners who adopted the autonomous learning system for chemistry laboratory safety education based on mixed reality are able to significantly improve their learning effectiveness on chemistry laboratory safety. Furthermore, the analysis of attitudes shows that learners of both groups significantly improved their attitudes toward laboratory safety at the end of the instruction experiment. On the other hand, the analysis of learning motivation and learning satisfaction shows that, there are no significant differences between the learners of two groups, but they have positive attitude toward both learning models. However, according to the interview results, learners tend to adopt the autonomous learning system for chemistry laboratory safety education based on mixed reality to support learning, and they stated that the immersion operation experience from mixed reality is able to enhance their awareness of hazardous operations and the development of laboratory safety concepts. Overall, the autonomous learning system for chemistry laboratory safety education based on mixed reality developed in this study is not only effective in assisting the development and enhancement of chemistry laboratory safety knowledge, but also is an innovative learning model to chemistry laboratory safety education.參考文獻 Abd-El-Khalick, F., BouJaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N. G., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., Niaz, M., Treagust, D., & Tuan, H. (2004). Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Science Education, 88(3), 397–419. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10118Abdi, A. (2014). The effect of inquiry-based learning method on students’ academic achievement in science course. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 2(1), 37–41.Adane, L., & Abeje, A. (2012). Assessment of familiarity and understanding of chemical hazard warning signs among university students majoring chemistry and biology: A case study at Jimma University, Southwestern Ethiopia. World Applied Sciences Journal, 16(2), 290–299. Scopus.Alaimo, P. J., Langenhan, J. M., Tanner, M. J., & Ferrenberg, S. M. (2010). Safety teams: An approach to engage students in laboratory safety. Journal of Chemical Education, 87(8), 856–861. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed100207dAl-Zyoud, W., Qunies, A. M., Walters, A. U. C., & Jalsa, N. K. (2019). Perceptions of chemical safety in laboratories. Safety, 5(2), 21. https://doi.org/10.3390/safety5020021American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1994). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.American Chemical Society. (2012). Creating safety cultures in academic institutions: A report of the safety culture task force of the ACS Committee on chemical safety. ACS, Washington.Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015171124982Artdej, R. (2012). Investigating undergraduate students’ scientific understanding of laboratory safety. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 5058–5062. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.385Ayi, H.-R., & Hon, C.-Y. (2018). Safety culture and safety compliance in academic laboratories: A Canadian perspective. Journal of Chemical Health & Safety, 25(6), 6–12.Bacca Acosta, J. L., Baldiris Navarro, S. M., Fabregat Gesa, R., Graf, S., & Kinshuk. (2014). Augmented reality trends in education: A systematic review of research and applications. https://dugi-doc.udg.edu/handle/10256/17763Backus, L. (2005). A year without procedures. The Science Teacher, 72(7), 54.Baird, J. R. (1990). Metacognition, purposeful enquiry and conceptual change. The Student Laboratory and the Science Curriculum, 183–200.Baragona, M. (2009). Multiple intelligences and alternative teaching strategies: The effects on student academic achievement, conceptual understanding, and attitude. In Ph.D. Thesis. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009PhDT........58BBenderly, B. L. (2009). The burning question of laboratory safety. Science. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.caredit.a0900054Benedict, K. G., & Arbor, A. (2004). How can I prevent laboratory accidents. Online Chemistry Course (OLCC), 6.Bevevino, M. M., Dengel, J., & Adams, K. (1999). Constructivist theory in the classroom internalizing: Concepts through inquiry learning. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 72(5), 275–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098659909599406Bidarra, J., & Rusman, E. (2017). Towards a pedagogical model for science education: Bridging educational contexts through a blended learning approach. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 32(1), 6–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2016.1265442Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3–4), 369–398. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.1991.9653139Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Bruck, L. B., & Towns, M. H. (2009). Preparing students to benefit from inquiry-based activities in the chemistry laboratory: Guidelines and suggestions. Journal of Chemical Education, 86(7), 820. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed086p820Bybee, R., & Goodrum, D. (1999). Teaching science as inquiry. http://www.asta.edu.au/conasta/conasta48link.htmlCan, Ş., Aksay, E. Ç., & Orhan, T. Y. (2015). Investigation of pre-service science teachers’ attitudes towards laboratory safety. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174, 3131–3136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.1051Cardak, O., Dikmenli, M., & Saritas, O. (2008). Effect of 5E instructional model in student success in primary school 6th year circulatory system topic. 9(2), 11.Chen, S. Y., & Huang, P.-R. (2013). The comparisons of the influences of prior knowledge on two game-based learning systems. Computers & Education, 68(1), 177–186.De Jong, T., & Van Joolingen, W. R. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 179–201. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543068002179Deters, K. M. (2005). Student opinions regarding inquiry-based labs. Journal of Chemical Education, 82(8), 1178. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed082p1178Drexel University. (2018). HoloLens mixed reality learning in education. https://www.virtuallyinspired.org/portfolio/holostudyproject/Edelson, D. C., Gordin, D. N., & Pea, R. D. (1999). Addressing the challenges of inquiry-based learning through technology and curriculum design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8(3–4), 391–450. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.1999.9672075Eguna, M. T., Suico, M. L. S., & Lim, P. J. Y. (2011). Learning to be safe: Chemical laboratory management in a developing country. Journal of Chemical Health & Safety, 18(6), 5–7.Ernst, D. C., Hodge, A., & Yoshinobu, S. (2017). What is inquiry-based learning. Notices of the American Mathematical Society, 64(06), 570–574. https://doi.org/10.1090/noti1536Fakayode, S. O. (2014). Guided-inquiry laboratory experiments in the analytical chemistry laboratory curriculum. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, 406(5), 1267–1271. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-013-7515-8Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111Germann, P. J., Haskins, S., & Auls, S. (1996). Analysis of nine high school biology laboratory manuals: Promoting scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(5), 475–499. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199605)33:5<475::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-OGibson, H. L., & Chase, C. (2002). Longitudinal impact of an inquiry-based science program on middle school students’ attitudes toward science. Science Education, 86(5), 693–705. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10039Gunstone, R. F. (1991). Reconstructing theory from practical experience. Practical Science, 67–77.Harlen, W. (2013). Inquiry-based learning in science and mathematics. Review of Science, Mathematics and ICT Education, 7(2), 9–33. https://doi.org/10.26220/rev.2042Harvey, L., Locke, W., & Morey, A. (2002). Enhancing employability, recognising diversity: Making links between higher education and the world of work: Main report. Universities UK.Hayes, A., Hardin, S., & Hughes, C. (2013). Perceived presence’s role on learning outcomes in a mixed reality classroom of simulated students. 8022, 142–151. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39420-1_16Hayes, B. E., Perander, J., Smecko, T., & Trask, J. (1998). Measuring perceptions of workplace safety: Development and validation of the work safety scale. Journal of Safety Research, 29(3), 145–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4375(98)00011-5Hill, R. H. (2007). The emergence of laboratory safety. Journal of Chemical Health & Safety, 14(3), 14–19.Hill, R. H. (2016). Undergraduates need a safety education. Journal of Chemical Education, 93(9), 1495–1498. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00825Hill, R. H., & Finster, D. C. (2016). Laboratory safety for chemistry students. John Wiley & SonsHilosky, A., Sutman, F., & Schmuckler, J. (1998). Is laboratory based instruction in beginning college-level chemistry worth the effort and expense. Journal of Chemical Education, 75(1), 100. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed075p100Hodson, D. (1990). A critical look at practical work in school science. School Science Review, 71(256), 33–40.Hodson, D. (1993). Re-thinking old ways: Towards a more critical approach to practical work in school science. Studies in Science Education, 22(1), 85–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057269308560022Hofstein, A., Levy Nahum, T., & Shore, R. (2001). Assessment of the learning environment of inquiry-type laboratories in high school chemistry. Learning Environments Research, 4(2), 193–207. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012467417645Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (1982). The role of the laboratory in science teaching: Neglected aspects of research. Review of Educational Research, 52(2), 201–217. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543052002201Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88(1), 28–54. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10106Hofstein, A., Shore, R., & Kipnis, M. (2004). Providing high school chemistry students with opportunities to develop learning skills in an inquiry-type laboratory: A case study. International Journal of Science Education, 26(1), 47–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000070342Holubova, R. (2008). Effective teaching methods—Project-based learning in physics. In Online Submission (Vol. 5, Issue 12, pp. 27–36). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED504949Hsu, Y.-S., Lai, T.-L., & Hsu, W.-H. (2015). A design model of distributed scaffolding for inquiry-based learning. Research in Science Education, 45(2), 241–273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-014-9421-2Hu-Au, E., & Okita, S. (2021). Exploring differences in student learning and behavior between real-life and virtual reality chemistry laboratories. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 30(6), 862–876. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-021-09925-0Hughes, C. E., Stapleton, C. B., Hughes, D. E., & Smith, E. M. (2005). Mixed reality in education, entertainment, and training. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 25(6), 24–30. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCG.2005.139Huston, E. M., Milligan, J. A., Powell, J. R., Smith, A. M., Neal, D., Duval, K. M., DiNardo, M. A., Stoddard, C., Bell, P. A., Berning, A. W., Wipf, P., & Bandik, G. C. (2018). Development of an undergraduate course in chemical laboratory safety through an academic/industrial collaboration. Journal of Chemical Education, 95(4), 577–583. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00599Jones, B. F., Rasmussen, C. M., & Moffitt, M. C. (1997). Real-life problem solving: A collaborative approach to interdisciplinary learning. https://doi.org/10.1037/10266-000Jones, M. E., Gott, R., & Jarman, R. (2000). Investigations as part of the key stage 4 science curriculum in Northern Ireland. Evaluation & Research in Education, 14(1), 23–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500790008666959Kallio, H., Pietila, A.-M., Johnson, M., & Kangasniemi, M. (2016). Systematic methodological review: Developing a framework for a qualitative semi-structured interview guide. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 72(12), 2954–2965. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.13031Kang, S., Norooz, L., Oguamanam, V., Plane, A. C., Clegg, T. L., & Froehlich, J. E. (2016). SharedPhys: Live physiological sensing, whole-body interaction, and large-screen visualizations to support shared inquiry experiences. Proceedings of the The 15th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children, 275–287. https://doi.org/10.1145/2930674.2930710Kangas, M., Siklander, P., Randolph, J., & Ruokamo, H. (2017). Teachers’ engagement and students’ satisfaction with a playful learning environment. Teaching and Teacher Education, 63, 274–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.12.018Karapantsios, T. D., Boutskou, E. I., Touliopoulou, E., & Mavros, P. (2008). Evaluation of chemical laboratory safety based on student comprehension of chemicals labelling. Education for Chemical Engineers, 3(1), e66–e73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ece.2008.02.001Katchevich, D., Hofstein, A., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2013). Argumentation in the chemistry laboratory: Inquiry and confirmatory experiments. Research in Science Education, 43(1), 317–345. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9267-9Kazempour, M. (2009). Impact of inquiry-based professional development on core conceptions and teaching practices: A case study. Science Educator, 18(2), 56–68.Ke, F., Lee, S., & Xu, X. (2016). Teaching training in a mixed-reality integrated learning environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 62, 212–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.094Kelley, E. W. (2020). Reflections on three different high school chemistry lab formats during COVID-19 remote learning. Journal of Chemical Education, 97(9), 2606–2616. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00814Keselman, A. (2003). Supporting inquiry learning by promoting normative understanding of multivariable causality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(9), 898–921. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10115Kirbaşlar, F. G., Özsoy-Güneş, Z., & Derelioğlu, Y. (2010). Investigation of pre-service science teachers’ opinions and knowledge degrees on laboratory safety. Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 30(3), 801–818. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/77014Kılınç, A. (2007). The opinions of Turkish high school pupils on inquiry based laboratory activities. In Online Submission (Vol. 6, Issue 4). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED499653Koff, L., & Mullis, R. (2011). Nutrition education and technology: Can delivering messages via new media technology effectively modify nutrition behaviors of preschoolers and their families. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 43(4), S40.Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Bass, K. M., Fredricks, J., & Soloway, E. (1998). Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: Initial attempts by middle school students. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3–4), 313–350. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.1998.9672057Langerman, N. (2009). Laboratory safety. Journal of Chemical Health & Safety, 16(3), 49–50.Lawler, A. (2000). Quantum mechanics: Lab accident damages solar flare satellite. Science, 287. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.287.5462.2395bLazarowitz, R., & Tamir, P. (1994). Research on using laboratory instruction in science. Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning, 1994, 94–130.Lee, J. Y. (2021). A study on metaverse hype for sustainable growth. International Journal of Advanced Smart Convergence, 10(3), 72–80. https://doi.org/10.7236/IJASC.2021.10.3.72Leonard, W. H., & Chandler, P. M. (2003). Where is the inquiry in biology textbooks. The American Biology Teacher, 65(7), 485–487. https://doi.org/10.1662/0002-7685(2003)065[0485:WITIIB]2.0.CO;2Lewis, J. (2002). The effectiveness of mini-projects as a preparation for open-ended investigations. In D. Psillos & H. Niedderer (Eds.), Teaching and Learning in the Science Laboratory (pp. 139–150). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-48196-0_15Li, R., Gao, H., Chu, D., Zhang, K., & Xu, H. (2016). Research on the safety accidents prediction for smart laboratory based on statistical analysis. 26–31. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACIT-CSII-BCD.2016.018Liarokapis, F., & Anderson, E. F. (2010). Using augmented reality as a medium to assist teaching in higher education. 7.Lin, F.-C., Chen, C.-M., & Wang, W.-F. (2017b). Learning process analysis based on sequential pattern mining and lag sequential analysis in a web-based inquiry science environment. 2017 6th IIAI International Congress on Advanced Applied Informatics (IIAI-AAI), 655–660. https://doi.org/10.1109/IIAI-AAI.2017.57Linn, M. C., diSessa, A., Pea, R. D., & Songer, N. B. (1994). Can research on science learning and instruction inform standards for science education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 3(1), 7–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01575812Linn, M. C., Songer, N. B., & Eylon, B. S. (1996). Shifts and convergences in science learning and instruction. Handbook of Educational Psychology, 438–490.Lord, T., & Orkwiszewski, T. (2006). Moving from didactic to inquiry-based instruction in a science laboratory. The American Biology Teacher, 68(6), 342–345.Lord, T. R. (1999). A comparison between traditional and constructivist teaching in environmental science. The Journal of Environmental Education, 30(3), 22–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958969909601874Luckie, D. B., Maleszewski, J. J., Loznak, S. D., & Krha, M. (2004). Infusion of collaborative inquiry throughout a biology curriculum increases student learning: A four-year study of “Teams and Streams.” Advances in Physiology Education, 28(4), 199–209. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00025.2004Lunetta, V. N. (1998). The school science laboratory: Historical perspectives and contexts for contemporary teaching. International Handbook of Science Education, 1, 249–262.MacCallum, K., & Jamieson, J. (2017). Exploring augmented reality in education viewed through the affordance lens. Proceedings of the 8th Annual Conference of Computing and Information Technology Education and Research in New Zealand.Manuel, M. S., Aggabao, B. C., & Bona, C. A. D. (2021). Knowledge, attitude, and practices about chemical laboratory safety of the faculty, staff and students of Kalinga State University. Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 14(45), 3295–3303. https://doi.org/10.17485/IJST/v14i45.822Marek, E. A., Eubanks, C., & Gallaher, T. H. (1990). Teachers’ understanding and the use of the learning cycle. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(9), 821–834. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660270903Marendaz, J.-L., Suard, J.-C., & Meyer, T. (2013). A systematic tool for assessment and classification of hazards in laboratories (ACHiL). Safety Science, 53, 168–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2012.10.001Marin, L. S., Muñoz-Osuna, F. O., Arvayo-Mata, K. L., & Álvarez-Chávez, C. R. (2019). Chemistry laboratory safety climate survey (CLASS): A tool for measuring students’ perceptions of safety. Journal of Chemical Health & Safety, 26(6), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jchas.2019.01.001Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S., Fishman, B., Soloway, E., Geier, R., & Tal, R. T. (2004). Inquiry-based science in the middle grades: Assessment of learning in urban systemic reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 1063–1080. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20039Massie, D., Campbell, K., & Williams, A. (1995). Traffic accident involvement rates by driver age and gender. Accident; Analysis and Prevention, 27(1), 73–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-4575(94)00050-VMilgram, P., & Kishino, F. (1994). A taxonomy of mixed reality visual displays. IEICE Trans. Information Systems, E77-D, no. 12, 1321–1329.Miller, H. R., McNeal, K. S., & Herbert, B. E. (2010). Inquiry in the physical geology classroom: Supporting students’ conceptual model development. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 34(4), 595–615. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098265.2010.499562Modell, H. I. (1996). Preparing students to participate in an active learning environment. Advances in Physiology Education, 270(6), S69. https://doi.org/10.1152/advances.1996.270.6.S69Morell, V. (1994). Novel course III: Undergrad labs “Get Real.” Science. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.266.5186.870.bMoro, C., Phelps, C., Redmond, P., & Stromberga, Z. (2021). HoloLens and mobile augmented reality in medical and health science education: A randomised controlled trial. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(2), 680–694. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13049Müller, C., Krone, M., Huber, M., Biener, V., Herr, D., Koch, S., Reina, G., Weiskopf, D., & Ertl, T. (2018). Interactive molecular graphics for augmented reality using HoloLens. Journal of Integrative Bioinformatics, 15. https://doi.org/10.1515/jib-2018-0005National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/9596National Research Council. (2011). Prudent practices in the laboratory: Handling and management of chemical hazards, updated version. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Nuangchalerm, P. (2010). Engaging students to perceive nature of science through socioscientific issues-based instruction. In Online Submission (Vol. 13, Issue 1, pp. 34–37). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED508531Nuangchalerm, P., & Thammasena, B. (2009). Cognitive development, analytical thinking and learning satisfaction of second grade students learned through inquiry-based learning. In Online Submission (Vol. 5, Issue 10, pp. 82–87). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED506511OECD. (2000). Measuring student knowledge and skills: A new framework for assessment. Paris: OECD.Olajumoke, S. O., & Benjamin, A. E. (2018). Science education undergraduate students’ level of laboratory safety awareness. Journal of Education, Society and Behavioural Science, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.9734/JESBS/2017/37461Osang, J. E., Obi, E. O., & Ewona, I. O. (2013). Evaluation of the effect of workshop/laboratory accidents and precautionary steps towards safety practice. IOSR Journal of Electronics and Communication Engineering (IOSR-JECE) e-ISSN, 2278–2834.Pan, Z., Cheok, A. D., Yang, H., Zhu, J., & Shi, J. (2006). Virtual reality and mixed reality for virtual learning environments. Computers & Graphics, 30(1), 20–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cag.2005.10.004Pan, Z., Luo, T., Zhang, M., Cai, N., Li, Y., Miao, J., Li, Z., Pan, Z., Shen, Y., & Lu, J. (2021). MagicChem: A MR system based on needs theory for chemical experiments. Virtual Reality. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-021-00560-zPanasan, M., & Nuangchalerm, P. (2010). Learning outcomes of project-based and inquiry-based learning activities. In Online Submission (Vol. 6, Issue 2, pp. 252–255). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED509723Parsons, D., & MacCallum, K. (2020). Comparing the attitudes of in-service teachers to the learning potential of low-cost mobile augmented and virtual reality tools. 33–40. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/218885/Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Leijen, Ä., & Sarapuu, T. (2012). Improving students’ inquiry skills through reflection and self-regulation scaffolds. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 9, 81–95.Peterson, J. (2017). Virtual reality, augmented reality, and mixed reality definitions. 4.Pintrich, P. R., & Others, A. (1991). A manual for the use of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED338122Puteri, N. A. F., & Nurcahyo, R. (2018). Safety perceptions in university teaching laboratory. 8.Ramnarain, U., & Fortus, D. (2013). South African physical sciences teachers’ perceptions of new content in a revised curriculum. South African Journal of Education, 33(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v33n1a573Reid, N., & Shah, I. (2007). The role of laboratory work in university chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 8(2), 172–185. https://doi.org/10.1039/B5RP90026CReiss, M., Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). Beyond 2000: Science/biology education for the future. Journal of Biological Education - J BIOL EDUC, 33, 68–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.1999.9655644Renner, J. W., & Others, A. (1985). Secondary school students’ beliefs about the physics laboratory. Science Education, 69(5), 649–663.Richards-Babb, M., Bishoff, J., Carver, J. S., Fisher, K., & Robertson-Honecker, J. (2010). Keeping it safe: Chemical safety in the high school laboratory. Journal of Chemical Health & Safety, 17(1), 6–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jchas.2009.05.001Rissing, S. W., & Cogan, J. G. (2009). Can an inquiry approach improve college student learning in a teaching laboratory. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 8(1), 55–61. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.08-05-0023Rutherford, F. J., & Ahlgren, A. (1991). Science for all Americans. Oxford University Press.Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(3), 345–372. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10130Schröder, I., Huang, D. Y. Q., Ellis, O., Gibson, J. H., & Wayne, N. L. (2016). Laboratory safety attitudes and practices: A comparison of academic, government, and industry researchers. Journal of Chemical Health and Safety, 23(1), 12–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jchas.2015.03.001Schulz, W. G. (2005). Fighting lab fires: Explosion and fire at an Ohio State University chemistry lab highlight safety issues in academia. Chemical & Engineering News Archive, 83(21), 34–35. https://doi.org/10.1021/cen-v083n021.p034Secker, C. von. (2002). Effects of inquiry-based teacher practices on science excellence and equity. The Journal of Educational Research, 95(3), 151–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670209596585Sedghpour, B. S., Sabbaghan, M., & Sataei, F. M. (2013). A survey on the pre-service chemistry teachers’ lab safety education. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 90, 57–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.07.065Seyhan, H. G., & Morgil, I. (2007). The effect of 5E learning model on teaching of acid-base topic in chemistry education. Journal of Science Education, 8(2), 120.Shappell, S., & Wiegmann, D. (2000). The human factors analysis and classification system—HFACS. Publications. https://commons.erau.edu/publication/737Shariff, A. M., & Norazahar, N. (2012). At-risk behaviour analysis and improvement study in an academic laboratory. Safety Science, 50(1), 29–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2011.06.008Shelton, B. (2002). Augmented reality and education: Current projects and the potential for classroom learning. ITLS Faculty Publications.Soloway, E., Guzdial, M., & Hay, K. E. (1994). Learner-centered design: The challenge for HCI in the 21st century. Interactions, 1(2), 36–48.Stofflet, R. T. (1999). Putting constructivist teaching into practice in undergraduate introductory science. The Electronic Journal for Research in Science & Mathematics Education. https://ejrsme.icrsme.com/article/view/7605Su, T.-S., & Hsu, I.-Y. (2008). Perception towards chemical labeling for college students in Taiwan using globally harmonized system. Safety Science, 46(9), 1385–1392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2007.09.002Subramaniam, C., Shamsudin, F. M., Zin, M. L., & Lazim, H. M. (2013). Do workplace safety practices influence safety compliance behavior? Evidence among nurses in Malaysia. 17.Sundberg, M. D., & Moncada, G. J. (1994). Creating effective investigative laboratories for undergraduates. BioScience, 44(10), 698–704. https://doi.org/10.2307/1312513Sungur, S., Tekkaya, C., & Geban, Ö. (2001). The contribution of conceptual change texts accompanied by concept mapping to students’ understanding of the human circulatory system. School Science and Mathematics, 101(2), 91–101. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2001.tb18010.xTang, W. T., Kim Chwee, D. T., Yaw, K. Y., Yong, C. T., & Leck, W. Y. (2014). How flip teaching supports undergraduate chemistry laboratory learning. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 15(4), 550–567. https://doi.org/10.1039/C4RP00003JTang, Y. M., Au, K. M., Lau, H. C. W., Ho, G. T. S., & Wu, C. H. (2020). Evaluating the effectiveness of learning design with mixed reality (MR) in higher education. Virtual Reality, 24(4), 797–807. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-020-00427-9Tatli, Z., & Ayas, A. (2013). Effect of a virtual chemistry laboratory on students’ achievement. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 16(1), 159–170.Temel, H., Oral, B., & Avanoglu, Y. (2000). Kimya ogrencilerinin deneye yonelik tutumlari ile titrimetri deneylerini planlama ve uygulamaya iliskin bilgi ve becerileri arasındaki İliskinin degerlendirilmesi. Cagdas Egitim Dergisi, 264, 32–38.Thees, M., Kapp, S., Strzys, M. P., Beil, F., Lukowicz, P., & Kuhn, J. (2020). Effects of augmented reality on learning and cognitive load in university physics laboratory courses. Computers in Human Behavior, 108, 106316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106316Tobin, K. (1990). Research on science laboratory activities: In pursuit of better questions and answers to improve learning. School Science and Mathematics, 90(5), 403–418. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1990.tb17229.xTokel, S., & Pedersen, S. (2012). Supporting problem-solving performance in a hypermedia learning environment: The role of students’ prior knowledge and metacognitive skills. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 1162–1169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.01.026Topala, I., & Tomozii, S. (2014). Learning satisfaction: Validity and reliability testing for students’ learning satisfaction questionnaire (SLSQ). Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 128, 380–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.175Torres, F., Tovar, L. A. N., & Egremy, M. C. (2015). Virtual interactive laboratory applied to high schools programs. Procedia Computer Science, 75, 233–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2015.12.243Tsai, C.-C. (2001). A review and discussion of epistemological commitments, metacognition, and critical thinking with suggestions on their enhancement in internet-assisted chemistry classrooms. Journal of Chemical Education, 78(7), 970. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed078p970Tsakeni, M., Vandeyar, S., & Potgieter, M. (2019). Inquiry opportunities presented by practical work in school physical sciences: A South African case study. Gender and Behaviour, 17(3), 13722–13733. https://doi.org/10.10520/EJC-1975177d59Tuan, H., Chin, C., & Shieh, S. (2005). The development of a questionnaire to measure students’ motivation towards science learning. International Journal of Science Education, 27(6), 639–654. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069042000323737Vaz, K., McGrowder, D., Alexander-Lindo, R., Gordon, L., Brown, P., & Irving, R. (2010). Knowledge, awareness and compliance with universal precautions among health care workers at the university hospital of the West Indies, Jamaica. 1(4), 11.Viitaharju, P., Yliniemi, K., Nieminen, M., & Karttunen, A. J. (2021). Learning experiences from digital laboratory safety training. Education for Chemical Engineers, 34, 87–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ece.2020.11.009Walters, A. U. C., Lawrence, W., & Jalsa, N. K. (2017). Chemical laboratory safety awareness, attitudes and practices of tertiary students. Safety Science, 96, 161–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.03.017Wink, D. J., Fetzer-Gislason, S., & Kuehn, J. E. (2004). Working with chemistry: A laboratory inquiry program. Macmillan.Woodfield, B. (2005). Virtual chemlab getting started. Pearson Education website. Retrieved July 25, 2022, from http://www. mypearsontraining.com/pdfs/VCL_getting_started.pdf.Wu, H., & Hsieh, C. (2006). Developing sixth graders’ inquiry skills to construct explanations in inquiry‐based learning environments. International Journal of Science Education, 28(11), 1289–1313. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600621035Zhu, Y., Lou, Z., Ge, T., Wu, T., Wang, Y., Tan, T., & Wang, J. (2021). An interactive mixed reality platform for inquiry-based education. 2021 IEEE 7th International Conference on Virtual Reality (ICVR), 324–331. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICVR51878.2021.9483827 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
圖書資訊與檔案學研究所
109155018資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0109155018 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 陳志銘 zh_TW dc.contributor.advisor Chen, Chih-Ming en_US dc.contributor.author (Authors) 涂家政 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (Authors) Tu, Chia-Cheng en_US dc.creator (作者) 涂家政 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Tu, Chia-Cheng en_US dc.date (日期) 2022 en_US dc.date.accessioned 1-Aug-2022 17:44:41 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 1-Aug-2022 17:44:41 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 1-Aug-2022 17:44:41 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0109155018 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/141148 - dc.description (描述) 碩士 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 圖書資訊與檔案學研究所 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 109155018 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 在化學實驗室安全教育中，採用傳統教師講授的教學模式進行教學，仍存在僅能口頭說明，嚴禁學生進行危險操作，難以讓學生真實體驗的缺點與限制。而隨著具有虛實整合特性之混合實境技術的快速發展，已逐漸發展出許多的創新教學應用，並被證實能夠有效地促進學習成效。因此，本研究基於探究式學習模式與混合實境技術開發「基於混合實境之化學實驗室安全教育自學系統」輔以進行化學實驗室安全教育學習，讓學習者得以在虛擬環境中安全且自由地進行探究式實驗操作，避免發生在現實化學實驗室當中可能發生的安全問題，並透過系統所提供的感官體驗與互動效果，讓學習者勇於嘗試錯誤操作，而對於實驗危險後果更加印象深刻。本研究採用準實驗研究法，以台北市某高中二年級兩個班級的學生共 36 名作為研究對象，並隨機分派為兩組進行化學實驗室安全教育，其中 17 名學生為採用「基於混合實境之化學實驗室安全教育自學系統」輔以學習的實驗組，剩餘 19 名學生則為採用「教師實體授課方式」輔以學習的控制組。透過教學實驗的實施，探討採用不同學習模式輔以進行化學實驗室安全教育的兩組學習者，在學習成效、實驗安全態度、學習動機，以及學習滿意度上是否具有顯著的差異。另外，也以實驗室安全先備知識和實驗室安全初始態度為背景變項，進一步探討不同背景變項之兩組學習者，在學習成效、實驗安全態度、學習動機，以及學習滿意度上是否具有顯著的差異。此外，也以半結構式深度訪談瞭解學習者對於不同學習模式的感受與看法，以及對於本研究發展之混合實境系統應用於教學上的改善建議。實驗結果發現，相較於採用「教師實體授課方式」輔以進行化學實驗室安全教育的學習者，採用「基於混合實境之化學實驗室安全教育自學系統」的學習者更能夠顯著提升其在化學實驗室安全主題上的學習成效。此外，在實驗安全態度分析中得知，兩組學習者均在教學實驗結束後對於實驗安全的態度感受具有顯著的提升。而在學習動機與學習滿意度分析方面，兩組學習者之間並無呈現顯著的差異，但對於這兩種學習模式均持正面肯定的態度，但從訪談結果中發現，學習者仍較傾向於採用「基於混合實境之化學實驗室安全教育自學系統」輔以進行化學實驗室安全教育學習，並且普遍認為透過混合實境沉浸式的操作體驗，更能夠加深其對於危險操作的警覺性與實驗室安全觀念的養成。整體而言，本研究發展之「基於混合實境之化學實驗室安全教育自學系統」在輔助化學實驗安全知識的養成與提升上，不但具有成效，並且具有在學習模式上的創新貢獻。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) In chemistry laboratory safety education, the traditional lecture model still remains some drawbacks and limitations on adopting verbal explanations and prohibiting students from performing dangerous operations, thus making it difficult for students to learn real experiences on chemistry laboratory safety. With the rapid development of mixed reality (MR) technology integrating virtual and physical space, many innovative teaching and learning applications with MR support have been successfully developed and proven their effectiveness in promoting learning performance. Therefore, this study develops a novel autonomous learning system for chemistry laboratory safety education based on mixed reality to assist chemical laboratory safety education, allowing learners to conduct inquiry-based experimental operations in a virtual environment by using a free and safe way so that safety problems in real chemical laboratories that may hurt learners can be avoided. Through the sensory experience and interactive effects offered by the system, learners can try the wrong operations as possible as they can in a virtual chemistry laboratory that is similar to a physical chemistry laboratory, thus getting more impressive experiences in chemistry laboratory safety education.With a quasi-experimental research method in this study, a total of 36 Grade 11 students from two classes of a senior high school in Taipei City, Taiwan were randomly assigned into the experimental and control groups for chemistry laboratory safety education. A total of 17 students were randomly assigned to the experimental group that adopted the autonomous learning system for chemistry laboratory safety education to support chemistry laboratory safety education and the remaining 19 students were assigned to the control group that adopted the traditional physical teaching method with a teacher. An instruction experiment was conducted to examine whether there were significant differences in learning effectiveness, attitudes toward laboratory safety, learning motivation, and learning satisfaction when learners of two groups were assigned above-mentioned two different learning models to support chemistry laboratory safety education. Furthermore, prior knowledge of laboratory safety and initial attitude of laboratory safety are regarded as the background variables to discuss the differences in learning effectiveness, attitudes toward laboratory safety, learning motivation, and learning satisfaction of learners of two groups. In addition, semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted to understand learners’ perceptions and suggestions towards using different learning models to assist chemistry laboratory safety education.The research results show that, compared to learners who adopted the traditional physical teaching method for chemistry laboratory safety education, learners who adopted the autonomous learning system for chemistry laboratory safety education based on mixed reality are able to significantly improve their learning effectiveness on chemistry laboratory safety. Furthermore, the analysis of attitudes shows that learners of both groups significantly improved their attitudes toward laboratory safety at the end of the instruction experiment. On the other hand, the analysis of learning motivation and learning satisfaction shows that, there are no significant differences between the learners of two groups, but they have positive attitude toward both learning models. However, according to the interview results, learners tend to adopt the autonomous learning system for chemistry laboratory safety education based on mixed reality to support learning, and they stated that the immersion operation experience from mixed reality is able to enhance their awareness of hazardous operations and the development of laboratory safety concepts. Overall, the autonomous learning system for chemistry laboratory safety education based on mixed reality developed in this study is not only effective in assisting the development and enhancement of chemistry laboratory safety knowledge, but also is an innovative learning model to chemistry laboratory safety education. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents 第一章 緒論 1第一節 研究背景與動機 1第二節 研究目的 6第三節 研究問題 8第四節 研究範圍與限制 8第五節 重要名詞解釋 9第二章 文獻探討 11第一節 化學實驗室安全教育 11第二節 探究式學習於科學教育應用 16第三節 混合實境於教學應用 20第三章 系統設計 23第一節 系統設計理念 23第二節 學習內容設計與資料來源 24第三節 系統介面功能與操作流程 26第四節 系統開發環境 41第四章 研究設計與實施 43第一節 研究架構 43第二節 研究方法 46第三節 研究對象 47第四節 實驗設計與流程 47第五節 研究工具 51第六節 資料處理與分析 54第七節 研究實施步驟 57第五章 實驗結果分析 59第一節 兩組學習者在學習成效、實驗安全態度、學習動機，以及學習滿意度之差異分析 60第二節 採用不同學習模式輔以進行化學實驗室安全教育之兩組不同先備知識學習者，在學習成效、實驗安全態度、學習動機，以及學習滿意度之差異分析 70第三節 採用不同學習模式輔以進行化學實驗室安全教育之兩組不同安全初始態度學習者，在學習成效、實驗安全態度、學習動機，以及學習滿意度之差異分析 81第四節 訪談質性資料分析 92第五節 綜合討論 101第六章 結論與建議 110第一節 結論 111第二節 「基於混合實境之化學實驗室安全教育自學系統」改善建議 115第三節 研究未來方向 117參考文獻 119附錄一 實驗參與同意書 133附錄二 化學實驗室安全知識測驗卷 134附錄三 化學實驗室安全態度量表 136附錄四 學習動機量表 138附錄五 學習滿意度問卷 141附錄六 半結構式訪談大綱 143 zh_TW dc.format.extent 4847510 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0109155018 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 混合實境 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 探究式學習 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 混合實境結合探究式學習 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 化學實驗室安全教育 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 物件辨識技術 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) Mixed reality en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Inquiry-based learning en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Mixed reality integrated inquiry-based learning en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Chemistry laboratory safety education en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Object detection technology en_US dc.title (題名) 混合實境於虛實整合化學實驗室之發展及教學應用 zh_TW dc.title (題名) Development and Applications of a Chemistry Laboratory with Virtual and Physical Integration based on Mixed Reality en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en_US dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Abd-El-Khalick, F., BouJaoude, S., Duschl, R., Lederman, N. G., Mamlok-Naaman, R., Hofstein, A., Niaz, M., Treagust, D., & Tuan, H. (2004). Inquiry in science education: International perspectives. Science Education, 88(3), 397–419. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10118Abdi, A. (2014). The effect of inquiry-based learning method on students’ academic achievement in science course. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 2(1), 37–41.Adane, L., & Abeje, A. (2012). Assessment of familiarity and understanding of chemical hazard warning signs among university students majoring chemistry and biology: A case study at Jimma University, Southwestern Ethiopia. World Applied Sciences Journal, 16(2), 290–299. Scopus.Alaimo, P. J., Langenhan, J. M., Tanner, M. J., & Ferrenberg, S. M. (2010). Safety teams: An approach to engage students in laboratory safety. Journal of Chemical Education, 87(8), 856–861. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed100207dAl-Zyoud, W., Qunies, A. M., Walters, A. U. C., & Jalsa, N. K. (2019). Perceptions of chemical safety in laboratories. Safety, 5(2), 21. https://doi.org/10.3390/safety5020021American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1994). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.American Chemical Society. (2012). Creating safety cultures in academic institutions: A report of the safety culture task force of the ACS Committee on chemical safety. ACS, Washington.Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015171124982Artdej, R. (2012). Investigating undergraduate students’ scientific understanding of laboratory safety. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 5058–5062. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.385Ayi, H.-R., & Hon, C.-Y. (2018). Safety culture and safety compliance in academic laboratories: A Canadian perspective. Journal of Chemical Health & Safety, 25(6), 6–12.Bacca Acosta, J. L., Baldiris Navarro, S. M., Fabregat Gesa, R., Graf, S., & Kinshuk. (2014). Augmented reality trends in education: A systematic review of research and applications. https://dugi-doc.udg.edu/handle/10256/17763Backus, L. (2005). A year without procedures. The Science Teacher, 72(7), 54.Baird, J. R. (1990). Metacognition, purposeful enquiry and conceptual change. The Student Laboratory and the Science Curriculum, 183–200.Baragona, M. (2009). Multiple intelligences and alternative teaching strategies: The effects on student academic achievement, conceptual understanding, and attitude. In Ph.D. Thesis. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009PhDT........58BBenderly, B. L. (2009). The burning question of laboratory safety. Science. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.caredit.a0900054Benedict, K. G., & Arbor, A. (2004). How can I prevent laboratory accidents. Online Chemistry Course (OLCC), 6.Bevevino, M. M., Dengel, J., & Adams, K. (1999). Constructivist theory in the classroom internalizing: Concepts through inquiry learning. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 72(5), 275–278. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098659909599406Bidarra, J., & Rusman, E. (2017). Towards a pedagogical model for science education: Bridging educational contexts through a blended learning approach. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 32(1), 6–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2016.1265442Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3–4), 369–398. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.1991.9653139Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Bruck, L. B., & Towns, M. H. (2009). Preparing students to benefit from inquiry-based activities in the chemistry laboratory: Guidelines and suggestions. Journal of Chemical Education, 86(7), 820. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed086p820Bybee, R., & Goodrum, D. (1999). Teaching science as inquiry. http://www.asta.edu.au/conasta/conasta48link.htmlCan, Ş., Aksay, E. Ç., & Orhan, T. Y. (2015). Investigation of pre-service science teachers’ attitudes towards laboratory safety. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174, 3131–3136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.1051Cardak, O., Dikmenli, M., & Saritas, O. (2008). Effect of 5E instructional model in student success in primary school 6th year circulatory system topic. 9(2), 11.Chen, S. Y., & Huang, P.-R. (2013). The comparisons of the influences of prior knowledge on two game-based learning systems. Computers & Education, 68(1), 177–186.De Jong, T., & Van Joolingen, W. R. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 179–201. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543068002179Deters, K. M. (2005). Student opinions regarding inquiry-based labs. Journal of Chemical Education, 82(8), 1178. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed082p1178Drexel University. (2018). HoloLens mixed reality learning in education. https://www.virtuallyinspired.org/portfolio/holostudyproject/Edelson, D. C., Gordin, D. N., & Pea, R. D. (1999). Addressing the challenges of inquiry-based learning through technology and curriculum design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8(3–4), 391–450. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.1999.9672075Eguna, M. T., Suico, M. L. S., & Lim, P. J. Y. (2011). Learning to be safe: Chemical laboratory management in a developing country. Journal of Chemical Health & Safety, 18(6), 5–7.Ernst, D. C., Hodge, A., & Yoshinobu, S. (2017). What is inquiry-based learning. Notices of the American Mathematical Society, 64(06), 570–574. https://doi.org/10.1090/noti1536Fakayode, S. O. (2014). Guided-inquiry laboratory experiments in the analytical chemistry laboratory curriculum. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, 406(5), 1267–1271. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-013-7515-8Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111Germann, P. J., Haskins, S., & Auls, S. (1996). Analysis of nine high school biology laboratory manuals: Promoting scientific inquiry. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33(5), 475–499. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199605)33:5<475::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-OGibson, H. L., & Chase, C. (2002). Longitudinal impact of an inquiry-based science program on middle school students’ attitudes toward science. Science Education, 86(5), 693–705. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10039Gunstone, R. F. (1991). Reconstructing theory from practical experience. Practical Science, 67–77.Harlen, W. (2013). Inquiry-based learning in science and mathematics. Review of Science, Mathematics and ICT Education, 7(2), 9–33. https://doi.org/10.26220/rev.2042Harvey, L., Locke, W., & Morey, A. (2002). Enhancing employability, recognising diversity: Making links between higher education and the world of work: Main report. Universities UK.Hayes, A., Hardin, S., & Hughes, C. (2013). Perceived presence’s role on learning outcomes in a mixed reality classroom of simulated students. 8022, 142–151. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39420-1_16Hayes, B. E., Perander, J., Smecko, T., & Trask, J. (1998). Measuring perceptions of workplace safety: Development and validation of the work safety scale. Journal of Safety Research, 29(3), 145–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4375(98)00011-5Hill, R. H. (2007). The emergence of laboratory safety. Journal of Chemical Health & Safety, 14(3), 14–19.Hill, R. H. (2016). Undergraduates need a safety education. Journal of Chemical Education, 93(9), 1495–1498. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00825Hill, R. H., & Finster, D. C. (2016). Laboratory safety for chemistry students. John Wiley & SonsHilosky, A., Sutman, F., & Schmuckler, J. (1998). Is laboratory based instruction in beginning college-level chemistry worth the effort and expense. Journal of Chemical Education, 75(1), 100. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed075p100Hodson, D. (1990). A critical look at practical work in school science. School Science Review, 71(256), 33–40.Hodson, D. (1993). Re-thinking old ways: Towards a more critical approach to practical work in school science. Studies in Science Education, 22(1), 85–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057269308560022Hofstein, A., Levy Nahum, T., & Shore, R. (2001). Assessment of the learning environment of inquiry-type laboratories in high school chemistry. Learning Environments Research, 4(2), 193–207. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012467417645Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (1982). The role of the laboratory in science teaching: Neglected aspects of research. Review of Educational Research, 52(2), 201–217. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543052002201Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (2004). The laboratory in science education: Foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88(1), 28–54. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10106Hofstein, A., Shore, R., & Kipnis, M. (2004). Providing high school chemistry students with opportunities to develop learning skills in an inquiry-type laboratory: A case study. International Journal of Science Education, 26(1), 47–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000070342Holubova, R. (2008). Effective teaching methods—Project-based learning in physics. In Online Submission (Vol. 5, Issue 12, pp. 27–36). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED504949Hsu, Y.-S., Lai, T.-L., & Hsu, W.-H. (2015). A design model of distributed scaffolding for inquiry-based learning. Research in Science Education, 45(2), 241–273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-014-9421-2Hu-Au, E., & Okita, S. (2021). Exploring differences in student learning and behavior between real-life and virtual reality chemistry laboratories. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 30(6), 862–876. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-021-09925-0Hughes, C. E., Stapleton, C. B., Hughes, D. E., & Smith, E. M. (2005). Mixed reality in education, entertainment, and training. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 25(6), 24–30. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCG.2005.139Huston, E. M., Milligan, J. A., Powell, J. R., Smith, A. M., Neal, D., Duval, K. M., DiNardo, M. A., Stoddard, C., Bell, P. A., Berning, A. W., Wipf, P., & Bandik, G. C. (2018). Development of an undergraduate course in chemical laboratory safety through an academic/industrial collaboration. Journal of Chemical Education, 95(4), 577–583. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00599Jones, B. F., Rasmussen, C. M., & Moffitt, M. C. (1997). Real-life problem solving: A collaborative approach to interdisciplinary learning. https://doi.org/10.1037/10266-000Jones, M. E., Gott, R., & Jarman, R. (2000). Investigations as part of the key stage 4 science curriculum in Northern Ireland. Evaluation & Research in Education, 14(1), 23–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500790008666959Kallio, H., Pietila, A.-M., Johnson, M., & Kangasniemi, M. (2016). Systematic methodological review: Developing a framework for a qualitative semi-structured interview guide. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 72(12), 2954–2965. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.13031Kang, S., Norooz, L., Oguamanam, V., Plane, A. C., Clegg, T. L., & Froehlich, J. E. (2016). SharedPhys: Live physiological sensing, whole-body interaction, and large-screen visualizations to support shared inquiry experiences. Proceedings of the The 15th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children, 275–287. https://doi.org/10.1145/2930674.2930710Kangas, M., Siklander, P., Randolph, J., & Ruokamo, H. (2017). Teachers’ engagement and students’ satisfaction with a playful learning environment. Teaching and Teacher Education, 63, 274–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.12.018Karapantsios, T. D., Boutskou, E. I., Touliopoulou, E., & Mavros, P. (2008). Evaluation of chemical laboratory safety based on student comprehension of chemicals labelling. Education for Chemical Engineers, 3(1), e66–e73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ece.2008.02.001Katchevich, D., Hofstein, A., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2013). Argumentation in the chemistry laboratory: Inquiry and confirmatory experiments. Research in Science Education, 43(1), 317–345. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-011-9267-9Kazempour, M. (2009). Impact of inquiry-based professional development on core conceptions and teaching practices: A case study. Science Educator, 18(2), 56–68.Ke, F., Lee, S., & Xu, X. (2016). Teaching training in a mixed-reality integrated learning environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 62, 212–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.094Kelley, E. W. (2020). Reflections on three different high school chemistry lab formats during COVID-19 remote learning. Journal of Chemical Education, 97(9), 2606–2616. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00814Keselman, A. (2003). Supporting inquiry learning by promoting normative understanding of multivariable causality. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(9), 898–921. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.10115Kirbaşlar, F. G., Özsoy-Güneş, Z., & Derelioğlu, Y. (2010). Investigation of pre-service science teachers’ opinions and knowledge degrees on laboratory safety. Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 30(3), 801–818. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/77014Kılınç, A. (2007). The opinions of Turkish high school pupils on inquiry based laboratory activities. In Online Submission (Vol. 6, Issue 4). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED499653Koff, L., & Mullis, R. (2011). Nutrition education and technology: Can delivering messages via new media technology effectively modify nutrition behaviors of preschoolers and their families. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 43(4), S40.Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Bass, K. M., Fredricks, J., & Soloway, E. (1998). Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: Initial attempts by middle school students. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3–4), 313–350. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.1998.9672057Langerman, N. (2009). Laboratory safety. Journal of Chemical Health & Safety, 16(3), 49–50.Lawler, A. (2000). Quantum mechanics: Lab accident damages solar flare satellite. Science, 287. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.287.5462.2395bLazarowitz, R., & Tamir, P. (1994). Research on using laboratory instruction in science. Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning, 1994, 94–130.Lee, J. Y. (2021). A study on metaverse hype for sustainable growth. International Journal of Advanced Smart Convergence, 10(3), 72–80. https://doi.org/10.7236/IJASC.2021.10.3.72Leonard, W. H., & Chandler, P. M. (2003). Where is the inquiry in biology textbooks. The American Biology Teacher, 65(7), 485–487. https://doi.org/10.1662/0002-7685(2003)065[0485:WITIIB]2.0.CO;2Lewis, J. (2002). The effectiveness of mini-projects as a preparation for open-ended investigations. In D. Psillos & H. Niedderer (Eds.), Teaching and Learning in the Science Laboratory (pp. 139–150). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-48196-0_15Li, R., Gao, H., Chu, D., Zhang, K., & Xu, H. (2016). Research on the safety accidents prediction for smart laboratory based on statistical analysis. 26–31. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACIT-CSII-BCD.2016.018Liarokapis, F., & Anderson, E. F. (2010). Using augmented reality as a medium to assist teaching in higher education. 7.Lin, F.-C., Chen, C.-M., & Wang, W.-F. (2017b). Learning process analysis based on sequential pattern mining and lag sequential analysis in a web-based inquiry science environment. 2017 6th IIAI International Congress on Advanced Applied Informatics (IIAI-AAI), 655–660. https://doi.org/10.1109/IIAI-AAI.2017.57Linn, M. C., diSessa, A., Pea, R. D., & Songer, N. B. (1994). Can research on science learning and instruction inform standards for science education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 3(1), 7–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01575812Linn, M. C., Songer, N. B., & Eylon, B. S. (1996). Shifts and convergences in science learning and instruction. Handbook of Educational Psychology, 438–490.Lord, T., & Orkwiszewski, T. (2006). Moving from didactic to inquiry-based instruction in a science laboratory. The American Biology Teacher, 68(6), 342–345.Lord, T. R. (1999). A comparison between traditional and constructivist teaching in environmental science. The Journal of Environmental Education, 30(3), 22–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958969909601874Luckie, D. B., Maleszewski, J. J., Loznak, S. D., & Krha, M. (2004). Infusion of collaborative inquiry throughout a biology curriculum increases student learning: A four-year study of “Teams and Streams.” Advances in Physiology Education, 28(4), 199–209. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00025.2004Lunetta, V. N. (1998). The school science laboratory: Historical perspectives and contexts for contemporary teaching. International Handbook of Science Education, 1, 249–262.MacCallum, K., & Jamieson, J. (2017). Exploring augmented reality in education viewed through the affordance lens. Proceedings of the 8th Annual Conference of Computing and Information Technology Education and Research in New Zealand.Manuel, M. S., Aggabao, B. C., & Bona, C. A. D. (2021). Knowledge, attitude, and practices about chemical laboratory safety of the faculty, staff and students of Kalinga State University. Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 14(45), 3295–3303. https://doi.org/10.17485/IJST/v14i45.822Marek, E. A., Eubanks, C., & Gallaher, T. H. (1990). Teachers’ understanding and the use of the learning cycle. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(9), 821–834. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660270903Marendaz, J.-L., Suard, J.-C., & Meyer, T. (2013). A systematic tool for assessment and classification of hazards in laboratories (ACHiL). Safety Science, 53, 168–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2012.10.001Marin, L. S., Muñoz-Osuna, F. O., Arvayo-Mata, K. L., & Álvarez-Chávez, C. R. (2019). Chemistry laboratory safety climate survey (CLASS): A tool for measuring students’ perceptions of safety. Journal of Chemical Health & Safety, 26(6), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jchas.2019.01.001Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S., Fishman, B., Soloway, E., Geier, R., & Tal, R. T. (2004). Inquiry-based science in the middle grades: Assessment of learning in urban systemic reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 1063–1080. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20039Massie, D., Campbell, K., & Williams, A. (1995). Traffic accident involvement rates by driver age and gender. Accident; Analysis and Prevention, 27(1), 73–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-4575(94)00050-VMilgram, P., & Kishino, F. (1994). A taxonomy of mixed reality visual displays. IEICE Trans. Information Systems, E77-D, no. 12, 1321–1329.Miller, H. R., McNeal, K. S., & Herbert, B. E. (2010). Inquiry in the physical geology classroom: Supporting students’ conceptual model development. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 34(4), 595–615. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098265.2010.499562Modell, H. I. (1996). Preparing students to participate in an active learning environment. Advances in Physiology Education, 270(6), S69. https://doi.org/10.1152/advances.1996.270.6.S69Morell, V. (1994). Novel course III: Undergrad labs “Get Real.” Science. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.266.5186.870.bMoro, C., Phelps, C., Redmond, P., & Stromberga, Z. (2021). HoloLens and mobile augmented reality in medical and health science education: A randomised controlled trial. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(2), 680–694. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13049Müller, C., Krone, M., Huber, M., Biener, V., Herr, D., Koch, S., Reina, G., Weiskopf, D., & Ertl, T. (2018). Interactive molecular graphics for augmented reality using HoloLens. Journal of Integrative Bioinformatics, 15. https://doi.org/10.1515/jib-2018-0005National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/9596National Research Council. (2011). Prudent practices in the laboratory: Handling and management of chemical hazards, updated version. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Nuangchalerm, P. (2010). Engaging students to perceive nature of science through socioscientific issues-based instruction. In Online Submission (Vol. 13, Issue 1, pp. 34–37). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED508531Nuangchalerm, P., & Thammasena, B. (2009). Cognitive development, analytical thinking and learning satisfaction of second grade students learned through inquiry-based learning. In Online Submission (Vol. 5, Issue 10, pp. 82–87). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED506511OECD. (2000). Measuring student knowledge and skills: A new framework for assessment. Paris: OECD.Olajumoke, S. O., & Benjamin, A. E. (2018). Science education undergraduate students’ level of laboratory safety awareness. Journal of Education, Society and Behavioural Science, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.9734/JESBS/2017/37461Osang, J. E., Obi, E. O., & Ewona, I. O. (2013). Evaluation of the effect of workshop/laboratory accidents and precautionary steps towards safety practice. IOSR Journal of Electronics and Communication Engineering (IOSR-JECE) e-ISSN, 2278–2834.Pan, Z., Cheok, A. D., Yang, H., Zhu, J., & Shi, J. (2006). Virtual reality and mixed reality for virtual learning environments. Computers & Graphics, 30(1), 20–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cag.2005.10.004Pan, Z., Luo, T., Zhang, M., Cai, N., Li, Y., Miao, J., Li, Z., Pan, Z., Shen, Y., & Lu, J. (2021). MagicChem: A MR system based on needs theory for chemical experiments. Virtual Reality. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-021-00560-zPanasan, M., & Nuangchalerm, P. (2010). Learning outcomes of project-based and inquiry-based learning activities. In Online Submission (Vol. 6, Issue 2, pp. 252–255). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED509723Parsons, D., & MacCallum, K. (2020). Comparing the attitudes of in-service teachers to the learning potential of low-cost mobile augmented and virtual reality tools. 33–40. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/218885/Pedaste, M., Mäeots, M., Leijen, Ä., & Sarapuu, T. (2012). Improving students’ inquiry skills through reflection and self-regulation scaffolds. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 9, 81–95.Peterson, J. (2017). Virtual reality, augmented reality, and mixed reality definitions. 4.Pintrich, P. R., & Others, A. (1991). A manual for the use of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED338122Puteri, N. A. F., & Nurcahyo, R. (2018). Safety perceptions in university teaching laboratory. 8.Ramnarain, U., & Fortus, D. (2013). South African physical sciences teachers’ perceptions of new content in a revised curriculum. South African Journal of Education, 33(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v33n1a573Reid, N., & Shah, I. (2007). The role of laboratory work in university chemistry. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 8(2), 172–185. https://doi.org/10.1039/B5RP90026CReiss, M., Millar, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). Beyond 2000: Science/biology education for the future. Journal of Biological Education - J BIOL EDUC, 33, 68–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.1999.9655644Renner, J. W., & Others, A. (1985). Secondary school students’ beliefs about the physics laboratory. Science Education, 69(5), 649–663.Richards-Babb, M., Bishoff, J., Carver, J. S., Fisher, K., & Robertson-Honecker, J. (2010). Keeping it safe: Chemical safety in the high school laboratory. Journal of Chemical Health & Safety, 17(1), 6–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jchas.2009.05.001Rissing, S. W., & Cogan, J. G. (2009). Can an inquiry approach improve college student learning in a teaching laboratory. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 8(1), 55–61. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.08-05-0023Rutherford, F. J., & Ahlgren, A. (1991). Science for all Americans. Oxford University Press.Sandoval, W. A., & Reiser, B. J. (2004). Explanation-driven inquiry: Integrating conceptual and epistemic scaffolds for scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88(3), 345–372. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10130Schröder, I., Huang, D. Y. Q., Ellis, O., Gibson, J. H., & Wayne, N. L. (2016). Laboratory safety attitudes and practices: A comparison of academic, government, and industry researchers. Journal of Chemical Health and Safety, 23(1), 12–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jchas.2015.03.001Schulz, W. G. (2005). Fighting lab fires: Explosion and fire at an Ohio State University chemistry lab highlight safety issues in academia. Chemical & Engineering News Archive, 83(21), 34–35. https://doi.org/10.1021/cen-v083n021.p034Secker, C. von. (2002). Effects of inquiry-based teacher practices on science excellence and equity. The Journal of Educational Research, 95(3), 151–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670209596585Sedghpour, B. S., Sabbaghan, M., & Sataei, F. M. (2013). A survey on the pre-service chemistry teachers’ lab safety education. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 90, 57–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.07.065Seyhan, H. G., & Morgil, I. (2007). The effect of 5E learning model on teaching of acid-base topic in chemistry education. Journal of Science Education, 8(2), 120.Shappell, S., & Wiegmann, D. (2000). The human factors analysis and classification system—HFACS. Publications. https://commons.erau.edu/publication/737Shariff, A. M., & Norazahar, N. (2012). At-risk behaviour analysis and improvement study in an academic laboratory. Safety Science, 50(1), 29–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2011.06.008Shelton, B. (2002). Augmented reality and education: Current projects and the potential for classroom learning. ITLS Faculty Publications.Soloway, E., Guzdial, M., & Hay, K. E. (1994). Learner-centered design: The challenge for HCI in the 21st century. Interactions, 1(2), 36–48.Stofflet, R. T. (1999). Putting constructivist teaching into practice in undergraduate introductory science. The Electronic Journal for Research in Science & Mathematics Education. https://ejrsme.icrsme.com/article/view/7605Su, T.-S., & Hsu, I.-Y. (2008). Perception towards chemical labeling for college students in Taiwan using globally harmonized system. Safety Science, 46(9), 1385–1392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2007.09.002Subramaniam, C., Shamsudin, F. M., Zin, M. L., & Lazim, H. M. (2013). Do workplace safety practices influence safety compliance behavior? Evidence among nurses in Malaysia. 17.Sundberg, M. D., & Moncada, G. J. (1994). Creating effective investigative laboratories for undergraduates. BioScience, 44(10), 698–704. https://doi.org/10.2307/1312513Sungur, S., Tekkaya, C., & Geban, Ö. (2001). The contribution of conceptual change texts accompanied by concept mapping to students’ understanding of the human circulatory system. School Science and Mathematics, 101(2), 91–101. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2001.tb18010.xTang, W. T., Kim Chwee, D. T., Yaw, K. Y., Yong, C. T., & Leck, W. Y. (2014). How flip teaching supports undergraduate chemistry laboratory learning. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 15(4), 550–567. https://doi.org/10.1039/C4RP00003JTang, Y. M., Au, K. M., Lau, H. C. W., Ho, G. T. S., & Wu, C. H. (2020). Evaluating the effectiveness of learning design with mixed reality (MR) in higher education. Virtual Reality, 24(4), 797–807. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-020-00427-9Tatli, Z., & Ayas, A. (2013). Effect of a virtual chemistry laboratory on students’ achievement. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 16(1), 159–170.Temel, H., Oral, B., & Avanoglu, Y. (2000). Kimya ogrencilerinin deneye yonelik tutumlari ile titrimetri deneylerini planlama ve uygulamaya iliskin bilgi ve becerileri arasındaki İliskinin degerlendirilmesi. Cagdas Egitim Dergisi, 264, 32–38.Thees, M., Kapp, S., Strzys, M. P., Beil, F., Lukowicz, P., & Kuhn, J. (2020). Effects of augmented reality on learning and cognitive load in university physics laboratory courses. Computers in Human Behavior, 108, 106316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106316Tobin, K. (1990). Research on science laboratory activities: In pursuit of better questions and answers to improve learning. School Science and Mathematics, 90(5), 403–418. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.1990.tb17229.xTokel, S., & Pedersen, S. (2012). Supporting problem-solving performance in a hypermedia learning environment: The role of students’ prior knowledge and metacognitive skills. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 1162–1169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.01.026Topala, I., & Tomozii, S. (2014). Learning satisfaction: Validity and reliability testing for students’ learning satisfaction questionnaire (SLSQ). Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 128, 380–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.175Torres, F., Tovar, L. A. N., & Egremy, M. C. (2015). Virtual interactive laboratory applied to high schools programs. Procedia Computer Science, 75, 233–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2015.12.243Tsai, C.-C. (2001). A review and discussion of epistemological commitments, metacognition, and critical thinking with suggestions on their enhancement in internet-assisted chemistry classrooms. Journal of Chemical Education, 78(7), 970. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed078p970Tsakeni, M., Vandeyar, S., & Potgieter, M. (2019). Inquiry opportunities presented by practical work in school physical sciences: A South African case study. Gender and Behaviour, 17(3), 13722–13733. https://doi.org/10.10520/EJC-1975177d59Tuan, H., Chin, C., & Shieh, S. (2005). The development of a questionnaire to measure students’ motivation towards science learning. International Journal of Science Education, 27(6), 639–654. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069042000323737Vaz, K., McGrowder, D., Alexander-Lindo, R., Gordon, L., Brown, P., & Irving, R. (2010). Knowledge, awareness and compliance with universal precautions among health care workers at the university hospital of the West Indies, Jamaica. 1(4), 11.Viitaharju, P., Yliniemi, K., Nieminen, M., & Karttunen, A. J. (2021). Learning experiences from digital laboratory safety training. Education for Chemical Engineers, 34, 87–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ece.2020.11.009Walters, A. U. C., Lawrence, W., & Jalsa, N. K. (2017). Chemical laboratory safety awareness, attitudes and practices of tertiary students. Safety Science, 96, 161–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.03.017Wink, D. J., Fetzer-Gislason, S., & Kuehn, J. E. (2004). Working with chemistry: A laboratory inquiry program. Macmillan.Woodfield, B. (2005). Virtual chemlab getting started. Pearson Education website. Retrieved July 25, 2022, from http://www. mypearsontraining.com/pdfs/VCL_getting_started.pdf.Wu, H., & Hsieh, C. (2006). Developing sixth graders’ inquiry skills to construct explanations in inquiry‐based learning environments. International Journal of Science Education, 28(11), 1289–1313. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600621035Zhu, Y., Lou, Z., Ge, T., Wu, T., Wang, Y., Tan, T., & Wang, J. (2021). An interactive mixed reality platform for inquiry-based education. 2021 IEEE 7th International Conference on Virtual Reality (ICVR), 324–331. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICVR51878.2021.9483827 zh_TW dc.identifier.doi (DOI) 10.6814/NCCU202201089 en_US
