Abstract
This project aimed to develop a Metaverse disability simulation program, specifically the MSPTD (Metaverse Simulation Program for Taiwanese with Dyslexia), targeted towards Chinese students with dyslexia. The effectiveness of this program was tested in improving the awareness and professional teaching knowledge of preservice special education teachers. The research objectives were twofold: (1) to compare pre- and posttest performances within the experimental group, and (2) to compare posttest performances between the experimental and control groups. In total, 53 first-year students, whose major is special education, participated in this project, with 41 of them assigned to the experimental group (learning via the MSPTD) and 12 assigned to the control group (learning through video-based instruction). The students were evaluated based on their awareness of dyslexic students' challenges, their professional knowledge for working with dyslexic individuals, their beliefs about dyslexia, and their experience and accessibility of VR devices. Our results indicated a promising positive impact of the MSPTD on participants' level of awareness and their professional knowledge, but not their beliefs about dyslexia. Specifically, an equivalence test showed no significant difference in the two groups' gender, awareness, professional teaching knowledge, beliefs, and experience and accessibility of VR devices, confirming the appropriateness of comparison between the experimental and control groups. Subsequent comparisons were made using Repeated-ANCOVA, controlling for gender and experience and accessibility of VR devices. The experimental group's pre- and post-test performance differences in terms of participants' level of awareness and professional knowledge were significant (awareness: p = .045; knowledge: p = .007), while the control group's intragroup differences in these two areas were not significant (awareness: p = .650; knowledge: p = .229). However, the post-test performance comparisons between the two groups across all factors were not significant (awareness: p = .860; knowledge: p = .555; belief: p = .769). These intergroup insignificant differences in posttest performance may be attributed to the limited sample size of the control group and an imbalance in the sample size between the two groups.