SlideShare a Scribd company logo
Research and evidence-based application of virtual labs to promote instructional
differentiation and achievement for special learning populations in STEM subjects
Dr. Jaime Ann McQueen
Dept. of Educational Leadership, Curriculum, and Instruction
College of Education and Human Development
Texas A&M University- Corpus Christi
A concurrent session presentation for the 14th annual ME by the SEa conference,
Corpus Christi, TX, June 15, 2018.
Labs without Limits
Introduction & Purpose
Extending upon the author's previous related research, this presentation:
• Summarizes current research related to Virtual Labs (VLs) in Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education.
• Describes how virtual labs and their affordances can provide differentiated
instruction and facilitate STEM learning and achievement for special learning
populations (e.g., gifted and talented and special education students).
• Offers related, best practice-based, recommendations for implementing Virtual Labs
in STEM instruction.
The Presentation follows this Outline:
I. Previous Research
II. How VLs and their affordances differentiate instruction and impact
achievement in special learning populations
III. Best Practices and Recommendations for implementing VLs in STEM instruction
Standards Covered
This presentation will address the following standards:
Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS)
(1) Scientific processes. The student, for at least 40% of instructional time, conducts laboratory
and field investigations using safe, environmentally appropriate, and ethical practices.
(2) Scientific processes. The student uses scientific methods during laboratory and field
investigations.
(3) Scientific processes. The student uses critical thinking, scientific reasoning, and problem
solving to make informed decisions within and outside the classroom.
International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) Standards
Educators:
Designer
• Design authentic learning activities that align with content area standards and use
digital tools and resources to maximize active, deep learning.
Facilitator
• Manage the use of technology and student learning strategies in digital platforms,
virtual environments, hands-on makerspaces or in the field.
Students:
Computational Thinker
• Students formulate problem definitions suited for technology-assisted methods such
as data analysis, abstract models and algorithmic thinking in exploring and finding
solutions.
Context
Physical Labs (PLs):
• Offer limited provision of learner control as they are constrained by very specific
instructions, time and scheduling concerns, and limited opportunities for repetition
(Brinson, 2015).
• Instructor presence, where learners are able to communicate, ask questions, and
receive guidance from instructors during a course or lab has been shown to enhance
student learning and understanding of course and laboratory content (De Jong, Linn,
& Zacharia, 2013; Picciano, 2002; Stuckey-Mickell & Stuckey-Danner, 2007).
Virtual Labs (VLs):
• Students are actively in control of interaction with simulated lab equipment and
experiments, pacing, repetition, and their own learning (Pyatt & Sims, 2012).
• Communication between instructors and students is critical to students’ success in
online learning environments, immediacy may be lacking in distance based learning
(Crippen et al., 2013; De Jong et al., 2013; Dunlap, Verma, & Johnson, 2016;
Jaggars, Edgecombe, & Stacey, 2013; Picciano, 2002).
Theoretical Framework
Instructor Presence, Learner Control, and Student-Student Interaction
• Instructor presence (IP): includes specific levels of guidance provided by
instructors which promote successful student learning in Science,
Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) subjects (Ahmed &
Hasegawa, 2014; Chen et al., 2016; Pedersen & Irby, 2014; Smith, 2015;
Zacharia et al., 2015).
• Learner control (LC): learners take responsibility for the pace, repetition,
and sequence of content in learning environments (Dede, 2009; Hanafin,
1984; Simsek, 2012).
• Student-Student Interaction (SSI): Students’ collaboration and interaction
with similar and different ability peers in learning environments
(Thompson, 2010; Thompson, 2011).
Research Questions & Hypotheses
The research questions that guided the study are as follows:
1. How do Virtual Labs and their affordances differentiate STEM
instruction for special learning populations?
2. How do Virtual Labs and their affordances impact STEM learning and
achievement for students in special learning populations?
3. What are students’ experiences learning in Physical and Virtual Labs?
4. What are students’ experiences learning with the affordances of
Physical and Virtual Labs?
I. My Previous Research
In the following slides, I discuss:
• The results and findings of my dissertation study and
previous research on the use of VLs in STEM education.
• The research and literature basis for my current research
on the use of VLs to differentiate STEM instruction for
special learning populations.
• The research and literature basis for my current research
on how VLs impact STEM Learning and Achievement of
special learning populations.
Dissertation
Study Purpose
Quantitative
• The purpose of this study was to test the hypotheses that there would be
statistically significant differences in non-majors college biology students’
learning as measured by scores on a post-test administered immediately
following lab completion and after a one week delay due to the comparative
effects of four different modes of biology lab treatments
Qualitative
• The purpose of this study was to qualitatively explore how non-majors
college biology students describe their experiences of instructor presence
and learner control of pace and repetition in each of four lab treatments.
Dissertation-Literature Review
The Impact of Physical and Virtual Labs on Students' Achievement
Achievement in physical labs is less
than virtual labs
• (Finkelstein et al., 2005; Gilman,
2006; Stuckey-Mickell & Stuckey-
Danner, 2007; Swan & O’Donnell,
2009; Zacharia, 2007; Zacharia et
al., 2008)
Achievement in physical labs is
greater than virtual labs
• (Corter et al., 2011; Dalgarno et
al., 2009)
Achievement in physical labs is
equivalent to virtual labs
• (Darrah et al., 2014; Tatli & Ayas,
2013; Triona & Klahr, 2003;
Zacharia & Olympiou, 2011)
Gaps in current research • (Pedersen & Irby, 2014;
Richardson et al., 2015; Stuckey-
Mickell & Stuckey-Danner, 2007;
Zacharia, 2007; Zacharia et al.,
2008; Zacharia et al., 2015)
Dissertation-Literature Review
The Impact of Instructor Presence and Learner Control on Students' Achievement
The impact of instructor presence on students’
achievement in physical labs
• Positive (De Jong et al., 2013; Klahr & Nigam,
2004; Picciano, 2002; Stuckey-Mickell &
Stuckey-Danner, 2007)
The impact of instructor presence on students’
achievement in virtual labs
• Positive (Adams et al., 2009; Chamberlain et al.,
2014; Jonassen, 2000; Jonassen, 2001; Merrill,
1999; Podolefsky et al., 2013; Zacharia et al.,
2015)
• Negative (Chamberlain et al., 2014; Chang et al.,
2008)
The impact of learner control on students’
achievement in physical labs
• Positive (Hofstein et al., 2005; NRC, 2006;
Zacharia et al., 2015)
• Negative (Josephsen & Kristensen, 2006; NRC,
1997)
The impact of learner control on students’
achievement in virtual labs
• Positive (Bhargava et al., 2006; Honey & Hilton,
2011; Lee et al., 2010; Smetana & Bell, 2012)
• Negative ( Pedersen & Irby, 2014)
Gaps in current research • (Dede, 2009; Darrah et al., 2014; Flowers, 2011;
Picciano, 2002; Stuckey-Mickell & Stuckey-
Danner, 2007; Zacharia, 2007; Zacharia et al.,
2008; Zacharia et al., 2015)
Dissertation-Literature Review
Students’ Experiences of Instructor Presence and Learner Control in Physical and Virtual Labs
Students’experiences of instructor presence in
physical labs
• Positive (Bhargava et al., 2006; Gilman, 2006; Stuckey-
Mickell & Stuckey-Danner, 2007)
Students’experiences of instructor presence in virtual
labs
• Positive (Johnson, 2002; Lim et al., 2008)
• Negative (Gilman, 2006; Stuckey-Mickell & Stuckey-
Danner, 2007)
Students’experiences of learner control in physical
labs
• Positive (Chen et al., 2014; Domin, 1999; Toth et al., 2009)
• Negative (Chen et al., 2014; Corter et al., 2007; NRC, 1997)
Students’experiences of learner control in virtual labs • Positive (Bhargava et al., 2006; Lee et al., 2010; Parker &
Loudon, 2012; Pyatt & Sims, 2012; Swan & O’Donnell,
2009; Thompson et al., 2010; Toth et al., 2009)
• Negative (Chen et al., 2014; Pedersen & Irby, 2014;
Stuckey-Mickell & Stuckey-Danner, 2007)
Gaps in current research • (NRC, 2006; Lee et al., 2010; Puttick, Drayton, & Cohen,
2015; Richardson et al., 2015)
Dissertation-Research Questions & Hypotheses
The quantitative and qualitative research questions that guided the study are as follows:
Quantitative
1. What are the comparative effects of four levels of biology lab delivery on non-majors
college biology students’ test scores immediately following completion of a lab, and after
a one week delay? The four levels compared are:
a. a physical based lab with instructor presence (PL),
b. a virtual lab with no instructor presence (VL),
c. a virtual lab with instructor presence (VLIP) , and
d. a virtual lab with instructor presence and direction for learner control of pace and
repetition beyond lab time (VLIPLC).
Qualitative
1. How do non-majors college biology students describe their experiences of instructor
presence and learner control of pace and repetition in each of the four treatments?
Three alternate hypotheses were tested:
1) main effect of four modes of biology lab delivery .
2) main effect time measured by pre-test, post-test, one-week delayed post-test.
3) mode of lab delivery by time interaction effect.
PL Group VL Group VLIP Group VLIPLC Group
Instructor Presence Instructor is
available in
person to
answer
questions and to
help with lab
No IP
Instructor is
virtually available
as needed and
encourages student
contact for help
with lab
Instructor is virtually
available as needed and
encourages student
contact for help with
lab
Learner Control Student follows
lab manual for
50 mins.
Student
follows lab
manual at
their own
pace
Student follows
lab manual at their
own pace
Student follows lab
manual at their own
pace and is encouraged
to repeat the processes
Directed
LC
Dissertation-Operational Definitions Table
Table 1. Operational Definitions Table
Dissertation-Method
Study Participant Selection Methods
Quantitative Participants Qualitative Participants
Selection Method Non-probability sampling Based on consent to audio-recording
Treatment/Focus
Group/Interview
Assignment Method
Randomly assigned, intact course sections Intact groups based on delivery modes in
quantitative portion of study, and number
of participants present
Sample Size PL- (n=21)
VL- (n=25)
VLIP- (n=22)
VLIPLC-(n=24)
Focus Groups
PL-(n=5)
VL-(n=4)
VLIPLC-(n=5)
Interview
VLIP-(n=1)
Demographics The majority of the participants were 18-
24 years old (92.40%), were female
(55.40%), and were sophomores (54.20%).
With respect to ethnicity, (44.60%) were
white, (33.70%) Hispanic, and (13.00%)
African American.
The majority of the participants were 18-
24 years old (93.33%), were female
(73.33%), and were sophomores
(66.67%). With respect to ethnicity,
(46.67%) were white, (40.00%) Hispanic,
(6.67%) African American, and (6.67%)
other ethnicity.
Study participants were students enrolled in four sections of a college level
undergraduate introductory biology course (BIOL 1308) at a south Texas University
during the fall 2016 semester. All qualitative participants completed the quantitative
portion of the study.
Table 2. Participant Selection Methods Summary
Dissertation-Research Design
• Sequential explanatory mixed methods (Creswell, 2014; Creswell & Plano Clark, 2006;
Creswell et al., 2003).
• Quasi-experimental study, lacks the random sampling of a true experiment (Shadish, Cook, &
Campbell, 2002).
Quantitative
• 4 X 3 repeated measures split plot design
• Independent variable: Four different modes of biology lab delivery
• Dependent variable: Performance on post-tests (immediate, delayed)
Qualitative
• Focus groups and Interview
-Semi-structured
-30 minutes in duration each
• Three focus groups, one for each of the PL, VL, VLIPLC lab delivery modes
• One interview for VLIPLC lab delivery mode
Given after quantitative data collection
Enhanced quantitative findings by exploring students’ experiences learning using instructor
presence and learner control in physical and virtual labs.
Dissertation-Materials
Quantitative
• Prior to lab activities all students received a 90 min course lecture on mitosis and
meiosis, delivered by the researcher.
PL Group
• Pre-Lab Tutorial: Pre-lab guidance and directions given by TA.
• Lab Activity (50 mins): Exercises 6.1 The Cell Cycle & 6.2 Meiosis (Pendarvis &
Crawley, 2016)
• Instructor contact and affordances sheet: Detailed the affordance of instructor presence
through having an instructor physically available to answer questions, provided contact
information for the researcher, course instructor, and TA.
VL Groups
• Pre-Lab Tutorial: Computer based introductory tutorial provided by Sapling Learning
that acquainted students with the virtual lab interface.
• Lab Activity (50 mins): Mitosis & Meiosis (Sapling Learning, General Biology, 2016).
• Instructor contact and affordances sheets: Gave description of affordances of each VL
delivery mode, provided contact information for the researcher, course instructor, and
TA.
Mitosis and Meiosis Interactive
Figure 2. Screen shot of
Mitosis and Meiosis
Interactive question (a) the hint
provided (b) and question
feedback (c). Copyright 2017
Sapling Learning.
Dissertation-Materials
Qualitative
Researcher developed focus group and interview protocols (Jonassen,
Tessmer, & Hannum, 1999).
• Served to explain the results from the initial quantitative study (Creswell,
2014; Creswell & Plano Clark, 2006; Creswell et al., 2003).
• One for each lab delivery mode
• Nine lead questions each
• Sample questions:
“How did the lab help you to learn biology content?”
“How many times did you repeat the lab and how?”
“Did you seek or receive help from your instructor while completing
the virtual lab, if so, how?”
Dissertation-Instrumentation
Quantitative
• The researcher designed three equivalent, matched, test forms on the topic of meiosis and
mitosis to measure students’ academic achievement.
– 30 item multiple-choice pre-test administered prior to lab delivery.
– 30 item multiple-choice immediate recall post-test given immediately following delivery
of labs.
– 30 item multiple-choice delayed recall post-test given one week following lab
completion.
Questions were selected from previously published test banks from Openstax Biology and
Concepts of Biology, published by Rice University.
• Reliability (Cronbach’s α):
– Summer II Pilot: Pre-Test (.71), Immediate Post-Test (.81), One-week Delayed Post-Test
(.84)
– Study: Pre-Test (.62), Immediate Post-Test (.76), One-week Delayed Post-Test (.81)
• Matching and equivalence of each test item across the pre-test and post-tests was ensured
through correlation of unique question ID numbers and difficulty scales provided as part of
the test banks.
PL Group VL Group VLIP Group VLIPLC Group
10/10-10/17, 2016
Obtained study consent y y y y
10/17-10/18, 2016
Participated in the pretest y y y y
Received content lecture (90
mins)
y y y y
10/19-10/20, 2016
1.Received lab tutorial y y y y
2.Completed lab treatment PL VL VLIP VLIPLC
3.Immediate Post-Test y y y y
10/26-10/27, 2016
Delayed Post-Test y y y y
10/31-11/01, 2016
Focus Group y y y y
Dissertation-Data Collection & Procedure
Table 3. Data Collection and Procedure
Dissertation-Data Analysis
• Pre-experimental equivalence was
assumed, a 4x3 repeated measures
ANOVA was conducted (Huck, 2000;
Urdan, 2010).
• IBM (SPSS) v. 23.
• The mean difference effect sizes were
computed to examine practical
significance of the findings.
Qualitative
• Focus group data was audio recorded using
the voice memo feature of an iPhone 6.
• Audio data was transcribed verbatim into
Microsoft word and sorted into codes,
categories, and themes using MAXQDA
11.
• Researcher took analytic memos, as
suggested by Saldana (2009).
• First cycle coding: structural coding,
Second cycle coding: magnitude coding
(Saldana, 2009).
• Qualitative findings were integrated with
the quantitative results of the study to
describe students experiences of the
affordances of IP and LC in biology labs.
Methodological Framework
• Interpretivism (Crotty, 1998).
Quantitative
Dissertation-Quantitative Results
• The time effect was statistically significant, F(2,176) =148.65, p < 0.01. All groups learned
significantly from the pre-test to the immediate post-test, and from the pre-test to the one-week
delayed recall post-test. Scores remained constant between the immediate post-test and one-week
delayed post-test.
• The mode of the delivery effect was not statistically significant, F(3,88) = 0.38, p = 0.76. All
students performed equivalently well, regardless of lab delivery mode.
• The interaction effect of the mode of delivery and time was not statistically significant,
F(6,176) = 1.51, p = 0.18.
Table 5.
Mode of Delivery by Time ANOVA Summary Table
Table 4.
Means and Standard Deviations for Mitosis and Meiosis Content
Knowledge
Dissertation-Quantitative Results
• Mean difference effect sizes were computed to examine practical significance of the
findings.
– Pre-Test to Immediate post-test effect size range: 0.99-2.00
– Immediate post test to One-week delayed post-test effect size range: -0.34-0.44
– Pre-Test to One-week delayed post-test effect size range: 1.23-1.71
*Note: 0.20 = small effect, 0.50 = medium effect, and > 0.80 = large effect (Cohen,
1988)
• Small sample sizes (low power) were acknowledged as mode of delivery effect and
mode of delivery x time effect were not statistically significant. Output analysis
revealed sample sizes of (n=30) per group would have yielded a statistically significant
interaction effect.
Table 6.
Mean Difference Effect Sizes
Dissertation-Qualitative Results
Table 7.
Themes and Categories for Students’ Experiences
Theme 1: Instructor Presence
•Instructor-Student Communication
•Instructor Guidance
Theme 2: Learner Control
•Repetition
•Pacing
•Time Spent Learning
•Access To Guidance as Needed
Theme 3: Unique Laboratory Experiences
•Students’ Insight into Learning
•Students’ Suggestions to Improve Labs
• An analysis of the data from the interview and the three focus groups
resulted in three themes and eight categories. A summary is provided in
Table 7 below.
Dissertation-Qualitative Results
Table 8.
Select Focus Group and Interview Student Responses
Instructor Presence Learner Control Unique Lab Experiences
PL Group “She was walking around, and if
she saw you looked like you
needed help, then she would help
you”
“There is no point [to
review] when we move on
to something else next
week”
“It felt kind of rushed”
“There’s not enough
microscopes”
“I am not really ‘getting it’”
“I’d want a longer amount of
time”
“It’d be cool if you could
actually ‘see’ the cells”
VL Group “Yeah, the lecture and the virtual
lab, that was perfect”
“I liked how it was
individually paced”
“It gave me information
instead of ‘just pictures’”
“I liked how it showed
[cellular] movement”
“I think I got what I needed
from the virtual lab personally”
VLIP Group “Some learners are better guided
by a presence”
“I just kind of ‘one-
shotted’ it for the most
part”
“I personally think that it's very
helpful, just needs polishing is
all”
VLIPLC
Group
“I liked having an instructor there
too, just in case I had questions”
“ I referred to the
animations quite often”
“I could do it how I want
to do it”
“I was fine with the virtual lab
and seeing it the animation
way“
“I like it better than the regular
lab”
Dissertation-Discussion
Quantitative
• Time effect: The improvement in scores from the pre-test to immediate post-test
and from the pre-test to one-week delayed post-test indicates students in all groups
learned significantly. The lack of statistically significant change in scores between
the immediate post-test and one-week delayed post-test indicates students retained
knowledge.
• Mode of delivery effect: The equivalent performance among students in all lab
delivery modes indicates that virtual labs can produce learning outcomes equivalent
to physical labs (Darrah et al., 2014; Tatli & Ayas, 2013; Triona & Klahr, 2003;
Zacharia & Olympiou, 2011).
• Meaningful effect sizes: Indicate that lack of a statistically significant interaction
effect is due to the small sample sizes of the groups (low power).
• Had students used the affordances of instructor presence and learner control they
may have seen greater learning and achievement between the immediate post-test
and one-week delayed post-test.
Dissertation-Discussion
Qualitative
PL Group
• Appreciated having a physically available instructor
• Felt constrained by lack of microscopes and lab equipment
• Wanted more time to review lab content
VL Groups
• Enjoyed being able to go at their own pace, repeat the lab, and look at cell animations.
• Appreciated when an instructor was present, but didn’t feel it was necessary to learn.
• Enjoyed not having to “mess with complicated lab equipment”
• Expressed some confusion related to the hints and feedback provided by the virtual lab.
• Students in all lab delivery modes felt their lab was beneficial to their
learning!
• Despite the ‘glitches’ of physical and virtual labs, students can be positive of
their laboratory learning experiences, thanks to helpful instructors and well
designed VLs with embedded guidance.
Dissertation-Discussion
Instructor Presence and Learner Control
Quantitative
• Students in PL, VLIP, and VLIPLC group made use of instructor presence during
lab time, but not in the week following.
• Students in VL, VLIP, and VLIPLC groups made use of learner control during lab
time, but not in the week following.
Qualitative
• Students expressed they did not use instructor presence after the lab due to the
rapid pacing of the semester “we’re moving on to something different next week”.
• Students expressed they did not use learner control and repeat the virtual lab,
because they “had a course biology test for a grade” that week.
• As instructional designers, researchers, and curriculum publishers, we should
continue to support our students during their labs. Additionally, we should continue
to research best practices in laboratory teaching and find new ways to deliver
supportive labs to our students.
Students need to be actively encouraged to use instructor presence and
learner control
Dissertation-Significance of the Study
Findings from this study will inform science educators regarding the effects of
instructor presence which is afforded in physical labs and learner control
which is afforded in virtual labs.
Virtual Labs can:
• Expand science education options for college students.
• help online learners, non-science majors students, students with disabilities.
This research will help inform the fields of higher education, curriculum and
instruction, and instructional design.
• Virtual lab research is timely and relevant (Darrah et al., 2014; Johnson,
2002; Miller, 2008).
I intend to share my study and findings with institutions of higher learning,
curriculum publishers, and all other parties interested in the utility of virtual
laboratories.
Dissertation-Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations
• The study was limited by small sample sizes: (n=92) out of (N=98)
completed the quantitative study. (n=15) out of (N=63) participated in
qualitative study focus groups.
• Treatments had to follow scope and sequencing of course syllabus
Delimitations
• Due to time and scheduling constraints, the delayed learning outcomes were
measured after one week
• Each lab treatment only lasted for a duration of 50 minutes
• Only one lab treatment was used for the PL and VLs
• The researcher selected the questions for each of the three tests. The tests
were difficult, the highest student score overall was an 87%
Dissertation-Implications for Further Research
• Need for further study of PLs and VLs in college biology, including comparison
between majors and non-majors courses (Flowers, 2011; Hallyburton & Lunsford,
2013; Ma & Nickerson, 2006).
• Further study on impact of instructor presence and learner control on students’
achievement in PLs and VLs (Brown et al., 2016; Chamberlain et al., 2014; Chang
et al., 2008; Dixson, 2010; Richardson et al., 2015; Stuckey-Mickell & Stuckey-
Danner, 2007; Watson et al., 2016; Zacharia et al., 2008).
• Further study exploring students’ learning experiences using instructor presence and
learner control in PLs and VLs (Humphries, 2007; Lee et al., 2010; NRC, 2006;
Puttick et al., 2015; Richardson et al., 2015; Robinson, 2012; Stang & Roll, 2014).
• Need for studies that measure students’ achievement and experiences in PLs and
VLs, where use of the affordances of instructor presence and learner control is more
actively encouraged (Dede, 2009; De Jong et al., 2013). This may be accomplished
by:
• Integrating affordance use as a graded component of the course
• Instructors giving frequent reminders to use the affordances
• Instructors promoting learning benefits and relevance of affordances to
students’ learning
II. How VLs and their affordances differentiate
instruction and impact achievement in special
learning populations
The next slides will describe how VLs and their affordances
can:
• Provide differentiated instruction for Gifted and Talented (GT) and
Special Education students (SpEd.).
• Facilitate STEM learning and achievement for these special learning
populations.
• Impact GT and Special Ed. Students’ learning experiences.
Results
How VLs Provide Differentiated STEM Instruction
GT Specific
Provide Challenge (Thompson, 2010;
Thompson, 2011)
Provide Acceleration (Dailey & Cotabish,
2016; Thompson, 2010;
Thompson, 2011)
Extends curriculum,
provides greater variety,
complexity, and in-depth
coverage of content
(Brinkley, 2018; Dailey
& Cotabish, 2016;
Sadler, Romine, &
Merle-Johnson, 2013;
Wasserman, 2008)
Provide greater choice
and self-regulation
(Limson et al., 2007;
Thompson, 2010)
SpEd. Specific
Provides simplification
of abstract concepts,
experiments, and content
(Baladoh, Elgamal, &
Abas, 2017; Basham &
Marino, 2013)
Allow students to cover
content at their own
speed, slower-pacing of
content
(Kalyuga, 2009)
Provide accessible
curriculum, with
additional embedded
guidance and features to
support learning
(Lynch & Ghergulescu,
2017a; Lynch &
Ghergulescu, 2017b)
Provides greater
guidance and support to
remediate difficult
content, helps to
strengthen students’
knowledge and
confidence
(Baladoh, Elgamal, &
Abas, 2017; Kalyuga,
2009; Basham & Marino,
2013 )
Results-How VLs Provide Differentiated STEM Instruction cont.
Both GT and SpEd.
Remove PL Constraints • GT (Cotabish, 2017; Cotabish, 2018; DeCoito & Richardson, 2017; Wasserman, 2008).
• SpEd. (Baladoh, Elgamal, & Abas, 2017; Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017a; Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017b;
National Center for Technology Innovation [NCTI], 2010)
Facilitate Greater
Understanding of STEM
Concepts
• GT (Cotabish, 2017; Cotabish, 2018; DeCoito & Richardson, 2017)
• SpEd. (Baladoh et al., 2017; Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017a; Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017b ; NCTI, 2010).
Promote inquiry-based
learning
• GT (Cotabish, 2017; Cotabish, 2018; DeCoito & Richardson, 2017).
• SpEd. (Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017a; Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017b; National Center for Technology
Innovation [NCTI], 2010)
Promote relevance,
student engagement, and
interest
• GT (Brinkley, 2018; Dailey & Cotabish, 2016; DeCoito & Richardson, 2017; Limson et al., 2007).
• SpEd. (Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017a, Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017b).
Provide Independent
Learning
• GT (Bouck & Hunley, 2014; Brinkley, 2018; Dailey & Cotabish, 2016; DeCoito & Richardson, 2017;
Limson et al., 2007).
• SpEd. (Baladoh et al., 2017; Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017a; Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017b).
Facilitate collaborative
Learning
• GT (Bouck & Hunley, 2014; Brinkley, 2018; Dailey & Cotabish, 2016; DeCoito & Richardson, 2017;
Limson et al., 2007).
• SpEd. (Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017a; Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017b ).
Integrates technology /
21st century skills
• GT (Bouck & Hunley, 2014; Brinkley, 2018; Dailey & Cotabish, 2016; DeCoito & Richardson, 2017;
Limson et al., 2007).
• SpEd. (Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017a; Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017b).
Gaps in current research • GT (Bouck & Hunley, 2014; Brinkley, 2018; Dailey & Cotabish, 2016; DeCoito & Richardson, 2017;
Limson et al., 2007).
• SpEd. (Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017a; Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017b).
Results
How VL Affordances Differentiate STEM Instruction
GT SpEd.
Instructor Presence (Thompson, 2010) (Blum-Dimaya, Reeve, & Reeve,
2010; Carnahan & Fulton, 2013)
Learner Control (Limson et al., 2007; van Dijk,
Eysink, & de Jong, 2016;
Thompson, 2010)
(Kalyuga, 2009; Lawless & Brown,
1997; Lynch & Ghergulescu,
2017a; Lynch & Ghergulescu,
2017b; National Center for
Technology Innovation [NCTI],
2010)
Student-Student Interaction (Limson et al., 2007; Thompson,
2010)
(Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017a;
Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017b )
Gaps in current research (Thompson, 2010) (Lawless & Brown, 1997; Lynch &
Ghergulescu, 2017a; Lynch &
Ghergulescu, 2017b)
Results
How VLs Impact Students’ STEM Learning and Achievement
GT SpEd.
Studies promoting use of VLs
and/or showing Positive
Achievement in VLs
(Cotabish, 2017; Cotabish, 2018;
Dailey & Cotabish, 2016; DeCoito
& Richardson, 2017; Limson,
Witzlib, & Desharnais; 2007;
Sadler, Romine, Stuart, & Merle-
Johnson, 2013; van Dijk, Eysink, &
de Jong, 2016).
(Baladoh, Elgamal, & Abas, 2017;
Basham & Marino, 2013; Lynch &
Ghergulescu, 2017a; Lynch &
Ghergulescu, 2017b; National
Center for Technology Innovation
[NCTI], 2010; )
Studies with concerns on the use of
VL and/or showing Lesser
Achievement in VLs
(American Chemical Society
[ACS], 2014; Olszewski-Kubilius
& Corwith, 2011; National
Research Council [NRC], 2006;
National Science Teachers
Association [NSTA], 2007)
(American Chemical Society
[ACS], 2014; National Research
Council [NRC], 2006; National
Science Teachers Association
[NSTA], 2007)
Gaps in current research •GT (Benny & Blonder, 2016;
Olszewski-Kubilius & Corwith,
2011)
•SpEd. (Blum-Dimaya, Reeve, &
Reeve, 2010; Lynch &
Ghergulescu, 2017a ; Lynch &
Ghergulescu, 2017b)
Results
How VL Affordances Impact STEM Learning and Achievement
GT SpEd.
Instructor Presence
Positive (Thompson, 2010; Thompson, 2011) (Blum-Dimaya, Reeve, & Reeve, 2010)
Negative (Thompson, 2010; Thompson, 2011) (Carnahan & Fulton, 2013)
Learner Control
Positive (Limson et al., 2007; van Dijk, Eysink, & de
Jong, 2016; Sadler, Romine, & Merle-
Johnson, Thompson, 2010; Thompson, 2011)
(Kalyuga, 2009; Lynch & Ghergulescu,
2017a; Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017b;
National Center for Technology
Innovation [NCTI], 2010)
Negative (Thompson, 2010; Thompson, 2011) (Kalyuga, 2009; Lawless & Brown, 1997)
Student-Student Interaction
Positive (Limson et al., 2007; Thompson, 2010;
Thompson, 2011)
(Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017a; Lynch &
Ghergulescu, 2017b )
Negative (Thompson, 2010) (Woodward & Ferretti, 2007)
Gaps in current
research
(Thompson, 2010; Thompson, 2011) (Blum-Dimaya, Reeve, & Reeve, 2010;
Carnahan & Fulton, 2013; Kalyuga, 2009;
Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017a; Lynch &
Ghergulescu, 2017b)
Results
Students’ Experiences Learning in PL and VL Delivery
Modes
GT SpEd.
Students’experiences in Physical Labs
Positive (Park & Oliver, 2009) (Bargerhuff, Kirch, & Wheatly, 2004; Scruggs &
Mastropieri, 1993; Sunal, Sunal, Sundberg, &
Wright, 2008)
Negative (Park & Oliver, 2009; Wasserman,
2008)
(Aschbacher, Li, & Roth, 2010)
Students’experiences in Virtual Labs
Positive (Limson et al., 2007) (Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017a; Moin, Magiera, &
Zigmond, 2009;Blum-Dimaya, Reeve, & Reeve,
2010)
Negative (Sadler, Romine, & Merle-Johnson,
2013)
(Woodward & Ferreiti, 2007)
Gaps in current research (Drayton, Puttick, & Donovan,
2012)
(Blum-Dimaya, Reeve, & Reeve, 2010; Lynch &
Ghergulescu, 2017a; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1993)
Results-Students’ Experiences Using PL and VL Affordances
GT SpEd.
Students’experiences of Instructor Presence
PL +(Park & Oliver, 2009)
-(Wasserman, 2008)
+(Moin, Magiera, & Zigmond, 2009)
-(Aschbacher, Li, & Roth, 2010)
VL +(Thompson, 2010)
-(Thompson, 2010)
+(Blum-Dimaya, Reeve, & Reeve, 2010)
-(Harris & Smith, 2004)
Students’experiences of Learner Control
PL +(Park & Oliver, 2009)
-(Kanevsky, 2011; NRC, 1997; Wasserman,
2008)
+(Sunal, Sunal, Sundberg, & Wright, 2008)
-(NRC, 1997)
VL +(Limson et al., 2007; Thompson, 2010)
-(Sadler, Romine, Stuart, & Merle-Johnson,
2013; Swan et al., 2015; Thompson, 2010)
+(Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017a)
-(Harris & Smith, 2004)
Students’experiences of Student-Student Interaction
PL +(Park, & Oliver, 2009; Wasserman, 2008)
-(Park & Oliver, 2009)
+(Sunal, Sunal, Sundberg, & Wright, 2008)
-(Strogilos & Avramidis, 2016)
VL +(Limson et al., 2007; Thompson, 2010)
-(Thompson, 2010)
+(Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017a; Woodward &
Ferretti, 2007)
-(Woodward & Ferretti, 2007)
Gaps in current research (Kitsantas, Bland, & Chirinos, 2017; Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017a; NRC,
2006; Thompson, 2010; Woodward & Ferretti, 2007)
Legend
+ Positive
-Negative
Discussion-How Virtual Labs Provide Differentiated
Instruction
Gifted Students
• VLs differentiate instruction by providing challenge and acceleration (Dailey & Cotabish, 2016;Thompson,
2010; Thompson; 2011), additionally they are capable of extending curriculum beyond what is taught in the
classroom, allowing students to pursue a greater variety of topics more in-depth (Brinkley, 2018; Dailey &
Cotabish, 2016; Sadler et al., 2013; Wasserman, 2008).
• Finally, educators’ active involvement of students’ decision in learning activities, including use of online
environments such as VLs, promotes student self-regulation and responsibility (Limson et al., 2007;
Thompson, 2010).
Special Ed. Students
• VLs differentiate instruction by providing an interactive model or simplification of abstract or difficult
concepts and experiments, they also present students and educators with an alternative to traditional text-
based curriculum content (Baladoh, Elgamal, & Abas, 2017; Basham & Marino, 2013).
• Additionally, VLs support students learning by providing an accessible curriculum with embedded guidance
and features, which allow for remediation, strengthening of students’ knowledge and confidence (Baladoh,
Elgamal, & Abas, 2017; Basham & Marino, 2013; Kalyuga, 2009; Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017a; Lynch &
Ghergulescu, 2017b), and students’ ability to cover content at their own pace (Kalyuga, 2009).
Gifted Students & Special Ed. Students
• Finally, VLs differentiate instruction by removing the constraints of PL environments and facilitating
integration of technology in STEM education (Baladoh et al., 2017; Brinkley, 2018; Cotabish, 2018; DeCoito
& Richardson, 2017; Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017b; NCTI, 2010). This enables students to take part in inquiry-
based learning, explore their related interests, and gain greater understanding of STEM concepts (Baladoh et
al., 2017; Cotabish, 2017; Dailey & Cotabish, 2016; Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017a; NCTI, 2010); through both
collaborative and independently-based learning (Baladoh et al., 2017; Bouck & Hunley, 2014; Brinkley, 2018;
Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017a; Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017b).
Discussion-How Virtual Lab Affordances Differentiate
Instruction
The affordances of instructor presence, learner control, and student-student interaction provided by VLs
differentiate instruction for both Gifted and Talented and Special Ed. Students.
Gifted Students
• Instructor presence allows students to interact with an virtually present instructor (Thompson, 2010)
this can be though communication and receiving guidance about VL related content and assignments.
• Learner control allows students access and choice in curriculum, direction in their repetition, pacing,
and time spent learning using VLs and online content (Limson et al., 2007; Thompson, 2010; van Dijk,
Eysink, & de Jong, 2016), and promotes students’ use of guidance provided by VLs and instructors as
they need it (van Dijk, Eysink, & de Jong, 2016).
• Student-student interaction allows students to collaborate and communicate during online and VL
instruction, this may be synchronous or asynchronous (Limson et al., 2007; Thompson, 2010).
Special Ed. Students
• Instructor presence allows students to interact with an instructor who is virtually present (Carnahan
& Fulton, 2013) additionally, an instructor may also provide direct individualized guidance through
models and video (Blum-Dimaya, Reeve, & Reeve, 2010).
• Learner control allows students’ greater independence in learning with accessible online and VL
curriculum, this is accomplished through allowing students more opportunity for repetition of content,
working at their own pace, efficient use of time spent learning, and access to specialized guidance
provided by VLs and instructors (Kalyuga, 2009; Lawless & Brown, 1997; Lynch & Ghergulescu,
2017a; Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017b; NCTI, 2010).
• Student-student interaction allows and encourages students to collaborate and communicate during
online and VL instruction, this may be synchronous or asynchronous (Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017a;
Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017b).
Discussion
How Virtual Labs impact STEM Learning and Achievement
Gifted Students
• VL modes can have a positive impact on students’ achievement as they remove many
constraints of traditional PLs and provide unique instructional differentiation, they challenge
and engage students, by accelerating learning and facilitating exploration of STEM content in
greater depth.
• Despite these benefits, many educational organizations and researchers show concerns about the
use of VL in STEM instruction for GT students (ACS, 2014; Olszewski-Kubilius & Corwith,
2011; NRC, 2006; NSTA, 2007), mainly due to concern that VLs do not teach laboratory skills
or effectively model scientific concepts and processes.
Special Ed. Students
• VL modes may also benefit special needs students as they provide accesibility, remove many
constraints of traditional PLs and provide unique instructional differentiation, they allow
students to explore concepts and content at their own pace and level, provide additional
guidance, and promote independent learning and confidence.
• However, the move toward inclusive STEM education, has led educational organizations to
reject use of VLs (ACS, 2014; NRC, 2006; NSTA, 2007), there is concern that VLs do not teach
laboratory skills or effectively model scientific concepts and processes; however, the use of PL
equipment and materials may not always be feasible or helpful to students with cognitive or
physical impairments.
Discussion
How VL Affordances impact STEM Learning and
Achievement
Gifted Students
Instructor presence
• Direct communication, guidance, and support of an instructor in online environment positively
affects student learning.
• Students’ achievement is negatively impacted by lack of instructor guidance and
communication in online and VL environments, or when the amount of support is restrictive.
Learner control
• Achievement in VLs is positive when students are able to repeat the experiment to further their
interest and understanding, are properly challenged and engaged in their time spent learning
while completing activities at their own pace, and access well constructed guidance within VLs.
• However, when content and guidance is poorly constructed or difficult to use, achievement can
suffer, especially for students who do not have necessary self-regulation skills.
Student-student interaction .
• Interaction with similar ability peers within online environments and VLs can promote gifted
students’ interest and understanding of STEM subjects.
• However, when interaction with other students is limited, difficult, or unwanted, students can
become disengaged from an online environment, this is especially detrimental when discussions
are a graded part of the course.
Discussion
How VL Affordances impact STEM Learning and Achievement
cont.:
Special Ed. Students
Instructor presence
• Learning and achievement can increase through provision of specialized instructor guidance,
including video modeling and consistent support.
• Learning and achievement are negatively impacted by lack of instructor presence, especially in
online and VL environments, where special education students need direct communication,
feedback, and support.
Learner control
• Achievement in VLs is positive when students are able to repeat the experiment to further their
understanding, are engaged in their time spent learning while completing activities at their level
and own pace, and are provided with proper easy to understand guidance within VLs.
• However, when content and guidance is poorly constructed, too advanced, or difficult to use;
achievement can suffer, especially for students who may be struggling with limited prior
knowledge and need additional help to understand concepts and use of technology.
Student-student interaction
• Online environments and VLs can promote special education students’ learning by providing
an innovate way for them to “Be a part of the class” and can establish a sense of community
membership, especially when traditional classroom settings serve as a barrier to
communication.
• Learning may be negatively impacted when special education students’ improperly
communicate in online environments, or take a more passive role and do not engage in
discussion.
Discussion
Students’ Experiences Learning in PL and VL Delivery
Modes
Gifted Students
PL
• Students experiences in PLs were positive due to the opportunity interact with laboratory equipment,
materials, and chemicals to perform “real science” and investigate concepts of interest.
•Students often express negative views on being “held back” by the level of curriculum and having to
work with lower-ability peers.
VL
• Students experiences in VLs are positive when students find the activity engaging, challenging, and
relevant to their learning.
•VLs can lead to frustration when students do not perceive they are well designed, especially in usability
of provided guidance.
Special Ed. Students
PL
•Many special education students enjoy completing hands-on labs and are engaged by interaction with
laboratory equipment and observing scientific phenomena; especially when PL environments are
accessibly designed.
•Negative views on PL learning are often the result of feeling unsupported by teachers.
VL
•Special education students also enjoy the engaging nature of VLs and the presentation of scientific
content through interactive animations and video; they also appreciate the accessibility of VLs.
•Negative opinions of VLs often come from a lack of understanding or engagement with content, this
can lead students to assume a passive role and not use VLs to their full capabilities, especially during
collaborative work.
Discussion
Students’ Experiences Using Affordances in PLs and
VLs
Gifted Students’ experiences in PL
• Students experiences of Instructor Presence are postive in inquiry-based learning environments
where they can receive guidance as needed. Views are negative when students feel educators do
not challenge them or care about their learning.
•Students’ experience of Learner Control are positive when they are allowed the opportunity to
investigate areas of interest, especially through inquiry-based instruction. Students are bored by
rigid over-simplified curriculum and lack of choice.
•Views of Student-Student Interaction are positive when students are provided opportunity to
collaborate with similar-ability peers, and in some cases, help lesser-ability peers. Alternately, GT
students dislike being limited by lower level classmates and also cite concerns about being
bullied.
Gifted Students’ experiences in VL
• Students experiences of Instructor Presence are postive when they feel an instructor is available
virtually to communicate promptly and provide correct levels of guidance. Views are negative
when students perceive instructor guidance to be unclear or that communication is limited or non-
existent.
•Students’ experience of Learner Control are positive when VLs are engaging and challenging,
and allow them to work on advanced content at their own pace. Students are frustrated by over-
simplied/poorly designed VLs and embedded guidance.
•Views of Student-Student Interaction are positive when students are able to communicate,
share, and learn from peers in VL environments. Alternately, GT students dislike being forced to
interact with other students during times they wish to work independently.
Discussion
Students’ Experiences Using Affordances in PLs and VLs
Special Ed. Students’ experiences in PL
• Students experiences of Instructor Presence are postive when teachers offer help, check for
understanding, and reinforce confidence. Views are negative when students feel educators
belittle them or give the impression they can’t learn.
• Students’ experience of Learner Control are positive when they are provided with inquiry-
based hands-on learning activies. Students dislike lack of support and guidance from teachers.
• Views of Student-Student Interaction are positive when students are provided opportunity to
work with and learn from their classmates. Alternately, they are negative when students’ do not
wish to participate in group work.
Special Ed. Students’ experiences in VL
• Students experiences of Instructor Presence are postive when they receive specialized
understandable guidance and support from an online instructor. Views are negative when
students perceive instructor guidance is absent, difficult, or unhelpful.
• Students’ experience of Learner Control are positive when VLs provide an understandable and
engaging way to learn science, reinforce concepts, and promote confidence. Students become
frustrated by unclear, poorly designed, VLs and embedded guidance or difficult content.
• Views of Student-Student Interaction are positive when students are able to communicate,
share, and learn from peers in VL environments. Alternately, views are negative when students
do not understand online communication procedures, or do not wish to participate in
collaboration or discussions.
Significance of the Study
Findings from this study will inform science educators how virtual labs and their
affordances can provide differentiated instruction and facilitate STEM learning
and achievement for special learning populations (e.g., gifted and talented and
special education students).
Virtual Labs can:
• Expand science education options for Gifted and Talented and Special
Education students.
• Help school districts, online learners, and students with disabilities.
This research will help inform the fields of K-16 education, curriculum and
instruction, and instructional design.
• Virtual lab research is timely and relevant (Darrah et al., 2014; Johnson, 2002;
Miller, 2008).
I intend to share my study and findings with learning institutions, curriculum
publishers, and all other parties interested in the utility of virtual laboratories.
Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations
• The study was limited by the small amount of empirical research and studies
exploring technology use in gifted education, virtual lab use in gifted and special
education populations, and comparative effects of virtual labs.
• Many of these studies are also in books and publications which are paywall
restricted and not accessible through library or internet databases.
Delimitations
• The meta-analysis which serves as the basis for this presentation specifically
examines use of Virtual Labs in Gifted and Talented student populations, it is still
in progress; the researcher began data collection for the meta-analysis in
September, 2017.
• Due to inconsistent definitions of “Virtual Lab” and “Giftedness”, the researcher
used discretion to include more flexible search parameters (e.g., science simulation,
virtual experiment, high-ability, highly able) to identify sources.
• Many of the studies relating to virtual labs deal specifically with online learning.
Implications for Further Research
• Need for further study of how VLs and affordances differentiate instruction for
special learning populations (Bouck & Hunley, 2014; Brinkley, 2018; Dailey &
Cotabish, 2016; DeCoito & Richardson, 2017; Limson et al., 2007; Lynch &
Ghergulescu, 2017a; Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017b).
• Further study on how VLs and affordances impact STEM learning and achievement
of special learning populations (Blum-Dimaya et al., 2010; Benny & Blonder,
2016; Carnahan & Fulton, 2013; Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017a ; Lynch &
Ghergulescu, 2017b; Olszewski-Kubilius & Corwith, 2011; Thompson, 2010).
• Further study exploring GT and SpEd. students’ learning experiences using PLs and
VLs and their affordances (Blum-Dimaya et al., 2010; Drayton et al., 2012;
Kitsantas et al., 2017 ; Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017a; NRC, 2006; Scruggs &
Mastropieri, 1993; Thompson, 2010; Woodward & Ferretti, 2007) .
Implications for Theory
Implications for Instructional Design
Instructor Presence
• The study contributed to the theory of design and implementation of VLs (Ahmed
& Hasegawa, 2014) .
• Students can learn without an instructor being physically present, due to VLs
provision of guidance.
• Guidance embedded in VLs must be clear, easy to use, and well designed.
• Instructional designers and educators should rethink their conception and definition
of instructor presence, VLs can deliver presence (De Jong et al., 2013; Merrill,
1999; Podolefsky, Moore, & Perkins, 2013).
Learner Control
• Instructional designers, curriculum developers, and educators should explore new
ways to encourage students' use of the learner control offered by VLs, especially
since learner control is linked to increased student achievement (Finkelstein et al.,
2005; Swan & O' Donnell, 2009; Zacharia, 2007).
• Finally, to inform the design and development of PLs and VLs, further studies
exploring and encouraging students' use of learner control in these environments are
necessary (Yaman et al., 2008; Zacharia et al., 2015).
Implications for Theory
Implications for STEM Education
Instructor Presence
• Educators in PL environments should: actively monitor students during
laboratory investigations, check for understanding, and initiate
communication as needed (NRC, 1996).
Learner Control
• Educators should actively support and encourage students' questioning in
PL environments as they may be hesitant to seek guidance own their own
(NRC, 1996; NRC, 1997).
• Clear guidance and support is also critical to students’ success in online
learning environments, especially for gifted and talented (van Dijk et al.,
2016; Thompson, 2010) and special education (Kalyuga, 2009) students.
Student-Student Interaction
• Student collaboration is an important part of STEM learning, but educators
should be mindful that both gifted students and special education students
need opportunities to demonstrate independence in learning.
Implications for Practice
"How can instructors promote STEM learning and achievement in special learning
populations through use of VLs and affordances?“
• Need for further study in online virtual lab environments (Campen, 2013; Flowers, 2011;
Reese, 2013; Stuckey-Mickell & Stuckey-Danner, 2007).
• Using VLs and Affordances to provide differentiation!
• Assessing students’ achievement from using VLs and Affordances
• Paying attention to students’ learning experiences
• There is a need for further practice to actively ensure that VL and affordance
differentiation is purposeful and meets the educational requirements of special learners.
III.Best Practices and Recommendations for
implementing VLs in STEM instruction
The next slides will:
• Describe VLs and Simulations for STEM education and provide
a summary of their features.
• Offer related, best practice-based, recommendations for
implementing Virtual Labs in STEM instruction.
• Offer related, best practice-based, recommendations for
implementing Virtual Labs for STEM differentiation.
Recommended VL Products
Lifeliqe Simulations
Lifeliqe Simulations Features
•Online repository of immersive online
3D/Augmented Reality Virtual Labs,
Simulations, and Models across a wide
variety of STEM subjects.
•Founded in research, and established STEM
curriculum and inquiry frameworks and
standards.
•Website provides videos and links to
numerous case studies and peer reviewed
publications on usage of Lifeliqe.
Curriculum Differentiation Features
•Teachers can create customized lesson plans
using Lifeliqe creator platform.
•Extremely engaging and immersive.
•Comes with 700+ standards aligned lesson
plans and validated digital curriculum and
textbooks.
•Works on a wide variety of devices.
© 2018 Lifeliqe Inc.
Recommended VL Products
Sapling Learning InteractivesSapling Learning
Simulations Features
•Online repository of interactive online Virtual
Labs, homework assignments, and digital
textbooks across a wide variety of STEM
subjects.
•Founded in research, and established STEM
curriculum alignment and standards.
•Website provides links to numerous peer
reviewed publications on usage of Sapling
Learning Interactive Virtual Labs and
homework assignments.
Curriculum Differentiation Features
•Customized teacher dashboard allows
teachers to assign and grade lessons, and
monitor class and individual student progress.
• VL content and homework assignments
provide instructor presence and learner
control; including direct grading and question
feedback and automatic differentiated
instruction.
© 2011-2018 Sapling Learning, Inc. All rights reserved.
Recommended VL Products
Spongelab Simulations
Spongelab Simulations Features
•Online repository of interactive online Virtual
Labs, Games/Simulations, Animations/Video,
and other multimedia content across a wide
variety of STEM subjects. The content is free!
•Teachers can submit their own lessons and
contributions; once reviewed for quality, they are
added to the site.
•Website content is linked to curriculum standards
and text books.
Curriculum Differentiation Features
•Built in dashboard allows teachers to create
lessons using content from the site and their own
materials.
• Dashboard also allows teachers to assign custom
lessons, and track class and individual student
progress.
•Interactive game-based simulations engage
students.
© 2018 SPONGELAB.
Recommended VL Products
PhET Simulations
PhET Simulations Features
•Online repository of interactive online Virtual
Labs across a wide variety of STEM subjects.
•Founded in research, and established STEM
inquiry frameworks.
•Website provides links to numerous peer
reviewed publications on usage of PhET
simulations.
•PhET Simulations are Free!
Curriculum Differentiation Features
•PhET simulations provide game-based
learning.
•PhET simulations provide instructional
prompts.
•PhET simulations provide learner control.
•Accessible simulations provide additional
instructional differentiation through verbal
and audio feedback/scaffolds.
©2018 University of Colorado. Some rights reserved.
Recommended VL Products
Labster Simulations
Labster Simulations Features
•Online repository of interactive online
Virtual Labs and Instructional Apps
across a wide variety of STEM subjects.
•Founded in research, and established
STEM inquiry frameworks.
•Website provides links to numerous peer
reviewed publications on usage of Go-
Labs.
Curriculum Differentiation Features
•Teachers have a personalized dashboard
that allows them to monitor and assess
individual student progress.
•Labster simulations provide learner
control to students.
© Labster ApS 2018 All Rights Reserved
Recommended VL Products
Go-Lab Simulations
Go-Lab Online Virtual Labs Features
•Online repository of interactive online
Virtual Labs and Instructional Apps
across a wide variety of STEM subjects.
•Founded in research, and established
STEM inquiry frameworks.
•Website provides links to numerous peer
reviewed publications on usage of Go-
Labs.
Curriculum Differentiation Features
•Teachers can create customized lesson
plans and virtual inquiry learning spaces
using Go-Lab virtual experiments and
Apps.
© 2018 Go-Lab Project - Global Online Science Labs for
Inquiry Learning at School,
Co-funded by EU (7th Framework Programme).
Recommended VL Products
Additional Simulations
ChemCollective: Virtual Labs
• A plethora of online chemistry simulations
Hhmi Biointeractive Virtual Labs
• 3D online simulations including advanced level biology/medical content
Brain Pop
• Fun and simple flash animations
The Concord Consortium
• Learn about genetics with dragons!
VLs and simulations from curriculum publishers
• Glencoe Publishing (Now part of McGraw-Hill), these web-based VLs are “oldies but
goodies“ and can be found across the internet, the website The Biology Corner has a
comprehensive list and links to the labs at
https://www.biologycorner.com/worksheets/virtual_labs_glencoe.html
• McGraw-Hill Publishing also has several web-based classic VLs around the internet,
these can be accessed by performing a search on “McGraw-Hill Virtual Labs”.
VLs and simulations from universities and institutions
• CSI: The Experience-Web Adventures (Center for Technology in Teaching and Learning-
Rice University, 2018). I highly recommend this web-based game, I have used it in my
own classroom!
Recommended VL Products
Conclusion
Ultimately, the possibilities for providing VLs to meet the diverse learning
needs of your students are as immense as the internet itself!
The options range from simple, free, web-based interactive Flash
Simulations to hyper-realistic, fully immersive, virtual reality experiences
which can be implemented across a number of devices.
While some of these resources require purchase or subscription to use,
this amount can pale in comparison to the expense for new laboratory
equipment or facilities.
Recommended Best Practices
Conclusion
In summary, the use of VLs for technology-enhanced STEM instruction is
similar to other instructional materials, their efficacy is largely dependent on
proper delivery and focus on instructional goals.
Consider the following research recommended best practices when using VLs:
• Maintain Instructor Presence
• VLs do not have to replace traditional hands-on inquiry lab activities
• Ensure alignment of curriculum and learning goals between your instruction
and VL content
• Don’t be afraid to experiment: Try out and explore some VLs on your own
(If you are like me, you’ll spend a Saturday night playing “Transcription
Hero”), try them out with your own classes, you’ll find what works and what
doesn’t.
• Always have a backup plan: Similar to traditional lab-based instruction, be
prepared for the occasional “technical difficulty”, such as computers needing
a software update, internet outage, browser compatibility issues, etc.
Recommended Best Practices
Conclusion
Similarly, the use of VLs to differentiate instruction depends on knowing your
curriculum, instructional goals, and the diverse needs of your special learning
populations.
Research-based best practices to remember when differentiating through VLs:
• Maintain Instructor Presence
• VLs can be used to remediate and reinforce concepts for special education students or
enrich and extend curriculum for gifted students.
• Ensure alignment of curriculum and differentiation goals between your instruction
and VL content, many VLs have built in features that you can specifically adapt to
meet individual student learning needs.
• VLs provide increased learner control, they allow students to: repeat concepts as
needed; work at their own pace; direct how they spend their time learning; and access
available guidance as needed.
• Teachers should partner with students in the learner control process, this can be
through increased guidance for special education students or allowing gifted students
independent learning opportunities and greater exploration of in-depth concepts.
• While the affordances provided by VLs can be beneficial to differentiated instruction,
you as the educator know what is best for your students, it is up to you to determine
whether VLs will meet your students’ unique instructional needs.
Selected References
Ahmed, M. E., & Hasegawa, S. (2014). An instructional design model and criteria for designing and developing online virtual labs. International Journal of Digital Information and Wireless
Communications (IJDIWC), 4(3), 355-371.
Bargerhuff, M.E., Kirch, S.A., & Wheatly, M. (2004). Collaborating with CLASS: Creating laboratory access for science students with disabilities. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 9(2), 1-
28.
Bhargava, P. Antonakakis, J., Cunningham, C. & Zehnder, A.T. (2006). Web-based virtual torsion laboratory. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 14(1), 1-8.
Bouck, E. C., & Hunley, M. (2014). Technology and Giftedness. In J. P. Bakken, F. E. Obiakor, & A. F. Rotatori (Eds.), Gifted Education: Current Perspectives and Issues (pp.191-210). Bingley,
United Kingdom: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Brinson, J. R. (2015). Learning outcome achievement in non-traditional (virtual and remote) versus traditional (hands-on) laboratories: A review of the empirical research. Computers & Education,
38(3), 218-237. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2015.07.003
Chen, J. A., Tutwiler, M. S., Metcalf, S. J., Kamarainen, A., Grotzer, T., & Dede, C. (2016). A multi-user virtual environment to support students' self-efficacy and interest in science: A latent
growth model analysis. Learning and Instruction, 41, 11-22.
Chen, S., Chang, W. H., Lai, C. H., & Tsai, C. Y. (2014). A comparison of students’ approaches to inquiry, conceptual learning, and attitudes in simulation‐based and microcomputer‐based
laboratories. Science Education, 98(5), 905-935.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates
Corter, J. E., Esche, S. K., Chassapis, C., Ma, J., & Nickerson, J. V. (2011). Process and learning outcomes from remotely-operated, simulated, and hands-on student laboratories. Computers &
Education, 57(3), 2054-2067.
Corter, J. E., Nickerson, J. V., Esche, S. K., Chassapis, C., Im, S., & Ma, J. (2007). Constructing reality: A study of remote, hands-on, and simulated laboratories. ACM Transactions on Computer-
Human Interaction (TOCHI), 14(2), 1-27.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2006). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., Gutmann, M. L., & Hanson, W. E. (2003). Advanced mixed methods research designs. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in
social and behavioral research (pp. 209–240). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Crippen, K. J., Archambault, L. M., & Kern, C. L. (2013). The nature of laboratory learning experiences in secondary science online. Research in Science Education, 43(3), 1029-1050.
Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. London, UK: Sage.
Dalgarno, B., Bishop, A. G., Adlong, W., & Bedgood, D. R. (2009). Effectiveness of a virtual laboratory as a preparatory resource for distance education chemistry students. Computers &
Education, 53(3), 853-865.
Dede, C. (2009). Immersive interfaces for engagement and learning. Science, 323, 66-69.
De Jong, T., Linn, M. C., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2013). Physical and virtual laboratories in science and engineering education. Science, 340(6130), 305-308.
Finkelstein, N. D., Adams, W. K., Keller, C. J., Kohl, P. B., Perkins, K. K., Podolefsky, N. S., & ... LeMaster, R. (2005). When learning about the real world is better done virtually: A study of
substituting computer simulations for laboratory equipment. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 1(1), 010103-1--010103-8.
Selected References Continued…
Hannafin, M. J. (1984). Guidelines for Using Locus of Instructional Control in the Design of Computer-Assisted Instruction. Journal of Instructional Development, 7(3), 6-10.
Huck, S. W. (2000). Reading statistics and research (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Addison Wesley Longman.
Johnson, M. (2002). Introductory biology online. Journal of College Science Teaching, 31(5), 312-317.
Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Revisiting activity theory as a framework for designing student-centered learning environments. In D. H. Jonassen & S. M. Land (Eds.), Theoretical Foundations of Learning
Environments (pp.89-122). Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Jonassen, D. H. (2001). How can we learn best from multiple representations? The American Journal of Psychology, 114(2), 321-327.
Jonassen, D. H., Tessmer, M., & Hannum, W. H. (1999). Task analysis methods for instructional design. Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Kalyuga, S. (2009). Managing cognitive load in adaptive ICT-based learning. Journal of Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, 7(5), 16-21.
Limson, M., Witzlib, C., & Desharnais, R. (2007). Using web-based simulations to promote inquiry. Science Scope, 30(6), 36-42.
Ma, J., & Nickerson, J. V. (2006). Hands-on, simulated, and remote laboratories: a comparative literature review. ACM Computing Surveys, 3(1), 1-24.
Merrill, M. D. (1999). Instructional transaction theory (ITT): Instructional design based on knowledge objects. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-Design Theories and Models: A New Paradigm
of Instructional Theory (pp.397-424). Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Pendarvis, M.P., & Crawley, J.L. (2016). Exploring Biology in the Laboratory: Core Concepts. Englewood, CO: Morton Publishing.
(NRC) National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC, USA: National Academy Press.
(NRC) National Research Council. (1997). Science teaching reconsidered: A handbook. Washington, DC, USA: National Academy Press.
(NRC) National Research Council. (2006). America's lab report: Investigations in high school science. Washington, DC, USA: National Academy Press.
Saldana, J. (2009). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. London, UK: SAGE Publications.
Sapling Learning Higher Education (2015). General & Introductory Biology. Retrieved from http://www2.saplinglearning.com/introductory-biology.
Stuckey-Mickell, T. A., & Stuckey-Danner, B.D. (2007). Virtual labs in the online biology course: Student perceptions of effectiveness and usability. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and
Teaching, 3(2), 105-111.
Swan, A. E., & O’Donnell, A. M. (2009). The contribution of a virtual biology laboratory to college students’ learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 46(4), 405-419.
Urdan, T. C. (2010). Statistics in plain English (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Zacharia, Z. C. (2007). Comparing and combining real and virtual experimentation: an effort to enhance students' conceptual understanding of electric circuits. Journal of Computer Assisted
Learning, 23(2), 120-132.
Zacharia, Z. C., Manoli, C., Xenofontos, N., de Jong, T., Pedaste, M., van Riesen, S. A., & ... Tsourlidaki, E. (2015). Identifying potential types of guidance for supporting student inquiry when
using virtual and remote labs in science: A literature review. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(2), 257-302.
Zacharia, Z. C., & Olympiou, G. (2011). Physical versus virtual manipulative experimentation in physics learning. Learning and Instruction, 21(3), 317-331.
Zacharia, Z. C., Olympiou, G., & Papaevripidou, M. (2008). Effects of experimenting with physical and virtual manipulatives on students' conceptual understanding in heat and temperature. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 45(9), 1021-1035.
Questions ???
I appreciate your feedback and questions.
Thank you
Contact me via e-mail
Jaime.McQueen@gmail.com

More Related Content

PPTX
Instructor Presence and Learner Control as a Model for Instructional Differen...
PPTX
Sera presentation 2017
PPTX
Force Concept Inventory Mature Students Nolan
DOCX
Action research
PPTX
MSUD UG Rsrch Day Apr 2016 - Rsch prnstn UPDATED 4-21-16 v4
PPTX
Jaime mcqueen dissertation proposal presentation
PDF
11.the effectiveness of teaching physics through project method on academic a...
PPTX
Jaime McQueen Virtual lab SERA presentation
Instructor Presence and Learner Control as a Model for Instructional Differen...
Sera presentation 2017
Force Concept Inventory Mature Students Nolan
Action research
MSUD UG Rsrch Day Apr 2016 - Rsch prnstn UPDATED 4-21-16 v4
Jaime mcqueen dissertation proposal presentation
11.the effectiveness of teaching physics through project method on academic a...
Jaime McQueen Virtual lab SERA presentation

What's hot (20)

PPTX
TCV School Choglamsar, Leh (Science Action Research )
PPT
Action Research Proposal Presentation - DRAFT
PDF
Action Research in science classroom
PPTX
Strategies for Assessment of Inquiry Learning in Science (SAILS), Eilish McLo...
PPSX
Classroom research ELT
PPTX
Classroom Action Research (about ACT)
PPTX
Action research - Basic concepts
PPTX
Student Efficacy: Are they Learning?
PPTX
Student Engagment Survey pilot University of Leicester
PDF
Awareness, Perspectives and Practices on the Multifaceted Educational Pedagog...
PDF
Type and Use of Innovative Learning Environments in Australasian Schools .Tec...
PPTX
Classroom research
PPTX
Wi13 Workshop - Teaching as Research
PPTX
PPTX
Adopting Classroom Technology: A Faculty Development Program
PPTX
Classroom research
PPTX
Quizzing Poster PSY Research
PPT
Classroom Research
DOCX
Action research
PPTX
Classroom research presentation
TCV School Choglamsar, Leh (Science Action Research )
Action Research Proposal Presentation - DRAFT
Action Research in science classroom
Strategies for Assessment of Inquiry Learning in Science (SAILS), Eilish McLo...
Classroom research ELT
Classroom Action Research (about ACT)
Action research - Basic concepts
Student Efficacy: Are they Learning?
Student Engagment Survey pilot University of Leicester
Awareness, Perspectives and Practices on the Multifaceted Educational Pedagog...
Type and Use of Innovative Learning Environments in Australasian Schools .Tec...
Classroom research
Wi13 Workshop - Teaching as Research
Adopting Classroom Technology: A Faculty Development Program
Classroom research
Quizzing Poster PSY Research
Classroom Research
Action research
Classroom research presentation
Ad

Similar to Labs without Limits (20)

PPTX
Jaime McQueen doctoral defence powerpoint 2_24_17
PDF
The College Classroom (Wi15) Session 7: Teaching as Research
PDF
Stephen Phillips - Implementing an inquiry based approach into our school
PPTX
Teaching-as-Research Fellows: Encouraging Scientific Teaching
DOCX
Flipped Classroom - Literature Review
PPTX
Chapter 3: Research Question
PPTX
Week 3 research qs 702.ppt
PPT
Continuous Improvement in Teaching and Learning – The Community College Open ...
PDF
Application and evaluation of advanced simulation with HPS in developing stud...
PPTX
LAK '17 Trends and issues in student-facing learning analytics reporting sys...
PPTX
Problem Based Learning: Classroom Inquiry for Critical Thinking
PDF
Teaching Excellence Series: The Educator Perspective
PPT
study habits
PDF
Student teacher engagement with research
PPTX
Inspiring change in assessment and feedback
PPTX
University teachers' experiences of, and impact on academic practice, of a co...
PPT
SET information sessions 2012
PPTX
Ckass 2 determining a research question
PDF
Debriefing nln tech conf poster -fc
Jaime McQueen doctoral defence powerpoint 2_24_17
The College Classroom (Wi15) Session 7: Teaching as Research
Stephen Phillips - Implementing an inquiry based approach into our school
Teaching-as-Research Fellows: Encouraging Scientific Teaching
Flipped Classroom - Literature Review
Chapter 3: Research Question
Week 3 research qs 702.ppt
Continuous Improvement in Teaching and Learning – The Community College Open ...
Application and evaluation of advanced simulation with HPS in developing stud...
LAK '17 Trends and issues in student-facing learning analytics reporting sys...
Problem Based Learning: Classroom Inquiry for Critical Thinking
Teaching Excellence Series: The Educator Perspective
study habits
Student teacher engagement with research
Inspiring change in assessment and feedback
University teachers' experiences of, and impact on academic practice, of a co...
SET information sessions 2012
Ckass 2 determining a research question
Debriefing nln tech conf poster -fc
Ad

Recently uploaded (20)

PDF
RMMM.pdf make it easy to upload and study
PPTX
GDM (1) (1).pptx small presentation for students
PPTX
Final Presentation General Medicine 03-08-2024.pptx
PPTX
Pharma ospi slides which help in ospi learning
PDF
BÀI TẬP BỔ TRỢ 4 KỸ NĂNG TIẾNG ANH 9 GLOBAL SUCCESS - CẢ NĂM - BÁM SÁT FORM Đ...
PPTX
Pharmacology of Heart Failure /Pharmacotherapy of CHF
PPTX
IMMUNITY IMMUNITY refers to protection against infection, and the immune syst...
PDF
STATICS OF THE RIGID BODIES Hibbelers.pdf
PDF
VCE English Exam - Section C Student Revision Booklet
PDF
Microbial disease of the cardiovascular and lymphatic systems
PPTX
Renaissance Architecture: A Journey from Faith to Humanism
PDF
Sports Quiz easy sports quiz sports quiz
PDF
Black Hat USA 2025 - Micro ICS Summit - ICS/OT Threat Landscape
PDF
3rd Neelam Sanjeevareddy Memorial Lecture.pdf
PDF
Saundersa Comprehensive Review for the NCLEX-RN Examination.pdf
PDF
01-Introduction-to-Information-Management.pdf
PDF
TR - Agricultural Crops Production NC III.pdf
PPTX
human mycosis Human fungal infections are called human mycosis..pptx
PDF
Chapter 2 Heredity, Prenatal Development, and Birth.pdf
PPTX
PPH.pptx obstetrics and gynecology in nursing
RMMM.pdf make it easy to upload and study
GDM (1) (1).pptx small presentation for students
Final Presentation General Medicine 03-08-2024.pptx
Pharma ospi slides which help in ospi learning
BÀI TẬP BỔ TRỢ 4 KỸ NĂNG TIẾNG ANH 9 GLOBAL SUCCESS - CẢ NĂM - BÁM SÁT FORM Đ...
Pharmacology of Heart Failure /Pharmacotherapy of CHF
IMMUNITY IMMUNITY refers to protection against infection, and the immune syst...
STATICS OF THE RIGID BODIES Hibbelers.pdf
VCE English Exam - Section C Student Revision Booklet
Microbial disease of the cardiovascular and lymphatic systems
Renaissance Architecture: A Journey from Faith to Humanism
Sports Quiz easy sports quiz sports quiz
Black Hat USA 2025 - Micro ICS Summit - ICS/OT Threat Landscape
3rd Neelam Sanjeevareddy Memorial Lecture.pdf
Saundersa Comprehensive Review for the NCLEX-RN Examination.pdf
01-Introduction-to-Information-Management.pdf
TR - Agricultural Crops Production NC III.pdf
human mycosis Human fungal infections are called human mycosis..pptx
Chapter 2 Heredity, Prenatal Development, and Birth.pdf
PPH.pptx obstetrics and gynecology in nursing

Labs without Limits

  • 1. Research and evidence-based application of virtual labs to promote instructional differentiation and achievement for special learning populations in STEM subjects Dr. Jaime Ann McQueen Dept. of Educational Leadership, Curriculum, and Instruction College of Education and Human Development Texas A&M University- Corpus Christi A concurrent session presentation for the 14th annual ME by the SEa conference, Corpus Christi, TX, June 15, 2018. Labs without Limits
  • 2. Introduction & Purpose Extending upon the author's previous related research, this presentation: • Summarizes current research related to Virtual Labs (VLs) in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education. • Describes how virtual labs and their affordances can provide differentiated instruction and facilitate STEM learning and achievement for special learning populations (e.g., gifted and talented and special education students). • Offers related, best practice-based, recommendations for implementing Virtual Labs in STEM instruction. The Presentation follows this Outline: I. Previous Research II. How VLs and their affordances differentiate instruction and impact achievement in special learning populations III. Best Practices and Recommendations for implementing VLs in STEM instruction
  • 3. Standards Covered This presentation will address the following standards: Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) (1) Scientific processes. The student, for at least 40% of instructional time, conducts laboratory and field investigations using safe, environmentally appropriate, and ethical practices. (2) Scientific processes. The student uses scientific methods during laboratory and field investigations. (3) Scientific processes. The student uses critical thinking, scientific reasoning, and problem solving to make informed decisions within and outside the classroom. International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) Standards Educators: Designer • Design authentic learning activities that align with content area standards and use digital tools and resources to maximize active, deep learning. Facilitator • Manage the use of technology and student learning strategies in digital platforms, virtual environments, hands-on makerspaces or in the field. Students: Computational Thinker • Students formulate problem definitions suited for technology-assisted methods such as data analysis, abstract models and algorithmic thinking in exploring and finding solutions.
  • 4. Context Physical Labs (PLs): • Offer limited provision of learner control as they are constrained by very specific instructions, time and scheduling concerns, and limited opportunities for repetition (Brinson, 2015). • Instructor presence, where learners are able to communicate, ask questions, and receive guidance from instructors during a course or lab has been shown to enhance student learning and understanding of course and laboratory content (De Jong, Linn, & Zacharia, 2013; Picciano, 2002; Stuckey-Mickell & Stuckey-Danner, 2007). Virtual Labs (VLs): • Students are actively in control of interaction with simulated lab equipment and experiments, pacing, repetition, and their own learning (Pyatt & Sims, 2012). • Communication between instructors and students is critical to students’ success in online learning environments, immediacy may be lacking in distance based learning (Crippen et al., 2013; De Jong et al., 2013; Dunlap, Verma, & Johnson, 2016; Jaggars, Edgecombe, & Stacey, 2013; Picciano, 2002).
  • 5. Theoretical Framework Instructor Presence, Learner Control, and Student-Student Interaction • Instructor presence (IP): includes specific levels of guidance provided by instructors which promote successful student learning in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) subjects (Ahmed & Hasegawa, 2014; Chen et al., 2016; Pedersen & Irby, 2014; Smith, 2015; Zacharia et al., 2015). • Learner control (LC): learners take responsibility for the pace, repetition, and sequence of content in learning environments (Dede, 2009; Hanafin, 1984; Simsek, 2012). • Student-Student Interaction (SSI): Students’ collaboration and interaction with similar and different ability peers in learning environments (Thompson, 2010; Thompson, 2011).
  • 6. Research Questions & Hypotheses The research questions that guided the study are as follows: 1. How do Virtual Labs and their affordances differentiate STEM instruction for special learning populations? 2. How do Virtual Labs and their affordances impact STEM learning and achievement for students in special learning populations? 3. What are students’ experiences learning in Physical and Virtual Labs? 4. What are students’ experiences learning with the affordances of Physical and Virtual Labs?
  • 7. I. My Previous Research In the following slides, I discuss: • The results and findings of my dissertation study and previous research on the use of VLs in STEM education. • The research and literature basis for my current research on the use of VLs to differentiate STEM instruction for special learning populations. • The research and literature basis for my current research on how VLs impact STEM Learning and Achievement of special learning populations.
  • 8. Dissertation Study Purpose Quantitative • The purpose of this study was to test the hypotheses that there would be statistically significant differences in non-majors college biology students’ learning as measured by scores on a post-test administered immediately following lab completion and after a one week delay due to the comparative effects of four different modes of biology lab treatments Qualitative • The purpose of this study was to qualitatively explore how non-majors college biology students describe their experiences of instructor presence and learner control of pace and repetition in each of four lab treatments.
  • 9. Dissertation-Literature Review The Impact of Physical and Virtual Labs on Students' Achievement Achievement in physical labs is less than virtual labs • (Finkelstein et al., 2005; Gilman, 2006; Stuckey-Mickell & Stuckey- Danner, 2007; Swan & O’Donnell, 2009; Zacharia, 2007; Zacharia et al., 2008) Achievement in physical labs is greater than virtual labs • (Corter et al., 2011; Dalgarno et al., 2009) Achievement in physical labs is equivalent to virtual labs • (Darrah et al., 2014; Tatli & Ayas, 2013; Triona & Klahr, 2003; Zacharia & Olympiou, 2011) Gaps in current research • (Pedersen & Irby, 2014; Richardson et al., 2015; Stuckey- Mickell & Stuckey-Danner, 2007; Zacharia, 2007; Zacharia et al., 2008; Zacharia et al., 2015)
  • 10. Dissertation-Literature Review The Impact of Instructor Presence and Learner Control on Students' Achievement The impact of instructor presence on students’ achievement in physical labs • Positive (De Jong et al., 2013; Klahr & Nigam, 2004; Picciano, 2002; Stuckey-Mickell & Stuckey-Danner, 2007) The impact of instructor presence on students’ achievement in virtual labs • Positive (Adams et al., 2009; Chamberlain et al., 2014; Jonassen, 2000; Jonassen, 2001; Merrill, 1999; Podolefsky et al., 2013; Zacharia et al., 2015) • Negative (Chamberlain et al., 2014; Chang et al., 2008) The impact of learner control on students’ achievement in physical labs • Positive (Hofstein et al., 2005; NRC, 2006; Zacharia et al., 2015) • Negative (Josephsen & Kristensen, 2006; NRC, 1997) The impact of learner control on students’ achievement in virtual labs • Positive (Bhargava et al., 2006; Honey & Hilton, 2011; Lee et al., 2010; Smetana & Bell, 2012) • Negative ( Pedersen & Irby, 2014) Gaps in current research • (Dede, 2009; Darrah et al., 2014; Flowers, 2011; Picciano, 2002; Stuckey-Mickell & Stuckey- Danner, 2007; Zacharia, 2007; Zacharia et al., 2008; Zacharia et al., 2015)
  • 11. Dissertation-Literature Review Students’ Experiences of Instructor Presence and Learner Control in Physical and Virtual Labs Students’experiences of instructor presence in physical labs • Positive (Bhargava et al., 2006; Gilman, 2006; Stuckey- Mickell & Stuckey-Danner, 2007) Students’experiences of instructor presence in virtual labs • Positive (Johnson, 2002; Lim et al., 2008) • Negative (Gilman, 2006; Stuckey-Mickell & Stuckey- Danner, 2007) Students’experiences of learner control in physical labs • Positive (Chen et al., 2014; Domin, 1999; Toth et al., 2009) • Negative (Chen et al., 2014; Corter et al., 2007; NRC, 1997) Students’experiences of learner control in virtual labs • Positive (Bhargava et al., 2006; Lee et al., 2010; Parker & Loudon, 2012; Pyatt & Sims, 2012; Swan & O’Donnell, 2009; Thompson et al., 2010; Toth et al., 2009) • Negative (Chen et al., 2014; Pedersen & Irby, 2014; Stuckey-Mickell & Stuckey-Danner, 2007) Gaps in current research • (NRC, 2006; Lee et al., 2010; Puttick, Drayton, & Cohen, 2015; Richardson et al., 2015)
  • 12. Dissertation-Research Questions & Hypotheses The quantitative and qualitative research questions that guided the study are as follows: Quantitative 1. What are the comparative effects of four levels of biology lab delivery on non-majors college biology students’ test scores immediately following completion of a lab, and after a one week delay? The four levels compared are: a. a physical based lab with instructor presence (PL), b. a virtual lab with no instructor presence (VL), c. a virtual lab with instructor presence (VLIP) , and d. a virtual lab with instructor presence and direction for learner control of pace and repetition beyond lab time (VLIPLC). Qualitative 1. How do non-majors college biology students describe their experiences of instructor presence and learner control of pace and repetition in each of the four treatments? Three alternate hypotheses were tested: 1) main effect of four modes of biology lab delivery . 2) main effect time measured by pre-test, post-test, one-week delayed post-test. 3) mode of lab delivery by time interaction effect.
  • 13. PL Group VL Group VLIP Group VLIPLC Group Instructor Presence Instructor is available in person to answer questions and to help with lab No IP Instructor is virtually available as needed and encourages student contact for help with lab Instructor is virtually available as needed and encourages student contact for help with lab Learner Control Student follows lab manual for 50 mins. Student follows lab manual at their own pace Student follows lab manual at their own pace Student follows lab manual at their own pace and is encouraged to repeat the processes Directed LC Dissertation-Operational Definitions Table Table 1. Operational Definitions Table
  • 14. Dissertation-Method Study Participant Selection Methods Quantitative Participants Qualitative Participants Selection Method Non-probability sampling Based on consent to audio-recording Treatment/Focus Group/Interview Assignment Method Randomly assigned, intact course sections Intact groups based on delivery modes in quantitative portion of study, and number of participants present Sample Size PL- (n=21) VL- (n=25) VLIP- (n=22) VLIPLC-(n=24) Focus Groups PL-(n=5) VL-(n=4) VLIPLC-(n=5) Interview VLIP-(n=1) Demographics The majority of the participants were 18- 24 years old (92.40%), were female (55.40%), and were sophomores (54.20%). With respect to ethnicity, (44.60%) were white, (33.70%) Hispanic, and (13.00%) African American. The majority of the participants were 18- 24 years old (93.33%), were female (73.33%), and were sophomores (66.67%). With respect to ethnicity, (46.67%) were white, (40.00%) Hispanic, (6.67%) African American, and (6.67%) other ethnicity. Study participants were students enrolled in four sections of a college level undergraduate introductory biology course (BIOL 1308) at a south Texas University during the fall 2016 semester. All qualitative participants completed the quantitative portion of the study. Table 2. Participant Selection Methods Summary
  • 15. Dissertation-Research Design • Sequential explanatory mixed methods (Creswell, 2014; Creswell & Plano Clark, 2006; Creswell et al., 2003). • Quasi-experimental study, lacks the random sampling of a true experiment (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002). Quantitative • 4 X 3 repeated measures split plot design • Independent variable: Four different modes of biology lab delivery • Dependent variable: Performance on post-tests (immediate, delayed) Qualitative • Focus groups and Interview -Semi-structured -30 minutes in duration each • Three focus groups, one for each of the PL, VL, VLIPLC lab delivery modes • One interview for VLIPLC lab delivery mode Given after quantitative data collection Enhanced quantitative findings by exploring students’ experiences learning using instructor presence and learner control in physical and virtual labs.
  • 16. Dissertation-Materials Quantitative • Prior to lab activities all students received a 90 min course lecture on mitosis and meiosis, delivered by the researcher. PL Group • Pre-Lab Tutorial: Pre-lab guidance and directions given by TA. • Lab Activity (50 mins): Exercises 6.1 The Cell Cycle & 6.2 Meiosis (Pendarvis & Crawley, 2016) • Instructor contact and affordances sheet: Detailed the affordance of instructor presence through having an instructor physically available to answer questions, provided contact information for the researcher, course instructor, and TA. VL Groups • Pre-Lab Tutorial: Computer based introductory tutorial provided by Sapling Learning that acquainted students with the virtual lab interface. • Lab Activity (50 mins): Mitosis & Meiosis (Sapling Learning, General Biology, 2016). • Instructor contact and affordances sheets: Gave description of affordances of each VL delivery mode, provided contact information for the researcher, course instructor, and TA.
  • 17. Mitosis and Meiosis Interactive Figure 2. Screen shot of Mitosis and Meiosis Interactive question (a) the hint provided (b) and question feedback (c). Copyright 2017 Sapling Learning.
  • 18. Dissertation-Materials Qualitative Researcher developed focus group and interview protocols (Jonassen, Tessmer, & Hannum, 1999). • Served to explain the results from the initial quantitative study (Creswell, 2014; Creswell & Plano Clark, 2006; Creswell et al., 2003). • One for each lab delivery mode • Nine lead questions each • Sample questions: “How did the lab help you to learn biology content?” “How many times did you repeat the lab and how?” “Did you seek or receive help from your instructor while completing the virtual lab, if so, how?”
  • 19. Dissertation-Instrumentation Quantitative • The researcher designed three equivalent, matched, test forms on the topic of meiosis and mitosis to measure students’ academic achievement. – 30 item multiple-choice pre-test administered prior to lab delivery. – 30 item multiple-choice immediate recall post-test given immediately following delivery of labs. – 30 item multiple-choice delayed recall post-test given one week following lab completion. Questions were selected from previously published test banks from Openstax Biology and Concepts of Biology, published by Rice University. • Reliability (Cronbach’s α): – Summer II Pilot: Pre-Test (.71), Immediate Post-Test (.81), One-week Delayed Post-Test (.84) – Study: Pre-Test (.62), Immediate Post-Test (.76), One-week Delayed Post-Test (.81) • Matching and equivalence of each test item across the pre-test and post-tests was ensured through correlation of unique question ID numbers and difficulty scales provided as part of the test banks.
  • 20. PL Group VL Group VLIP Group VLIPLC Group 10/10-10/17, 2016 Obtained study consent y y y y 10/17-10/18, 2016 Participated in the pretest y y y y Received content lecture (90 mins) y y y y 10/19-10/20, 2016 1.Received lab tutorial y y y y 2.Completed lab treatment PL VL VLIP VLIPLC 3.Immediate Post-Test y y y y 10/26-10/27, 2016 Delayed Post-Test y y y y 10/31-11/01, 2016 Focus Group y y y y Dissertation-Data Collection & Procedure Table 3. Data Collection and Procedure
  • 21. Dissertation-Data Analysis • Pre-experimental equivalence was assumed, a 4x3 repeated measures ANOVA was conducted (Huck, 2000; Urdan, 2010). • IBM (SPSS) v. 23. • The mean difference effect sizes were computed to examine practical significance of the findings. Qualitative • Focus group data was audio recorded using the voice memo feature of an iPhone 6. • Audio data was transcribed verbatim into Microsoft word and sorted into codes, categories, and themes using MAXQDA 11. • Researcher took analytic memos, as suggested by Saldana (2009). • First cycle coding: structural coding, Second cycle coding: magnitude coding (Saldana, 2009). • Qualitative findings were integrated with the quantitative results of the study to describe students experiences of the affordances of IP and LC in biology labs. Methodological Framework • Interpretivism (Crotty, 1998). Quantitative
  • 22. Dissertation-Quantitative Results • The time effect was statistically significant, F(2,176) =148.65, p < 0.01. All groups learned significantly from the pre-test to the immediate post-test, and from the pre-test to the one-week delayed recall post-test. Scores remained constant between the immediate post-test and one-week delayed post-test. • The mode of the delivery effect was not statistically significant, F(3,88) = 0.38, p = 0.76. All students performed equivalently well, regardless of lab delivery mode. • The interaction effect of the mode of delivery and time was not statistically significant, F(6,176) = 1.51, p = 0.18. Table 5. Mode of Delivery by Time ANOVA Summary Table Table 4. Means and Standard Deviations for Mitosis and Meiosis Content Knowledge
  • 23. Dissertation-Quantitative Results • Mean difference effect sizes were computed to examine practical significance of the findings. – Pre-Test to Immediate post-test effect size range: 0.99-2.00 – Immediate post test to One-week delayed post-test effect size range: -0.34-0.44 – Pre-Test to One-week delayed post-test effect size range: 1.23-1.71 *Note: 0.20 = small effect, 0.50 = medium effect, and > 0.80 = large effect (Cohen, 1988) • Small sample sizes (low power) were acknowledged as mode of delivery effect and mode of delivery x time effect were not statistically significant. Output analysis revealed sample sizes of (n=30) per group would have yielded a statistically significant interaction effect. Table 6. Mean Difference Effect Sizes
  • 24. Dissertation-Qualitative Results Table 7. Themes and Categories for Students’ Experiences Theme 1: Instructor Presence •Instructor-Student Communication •Instructor Guidance Theme 2: Learner Control •Repetition •Pacing •Time Spent Learning •Access To Guidance as Needed Theme 3: Unique Laboratory Experiences •Students’ Insight into Learning •Students’ Suggestions to Improve Labs • An analysis of the data from the interview and the three focus groups resulted in three themes and eight categories. A summary is provided in Table 7 below.
  • 25. Dissertation-Qualitative Results Table 8. Select Focus Group and Interview Student Responses Instructor Presence Learner Control Unique Lab Experiences PL Group “She was walking around, and if she saw you looked like you needed help, then she would help you” “There is no point [to review] when we move on to something else next week” “It felt kind of rushed” “There’s not enough microscopes” “I am not really ‘getting it’” “I’d want a longer amount of time” “It’d be cool if you could actually ‘see’ the cells” VL Group “Yeah, the lecture and the virtual lab, that was perfect” “I liked how it was individually paced” “It gave me information instead of ‘just pictures’” “I liked how it showed [cellular] movement” “I think I got what I needed from the virtual lab personally” VLIP Group “Some learners are better guided by a presence” “I just kind of ‘one- shotted’ it for the most part” “I personally think that it's very helpful, just needs polishing is all” VLIPLC Group “I liked having an instructor there too, just in case I had questions” “ I referred to the animations quite often” “I could do it how I want to do it” “I was fine with the virtual lab and seeing it the animation way“ “I like it better than the regular lab”
  • 26. Dissertation-Discussion Quantitative • Time effect: The improvement in scores from the pre-test to immediate post-test and from the pre-test to one-week delayed post-test indicates students in all groups learned significantly. The lack of statistically significant change in scores between the immediate post-test and one-week delayed post-test indicates students retained knowledge. • Mode of delivery effect: The equivalent performance among students in all lab delivery modes indicates that virtual labs can produce learning outcomes equivalent to physical labs (Darrah et al., 2014; Tatli & Ayas, 2013; Triona & Klahr, 2003; Zacharia & Olympiou, 2011). • Meaningful effect sizes: Indicate that lack of a statistically significant interaction effect is due to the small sample sizes of the groups (low power). • Had students used the affordances of instructor presence and learner control they may have seen greater learning and achievement between the immediate post-test and one-week delayed post-test.
  • 27. Dissertation-Discussion Qualitative PL Group • Appreciated having a physically available instructor • Felt constrained by lack of microscopes and lab equipment • Wanted more time to review lab content VL Groups • Enjoyed being able to go at their own pace, repeat the lab, and look at cell animations. • Appreciated when an instructor was present, but didn’t feel it was necessary to learn. • Enjoyed not having to “mess with complicated lab equipment” • Expressed some confusion related to the hints and feedback provided by the virtual lab. • Students in all lab delivery modes felt their lab was beneficial to their learning! • Despite the ‘glitches’ of physical and virtual labs, students can be positive of their laboratory learning experiences, thanks to helpful instructors and well designed VLs with embedded guidance.
  • 28. Dissertation-Discussion Instructor Presence and Learner Control Quantitative • Students in PL, VLIP, and VLIPLC group made use of instructor presence during lab time, but not in the week following. • Students in VL, VLIP, and VLIPLC groups made use of learner control during lab time, but not in the week following. Qualitative • Students expressed they did not use instructor presence after the lab due to the rapid pacing of the semester “we’re moving on to something different next week”. • Students expressed they did not use learner control and repeat the virtual lab, because they “had a course biology test for a grade” that week. • As instructional designers, researchers, and curriculum publishers, we should continue to support our students during their labs. Additionally, we should continue to research best practices in laboratory teaching and find new ways to deliver supportive labs to our students. Students need to be actively encouraged to use instructor presence and learner control
  • 29. Dissertation-Significance of the Study Findings from this study will inform science educators regarding the effects of instructor presence which is afforded in physical labs and learner control which is afforded in virtual labs. Virtual Labs can: • Expand science education options for college students. • help online learners, non-science majors students, students with disabilities. This research will help inform the fields of higher education, curriculum and instruction, and instructional design. • Virtual lab research is timely and relevant (Darrah et al., 2014; Johnson, 2002; Miller, 2008). I intend to share my study and findings with institutions of higher learning, curriculum publishers, and all other parties interested in the utility of virtual laboratories.
  • 30. Dissertation-Limitations and Delimitations Limitations • The study was limited by small sample sizes: (n=92) out of (N=98) completed the quantitative study. (n=15) out of (N=63) participated in qualitative study focus groups. • Treatments had to follow scope and sequencing of course syllabus Delimitations • Due to time and scheduling constraints, the delayed learning outcomes were measured after one week • Each lab treatment only lasted for a duration of 50 minutes • Only one lab treatment was used for the PL and VLs • The researcher selected the questions for each of the three tests. The tests were difficult, the highest student score overall was an 87%
  • 31. Dissertation-Implications for Further Research • Need for further study of PLs and VLs in college biology, including comparison between majors and non-majors courses (Flowers, 2011; Hallyburton & Lunsford, 2013; Ma & Nickerson, 2006). • Further study on impact of instructor presence and learner control on students’ achievement in PLs and VLs (Brown et al., 2016; Chamberlain et al., 2014; Chang et al., 2008; Dixson, 2010; Richardson et al., 2015; Stuckey-Mickell & Stuckey- Danner, 2007; Watson et al., 2016; Zacharia et al., 2008). • Further study exploring students’ learning experiences using instructor presence and learner control in PLs and VLs (Humphries, 2007; Lee et al., 2010; NRC, 2006; Puttick et al., 2015; Richardson et al., 2015; Robinson, 2012; Stang & Roll, 2014). • Need for studies that measure students’ achievement and experiences in PLs and VLs, where use of the affordances of instructor presence and learner control is more actively encouraged (Dede, 2009; De Jong et al., 2013). This may be accomplished by: • Integrating affordance use as a graded component of the course • Instructors giving frequent reminders to use the affordances • Instructors promoting learning benefits and relevance of affordances to students’ learning
  • 32. II. How VLs and their affordances differentiate instruction and impact achievement in special learning populations The next slides will describe how VLs and their affordances can: • Provide differentiated instruction for Gifted and Talented (GT) and Special Education students (SpEd.). • Facilitate STEM learning and achievement for these special learning populations. • Impact GT and Special Ed. Students’ learning experiences.
  • 33. Results How VLs Provide Differentiated STEM Instruction GT Specific Provide Challenge (Thompson, 2010; Thompson, 2011) Provide Acceleration (Dailey & Cotabish, 2016; Thompson, 2010; Thompson, 2011) Extends curriculum, provides greater variety, complexity, and in-depth coverage of content (Brinkley, 2018; Dailey & Cotabish, 2016; Sadler, Romine, & Merle-Johnson, 2013; Wasserman, 2008) Provide greater choice and self-regulation (Limson et al., 2007; Thompson, 2010) SpEd. Specific Provides simplification of abstract concepts, experiments, and content (Baladoh, Elgamal, & Abas, 2017; Basham & Marino, 2013) Allow students to cover content at their own speed, slower-pacing of content (Kalyuga, 2009) Provide accessible curriculum, with additional embedded guidance and features to support learning (Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017a; Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017b) Provides greater guidance and support to remediate difficult content, helps to strengthen students’ knowledge and confidence (Baladoh, Elgamal, & Abas, 2017; Kalyuga, 2009; Basham & Marino, 2013 )
  • 34. Results-How VLs Provide Differentiated STEM Instruction cont. Both GT and SpEd. Remove PL Constraints • GT (Cotabish, 2017; Cotabish, 2018; DeCoito & Richardson, 2017; Wasserman, 2008). • SpEd. (Baladoh, Elgamal, & Abas, 2017; Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017a; Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017b; National Center for Technology Innovation [NCTI], 2010) Facilitate Greater Understanding of STEM Concepts • GT (Cotabish, 2017; Cotabish, 2018; DeCoito & Richardson, 2017) • SpEd. (Baladoh et al., 2017; Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017a; Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017b ; NCTI, 2010). Promote inquiry-based learning • GT (Cotabish, 2017; Cotabish, 2018; DeCoito & Richardson, 2017). • SpEd. (Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017a; Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017b; National Center for Technology Innovation [NCTI], 2010) Promote relevance, student engagement, and interest • GT (Brinkley, 2018; Dailey & Cotabish, 2016; DeCoito & Richardson, 2017; Limson et al., 2007). • SpEd. (Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017a, Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017b). Provide Independent Learning • GT (Bouck & Hunley, 2014; Brinkley, 2018; Dailey & Cotabish, 2016; DeCoito & Richardson, 2017; Limson et al., 2007). • SpEd. (Baladoh et al., 2017; Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017a; Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017b). Facilitate collaborative Learning • GT (Bouck & Hunley, 2014; Brinkley, 2018; Dailey & Cotabish, 2016; DeCoito & Richardson, 2017; Limson et al., 2007). • SpEd. (Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017a; Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017b ). Integrates technology / 21st century skills • GT (Bouck & Hunley, 2014; Brinkley, 2018; Dailey & Cotabish, 2016; DeCoito & Richardson, 2017; Limson et al., 2007). • SpEd. (Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017a; Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017b). Gaps in current research • GT (Bouck & Hunley, 2014; Brinkley, 2018; Dailey & Cotabish, 2016; DeCoito & Richardson, 2017; Limson et al., 2007). • SpEd. (Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017a; Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017b).
  • 35. Results How VL Affordances Differentiate STEM Instruction GT SpEd. Instructor Presence (Thompson, 2010) (Blum-Dimaya, Reeve, & Reeve, 2010; Carnahan & Fulton, 2013) Learner Control (Limson et al., 2007; van Dijk, Eysink, & de Jong, 2016; Thompson, 2010) (Kalyuga, 2009; Lawless & Brown, 1997; Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017a; Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017b; National Center for Technology Innovation [NCTI], 2010) Student-Student Interaction (Limson et al., 2007; Thompson, 2010) (Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017a; Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017b ) Gaps in current research (Thompson, 2010) (Lawless & Brown, 1997; Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017a; Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017b)
  • 36. Results How VLs Impact Students’ STEM Learning and Achievement GT SpEd. Studies promoting use of VLs and/or showing Positive Achievement in VLs (Cotabish, 2017; Cotabish, 2018; Dailey & Cotabish, 2016; DeCoito & Richardson, 2017; Limson, Witzlib, & Desharnais; 2007; Sadler, Romine, Stuart, & Merle- Johnson, 2013; van Dijk, Eysink, & de Jong, 2016). (Baladoh, Elgamal, & Abas, 2017; Basham & Marino, 2013; Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017a; Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017b; National Center for Technology Innovation [NCTI], 2010; ) Studies with concerns on the use of VL and/or showing Lesser Achievement in VLs (American Chemical Society [ACS], 2014; Olszewski-Kubilius & Corwith, 2011; National Research Council [NRC], 2006; National Science Teachers Association [NSTA], 2007) (American Chemical Society [ACS], 2014; National Research Council [NRC], 2006; National Science Teachers Association [NSTA], 2007) Gaps in current research •GT (Benny & Blonder, 2016; Olszewski-Kubilius & Corwith, 2011) •SpEd. (Blum-Dimaya, Reeve, & Reeve, 2010; Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017a ; Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017b)
  • 37. Results How VL Affordances Impact STEM Learning and Achievement GT SpEd. Instructor Presence Positive (Thompson, 2010; Thompson, 2011) (Blum-Dimaya, Reeve, & Reeve, 2010) Negative (Thompson, 2010; Thompson, 2011) (Carnahan & Fulton, 2013) Learner Control Positive (Limson et al., 2007; van Dijk, Eysink, & de Jong, 2016; Sadler, Romine, & Merle- Johnson, Thompson, 2010; Thompson, 2011) (Kalyuga, 2009; Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017a; Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017b; National Center for Technology Innovation [NCTI], 2010) Negative (Thompson, 2010; Thompson, 2011) (Kalyuga, 2009; Lawless & Brown, 1997) Student-Student Interaction Positive (Limson et al., 2007; Thompson, 2010; Thompson, 2011) (Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017a; Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017b ) Negative (Thompson, 2010) (Woodward & Ferretti, 2007) Gaps in current research (Thompson, 2010; Thompson, 2011) (Blum-Dimaya, Reeve, & Reeve, 2010; Carnahan & Fulton, 2013; Kalyuga, 2009; Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017a; Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017b)
  • 38. Results Students’ Experiences Learning in PL and VL Delivery Modes GT SpEd. Students’experiences in Physical Labs Positive (Park & Oliver, 2009) (Bargerhuff, Kirch, & Wheatly, 2004; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1993; Sunal, Sunal, Sundberg, & Wright, 2008) Negative (Park & Oliver, 2009; Wasserman, 2008) (Aschbacher, Li, & Roth, 2010) Students’experiences in Virtual Labs Positive (Limson et al., 2007) (Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017a; Moin, Magiera, & Zigmond, 2009;Blum-Dimaya, Reeve, & Reeve, 2010) Negative (Sadler, Romine, & Merle-Johnson, 2013) (Woodward & Ferreiti, 2007) Gaps in current research (Drayton, Puttick, & Donovan, 2012) (Blum-Dimaya, Reeve, & Reeve, 2010; Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017a; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1993)
  • 39. Results-Students’ Experiences Using PL and VL Affordances GT SpEd. Students’experiences of Instructor Presence PL +(Park & Oliver, 2009) -(Wasserman, 2008) +(Moin, Magiera, & Zigmond, 2009) -(Aschbacher, Li, & Roth, 2010) VL +(Thompson, 2010) -(Thompson, 2010) +(Blum-Dimaya, Reeve, & Reeve, 2010) -(Harris & Smith, 2004) Students’experiences of Learner Control PL +(Park & Oliver, 2009) -(Kanevsky, 2011; NRC, 1997; Wasserman, 2008) +(Sunal, Sunal, Sundberg, & Wright, 2008) -(NRC, 1997) VL +(Limson et al., 2007; Thompson, 2010) -(Sadler, Romine, Stuart, & Merle-Johnson, 2013; Swan et al., 2015; Thompson, 2010) +(Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017a) -(Harris & Smith, 2004) Students’experiences of Student-Student Interaction PL +(Park, & Oliver, 2009; Wasserman, 2008) -(Park & Oliver, 2009) +(Sunal, Sunal, Sundberg, & Wright, 2008) -(Strogilos & Avramidis, 2016) VL +(Limson et al., 2007; Thompson, 2010) -(Thompson, 2010) +(Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017a; Woodward & Ferretti, 2007) -(Woodward & Ferretti, 2007) Gaps in current research (Kitsantas, Bland, & Chirinos, 2017; Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017a; NRC, 2006; Thompson, 2010; Woodward & Ferretti, 2007) Legend + Positive -Negative
  • 40. Discussion-How Virtual Labs Provide Differentiated Instruction Gifted Students • VLs differentiate instruction by providing challenge and acceleration (Dailey & Cotabish, 2016;Thompson, 2010; Thompson; 2011), additionally they are capable of extending curriculum beyond what is taught in the classroom, allowing students to pursue a greater variety of topics more in-depth (Brinkley, 2018; Dailey & Cotabish, 2016; Sadler et al., 2013; Wasserman, 2008). • Finally, educators’ active involvement of students’ decision in learning activities, including use of online environments such as VLs, promotes student self-regulation and responsibility (Limson et al., 2007; Thompson, 2010). Special Ed. Students • VLs differentiate instruction by providing an interactive model or simplification of abstract or difficult concepts and experiments, they also present students and educators with an alternative to traditional text- based curriculum content (Baladoh, Elgamal, & Abas, 2017; Basham & Marino, 2013). • Additionally, VLs support students learning by providing an accessible curriculum with embedded guidance and features, which allow for remediation, strengthening of students’ knowledge and confidence (Baladoh, Elgamal, & Abas, 2017; Basham & Marino, 2013; Kalyuga, 2009; Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017a; Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017b), and students’ ability to cover content at their own pace (Kalyuga, 2009). Gifted Students & Special Ed. Students • Finally, VLs differentiate instruction by removing the constraints of PL environments and facilitating integration of technology in STEM education (Baladoh et al., 2017; Brinkley, 2018; Cotabish, 2018; DeCoito & Richardson, 2017; Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017b; NCTI, 2010). This enables students to take part in inquiry- based learning, explore their related interests, and gain greater understanding of STEM concepts (Baladoh et al., 2017; Cotabish, 2017; Dailey & Cotabish, 2016; Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017a; NCTI, 2010); through both collaborative and independently-based learning (Baladoh et al., 2017; Bouck & Hunley, 2014; Brinkley, 2018; Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017a; Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017b).
  • 41. Discussion-How Virtual Lab Affordances Differentiate Instruction The affordances of instructor presence, learner control, and student-student interaction provided by VLs differentiate instruction for both Gifted and Talented and Special Ed. Students. Gifted Students • Instructor presence allows students to interact with an virtually present instructor (Thompson, 2010) this can be though communication and receiving guidance about VL related content and assignments. • Learner control allows students access and choice in curriculum, direction in their repetition, pacing, and time spent learning using VLs and online content (Limson et al., 2007; Thompson, 2010; van Dijk, Eysink, & de Jong, 2016), and promotes students’ use of guidance provided by VLs and instructors as they need it (van Dijk, Eysink, & de Jong, 2016). • Student-student interaction allows students to collaborate and communicate during online and VL instruction, this may be synchronous or asynchronous (Limson et al., 2007; Thompson, 2010). Special Ed. Students • Instructor presence allows students to interact with an instructor who is virtually present (Carnahan & Fulton, 2013) additionally, an instructor may also provide direct individualized guidance through models and video (Blum-Dimaya, Reeve, & Reeve, 2010). • Learner control allows students’ greater independence in learning with accessible online and VL curriculum, this is accomplished through allowing students more opportunity for repetition of content, working at their own pace, efficient use of time spent learning, and access to specialized guidance provided by VLs and instructors (Kalyuga, 2009; Lawless & Brown, 1997; Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017a; Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017b; NCTI, 2010). • Student-student interaction allows and encourages students to collaborate and communicate during online and VL instruction, this may be synchronous or asynchronous (Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017a; Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017b).
  • 42. Discussion How Virtual Labs impact STEM Learning and Achievement Gifted Students • VL modes can have a positive impact on students’ achievement as they remove many constraints of traditional PLs and provide unique instructional differentiation, they challenge and engage students, by accelerating learning and facilitating exploration of STEM content in greater depth. • Despite these benefits, many educational organizations and researchers show concerns about the use of VL in STEM instruction for GT students (ACS, 2014; Olszewski-Kubilius & Corwith, 2011; NRC, 2006; NSTA, 2007), mainly due to concern that VLs do not teach laboratory skills or effectively model scientific concepts and processes. Special Ed. Students • VL modes may also benefit special needs students as they provide accesibility, remove many constraints of traditional PLs and provide unique instructional differentiation, they allow students to explore concepts and content at their own pace and level, provide additional guidance, and promote independent learning and confidence. • However, the move toward inclusive STEM education, has led educational organizations to reject use of VLs (ACS, 2014; NRC, 2006; NSTA, 2007), there is concern that VLs do not teach laboratory skills or effectively model scientific concepts and processes; however, the use of PL equipment and materials may not always be feasible or helpful to students with cognitive or physical impairments.
  • 43. Discussion How VL Affordances impact STEM Learning and Achievement Gifted Students Instructor presence • Direct communication, guidance, and support of an instructor in online environment positively affects student learning. • Students’ achievement is negatively impacted by lack of instructor guidance and communication in online and VL environments, or when the amount of support is restrictive. Learner control • Achievement in VLs is positive when students are able to repeat the experiment to further their interest and understanding, are properly challenged and engaged in their time spent learning while completing activities at their own pace, and access well constructed guidance within VLs. • However, when content and guidance is poorly constructed or difficult to use, achievement can suffer, especially for students who do not have necessary self-regulation skills. Student-student interaction . • Interaction with similar ability peers within online environments and VLs can promote gifted students’ interest and understanding of STEM subjects. • However, when interaction with other students is limited, difficult, or unwanted, students can become disengaged from an online environment, this is especially detrimental when discussions are a graded part of the course.
  • 44. Discussion How VL Affordances impact STEM Learning and Achievement cont.: Special Ed. Students Instructor presence • Learning and achievement can increase through provision of specialized instructor guidance, including video modeling and consistent support. • Learning and achievement are negatively impacted by lack of instructor presence, especially in online and VL environments, where special education students need direct communication, feedback, and support. Learner control • Achievement in VLs is positive when students are able to repeat the experiment to further their understanding, are engaged in their time spent learning while completing activities at their level and own pace, and are provided with proper easy to understand guidance within VLs. • However, when content and guidance is poorly constructed, too advanced, or difficult to use; achievement can suffer, especially for students who may be struggling with limited prior knowledge and need additional help to understand concepts and use of technology. Student-student interaction • Online environments and VLs can promote special education students’ learning by providing an innovate way for them to “Be a part of the class” and can establish a sense of community membership, especially when traditional classroom settings serve as a barrier to communication. • Learning may be negatively impacted when special education students’ improperly communicate in online environments, or take a more passive role and do not engage in discussion.
  • 45. Discussion Students’ Experiences Learning in PL and VL Delivery Modes Gifted Students PL • Students experiences in PLs were positive due to the opportunity interact with laboratory equipment, materials, and chemicals to perform “real science” and investigate concepts of interest. •Students often express negative views on being “held back” by the level of curriculum and having to work with lower-ability peers. VL • Students experiences in VLs are positive when students find the activity engaging, challenging, and relevant to their learning. •VLs can lead to frustration when students do not perceive they are well designed, especially in usability of provided guidance. Special Ed. Students PL •Many special education students enjoy completing hands-on labs and are engaged by interaction with laboratory equipment and observing scientific phenomena; especially when PL environments are accessibly designed. •Negative views on PL learning are often the result of feeling unsupported by teachers. VL •Special education students also enjoy the engaging nature of VLs and the presentation of scientific content through interactive animations and video; they also appreciate the accessibility of VLs. •Negative opinions of VLs often come from a lack of understanding or engagement with content, this can lead students to assume a passive role and not use VLs to their full capabilities, especially during collaborative work.
  • 46. Discussion Students’ Experiences Using Affordances in PLs and VLs Gifted Students’ experiences in PL • Students experiences of Instructor Presence are postive in inquiry-based learning environments where they can receive guidance as needed. Views are negative when students feel educators do not challenge them or care about their learning. •Students’ experience of Learner Control are positive when they are allowed the opportunity to investigate areas of interest, especially through inquiry-based instruction. Students are bored by rigid over-simplified curriculum and lack of choice. •Views of Student-Student Interaction are positive when students are provided opportunity to collaborate with similar-ability peers, and in some cases, help lesser-ability peers. Alternately, GT students dislike being limited by lower level classmates and also cite concerns about being bullied. Gifted Students’ experiences in VL • Students experiences of Instructor Presence are postive when they feel an instructor is available virtually to communicate promptly and provide correct levels of guidance. Views are negative when students perceive instructor guidance to be unclear or that communication is limited or non- existent. •Students’ experience of Learner Control are positive when VLs are engaging and challenging, and allow them to work on advanced content at their own pace. Students are frustrated by over- simplied/poorly designed VLs and embedded guidance. •Views of Student-Student Interaction are positive when students are able to communicate, share, and learn from peers in VL environments. Alternately, GT students dislike being forced to interact with other students during times they wish to work independently.
  • 47. Discussion Students’ Experiences Using Affordances in PLs and VLs Special Ed. Students’ experiences in PL • Students experiences of Instructor Presence are postive when teachers offer help, check for understanding, and reinforce confidence. Views are negative when students feel educators belittle them or give the impression they can’t learn. • Students’ experience of Learner Control are positive when they are provided with inquiry- based hands-on learning activies. Students dislike lack of support and guidance from teachers. • Views of Student-Student Interaction are positive when students are provided opportunity to work with and learn from their classmates. Alternately, they are negative when students’ do not wish to participate in group work. Special Ed. Students’ experiences in VL • Students experiences of Instructor Presence are postive when they receive specialized understandable guidance and support from an online instructor. Views are negative when students perceive instructor guidance is absent, difficult, or unhelpful. • Students’ experience of Learner Control are positive when VLs provide an understandable and engaging way to learn science, reinforce concepts, and promote confidence. Students become frustrated by unclear, poorly designed, VLs and embedded guidance or difficult content. • Views of Student-Student Interaction are positive when students are able to communicate, share, and learn from peers in VL environments. Alternately, views are negative when students do not understand online communication procedures, or do not wish to participate in collaboration or discussions.
  • 48. Significance of the Study Findings from this study will inform science educators how virtual labs and their affordances can provide differentiated instruction and facilitate STEM learning and achievement for special learning populations (e.g., gifted and talented and special education students). Virtual Labs can: • Expand science education options for Gifted and Talented and Special Education students. • Help school districts, online learners, and students with disabilities. This research will help inform the fields of K-16 education, curriculum and instruction, and instructional design. • Virtual lab research is timely and relevant (Darrah et al., 2014; Johnson, 2002; Miller, 2008). I intend to share my study and findings with learning institutions, curriculum publishers, and all other parties interested in the utility of virtual laboratories.
  • 49. Limitations and Delimitations Limitations • The study was limited by the small amount of empirical research and studies exploring technology use in gifted education, virtual lab use in gifted and special education populations, and comparative effects of virtual labs. • Many of these studies are also in books and publications which are paywall restricted and not accessible through library or internet databases. Delimitations • The meta-analysis which serves as the basis for this presentation specifically examines use of Virtual Labs in Gifted and Talented student populations, it is still in progress; the researcher began data collection for the meta-analysis in September, 2017. • Due to inconsistent definitions of “Virtual Lab” and “Giftedness”, the researcher used discretion to include more flexible search parameters (e.g., science simulation, virtual experiment, high-ability, highly able) to identify sources. • Many of the studies relating to virtual labs deal specifically with online learning.
  • 50. Implications for Further Research • Need for further study of how VLs and affordances differentiate instruction for special learning populations (Bouck & Hunley, 2014; Brinkley, 2018; Dailey & Cotabish, 2016; DeCoito & Richardson, 2017; Limson et al., 2007; Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017a; Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017b). • Further study on how VLs and affordances impact STEM learning and achievement of special learning populations (Blum-Dimaya et al., 2010; Benny & Blonder, 2016; Carnahan & Fulton, 2013; Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017a ; Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017b; Olszewski-Kubilius & Corwith, 2011; Thompson, 2010). • Further study exploring GT and SpEd. students’ learning experiences using PLs and VLs and their affordances (Blum-Dimaya et al., 2010; Drayton et al., 2012; Kitsantas et al., 2017 ; Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017a; NRC, 2006; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1993; Thompson, 2010; Woodward & Ferretti, 2007) .
  • 51. Implications for Theory Implications for Instructional Design Instructor Presence • The study contributed to the theory of design and implementation of VLs (Ahmed & Hasegawa, 2014) . • Students can learn without an instructor being physically present, due to VLs provision of guidance. • Guidance embedded in VLs must be clear, easy to use, and well designed. • Instructional designers and educators should rethink their conception and definition of instructor presence, VLs can deliver presence (De Jong et al., 2013; Merrill, 1999; Podolefsky, Moore, & Perkins, 2013). Learner Control • Instructional designers, curriculum developers, and educators should explore new ways to encourage students' use of the learner control offered by VLs, especially since learner control is linked to increased student achievement (Finkelstein et al., 2005; Swan & O' Donnell, 2009; Zacharia, 2007). • Finally, to inform the design and development of PLs and VLs, further studies exploring and encouraging students' use of learner control in these environments are necessary (Yaman et al., 2008; Zacharia et al., 2015).
  • 52. Implications for Theory Implications for STEM Education Instructor Presence • Educators in PL environments should: actively monitor students during laboratory investigations, check for understanding, and initiate communication as needed (NRC, 1996). Learner Control • Educators should actively support and encourage students' questioning in PL environments as they may be hesitant to seek guidance own their own (NRC, 1996; NRC, 1997). • Clear guidance and support is also critical to students’ success in online learning environments, especially for gifted and talented (van Dijk et al., 2016; Thompson, 2010) and special education (Kalyuga, 2009) students. Student-Student Interaction • Student collaboration is an important part of STEM learning, but educators should be mindful that both gifted students and special education students need opportunities to demonstrate independence in learning.
  • 53. Implications for Practice "How can instructors promote STEM learning and achievement in special learning populations through use of VLs and affordances?“ • Need for further study in online virtual lab environments (Campen, 2013; Flowers, 2011; Reese, 2013; Stuckey-Mickell & Stuckey-Danner, 2007). • Using VLs and Affordances to provide differentiation! • Assessing students’ achievement from using VLs and Affordances • Paying attention to students’ learning experiences • There is a need for further practice to actively ensure that VL and affordance differentiation is purposeful and meets the educational requirements of special learners.
  • 54. III.Best Practices and Recommendations for implementing VLs in STEM instruction The next slides will: • Describe VLs and Simulations for STEM education and provide a summary of their features. • Offer related, best practice-based, recommendations for implementing Virtual Labs in STEM instruction. • Offer related, best practice-based, recommendations for implementing Virtual Labs for STEM differentiation.
  • 55. Recommended VL Products Lifeliqe Simulations Lifeliqe Simulations Features •Online repository of immersive online 3D/Augmented Reality Virtual Labs, Simulations, and Models across a wide variety of STEM subjects. •Founded in research, and established STEM curriculum and inquiry frameworks and standards. •Website provides videos and links to numerous case studies and peer reviewed publications on usage of Lifeliqe. Curriculum Differentiation Features •Teachers can create customized lesson plans using Lifeliqe creator platform. •Extremely engaging and immersive. •Comes with 700+ standards aligned lesson plans and validated digital curriculum and textbooks. •Works on a wide variety of devices. © 2018 Lifeliqe Inc.
  • 56. Recommended VL Products Sapling Learning InteractivesSapling Learning Simulations Features •Online repository of interactive online Virtual Labs, homework assignments, and digital textbooks across a wide variety of STEM subjects. •Founded in research, and established STEM curriculum alignment and standards. •Website provides links to numerous peer reviewed publications on usage of Sapling Learning Interactive Virtual Labs and homework assignments. Curriculum Differentiation Features •Customized teacher dashboard allows teachers to assign and grade lessons, and monitor class and individual student progress. • VL content and homework assignments provide instructor presence and learner control; including direct grading and question feedback and automatic differentiated instruction. © 2011-2018 Sapling Learning, Inc. All rights reserved.
  • 57. Recommended VL Products Spongelab Simulations Spongelab Simulations Features •Online repository of interactive online Virtual Labs, Games/Simulations, Animations/Video, and other multimedia content across a wide variety of STEM subjects. The content is free! •Teachers can submit their own lessons and contributions; once reviewed for quality, they are added to the site. •Website content is linked to curriculum standards and text books. Curriculum Differentiation Features •Built in dashboard allows teachers to create lessons using content from the site and their own materials. • Dashboard also allows teachers to assign custom lessons, and track class and individual student progress. •Interactive game-based simulations engage students. © 2018 SPONGELAB.
  • 58. Recommended VL Products PhET Simulations PhET Simulations Features •Online repository of interactive online Virtual Labs across a wide variety of STEM subjects. •Founded in research, and established STEM inquiry frameworks. •Website provides links to numerous peer reviewed publications on usage of PhET simulations. •PhET Simulations are Free! Curriculum Differentiation Features •PhET simulations provide game-based learning. •PhET simulations provide instructional prompts. •PhET simulations provide learner control. •Accessible simulations provide additional instructional differentiation through verbal and audio feedback/scaffolds. ©2018 University of Colorado. Some rights reserved.
  • 59. Recommended VL Products Labster Simulations Labster Simulations Features •Online repository of interactive online Virtual Labs and Instructional Apps across a wide variety of STEM subjects. •Founded in research, and established STEM inquiry frameworks. •Website provides links to numerous peer reviewed publications on usage of Go- Labs. Curriculum Differentiation Features •Teachers have a personalized dashboard that allows them to monitor and assess individual student progress. •Labster simulations provide learner control to students. © Labster ApS 2018 All Rights Reserved
  • 60. Recommended VL Products Go-Lab Simulations Go-Lab Online Virtual Labs Features •Online repository of interactive online Virtual Labs and Instructional Apps across a wide variety of STEM subjects. •Founded in research, and established STEM inquiry frameworks. •Website provides links to numerous peer reviewed publications on usage of Go- Labs. Curriculum Differentiation Features •Teachers can create customized lesson plans and virtual inquiry learning spaces using Go-Lab virtual experiments and Apps. © 2018 Go-Lab Project - Global Online Science Labs for Inquiry Learning at School, Co-funded by EU (7th Framework Programme).
  • 61. Recommended VL Products Additional Simulations ChemCollective: Virtual Labs • A plethora of online chemistry simulations Hhmi Biointeractive Virtual Labs • 3D online simulations including advanced level biology/medical content Brain Pop • Fun and simple flash animations The Concord Consortium • Learn about genetics with dragons! VLs and simulations from curriculum publishers • Glencoe Publishing (Now part of McGraw-Hill), these web-based VLs are “oldies but goodies“ and can be found across the internet, the website The Biology Corner has a comprehensive list and links to the labs at https://www.biologycorner.com/worksheets/virtual_labs_glencoe.html • McGraw-Hill Publishing also has several web-based classic VLs around the internet, these can be accessed by performing a search on “McGraw-Hill Virtual Labs”. VLs and simulations from universities and institutions • CSI: The Experience-Web Adventures (Center for Technology in Teaching and Learning- Rice University, 2018). I highly recommend this web-based game, I have used it in my own classroom!
  • 62. Recommended VL Products Conclusion Ultimately, the possibilities for providing VLs to meet the diverse learning needs of your students are as immense as the internet itself! The options range from simple, free, web-based interactive Flash Simulations to hyper-realistic, fully immersive, virtual reality experiences which can be implemented across a number of devices. While some of these resources require purchase or subscription to use, this amount can pale in comparison to the expense for new laboratory equipment or facilities.
  • 63. Recommended Best Practices Conclusion In summary, the use of VLs for technology-enhanced STEM instruction is similar to other instructional materials, their efficacy is largely dependent on proper delivery and focus on instructional goals. Consider the following research recommended best practices when using VLs: • Maintain Instructor Presence • VLs do not have to replace traditional hands-on inquiry lab activities • Ensure alignment of curriculum and learning goals between your instruction and VL content • Don’t be afraid to experiment: Try out and explore some VLs on your own (If you are like me, you’ll spend a Saturday night playing “Transcription Hero”), try them out with your own classes, you’ll find what works and what doesn’t. • Always have a backup plan: Similar to traditional lab-based instruction, be prepared for the occasional “technical difficulty”, such as computers needing a software update, internet outage, browser compatibility issues, etc.
  • 64. Recommended Best Practices Conclusion Similarly, the use of VLs to differentiate instruction depends on knowing your curriculum, instructional goals, and the diverse needs of your special learning populations. Research-based best practices to remember when differentiating through VLs: • Maintain Instructor Presence • VLs can be used to remediate and reinforce concepts for special education students or enrich and extend curriculum for gifted students. • Ensure alignment of curriculum and differentiation goals between your instruction and VL content, many VLs have built in features that you can specifically adapt to meet individual student learning needs. • VLs provide increased learner control, they allow students to: repeat concepts as needed; work at their own pace; direct how they spend their time learning; and access available guidance as needed. • Teachers should partner with students in the learner control process, this can be through increased guidance for special education students or allowing gifted students independent learning opportunities and greater exploration of in-depth concepts. • While the affordances provided by VLs can be beneficial to differentiated instruction, you as the educator know what is best for your students, it is up to you to determine whether VLs will meet your students’ unique instructional needs.
  • 65. Selected References Ahmed, M. E., & Hasegawa, S. (2014). An instructional design model and criteria for designing and developing online virtual labs. International Journal of Digital Information and Wireless Communications (IJDIWC), 4(3), 355-371. Bargerhuff, M.E., Kirch, S.A., & Wheatly, M. (2004). Collaborating with CLASS: Creating laboratory access for science students with disabilities. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 9(2), 1- 28. Bhargava, P. Antonakakis, J., Cunningham, C. & Zehnder, A.T. (2006). Web-based virtual torsion laboratory. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 14(1), 1-8. Bouck, E. C., & Hunley, M. (2014). Technology and Giftedness. In J. P. Bakken, F. E. Obiakor, & A. F. Rotatori (Eds.), Gifted Education: Current Perspectives and Issues (pp.191-210). Bingley, United Kingdom: Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Brinson, J. R. (2015). Learning outcome achievement in non-traditional (virtual and remote) versus traditional (hands-on) laboratories: A review of the empirical research. Computers & Education, 38(3), 218-237. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2015.07.003 Chen, J. A., Tutwiler, M. S., Metcalf, S. J., Kamarainen, A., Grotzer, T., & Dede, C. (2016). A multi-user virtual environment to support students' self-efficacy and interest in science: A latent growth model analysis. Learning and Instruction, 41, 11-22. Chen, S., Chang, W. H., Lai, C. H., & Tsai, C. Y. (2014). A comparison of students’ approaches to inquiry, conceptual learning, and attitudes in simulation‐based and microcomputer‐based laboratories. Science Education, 98(5), 905-935. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates Corter, J. E., Esche, S. K., Chassapis, C., Ma, J., & Nickerson, J. V. (2011). Process and learning outcomes from remotely-operated, simulated, and hands-on student laboratories. Computers & Education, 57(3), 2054-2067. Corter, J. E., Nickerson, J. V., Esche, S. K., Chassapis, C., Im, S., & Ma, J. (2007). Constructing reality: A study of remote, hands-on, and simulated laboratories. ACM Transactions on Computer- Human Interaction (TOCHI), 14(2), 1-27. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2006). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., Gutmann, M. L., & Hanson, W. E. (2003). Advanced mixed methods research designs. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 209–240). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Crippen, K. J., Archambault, L. M., & Kern, C. L. (2013). The nature of laboratory learning experiences in secondary science online. Research in Science Education, 43(3), 1029-1050. Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. London, UK: Sage. Dalgarno, B., Bishop, A. G., Adlong, W., & Bedgood, D. R. (2009). Effectiveness of a virtual laboratory as a preparatory resource for distance education chemistry students. Computers & Education, 53(3), 853-865. Dede, C. (2009). Immersive interfaces for engagement and learning. Science, 323, 66-69. De Jong, T., Linn, M. C., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2013). Physical and virtual laboratories in science and engineering education. Science, 340(6130), 305-308. Finkelstein, N. D., Adams, W. K., Keller, C. J., Kohl, P. B., Perkins, K. K., Podolefsky, N. S., & ... LeMaster, R. (2005). When learning about the real world is better done virtually: A study of substituting computer simulations for laboratory equipment. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 1(1), 010103-1--010103-8.
  • 66. Selected References Continued… Hannafin, M. J. (1984). Guidelines for Using Locus of Instructional Control in the Design of Computer-Assisted Instruction. Journal of Instructional Development, 7(3), 6-10. Huck, S. W. (2000). Reading statistics and research (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Addison Wesley Longman. Johnson, M. (2002). Introductory biology online. Journal of College Science Teaching, 31(5), 312-317. Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Revisiting activity theory as a framework for designing student-centered learning environments. In D. H. Jonassen & S. M. Land (Eds.), Theoretical Foundations of Learning Environments (pp.89-122). Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates. Jonassen, D. H. (2001). How can we learn best from multiple representations? The American Journal of Psychology, 114(2), 321-327. Jonassen, D. H., Tessmer, M., & Hannum, W. H. (1999). Task analysis methods for instructional design. Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates. Kalyuga, S. (2009). Managing cognitive load in adaptive ICT-based learning. Journal of Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, 7(5), 16-21. Limson, M., Witzlib, C., & Desharnais, R. (2007). Using web-based simulations to promote inquiry. Science Scope, 30(6), 36-42. Ma, J., & Nickerson, J. V. (2006). Hands-on, simulated, and remote laboratories: a comparative literature review. ACM Computing Surveys, 3(1), 1-24. Merrill, M. D. (1999). Instructional transaction theory (ITT): Instructional design based on knowledge objects. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-Design Theories and Models: A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory (pp.397-424). Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates. Pendarvis, M.P., & Crawley, J.L. (2016). Exploring Biology in the Laboratory: Core Concepts. Englewood, CO: Morton Publishing. (NRC) National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC, USA: National Academy Press. (NRC) National Research Council. (1997). Science teaching reconsidered: A handbook. Washington, DC, USA: National Academy Press. (NRC) National Research Council. (2006). America's lab report: Investigations in high school science. Washington, DC, USA: National Academy Press. Saldana, J. (2009). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. London, UK: SAGE Publications. Sapling Learning Higher Education (2015). General & Introductory Biology. Retrieved from http://www2.saplinglearning.com/introductory-biology. Stuckey-Mickell, T. A., & Stuckey-Danner, B.D. (2007). Virtual labs in the online biology course: Student perceptions of effectiveness and usability. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 3(2), 105-111. Swan, A. E., & O’Donnell, A. M. (2009). The contribution of a virtual biology laboratory to college students’ learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 46(4), 405-419. Urdan, T. C. (2010). Statistics in plain English (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Zacharia, Z. C. (2007). Comparing and combining real and virtual experimentation: an effort to enhance students' conceptual understanding of electric circuits. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(2), 120-132. Zacharia, Z. C., Manoli, C., Xenofontos, N., de Jong, T., Pedaste, M., van Riesen, S. A., & ... Tsourlidaki, E. (2015). Identifying potential types of guidance for supporting student inquiry when using virtual and remote labs in science: A literature review. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(2), 257-302. Zacharia, Z. C., & Olympiou, G. (2011). Physical versus virtual manipulative experimentation in physics learning. Learning and Instruction, 21(3), 317-331. Zacharia, Z. C., Olympiou, G., & Papaevripidou, M. (2008). Effects of experimenting with physical and virtual manipulatives on students' conceptual understanding in heat and temperature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(9), 1021-1035.
  • 67. Questions ??? I appreciate your feedback and questions.
  • 68. Thank you Contact me via e-mail Jaime.McQueen@gmail.com

Editor's Notes

  • #6: Add IP to this constructivist framework