The Effect of Browser-Based 360°VR on the Science Achievement Gap Between Students with and Without Disabilities

Abstract

The ongoing science achievement gap between students with and without disabilities affects informed citizenry and job opportunities. This study explored the impact of extended reality (XR) in inclusive 9th-grade biology classrooms using browser-based 360° virtual reality (VR). The primary research question is: Does using XR (i.e., browser-based 360° VR in science lessons lead to a statistically significant performance difference between secondary students with and without disabilities? Although a one-way Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) yielded non-significant results, a moderate effect size suggested a meaningful difference, prompting further investigation. A follow-up MANOVA on pre- and post-change scores was statistically significant. The secondary research question on social validity is: What opinions do students and teachers express about learning after students use XR during science lessons? Surveys indicated that students and the teacher found VR beneficial, recommending it as a supplement. Implications for research, practice, and technology developers are provided.

Keywords

9th grade biology educational perspecitves exceptionality high incidence disabilites inclusive education science secondary technology perspectives virtual reality

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Akcayir

(2017). Advantages and challenges associated with augmented reality for education: A systematic review of the literature. Educational Research Review, 20, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2016.11.002

American Psychiatric Association . (2022). Neurodevelopmental disorders. In Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.) text rev. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425787

Arici

Yildirim

Caliklar

Ş.

Yilmaz

R. M.

(2019). Research trends in the use of augmented reality in science education: Content and bibliometric mapping analysis. Computers & Education, 142, Article 103647. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103647

Arici

Yilmaz

R. M.

Yilmaz

(2021). Affordances of augmented reality technology for science education: Views of secondary school students and science teachers. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 3(5), 1153–1171. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.310

Arvanitis

T. N.

Petrou

Knight

J. F.

Savas

Sotiriou

Gargalakos

Gialouri

(2007). Human factors and qualitative pedagogical evaluation of a mobile augmented reality system for science education used by learners with physical disabilities. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 13(3), 243–250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-007-0187-7

Barron

Friend

Dieker

Kohnke

(2022). Co-teaching in uncertain times: Using technology to improve student learning and manage today’s complex educational landscape. Journal of Special Education Technology, 37(3), 439–446. https://doi.org/10.1177/01626434211033579

Basham

J. D.

Marino

M. T.

Hunt

C. L.

Han

(2020). Considering STEM for learners with disabilities and other diverse needs. In Johnson

C. C.

Mohr-Schroeder

M. J.

Moore

T. J.

English

L. D.

(Eds.), Handbook of research on STEM education (1st ed., pp. 128–137). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429021381-13

Bass

K. M.

Drits-Esser

Stark

L. A.

(2016). A primer for developing measures of science content knowledge for small-scale research and instructional use. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 15(2), rm2. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.15-07-0142

Buchner

Buntins

Kerres

(2022). The impact of augmented reality on cognitive load and performance: A systematic review. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 38(1), 285–303. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12617

10.

Bukaty

Bousfield

Straub

(2015). Student Idea-Generation Evaluation (SIGE): An efficient quantitative method for assessing student idea-generation in concept maps [Unpublished manuscript].

11.

CAST . (2018). Udl: The UDL guidelines version 2.2. https://udlguidelines.cast.org/

12.

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). L. Erlbaum Associates.

13.

Cornejo

Estacio

(2021). Challenging topics in the senior high school core curriculum subject (earth and life science) as perceived by first year college students. World Wide Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Development, 7(11), 40–46. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/ZJA9Q

14.

Cranmer

G. A.

(Ed.), (2017). One-group pretest–posttest design. In: The Sage encyclopedia of Communication research methods. (1–4, pp. 1125–1126). Sage Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483381411.

15.

Dieker

L. A.

Rodriguez

J. A.

(2013). Enhancing secondary cotaught science and mathematics classrooms through collaboration. Intervention in School and Clinic, 49(1), 46–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451213480028

16.

Doabler

C. T.

Therrien

W. J.

Longhi

M. A.

Roberts

Hess

K. E.

Maddox

S. A.

Lovette

G. E.

Fall

A.-M.

Kimmel

G. L.

Benson

VanUitert

V. J.

Emily Wilson

Powell

S. R.

Sampson

Toprac

(2021). Efficacy of a second-grade science program: Increasing science outcomes for all students. Remedial and Special Education, 42(3), 140–154. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932521989091

17.

Dolan

(2017). Withering opportunity: Technology implementation in K-12 schools, the opportunity gap and the evolving digital divide. Journal of Current Issues in Media & Telecommunications, 9(1), 15–37. Communication Source.

18.

Fauzi

Mitalistiani

(2018). High school biology topics that perceived difficult by undergraduate students. DIDAKTIKA BIOLOGI: Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan Biologi, 2(2), 73. https://doi.org/10.32502/dikbio.v2i2.1242

19.

Fereday

Muir-Cochrane

(2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 80–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690600500107

20.

Garzón

Kinshuk Baldiris

Gutiérrez

Pavón

(2020). How do pedagogical approaches affect the impact of augmented reality on education? A meta-analysis and research synthesis. Educational Research Review, 31, 100334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2020.100334

21.

Gersten

Edyburn

(2007). Defining quality indicators for special education technology research. Journal of Special Education Technology, 22(3), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/016264340702200302

22.

Goudeau

Sanrey

Stanczak

Manstead

Darnon

(2021). Why lockdown and distance learning during the COVID-19 pandemic are likely to increase the social class achievement gap. Nature Human Behaviour, 5(10), 1273–1281. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01212-7

23.

Hamash

Ghreir

Tiernan

(2024). Breaking through barriers: A systematic review of extended reality in education for the visually impaired. Education Sciences, 14(4), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14040365

24.

Jdaitawi

M. T.

Kan'an

A. F.

(2021). A decade of research on the effectiveness of augmented reality on students with special disability in higher education. Contemporary Educational Technology, 14(1), ep332. https://doi.org/10.30935/cedtech/11369

25.

Keller

Rumann

Habig

(2021). Cognitive load implications for augmented reality supported chemistry learning. Information, 12(3), 96–116. https://doi.org/10.3390/info12030096

26.

King-Sears

M. E.

Stefanidis

Berkeley

Strogilos

(2021). Does co-teaching improve academic achievement for students with disabilities? A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 34, 100405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2021.100405

27.

Kohnke

(2022). Making inquiry accessible for students with disabilities. The Science Teacher, 89(5), 36–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/00368555.2022.12293697

28.

Kohnke

(2023). The effect of extended reality on the science achievement gap between students with and without disabilities. University of Central Florida. https://stars.library.ucf.edu/etd2020/1810

29.

Kohnke

Patterson

M. S.

Moehlmann

(2022). UDL solutions for common science barriers. The Science Teacher, 89(6), 29–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/00368555.2022.12293710

30.

Kuder

G. F.

Richardson

M. W.

(1937). The theory of the estimation of test reliability. Psychometrika, 2(3), 151–160. APA PsycInfo. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02288391

31.

Lai

A.-F.

Chen

C.-H.

Lee

G.-Y.

(2019). An augmented reality-based learning approach to enhancing students’ science reading performances from the perspective of the cognitive load theory. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(1), 232–247. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12716

32.

Mackenzie

Watts

(2011). Is our legal, health care and social support infrastructure neurodiverse enough? How far are the aims of the neurodiversity movement fulfilled for those diagnosed with cognitive disability and learning disability? Tizard Learning Disability Review, 16(1), 30–37. https://doi.org/10.5042/tldr.2011.0005

33.

Mann

H. B.

Whitney

D. R.

(1947). On a test of whether one of two random variables is stochastically larger than the other. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 18(1), 50–60. JSTOR Journals. https://doi.org/10.1214/aoms/1177730491

34.

Marino

M. T.

Parsons

Brewer

Vasquez

(2021). Students with disabilities in science/STEM. In Stroud

L. M.

Roy

Doyle

K. S.

(Eds.), Science laboratory safety manual (4th ed., pp. 351). National Safety Consultants, LLC. https://sites.google.com/site/nationalsafetyconsultantsllc

35.

Matovu

Ungu

D. A. K.

Won

Tsai

C.-C.

Treagust

D. F.

Mocerino

Tasker

(2022). Immersive virtual reality for science learning: Design, implementation, and evaluation. Studies in Science Education, 59(2), 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2022.2082680

36.

Mayer

R. E.

(2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

37.

Mayer

R. E.

Fiorella

(2021). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108894333

38.

McMahon

D. D.

(2019). Augmented reality & virtual reality: Connecting emerging technologies to the UDL framework (4).

39.

McMahon

D. D.

Cihak

D. F.

Wright

R. E.

Bell

S. M.

(2016). Augmented reality for teaching science vocabulary to postsecondary education students with intellectual disabilities and autism. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 48(1), 38–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2015.1103149

40.

Mood

D. P.

Morrow

J. R.

McQueen

M. B.

(2020). Multivariate ANOVA (MANOVA). In Introduction to statistics in human performance (2nd ed., pp. 293–310). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351211062-13

41.

National Academies of Sciences, E., Medicine, Education, D. of B. and S. S. and, Education, B. on S., Education, C. on the C. to A. for S. Gonring

Brenner

Schweingruber

Honey

(2021). Call to action for science education: Building opportunity for the future. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/26152

42.

National Center for Education Statistics . (2019). NAEP science: National student group scores and score gaps. U.S. Department of Education. https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/science/nation/groups/?grade=12

43.

National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics . (2021). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 2021 [special report NSF 21-321]. National Science Foundation. https://ncses.nsf.gov/wmpd

44.

National Research Council . (2012). A framework for k-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13165

45.

Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services . (2022). 44th annual report to congress on the implementation of the individuals with disabilities education act, parts B and C, 2022 [annual reports]. US Department of Education. https://sites.ed.gov/idea/2022-individuals-with-disabilities-education-act-annual-report-to-congress/

46.

Plass

J. L.

Moreno

Brünken

(Eds.), (2010). Cognitive load theory. Cambridge University Press.

47.

Quintero

Baldiris

Rubira

Cerón

Velez

(2019). Augmented reality in educational inclusion. A systematic review on the last decade. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1835. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01835

48.

Rakkolainen

Farooq

Kangas

Hakulinen

Rantala

Turunen

Raisamo

(2021). Technologies for multimodal interaction in extended reality—a scoping review. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 5(12), 81. https://doi.org/10.3390/mti5120081

49.

Sala

(2021). Extended reality in education. Chaos and Complexity Letters, 15(2/3), 225–240.

50.

Simon-Liedtke

J. T.

Baraas

(2022). The future of eXtended reality in primary and secondary education. Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, 297, 549–556. https://doi.org/10.3233/SHTI220886

51.

Sırakaya

Alsancak Sırakaya

(2022). Augmented reality in STEM education: A systematic review. Interactive Learning Environments, 30(8), 1556–1569. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1722713

52.

Suzuki

Wild

Scanlon

(2024). Measuring cognitive load in augmented reality with physiological methods: A systematic review. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 40(2), 375–393. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12882

53.

Taub

Azevedo

Bradbury

A. E.

Millar

G. C.

Lester

(2018). Using sequence mining to reveal the efficiency in scientific reasoning during STEM learning with a game-based learning environment. Learning and Instruction, 54, 93–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.08.005

54.

Therrien

W. J.

Benson

S. K.

Hughes

C. A.

Morris

J. R.

(2017). Explicit instruction and Next generation science standards aligned classrooms: A fit or a split? Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 32(3), 149–154. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12137

55.

Tsui

C.-Y.

Treagust

D. F.

(2012). Introduction to multiple representations: Their importance in biology and biological education (pp. 3–18): Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4192-8_1

56.

Turan

Atila

(2021). Augmented reality technology in science education for students with specific learning difficulties: Its effect on students’ learning and views. Research in Science & Technological Education, 39(4), 506–524. https://doi.org/10.1080/02635143.2021.1901682

57.

Vargas

Just

M. A.

(2020). Neural representations of abstract concepts: Identifying underlying neurosemantic dimensions. Cerebral Cortex, 30(4), 2157–2166. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhz229

58.

Virtual Experience Research Accelerator . (2024). Virtual experience research Accelerator (VERA) project [National science foundation funded research project]. Virtual Experience Research Accelerator (VERA). https://sreal.ucf.edu/vera/

59.

Wang

X.-M.

Q.-N.

Hwang

G.-J.

X.-H.

(2022). Learning with digital technology-facilitated empathy: An augmented reality approach to enhancing students’ flow experience, motivation, and achievement in a biology program. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–17. Online ahead of print. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2057549

60.

Wernecke

Schutte

Schwanewedel

Harms

(2018). Enhancing conceptual knowledge of energy in biology with incorrect representations. CBE Life Science Education, 17(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.17-07-0133

61.

H.-K.

Lee

S. W.-Y.

Chang

H.-Y.

Liang

J.-C.

(2013). Current status, opportunities and challenges of augmented reality in education. Computers and Education, 62, 41–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.024

62.

Yang

Jen

C.-H.

Chang

C.-Y.

Yeh

T.-K.

(2018). Comparison of animation and static-picture based instruction: Effects on performance and cognitive load for learning genetics. Educational Technology & Society, 21(4), 1–11.

63.

Yenioglu

B. Y.

Ergulec

Yenioglu

(2021). Augmented reality for learning in special education: A systematic literature review. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.1976802

64.

Yenioglu

B. Y.

Yenioglu

Sayar

Ergulec

(2023). Using augmented reality based intervention to teach science to students with learning disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology. EDSWSS. https://doi.org/10.1177/01626434231184829

65.

Zaugg

(2024). Future innovations for assistive technology and universal design for learning. In Assistive technology and universal design for learning: Toolkits for inclusive instruction (pp. 275–318). Plural Publishing.