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.
AkcayirM.AkcayirG. (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
2.
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
3.
AriciF.YildirimP.CaliklarŞ.YilmazR. 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
4.
AriciF.YilmazR. M.YilmazM. (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
5.
ArvanitisT. N.PetrouA.KnightJ. F.SavasS.SotiriouS.GargalakosM.GialouriE. (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
6.
BarronT.FriendM.DiekerL.KohnkeS. (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
7.
BashamJ. D.MarinoM. T.HuntC. L.HanK. (2020). Considering STEM for learners with disabilities and other diverse needs. In JohnsonC. C.Mohr-SchroederM. J.MooreT. J.EnglishL. D. (Eds.), Handbook of research on STEM education (1st ed., pp. 128–137). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429021381-13
8.
BassK. M.Drits-EsserD.StarkL. 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
9.
BuchnerJBuntinsKKerresM (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.
BukatyC.BousfieldT.StraubC. (2015). Student Idea-Generation Evaluation (SIGE): An efficient quantitative method for assessing student idea-generation in concept maps[Unpublished manuscript].
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). L. Erlbaum Associates.
13.
CornejoM.EstacioR. (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.
CranmerG. 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.
DiekerL. A.RodriguezJ. 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.
DoablerC. T.TherrienW. J.LonghiM. A.RobertsG.HessK. E.MaddoxS. A.UyJ.LovetteG. E.FallA.-M.KimmelG. L.BensonS.VanUitertV. J.Emily WilsonS.PowellS. R.SampsonV.TopracP. (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.
DolanJ. (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.
FauziA.MitalistianiM. (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.
FeredayJ.Muir-CochraneE. (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.
GarzónJ.KinshukBaldirisS.GutiérrezJ.PavónJ. (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.
GerstenR.EdyburnD. (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.
GoudeauS.SanreyC.StanczakA.MansteadA.DarnonC. (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.
HamashM.GhreirH.TiernanP. (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.
JdaitawiM. T.Kan'anA. 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
King-SearsM. E.StefanidisA.BerkeleyS.StrogilosV. (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
KohnkeS. (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
KuderG. F.RichardsonM. W. (1937). The theory of the estimation of test reliability. Psychometrika, 2(3), 151–160. APA PsycInfo. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02288391
31.
LaiA.-F.ChenC.-H.LeeG.-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.
MackenzieR.WattsJ. (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.
MannH. B.WhitneyD. 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.
MarinoM. T.ParsonsC.BrewerJ.VasquezE. (2021). Students with disabilities in science/STEM. In StroudL. M.RoyA.DoyleK. S. (Eds.), Science laboratory safety manual (4th ed., pp. 351). National Safety Consultants, LLC. https://sites.google.com/site/nationalsafetyconsultantsllc
35.
MatovuH.UnguD. A. K.WonM.TsaiC.-C.TreagustD. F.MocerinoM.TaskerR. (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.
MayerR. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
37.
MayerR. E.FiorellaL. (2021). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108894333
38.
McMahonD. D. (2019). Augmented reality & virtual reality: Connecting emerging technologies to the UDL framework (4).
39.
McMahonD. D.CihakD. F.WrightR. E.BellS. 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.
MoodD. P.MorrowJ. R.McQueenM. 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.GonringP.BrennerK.SchweingruberH.HoneyM. (2021). Call to action for science education: Building opportunity for the future. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/26152
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
PlassJ. L.MorenoR.BrünkenR. (Eds.), (2010). Cognitive load theory. Cambridge University Press.
47.
QuinteroJ.BaldirisS.RubiraR.CerónJ.VelezG. (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.
RakkolainenI.FarooqA.KangasJ.HakulinenJ.RantalaJ.TurunenM.RaisamoR. (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.
SalaN. (2021). Extended reality in education. Chaos and Complexity Letters, 15(2/3), 225–240.
50.
Simon-LiedtkeJ. T.BaraasR. (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.
SırakayaM.Alsancak SırakayaD. (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.
SuzukiY.WildF.ScanlonE. (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.
TaubM.AzevedoR.BradburyA. E.MillarG. C.LesterJ. (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.
TherrienW. J.BensonS. K.HughesC. A.MorrisJ. 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.
TsuiC.-Y.TreagustD. 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.
TuranZ.AtilaG. (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.
VargasR.JustM. 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.
WangX.-M.HuQ.-N.HwangG.-J.YuX.-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.
WerneckeUSchutteKSchwanewedelJHarmsU (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.
WuH.-K.LeeS. W.-Y.ChangH.-Y.LiangJ.-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.
YangC.JenC.-H.ChangC.-Y.YehT.-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.
YeniogluB. Y.ErgulecF.YeniogluS. (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.
YeniogluB. Y.YeniogluS.SayarK.ErgulecF. (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.
ZauggT. (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.
