Instructor Presence and Learner Control as a Model for Instructional Differentiation in Virtual STEM Learning Environments

Dr. Jaime Ann McQueen
Science Ink!
A concurrent session presentation for the 2019 SUPCE conference, Corpus Christi,
TX, April 13, 2019.
Instructor Presence and Learner Control as a Model
For Instructional Differentiation in Virtual STEM
Learning Environments

Introduction & Purpose
Extending upon the author's previous related research, this presentation:
• Summarizes current research related to Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs) in
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education.
• Describes how virtual Learning Environments 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 VLEs in
STEM instruction.
The Presentation follows this Outline:
I. Previous Research
II. How VLEs and their affordances differentiate instruction and impact
achievement in special learning populations
III. Best Practices and Recommendations for implementing VLEs 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 (IP) and Learner Control (LC)
• Instructor presence: 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: 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
The research questions that informed this presentation are as
follows:
1. How do Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs) and their affordances
differentiate STEM instruction for special learning populations?
2. How do VLEs and their affordances impact STEM learning and
achievement for students in special learning populations?
3. What are students’ experiences learning and practicing scientific inquiry
in traditional Physical Lab (PL) and VLE classrooms?
4. What are students’ STEM learning experiences using the affordances
available within PL and VLE classrooms?

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 results and findings of my previous/continuing
research on the use of VLs to differentiate STEM
instruction for special learning populations, and related
impacts on STEM Learning and Achievement.
• The research and literature basis for my current research
on the use of STEM VLEs to differentiate instruction and
facilitate learning and achievement for special learning
populations.

Previous Research-Dissertation Summary
Setting
South Texas University during the fall 2016 semester.
Study Purpose
Quantitative:
Measure the comparative effects of four levels of biology lab delivery on non-majors college
biology (BIOL 1308) students’ test scores immediately following completion of a lab, and
after a one week delay.The four levels compared were:
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:
Explore how students describe their experiences of instructor presence and learner control of pace
and repetition in each of the four treatments

Previous Research-Dissertation Summary cont.
Research Design
• Quasi-experimental, Sequential explanatory mixed methods study (Creswell, 2014; Creswell &
Plano Clark, 2006; Creswell et al., 2003; 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
• Three semi-structured Focus groups (PL, VL, VLIPLC lab delivery modes)and one interview
(VLIP lab delivery mode), 30 minutes in duration each.
Materials & Instrumentation
• Pre-Lab Tutorial: Pre-lab guidance and directions given by TA (PL Groups); Computer based
introductory tutorial provided by Sapling Learning that acquainted students with the virtual lab
interface (VL Groups).
• Lab Activity (50 mins): Exercises 6.1 The Cell Cycle & 6.2 Meiosis (PL Groups)(Pendarvis &
Crawley, 2016); Mitosis & Meiosis (VL Groups) (Sapling Learning, General Biology, 2016).
• Instructor contact and affordances sheet: Detailed the affordance of instructor presence (PL
Groups); gave description of affordances of each VL delivery mode (VL Groups), all sheets
provided contact information for the researcher, course instructor, and TA.

Previous Research-Dissertation Summary cont.
Materials & Instrumentation cont.
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 (Cronbach’s α: .62).
– 30 item multiple-choice immediate recall post-test given immediately following delivery
of labs (Cronbach’s α: .76).
– 30 item multiple-choice delayed recall post-test given one week following lab completion
(Cronbach’s α: .81).
Questions were selected from previously published test banks from Openstax Biology and
Concepts of Biology, published by Rice University.
Qualitative
Researcher developed focus group and interview protocols (Jonassen, Tessmer, & Hannum,
1999).
• 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

Dissertation Summary-Literature Review
The Impact of PLs and VLs on Students’Achievement
PL < VL (Finkelstein et al., 2005; Gilman, 2006; Stuckey-Mickell & Stuckey-Danner,
2007; Swan & O’Donnell, 2009; Zacharia, 2007; Zacharia et al., 2008)
PL >VL (Corter et al., 2011; Dalgarno et al., 2009)
PL=VL (Darrah et al., 2014; Tatli & Ayas, 2013; Triona & Klahr, 2003; Zacharia &
Olympiou, 2011)

Dissertation Summary-Literature Review cont.
The Impact of IP and LC on Students' Achievement and Experiences in PLs and VLs
PL • Instructor Presence (Bhargava et al., 2006; De Jong et al., 2013; Gilman,
2006; Klahr & Nigam, 2004; Picciano, 2002; Stuckey-Mickell & Stuckey-
Danner, 2007)
• Learner Control (Chen et al., 2014; Corter et al., 2007; Domin, 1999;
Hofstein et al., 2005; Josephsen & Kristensen, 2006; NRC, 1997; NRC, 2006;
Toth et al., 2009; Zacharia et al., 2015)
VL • Instructor Presence (Adams et al., 2009; Chamberlain et al., 2014; Chang et
al., 2008; Gilman, 2006; Johnson, 2002; Jonassen, 2000; Jonassen, 2001;
Merrill, 1999; Podolefsky et al., 2013; Stuckey-Mickell & Stuckey-Danner,
2007; Zacharia et al., 2015)
• Learner Control (Bhargava et al., 2006; Chen et al., 2014; Honey & Hilton,
2011; Lee et al., 2010; Parker & Loudon, 2012; Pedersen & Irby, 2014; Pyatt
& Sims, 2012; Smetana & Bell, 2012; Stuckey-Mickell & Stuckey-Danner,
2007; Swan & O’Donnell, 2009; Thompson et al., 2010; Toth et al., 2009)
Gaps in current
research
(Darrah et al., 2014; Dede, 2009; Flowers, 2011; Lee et al., 2010; NRC, 2006;
Pedersen & Irby, 2014; Picciano, 2002; Puttick, Drayton, & Cohen, 2015;
Richardson et al., 2015; Stuckey-Mickell & Stuckey-Danner, 2007; Zacharia,
2007; Zacharia et al., 2008; Zacharia et al., 2015)

Dissertation Summary-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 Summary-Quantitative Results cont.
• 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 Summary-Qualitative Results
Table 8.
Select Focus Group and Interview Student Responses
Theme 1: Instructor Presence Theme 2: Learner Control Theme 3: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 Summary-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).
Instructor Presence and Learner Control
• 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.
• 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 Summary-Discussion cont.
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!
Instructor Presence and Learner Control
• 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.
• 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.
• 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

II. How VLs and their affordances differentiate
instruction and impact achievement in special
learning populations
The next slides will describe how VLEs 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 VLEs 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 VLEs 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
• SpEd. (Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017a; Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017b ).
Integrates technology /
21st century skills
• SpEd. (Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017a; Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017b).
Gaps in current research • GT (Bouck & Hunley, 2014; Brinkley, 2018; Dailey & Cotabish, 2016; DeCoito & Richardson, 2017;
• SpEd. (Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017a; Lynch & Ghergulescu, 2017b).

Results-How VLE 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 VLEs Impact Students’ STEM Learning and
Achievement
GT SpEd.
Studies promoting use of VLEs
and/or showing Positive
Achievement in VLEs
(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
VLE and/or showing Lesser
Achievement in VLEs
(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 VLE 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 VLE 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 Learning Environments
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 VLE 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).
• 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.
• VL modes may also benefit special needs students as they provide accessibility, 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 VLE 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 VLE Affordances impact STEM Learning and
Achievement cont.:
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 VLE 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.
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 VLEs
Gifted Students’ Experiences in PL
Instructor Presence
• Postive in inquiry-based learning environments where they can receive guidance as needed.
• Negative when students feel educators do not challenge them or care about their learning.
Learner Control
• Positive when they are allowed the opportunity to investigate areas of interest, especially through inquiry-based
instruction.
• Negative Students are bored by rigid over-simplified curriculum and lack of choice.
• Positive when students are provided opportunity to collaborate with similar-ability peers, and in some cases, help
lesser-ability peers.
• Negative GT students dislike being limited by lower level classmates and also cite concerns about being bullied.
Gifted Students’ Experiences in VLEs
Instructor Presence
• Postive when they feel an instructor is available virtually to communicate promptly and provide correct levels of
guidance.
• Negative when students perceive instructor guidance to be unclear or that communication is limited or non-existent.
Learner Control
• Positive when VLEs are engaging and challenging, and allow them to work on advanced content at their own pace.
• Negative Students are frustrated by over-simplied/poorly designed VLs and embedded guidance.
• Positive when students are able to communicate, share, and learn from peers in VL environments.
• Negative 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
VLEs
Special Ed. Students’ Experiences in PL
Instructor Presence
• Postive when teachers offer help, check for understanding, and reinforce confidence.
• Negative when students feel educators belittle them or give the impression they can’t learn.
Learner Control
• Positive when they are provided with inquiry-based hands-on learning activies.
• Negative Students dislike lack of support and guidance from teachers.
• Positive when students are provided opportunity to work with and learn from their classmates.
• Negative when students’ do not wish to participate in group work.
Special Ed. Students’ Experiences in VLEs
Instructor Presence
• Postive when they receive specialized understandable guidance and support from an online instructor.
• Negative when students perceive instructor guidance is absent, difficult, or unhelpful.
Learner Control
• Positive when VLs provide an understandable and engaging way to learn science, reinforce concepts, and
promote confidence.
• Negative Students become frustrated by unclear, poorly designed, VLs and embedded guidance or
difficult content.
• Positive when students are able to communicate, share, and learn from peers in VL environments.
• 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 VLEs 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 VLEs 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
VLEs 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 VLEs (Ahmed
& Hasegawa, 2014) .
• Students can learn without an instructor being physically present, due to VLEs
provision of guidance.
• Guidance embedded in VLEs must be clear, easy to use, and well designed.
• Instructional designers and educators should rethink their conception and definition
of instructor presence, VLEs 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 VLEs, 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 VLEs, 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 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 VLEs and affordances?“
• Need for further study in online virtual lab environments (Campen, 2013; Flowers, 2011;
Reese, 2013; Stuckey-Mickell & Stuckey-Danner, 2007).
• Using VLEs and Affordances to provide differentiation!
• Assessing students’ achievement from using VLEs and Affordances
• Paying attention to students’ learning experiences
• There is a need for further practice to actively ensure that VLE 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 VLEs and Simulations for STEM education and
provide a summary of their features.
• Offer related, best practice-based, recommendations for
implementing VLEs in STEM instruction.
• Offer related, best practice-based, recommendations for
implementing VLEs for STEM differentiation.

Operational Definitions
The next slides will include some terminology specific to
VLEs and online learning which are defined below:
• Animated Pedagogical Agent: a graphical representation or character within
web-based learning environments that interfaces with a user (van der Meij,
2013). Think of “Clippy”...
• LMS: Learning Management System, an online environment with a user
front-end for delivering courses and hosted back-end for storing course
resources.
• LTI: Connects and integrates external web-based learning tools to LMS.
• Module: A collection of course lessons, resources, and materials presented to
users in a sequenced order.
• Open Author: A platform used for creating open educational resources which
may be used for teaching and shared with others.
• OER: Open educational resources are multimedia, text, and graphical
sources which may be used for the purposes of education, have more flexible
allowances than copyrighted materials.

Recommended VLE Products-Blackboard CourseSites
Copyright © 1997-2019. Blackboard Inc. All rights reserved.
Blackboard CourseSites
Features
•One of the leading LMS solutions, fully available to
individual educators, for free!
•Fully customizable: includes instructor dashboard,
grade center integration, easy online assignment
creation, and LTI Integration.
•Include all sorts of digital multimedia content, you
have control of the design of your course.
Curriculum Differentiation Features
•Differentiate instruction through the ability to
conditionally show/hide content, provide assignments
for individuals or groups of students.
• Course interface, assignment, and communication
tools provide instructor presence and learner control;
allowing students ability to communicate with an
instructor, collaborate, and view course content at their
own pace.
•CourseSites works across a wide variety of devices and
integrates well with assistive technology.

Recommended VLE Products-OER Resource Builder
© 2007 - 2019, OER Commons
OER Resource Builder
Features
•Open Author format allows educators to combine text,
audio/video media, graphics, and more to create OER
resources, that can be shared with faculty in your own
institution, or with others on the OER Commons.
•Resource builder allows you to organize your various
lesson content resources in one easy place, and
download your created document as a PDF.
•Teachers can build their custom resources or
adapt the work of others to meet the specific
learning needs of their class, department, school,
or district.

Recommended VLE Products-OER Lesson Builder
OER Lesson Builder
Features
•Open Author format allows educators to build
custom step-by-step lessons which can be shared
with other educators and delivered to students.
•Lesson builder allows for the integration of
necessary resources; and can be downloaded and
shared across internet connected devices.
•Teachers can build custom lessons which
offer instructor presence; providing students
with step-by-step guidance and sequential
explanation of procedures and expectations.
Great for labs!
© 2007 - 2019, OER Commons

Recommended VLE Products-OER Module Builder
OER Module Builder
Features
•Open Author format allows educators to build custom
lesson modules which can be shared with other
educators and delivered to students.
•Module builder allows for the integration of necessary
resources; and can be downloaded and shared across
internet connected devices.
•OER offers LTI integration, compatible with LMS,
including Blackboard CourseSites.
•Teachers can build custom lesson modules which
offer instructor presence and learner control;
providing students with step-by-step guidance
and exploration of lesson content online.
© 2007 - 2019, OER Commons

Recommended VLE Products-Lifeliqe Simulations
© 2018 Lifeliqe Inc.
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.
•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.

Recommended VLE Products-Sapling Learning Interactives
Sapling Learning Interactives
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.
•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.
© 2011-2019 Sapling Learning, Inc. All rights reserved.

Recommended VLE 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.
•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.
© 2019 SPONGELAB.

Recommended VLE 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.
publications on usage of PhET simulations.
•PhET Simulations are Free!
•PhET simulations provide game-based learning.
•PhET simulations provide guidance through
instructional prompts.
•PhET simulations provide learner control.
•Accessible simulations provide additional
instructional differentiation through verbal and audio
feedback/scaffolds.
© 2019 University of Colorado. Some rights reserved.

Recommended VLE Products-Labster Simulations
Labster Simulations
Features
•Online repository of interactive online 3D Virtual
Labs across a wide variety of STEM subjects.
frameworks, site provides several instances of
research and whitepapers.
•LMS integration.
•Teachers have a personalized dashboard that allows
them to monitor and assess individual student
progress.
•Labster simulations provide instructor presence and
learner control to students.
© Labster ApS 2019 All Rights Reserved

Recommended VLE Products-Go-Lab Simulations
Go-Lab Simulations
Features
•Online repository of interactive online Virtual Labs
and Instructional Apps across a wide variety of
STEM subjects.
frameworks.
publications on usage of Go-Labs.
•Teachers can create customized lesson plans and
virtual inquiry learning spaces using Go-Lab virtual
experiments and Apps.
© 2019 Go-Lab Project - Global Online Science Labs for
Inquiry Learning at School,
Co-funded by EU (7th Framework Programme).

Amazon Sumerian
Features
•Easy to use Amazon Web Services (AWS) based
platform for creating custom high-fidelity
3D/VR/AR VLEs.
•Create javascript based interactions to provide
students with an interactive virtual environment
which runs on multiple web-based, AR, and VR
devices.
•Website provides several highly-detailed
tutorials; numerous tutorials are also available
via Twitch and Slack.
•No 3D experience? That’s ok, easily integrate
free models from Remix 3D or use the free
models provided by the Sumerian interface.
•Teachers can easily create high-fidelity learning
environments, including integration of quiz
questions, user interactions.
•Integrate Animated pedogical agents to provide
guidance, tutorials, and instructions to students.
© 2019, Amazon Web Services, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved.
Simulation designed by Dr. Jaime McQueen, 2018.

Recommended VLE Products-Additional VLs/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 VLE Products-Conclusion
Ultimately, the possibilities for providing VLEs to meet the diverse
learning needs of your students are as immense as the internet itself!
• In terms of e-learning through learning management systems; options vary
from a free LMS such as Blackboard Course Sites to paid, remotely hosted,
district/institutional level solutions.
• The options for VLs 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.
As an educator you can use VLE to add a single ‘out of the box’ lesson to
your curriculum and instruction; or host your own custom-created
content to completely redesign your course(s).
While some of these resources require purchase or subscription to use,
this amount can pale in comparison to the expense for new science
materials, laboratory equipment, or facilities.

Recommended Best Practices-Conclusion
In summary, the use of VLEs 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
VLEs:
• Maintain Instructor Presence
• VLEs and VLs do not have to replace traditional face-to-face instruction or
hands-on inquiry lab activities
• Ensure alignment of curriculum and learning goals between your instruction and
VLE content
• Don’t be afraid to experiment: Try out and explore some VLEs 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 VLEs 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 VLEs:
• Maintain Instructor Presence
• VLEs 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 VLE content, many VLEs have built in features that you can specifically adapt to
meet individual student learning needs.
• VLEs 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 VLEs 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 VLEs 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
Please Feel Free to Contact Me
Personal e-mail: Jaime.McQueen@gmail.com
Professional Website: http://www.jaimemcqueenphd.com/
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jaimemcqueenphd/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/JaimeMcQueenPhD
ResearchGate:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jaime_Mcqueen

Instructor Presence and Learner Control as a Model for Instructional Differentiation in Virtual STEM Learning Environments

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Similar to Instructor Presence and Learner Control as a Model for Instructional Differentiation in Virtual STEM Learning Environments

Similar to Instructor Presence and Learner Control as a Model for Instructional Differentiation in Virtual STEM Learning Environments (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Instructor Presence and Learner Control as a Model for Instructional Differentiation in Virtual STEM Learning Environments