Publications

The purpose of this study was to understand how teachers and students understand the design elements of future VR educational environments. We conducted interviews with middle school teachers of students with ASD and middle school students with ASD to understand the varying preferences of features and functions as future users of VR in their classrooms. Data analysis revealed three primary themes, engagement, motivation, and navigation, were crucial regarding the design and experience of virtual environments for the participants. Overall, we conclude and discuss that aligning the design of educational technology experience with the perspectives of direct users and aligning with elements of a research-based framework of UDL seems to offer great promise to improving future virtual experiences and student outcomes.

Interventions delivered through virtual reality (VR) report increased social validity with this population due to life-like features improving motivation and engagement (Hew & Cheung, 2010; Mikropoulos& Natsis, 2011). Despite evidence on the positive feelings, there is limited research on the effectiveness of VR-delivered instruction for building SEB competence in students.

A seven-step process is discussed and was utilized to validate item and response formats. Original items were written based on the proposed population and the intended presence construct. Focus groups and experts were conducted to validate the instruments’ ability to address the concept of presence. Further focus groups were utilized to verify language and references were accurate to participants. Finally, a pilot study consisting of 30 participants aged eight and older was conducted to test the instrument for initial reliability. The 30 participants used a device with a virtual environment and then completed the Technology Immersion Presence Scale (TIPS). Initial results indicate the TIPS is a reliable and valid measure of presence for most users with and without disabilities from age 8 to 65. Implications of validating TIPS are discussed.

Freyer and colleagues’ (2019) even found that college students interacting with Chatbots reported greater curiosity and perseverance than those interacting similarly with peers. Despite these advancements, there are legitimate concerns over the use of AI, especially within education. Responses from AI apps continue to be unnatural, misleading, inaccurate, vague, and biased (Fryer et al., 2019; Sallam et al., 2023). Research shows a decline in the quality of information if educators become over-reliant on AI (Chiu et al., 2023a). Still, the capacity for AI to assist educators and motivate students has been displayed (Chen et al., 2020; Laupichler et al., 2022; Ng et al., 2023a, 2023b; Salas-Pilco et al., 2022; Sanusi et al., 2022; Su et al., 2022; Tan et al., 2022; Wangenheim et al., 2021).
This presentation discusses a mixed methods study on a randomized control trial evaluating AI safeguards. Possible solutions from this study include: (a) providing engineered detailed prompts within AI, (b) pulling data from a knowledgeable database by trusted experts, (c) providing specific questions within the prompt of response type warranted, (d) creating a clear pedagogical focus, and (e) using AI as one source within many sources to gather outside perspectives rather than replace human data collection. It will also discuss prompting questions to improve AI accuracy, such as: “Was the data the AI was trained on representative of the population affected by subsequent decisions?” and “Is the information given well-balanced and derived from an analysis of information from trustworthy sources?

Freyer and colleagues’ (2019) even found that college students interacting with Chatbots reported greater curiosity and perseverance than those interacting similarly with peers. Despite these advancements, there are legitimate concerns over the use of AI, especially within education. Responses from AI apps continue to be unnatural, misleading, inaccurate, vague, and biased (Fryer et al., 2019; Sallam et al., 2023). Research shows a decline in the quality of information if educators become over-reliant on AI (Chiu et al., 2023a). Still, the capacity for AI to assist educators and motivate students has been displayed (Chen et al., 2020; Laupichler et al., 2022; Ng et al., 2023a, 2023b; Salas-Pilco et al., 2022; Sanusi et al., 2022; Su et al., 2022; Tan et al., 2022; Wangenheim et al., 2021).
This presentation discusses a mixed methods study on a randomized control trial evaluating AI safeguards. Possible solutions from this study include: (a) providing engineered detailed prompts within AI, (b) pulling data from a knowledgeable database by trusted experts, (c) providing specific questions within the prompt of response type warranted, (d) creating a clear pedagogical focus, and (e) using AI as one source within many sources to gather outside perspectives rather than replace human data collection. It will also discuss prompting questions to improve AI accuracy, such as: “Was the data the AI was trained on representative of the population affected by subsequent decisions?” and “Is the information given well-balanced and derived from an analysis of information from trustworthy sources?”

The five primary themes for AI integration that building and instructional special education leaders should consider included: (1) response options; (2) content; (3) learning environment and virtual characters; (4) visuals; and (5) sound or auditory supports. As special education leaders seek to determine how best to navigate growing AI tools and how and when to implement, this study, coming from the voice of students with disabilities, offers some immediate and pertinent suggestions within the context of current personalized learning efforts.

These innovative technologies have the potential to improve instruction for all learners in today’s classroom, particularly students with identified disabilities. VR, as an interactive and visual tool, provides teachers with ways to support and enhance traditional classroom materials for students, particularly those with disabilities. However, teacher time is often compromised and finding new technology can be daunting. This article intends to assist educators in utilizing VR in the classroom, with minimal effort and money. Using a detailed vignette, we guide the reader through a detailed example of how VR apps can be located and implemented for students with disabilities who struggle with motivation and engagement through experiential learning. Finally, we offer additional apps and their delivery devices as a starting point for teachers to begin creating more immersive and interactive content through VR technology.

A group experimental design was used to compare a fully-immersive VR intervention and an identical non-immersive VR intervention for a group of middle school participants with ASD (N = 22). Participants were randomly assigned a screen-based VR experience or a head-mounted display VR experience through rolling randomization. Results indicate that while the more immersive condition did not produce higher acquisition than the non-immersive condition, both device conditions did produce significant increases in learning.

Despite evidence of positive feelings, there is limited research on the effectiveness of VR-delivered instruction for building social competence in students. This study utilized a randomized control trial (RCT) to investigate whether a VR-based social skill intervention, Virtual reality Opportunities to Integrate Social Skills (VOISS), could be as effective as an evidence-based intervention, the Program for the Education and Enrichment of Relational Skills (PEERS) at improving the expressive communication knowledge and skill application of middle school students. The study also sought to understand student social validity ratings (i.e., acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility) of the VR intervention (VOISS) versus the PEERS intervention. Participants within ten classrooms in four states were randomly assigned to VOISS (N=60) and PEERS (N=60). In both conditions, participants experienced an estimated 300 minutes of the interventionspread out over one to four months. Using the norm-referenced Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals-5 Pragmatic Profile (CELF-5 PP) and a knowledge-based assessment, participants were assessed pre and post-intervention to determine social communication skill acquisition and application. All participants were also given an adapted Children’s Intervention Rating Profile (CIRP), the Intervention Appropriateness Measure (IAM), and the Feasibility of Intervention Measure (FIM) to determine their ratings of each intervention’s acceptability, feasibility, and appropriateness. Results indicate that a VR intervention (VOISS) has the potential to provide an effective and socially valid means of delivering social communication instruction to middle school students.

This descriptive review of 25 research studies conducted in K–12 settings examined the defining characteristics of immersion levels associated with VR, the purpose and application of the augmented reality intervention, the outcomes associated with the current use of VR, and the possibility of generalization beyond VR. The results of the review reveal that a majority of studies are utilizing nonimmersive screen-based simulations. While still considered under the VR domain, these technologies do not take advantage of the features of semi- and fully immersive VR which make it an appealing intervention for students with disabilities. Based on the results of this review, we provide recommendations to establish a strong research base on emerging VR technology and its use for students with disabilities in the K–12 classroom.

In this article, the authors provide a streamlined process for determining an individual student’s social skill instructional need and present technology tools available that utilize high-leverage and evidence-based practices (EBPs) to provide instruction for these targeted areas.

Forty-one articles met the criteria to be reviewed. Studies targeted relationship skills, emotion recognition, social awareness, cooperation, and executive functioning. The intervention caused statistical improvement in 15 of the 41 studies (37%). Practitioners, parents, and researchers reported significant improvement of social skills in 32 studies (83%). We suggest modifications to the technology and interventions within the technology which may increase statistical gains for students. We conclude with recommendations for researchers and practitioners implementing AR and VR delivered social skill interventions.

To investigate the effects of VR, a group experimental design was used to compare a fully-immersive VR intervention and an identical non-immersive VR intervention for a group of middle school participants with autism spectrum disorder (N=22). Participants were randomly assigned a condition, half (N=11) of the participants were randomly assigned to a screen-based non-immersive intervention condition, and the other half (N=11) were randomly assigned to the headset immersive intervention condition. In both conditions, participants experienced five social skill scenarios a day, for five days, in the same linear order. Using the norm-referenced Clinical Assessment of Pragmatics, participants were assessed prior to and directly following intervention to measure learning. Results indicate that while the more immersive condition did not produce higher acquisition than the non-immersive condition, both device conditions did produce significant increases in learning. Additionally, participants reported an almost identical level of presence, meaning that regardless of device condition, students perceived them to be similar.

Forty-one articles met the criteria to be reviewed, including five studies utilizing AR and the remaining 36 utilizing VR for social skill interventions. No studies implemented MR. The targeted skills of the studies included emotion recognition, relationship skills, social awareness, cooperation, and executive functioning. The intervention was considered effective in 63% of studies, not effective in 10% of studies, and mixed results in 27% of studies. The social validity indicators reported by researchers ranged from two to 14 of 17 determined categories. Findings indicate the primary socially valid reasons for utilizing AR/VR for social skill instruction were high student motivation toward the intervention and a positive attitude toward the technology. Findings indicate that increasing the role of parents, educators, and students as both social skill selectors and treatment agents and adding valid and reliable skill measures may improve the effects of an intervention. Sustainability may increase by providing training to both treatment agents and participants. AR has the potential to improve generalization and VR provides a practice environment for performance deficits. Combining these technologies may provide a more effective social skill intervention.