THE USE OF VIRTUAL SCIENCE LABS TO PROMOTE JUVENILE DETAINEES’ BEHAVIORAL ENGAGEMENT AND SCIENCE IDENTITY

THE USE OF VIRTUAL SCIENCE LABS TO PROMOTE JUVENILE DETAINEES’ BEHAVIORAL ENGAGEMENT AND SCIENCE IDENTITY

Markisha L. Greene, EdD Student - Learning Design & TechnologiesUniversity of South Carolina Proposal Defense: March 10, 2026 Committee Members: Dr. Lucas Vasconcelos, Dissertation Chair Dr. Michael M. Grant, Committee member Dr. Hengtao Tang, Committee member Dr. Bridget Miller, Committee member

Problem of Practice

National Context

• ~29,300 youth in U.S. juvenile residential facilities in 2023 (OJJDP, 2025)
• Many enter detention with significant academic deficits and disrupted schooling
• Inquiry-based science learning is limited due to safety restrictions
• Behavioral engagement is strongly linked to academic success in correctional education
• Virtual labs show promise, but their impact on engagement and science identity in detention settings remains largely unexplored

Source: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (2025)

Problem of Practice

Local Context

Ferris School for Boys

Local Research Gap

• No structured intervention addressing behavioral engagement or science identity in science classes
• No data on whether virtual lab simulations could improve engagement or science identity

• Delaware's only secure residential treatment facility for male juvenile offenders
• Students arrive with academic gaps and low science confidence

Instructional Constraints

• Safety protocols prohibit traditional science labs
• Instruction relies heavily demonstrations and online modules

Purpose of Study

& Research Questions

Purpose

Research Questions

• RQ1: How do virtual lab simulations affect behavioral engagement in science learning?

• RQ2: How do virtual lab simulations influence juvenile detainees' science identity?
• RQ3: How do juvenile detainees perceive the use of virtual lab simulations in their science learning experiences?

This qualitative action research study will evaluate the effectiveness of virtual lab simulations as a science instructional strategy on:

• Behavioral engagement, and
• Science Identity

among juvenile detainees at the Ferris School for Boys in Wilmington, Delaware.

Constructivist Learning Framework

• Learning occurs through active construction of knowledge rather than passive reception (Vygotsky, 1978)
• Students develop understanding through:
• experience
• interaction
• reflection (Driver et al., 1994)

• In science education, emphasis is on inquiry, experimentation, and exploration as essential components of learning
• Meaning is constructed within specific social and learning contexts
• Virtual lab simulations support constructivist learning by allowing students to
• test hypotheses
• manipulate variables
• observe outcomes in real time

Science Identity Framework

Science identity explains how students see themselves as participants in science learning.Carlone & Johnson (2007) describe science identity through three overlapping dimensions:

Science identity develops through experiences and social interaction over time. Virtual labs may support science identity by allowing students to perform scientific practices and experience success in science tasks.

• Competence
• knowledge and understanding of scientific concepts
• Performance
• ability to demonstrate scientific practices
• Recognition
• being recognized by oneself or others as a "science person"

Instructional Intervention

• 4-week instructional unit
• Implemented in high school chemistry class

• Virtual labs are used as the central instructional strategy
• Students manipulate variables, collect data, and construct explanations aligned with Next Generation Science Standards science practices and performance expectations
• Provides students with structured opportunities to participate in roles by engaging scientific investigations, demonstrate competence, and receive feedback from teacher and peers
• Lessons structured using:
• direct instruction (concept introduction)
• guided practice (prediction & scaffolding)
• virtual lab simulation (independent inquiry)

Virtual Lab Simulations Used in the Study

• Simulations from PhET Interactive Simulations (University of Colorado)
• Each simulation session ~ 45 minutes

• Activities include:
• manipulating variables
• observing particle behavior
• collecting data
• explaining results
• Each simulation paired with:
• structured worksheets
• exit tickets
• reflection questions

Simulation: States of Matter: Basics

Simulation: States of Matter: Basics

Simulation: Build An Atom

Simulation: Isotopes and Atomic Mass

Research Design, Setting, and Participants

Research Design

Setting

• Qualitative action research case study
• (Mertler, 2024; Kemmis et al., 2014)

• Investigates instructional improvement within a real classroom context

• Action research cycle:
• Plan → Act → Observe → Reflect (Kemmis et al., 2014)
• Focus: evaluating how virtual lab simulations affected:
• behaviorial engagement
• science identity
• perceptions of science learning

• Ferris School for Boys, Wilmington, Delaware
• secure residential juvenile detention facility for males

• Science classroom with:
• SMART Board (limited interactivity)
• 10 Chromebooks (limited internet)

• Traditional labs not permitted due to security and safety protocols

Participants

• One high school chemistry class
• Estimated ~ 5 student participants
• Purposeful sampling of an intact classroom
• Youth Rehabiliative Services staff member included as secondary observer

Data Collection & Analysis

Data Collection

Data Analysis

• Data Sources
• Classroom observations (RQ1)
• YRS Staff Interviews (RQ1)
• Student exit tickets (RQ2, RQ3)
• Participant Interviews (RQ2, RQ3)

• Focus of Data Collection
• Behavioral engagement
• Science identity
• Perceptions of science learning

• Analysis Approach
• Thematic analysis
• (Braun & Clarke, 2006)
• Hybrid coding approach
• Deductive: constructivism + science identity theory
• Inductive: participant experiences and emerging meanings
• Inductive vs. Deductive coding (Braun & Clarke, 2006)

• Analytic Process
• Read and re-read data
• Code and categorize patterns
• Develop themes
• Triangulate across data sources
• Use Delve for coding and memoing

Timeline and Procedures

Weeks 3 -7 - NGSS science lessons - Virtual lab simulations - Weekly engagement observations - Exit tickets & interviews

Weeks 8 - 9 - Transcribe interviews - Code qualitative data - Develop themes - Member checking

Weeks 2 -3 - IRB Approval - Obtain DSCYF/YRS permission - Student assent - Baseline engagement observations

Phase 3 - Data Analysis

Phase 2 - Intervention & Data Collection

Phase 1 - Study Preparation

Rigor, Trustworthiness & Plan for Sharing

Rigor & Trustworthiness

Plan for Sharing

To ensure credibility and rigor, the study will use the following strategies (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Shenton, 2004):

Findings will be shared at multiple levels:

• Local
• Ferris School for Boys administration and teachers
• Instructional improvement discussions

• State
• Delaware Department of Education
• Department of Services for Children, Youth, and Families

• National
• Conference presentations (e.g., AERA)
• Peer-reviewed journals on correctional education

• Triangulation

• Member Checking

• Prolonged engagement

• Audit Trail & Reflexivity
• Peer Debriefing
• Thick, Rich Description

All dissemination will maintain participant confidentiality.

Thank You!

For your time and consideration!Markisha L. Greene Doctoral Student, Learning Design and Technologies University of South Carolina

Key References

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Carlone, H. B., & Johnson, A. (2007). Understanding the science experiences of successful women of color: Science identity as an analytic lens. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Mortimer, E., & Scott, P. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Researcher, 23(7), 5–12. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X023007005 Kemmis, S., McTaggart, R., & Nixon, R. (2014). The action research planner. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications. Mertler, C. A. (2024). Action research: Improving schools and empowering educators. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (2025). Trends and characteristics of youth in residential placement, 2023 (NCJ 307865). U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/library/publications/trends-and-characteristics-youth-residential-placement-2023 Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22(2), 63–75. https://doi.org/10.3233/EFI-2004-22201 Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society.