A Review to Weigh the Pros and Cons of Online, Remote, and Distance Science Laboratory Experiences

Abstract

The effectiveness of traditional face to face labs versus non-traditional online, remote, or distance labs is difficult to assess due to the lack of continuity in the literature between terminology, standard evaluation metrics, and the use of a wide variety non-traditional laboratory experience for online courses. This narrative review presents a representative view of the existing literature in order to identify the strengths and weaknesses of non-traditional laboratories and to highlight the areas of opportunity for research.Non-traditional labs are increasingly utilized in higher education. The research indicates that these non-traditional approaches to a science laboratory experience are as effective at achieving the learning outcomes as traditional labs. While this is an important parameter, this review outlines further important considerations such as operating and maintenance cost, growth potential, and safety. This comparison identifies several weaknesses in the existing literature. While it is clear that traditional labs aid in the development of practical and procedural skills, there is a lack of research exploring if non-traditional laboratory experiments hinder student success in subsequent traditional labs. Additionally, remote lab kits blur the lines between modality by bringing experiences that are more tactile to students outside of the traditional laboratory environment. Though novel work on non-traditional labs continues to be published, investigations are still needed regarding cost differences, acquisition of procedural skills, preparation for advanced work, and instructor contact time between traditional and non-traditional laboratories.

Factors affecting Chinese university students’ intention to continue using virtual and remote labs

“…In general, some scaffolding or sophisticated learning design (e.g., removing confusing details and emphasising important information) (Nolen & Koretsky, 2018) can be integrated into the experiment process in VRLs to facilitate students' understanding of sophisticated engineering or scientific concepts (Post, Guo, Saab, & Admiraal, 2019) and to stimulate deeper learning (Viegas et al, 2018). According to empirical studies (Brinson, 2015;Faulconer & Gruss, 2018;Vrellis, Avouris, & Mikropoulos, 2016), student performance using virtual experiments is equal to, or better than, student performance using real experiments. Student performance includes inquiry skills (Tatli & Ayas, 2013), practical skills (Hawkins & Phelps, 2013), perception (Barbeau, Johnson, Gibson, & Rogers, 2013), analytical skills (Pyatt & Sims, 2012), and social and scientific communication (Lang, 2012).…”

Despliegue automático de laboratorios remotos extendiendo las capacidades de EJsS

“…Por este motivo, muchas de estas instituciones dedican sus esfuerzos al desarrollo de laboratorios online, una solución alternativa que incluye a los laboratorios virtuales (que dan acceso a través de Internet a herramientas interactivas de simulacion), remotos (a sistemas reales) y mixtos (que explotan las ventajas de ambos enfoques) [4,14,19,25]. Además, es importante destacar que estudios recientes avalan, desde un punto de vista educativo, el uso de este tipo de laboratorios, ya que aportan los mismos beneficios que los laboratorios in-situ, al tiempo que proporcionan ventajas adicionales como la reducción de costes, el aumento de las horas de disponibilidad del material del laboratorio y la seguridad en su uso [13,15,17,20,22,23].…”

Understanding interactions in face-to-face and remote undergraduate science laboratories: a literature review

“…With the increasing use of automation in higher education, two new forms of technology-augmented practical activities, simulated and remote laboratories, have been commonly used as alternatives or supplements for the traditional face-to-face laboratories (De Jong, Linn, & Zacharia, 2013;Lindsay & Good, 2005). For each laboratory type, researchers have made investigations from multiple viewpoints, namely the new techniques or teaching strategies implemented in laboratories (Botero, Selmer, Watson, Bansal, & Kraft, 2016;Saxena & Satsangee, 2014), the description of learning objectives/outcomes for individual laboratories (Bright, Lindsay, Lowe, Murray, & Liu, 2008), and the comparison of traditional and technology-augmented laboratories (Brinson, 2015;Faulconer & Gruss, 2018;Ogot, Elliott, & Glumac, 2003). However, most of the comparison of the three modes of laboratories has focused on learning outcomes and less on students' learning processes and interactions.…”