Virtual Laboratories in Undergraduate Science and Engineering Courses: a Systematic Review, 2009–2019

Abstract

Current technology has the capacity for affording a virtual experience that challenges the notion of a teaching laboratory for undergraduate science and engineering students. Though the potential of virtual laboratories (V-Labs) has been extolled and investigated in a number of areas, this research has not been synthesized for the context of undergraduate science and engineering education. This study involved a systematic review and synthesis of 25 peer-reviewed empirical research papers published between 2009 and 2019 that focused on V-Labs. The results reveal a dearth of varied theoretical and methodological approaches where studies have principally been evaluative and narrowly focused on individual changes in content knowledge. The majority of studies fell within the general domain of science and involved a single 2D experience using software that was acquired from a range of outside vendors. The perspective largely assumed V-Labs to be a teaching approach, providing instruction without any human-to-human interaction. Positive outcomes were attributed, based more on novelty than design, to improved student motivation. Studies exploring individual experiences, the role of personal characteristics or environments that afforded social learning, including interactions with faculty or teaching assistants were noticeably missing.

Development of Science Learning Device Oriented Guided Inquiry with Virtual Laboratory to Train Science Process Skills of Junior High School Students in Kendari

“…One of the problems is some students get bored. This result is different from Reeves and Crippen (2021) positive outcomes of Vlabs is to improved student motivation.…”

Student Self-perception on Digital Literacy in STEM Blended Learning Environments

“…Comparison between different types of resources and activities have identified positives for example in terms of pre-class content delivery and virtual laboratory learning (Hu-Au & Okita, 2021). Prior to the pandemic, a systematic review of virtual laboratories in science and engineering courses revealed that positive outcomes were often linked to novelty rather than pedagogical design improving student motivation (Reeves & Crippen, 2021). The emphasis on practicalbased classes in STEM disciplines can increase the complexity of BL implementation (Bernard et al, 2014), which can be further compounded by the variability in the effectiveness of teaching innovations across different STEM disciplines (Ruiz-Primo et al, 2011).…”

Adoption of virtual reality technology in higher education: An evaluation of five teaching semesters in a purpose-designed laboratory

“…Researchers have emphasised the need for evaluation feedback loops to be integrated into any teaching using VAR, in order to facilitate improvement (Portman et al, 2015). Evaluations need to be designed that assess competencies of both the cognitive outcomes (knowledge and understanding) and the non-cognitive outcomes (motivation, social interactions and cognitive loads), with reference to student's individual background and learning styles (Reeves & Crippen, 2020).…”

“…This is especially important as there are a large range of teaching pedagogies that can be used with VAR technology (Grivokostopoulou et al, 2020). VAR technology on its own does not ensure positive learning outcomes (Reeves & Crippen, 2020). A review of 25 virtual laboratory studies in engineering and science reported that 13 studies concluded that there were no effects or negative effects on students learning outcomes (Reeves & Crippen, 2020).…”

“…VAR technology on its own does not ensure positive learning outcomes (Reeves & Crippen, 2020). A review of 25 virtual laboratory studies in engineering and science reported that 13 studies concluded that there were no effects or negative effects on students learning outcomes (Reeves & Crippen, 2020). Poor quality teaching content is a particular problem, characterised by inadequate realistic dynamic interactions (Potkonjak et al, 2016) and limited multi-sensory experiences (Portman et al, 2015).…”