Research in Science Education

, Volume 43, Issue 3, pp 1197–1219 | Cite as

Evaluation of the Use of Remote Laboratories for Secondary School Science Education

  • David Lowe
  • Peter Newcombe
  • Ben Stumpers


Laboratory experimentation is generally considered central to science-based education. Allowing students to “experience” science through various forms of carefully designed practical work, including experimentation, is often claimed to support their learning and motivate their engagement while fulfilling specific curriculum requirements. However, logistical constraints (most especially related to funding) place significant limitations on the ability of schools to provide and maintain high-quality science laboratory experiences and equipment. One potential solution that has recently been the subject of growing interest is the use of remotely accessible laboratories to either supplant, or more commonly to supplement, conventional hands-on laboratories. Remote laboratories allow students and teachers to use high-speed networks, coupled with cameras, sensors, and controllers, to carry out experiments on real physical laboratory apparatus that is located remotely from the student. Research has shown that when used appropriately this can bring a range of potential benefits, including the ability to share resources across multiple institutions, support access to facilities that would otherwise be inaccessible for cost or technical reasons, and provide augmentation of the experimental experience. Whilst there has been considerable work on evaluating the use of remote laboratories within tertiary education, consideration of their role within secondary school science education is much more limited. This paper describes trials of the use of remote laboratories within secondary schools, reporting on the student and teacher reactions to their interactions with the laboratories. The paper concludes that remote laboratories can be highly beneficial, but considerable care must be taken to ensure that their design and delivery address a number of critical issues identified in this paper.


Science Experimentation Remote laboratories 



The authors would like to acknowledge the generous support of the James N. Kirby Foundation in supporting the work described in this paper. We would also like to acknowledge the insightful comments from the reviewers of the earlier versions of this paper, and particularly for their comments regarding consideration of students' attitudes towards laboratory work, and the importance of considering practical work more broadly.


  1. Abdel-Salam, T., Kauffman, P., & Crossman, G. (2006). Does the lack of hands-on experience in a remotely delivered laboratory course affect student learning? European Journal of Engineering Education, 31(6), 747–756. doi: 10.1080/03043790600911886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aktan, B., Bohus, C. A., Crowl, L. A., & Shor, M. H. (1996). Distance learning applied to control engineering laboratories. IEEE Transactions on Education, 39(3), 320–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Australian Science Teachers Association. (2007). SPECTRA—ASTA (Australian science teachers association)—Promoting science teaching. Retrieved April 2, 2012, from
  4. Barraket, J., Payne, A. M., Scott, G., & Cameron, L. (2000). Equity and the use of communications and information technology in higher education. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.Google Scholar
  5. Boud, D., Dunn, J., & Hegarty-Hazel, E. (1986). Teaching in laboratories. Guildford: Society for Research into Higher Education.Google Scholar
  6. Bourne, J., Harris, D., & Mayadas, F. (2005). Online engineering education: learning anywhere, anytime. Journal of Engineering Education, 9(1), 131–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Callaghan, M., Harkin, J., Mccolgan, E., Mcginnity, T., & Maguire, L. (2007). Client–server architecture for collaborative remote experimentation. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 30(4), 1295–1308. doi: 10.1016/j.jnca.2006.09.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chang, V., Gütl, C., Kopeinik, S., & Williams, R. (2009). Evaluation of collaborative learning settings in 3D virtual worlds. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 4(s3), 6–17. doi: 10.3991/ijet.v4s3.1112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: a theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86(2), 175–218. doi: 10.1002/sce.10001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Corter, J.E., Nickerson, J. V., Esche, S. K., & Chassapis, C. (2004). Remote versus hands-on labs: a comparative study. In Proceedings of FIE 2004: 34th Annual Frontiers in Education. Savannah, GA, USA. Oct 20-23, 2004. IEEE. 595-599, doi: 10.1109/FIE.2004.1408586
  11. Corter, J. E., Nickerson, J. V., Esche, S. K., Chassapis, C. I. S., & Ma, J. (2007). Constructing reality: a study of remote, hands-on and simulated laboratories. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 14(2), 7/1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Department of Education Science and Training. (2006). Audit of science, engineering & technology skills. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.Google Scholar
  13. Etkina, E., Karelina, A., Ruibal-Villasenor, M., Rosengrant, D., Jordan, R., & Hmelo-silver, C. E. (2010). Design and reflection help students develop scientific abilities: learning in introductory physics laboratories. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(1), 54–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Faltin, N., Böhne, A., & Wagner, B. (2004). Evaluation of reduced perception and tele-tutorial support in remote automation technology laboratories. In Proceedings of International Conference on Engineering Education and Research, Ostrava, Czech Republic, June 27–30, 2004. iNEER, 1097-1106.Google Scholar
  15. Feisel, L. D., & Rosa, A. J. (2005). The role of the laboratory in undergraduate engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 121–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Finkel, A., Pentland, P., Hubber, P., Blake, D., & Tytler, R. (2009). STELR: improving science retention rates in Australian secondary schools. Science Education, 55(3), 28–33.Google Scholar
  17. Fraser, B. J., McRobbie, C. J., & Giddings, G. J. (1993). Development and cross-national validation of a laboratory classroom environment instrument for senior high school science. Science Education, 77(1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Freedman, M. P. (1997). Relationship among laboratory instruction, attitude toward science, and achievement in science knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(4), 343–357. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199704)34:4<343::AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-R.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gardner, P. L. (1975). Attitudes to science: a review. Studies in Science Education, 1(1), 1–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gomes, L., & Bogosyan, S. (2009). Current trends in remote laboratories. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, 56(12), 4744–4756. doi: 10.1109/TIE.2009.2033293. IEEE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Goodrum, D., Hackling, M., & Rennie, L. (2000). The status and quality of teaching and learning of science in Australian schools. Training. Canberra: Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs, Commonwealth of Australia.Google Scholar
  22. Gravier, C., Fayolle, J., Noyel, G., Leleve, A., & Benmohamed, H. (2006). Distance learning: Closing the gap between remote labs and learning management systems. In Proceedings of 1ST IEEE International Conference on E-Learning in Industrial Electronics, Hammamet, Tunisia, Dec 18-20, 2006. IEEE, 130-134. doi: 10.1109/ICELIE.2006.347198.
  23. Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. (1982). The role of the laboratory in science teaching: neglected aspects of research. Review of Educational Research, 52(2), 201–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. (2004). The laboratory in science education: foundations for the twenty-first century. Science Education, 88(1), 28–54. doi: 10.1002/sce.10106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Imbrie, P. K., & Raghaven, S. (2005). A remote e-laboratory for student investigation, manipulation and learning, In Proceedings of 35th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Indianapolis, USA, Oct 19-22, 2005. ASEE/IEEE, F3J/1-3.Google Scholar
  26. Jara, C. A., Candelas, F. A., & Torres, F. (2008). Virtual and remote laboratory for robotics e-learning. In Proceedings of 18th European Symposium on Computer Aided Process Engineering, Lyon, France, Jun 1-4, 2008. Elsevier, 1193–1198.Google Scholar
  27. Jona, K., Roque, R., Skolnik, J., Uttal, D., & Rapp, D. (2011). Are remote labs worth the cost? Insights from a study of student perceptions of remote labs. International Journal of Online Engineering (iJOE), 7(2), 48–53. doi: 10.3991/ijoe.v7i2.1394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jones, M. G., Howe, A., & Rua, M. J. (2000). Gender differences in students' experiences, interests, and attitudes toward science and scientists. Science Education, 84(2), 180–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kostulski, T., & Murray, S. (2010). The national engineering laboratory survey: a review of the delivery of practical laboratory education in australian undergraduate engineering programs. Sydney, Aust, Labshare. Retrieved May 11, 2012 from
  30. Lindsay, E., & Good, M. (2005). Effects of laboratory access modes upon learning outcomes. IEEE Transactions on Education, 48(4), 619–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lindsay, E., Naidu, S., & Good, M. (2007). A different kind of difference: theoretical implications of using technology to overcome separation in remote laboratories. International Journal of Engineering Education, 23(4), 772–779.Google Scholar
  32. Lindsay, E., Murray, S., Liu, D., Lowe, D., & Bright, C. (2009). Establishment reality vs maintenance reality: how real is real enough? European Journal of Engineering Education, 34(4), 229–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lowe, D., Murray, S., Lindsay, E., & Liu, D. (2009). Evolving remote laboratory architectures to leverage emerging internet technologies. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 2(4), 289–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lowe, D., Mujkanovic, A., & Murray, S. (2010). Policy-Based remote laboratory multi-user access management. In Proceedings of REV 2010: 7th International Conference on Remote Engineering and Virtual Instrumentation. Stockholm, Sweden, Jun 29 - Jul 2. International Association of Online Engineering, 65–70.Google Scholar
  35. Lowe, D., Conlon, S., Murray, S., Weber, L., Villefromoy, M. D. L., Lindsay, E., et al. (2012). LabShare: towards cross-institutional laboratory sharing. In A. Azad, M. Auer, & J. Harward (Eds.), Internet accessible remote laboratories: scalable e-learning tools for engineering and science disciplines (pp. 453–467). Hershey: IGI Global.Google Scholar
  36. Ma, J., & Nickerson, J. V. (2006). Hands-on, simulated, and remote laboratories. ACM Computing Surveys, 38(3), 7/1–24. doi: 10.1145/1132960.1132961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Maxwell, A., Noble, K., Kist, A. A., Fogarty, R., Gibbings, P., & Midgley, W. (2011). Exploring a cross-disciplinary research initiative with remote access laboratories : Robot RAL-ly as a stimulus for consideration of Engineering pathway. In Proceedings of AaeE 2011: Annual Conference of the Australasian Association for Engineering Education. Freemantle, Australia, Dec 5-7, 2011. AAEE, 441-447.Google Scholar
  38. Nedic, Z., Machotka, J., & Nafalski, A. (2003). Remote laboratories versus virtual and real laboratories. In Proceedings of 33rd ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. Boulder, Colorado, Nov 5–8, 2003. IEEE, T3E/1-6.Google Scholar
  39. Novak, J. D. (1976). Understanding the learning process and effectiveness of teaching methods in the classroom, laboratory, and field. Science Education, 60(4), 493–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ogot, M., Elliott, G., & Glumac, N. (2003). An assessment of in-person and remotely operated laboratories. Journal of Engineering Education, 92(1), 57–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Osborne, J., Simon, S., & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: a review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1049–1079. doi: 10.1080/0950069032000032199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ozkan, S., Cakiroglu, J., & Tekkaya, C. (2008). Students' perceptions of the science laboratory learning environment. In C. Sundberg, D. W. Sunal, & E. L. Wright (Eds.), The impact of the laboratory and technology on learning and teaching science, Information Age Publishing, 111–134.Google Scholar
  43. Pickering, M. (1993). The teaching laboratory through history. Journal of Chemical Education, 70(9), 699–700. doi: 10.1021/ed070p699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ramsey, G. A., & Howe, R. W. (1969). An analysis of research on instructional procedures in secondary school science, part II, instructional procedures. The Science Teacher, 36(4), 72–81.Google Scholar
  45. Re-Engineering Australia Foundation Ltd. (2012). F1 in Schools (Technical Report). Retrieved March 21, 2012, from
  46. Rennie, L. (2010). Evaluation of the science by doing stage one professional learning approach 2010. Evaluation. Canberra, Australia, Australian Academy of Sciences. Retrieved Apr 4 2012 from
  47. Schauer, F., Kuřitka, I., Lustig, F., Centre, P., Bata, T., Masaryk, S. T. G., et al. (2005). Creative laboratory experiments for basic physics using computer data collection and evaluation exemplified on the Intelligent School Experimental System (ISES). In Proceedings of ICEER’2005: Exploring innovation in education and research: Exploring innovation in education and research. Tainan, Taiwan, Mar 1-5, 2005. iCEER, 305-312.Google Scholar
  48. Scheucher, B., Bailey, P. H., Gütl, C., & Harward, J. V. (2009). Collaborative virtual 3D environment for internet-accessible physics experiments. International Journal of Online Engineering, 5(5), 65–71.Google Scholar
  49. Singer, S. R., Hilton, M. L., & Schweingruber, H. A. (2006). America's lab report: investigations in high school science. Washington, DC: The National Academic PressGoogle Scholar
  50. Taradi, S. K., Taradi, M., Radic, K., & Pokrajac, N. (2005). Blending problem-based learning with Web technology positively impacts student learning outcomes in acid-base physiology. Advances in Physiology Education, 29(1), 35–9. doi: 10.1152/advan.00026.2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. The University of Newcastle. (2012). Science and engineering challenge. Retrieved March 21, 2012, from
  52. Walberg, H. J., & Anderson, G. J. (1968). Classroom climate and individual learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 59(6), 414–419. doi: 10.1037/h0026490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Real-Time Information NetworksUniversity of Technology, SydneyUltimoAustralia

Personalised recommendations