Skip to main content

A review of contemporary virtual and remote laboratory implementations: observations and findings

Abstract

Many studies have shown that laboratory activities increase students’ achievements and interest in the subject matters and further help their learning, especially in disciplines such as sciences, engineering, computing and others. Advances in technologies and communication networks have created the possibility to develop virtual and remote labs providing new opportunities for both on-campus and remote students circumventing certain limitations of physical laboratories. In this paper, we review contemporary remote and virtual laboratory implementations in different disciplines. Our review and analysis uncover a number of interesting observations, findings and insights into virtual and remote laboratory implementations. Virtual and remote laboratories provide a number of advantages such as remote 24 × 7 access, flexibility and freedom to learn at one’s own pace and reset/retrial experiments without wasting resources in a safe environment and provide new opportunities for learning. We observe that these labs when incorporated with sound pedagogical framework, learner support, content and tutor interaction result in higher learning outcomes and richer learning experience. Future work will evolve to implement innovative labs in different education contexts taking advantage of technological advances. Collaboration, catering to different learner personalities, impact of learning outcomes, pedagogical frameworks for virtual and remote labs are areas for further investigation.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Abdul-Kader, H. (2009). E-learning systems in virtual environment. International Arab Journal of Information Technology (IAJIT), 8(1), 23–29.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Abdulwahed, M., & Nagy, Z. K. (2009). Applying Kolb’s experiential learning cycle for laboratory education. Journal of Engineering Education, 98(3), 283–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Achuthan, K., Sreelatha, K., Surendran, S., Diwakar, S., Nedungadi, P., Humphreys, S., et al. (2011). The VALUE@ Amrita Virtual Labs Project: Using web technology to provide virtual laboratory access to students. In Paper presented at the Global Humanitarian Technology Conference (GHTC), 2011 IEEE.

  4. Alam, F., Hadgraft, R. G., & Subic, A. (2014). Technology-enhanced laboratory experiments in learning and teaching. In F. Alam (Ed.), Using technology tools to innovate assessment, reporting, and teaching prectices in engineering education (pp. 289–302). Hershey: Engineering Science Reference.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Alharbie, N., Athauda, R., & Simon, S. (2012). An analysis of students’ perspectives in using virtual labs in an undergraduate IT course. In ACTA international conferences in the general areas of engineering and computer science.

  6. Bivall, P., Ainsworth, S., & Tibell, L. A. (2011). Do haptic representations help complex molecular learning? Science Education, 95(4), 700–719.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Chaos, D., Chacon, J., Lopez-Orozco, J. A., & Dormido, S. (2013). Virtual and remote robotic laboratory using EJS, MATLAB and LabVIEW. Sensors, 13(2), 2595–2612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. De Jong, T., Linn, M. C., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2013). Physical and virtual laboratories in science and engineering education. Science, 340(6130), 305–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. de Jong, T., Sotiriou, S., & Gillet, D. (2014). Innovations in STEM education: the Go-Lab federation of online labs. Smart Learning Environments, 1(1), 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Ding, Y., & Fang, H. (2009). Using a simulation laboratory to improve physics learning: A case exploratory learning of diffraction grating. In Paper presented at the First International Workshop on Education Technology and Computer Science, 2009. ETCS’09.

  11. Elawady, Y., & Tolba, A. (2009). Educational objectives of different laboratory types: A comparative study. arXiv preprint arXiv:0912.0932.

  12. Finkelstein, N., Adams, W., Keller, C., Kohl, P., Perkins, K., Podolefsky, N., et al. (2005). When learning about the real world is better done virtually: A study of substituting computer simulations for laboratory equipment. Physical Review Special Topics-Physics Education Research, 1(1), 010103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Harward, V. J., Del Alamo, J., Lerman, S. R., Bailey, P. H., Carpenter, J., DeLong, K., et al. (2008). The ilab shared architecture: A web services infrastructure to build communities of internet accessible laboratories. Proceedings of the IEEE, 96(6), 931–950.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hossain, Z., Jin, X., Bumbacher, E., Chung, A., Koo, S., Shapiro, J. D., et al. (2015). Interactive cloud experimentation for biology: An online education case study. In Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 3681–3690).

  15. Hwang, W.-Y., Kongcharoen, C., & Ghinea, G. (2014). To enhance collaborative learning and practice network knowledge with a virtualization laboratory and online synchronous discussion. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(4), 113–137.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Klahr, D., Triona, L. M., & Williams, C. (2007). Hands on what? The relative effectiveness of physical versus virtual materials in an engineering design project by middle school children. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(1), 183–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kollöffel, B., & Jong, T. (2013). Conceptual understanding of electrical circuits in secondary vocational engineering education: Combining traditional instruction with inquiry learning in a virtual lab. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(3), 375–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Lowe, D., Conlon, S., Murray, S., Weber, L., De La Villefromoy, M., Lindsay, E., et al. (2011). Labshare: Towards cross-institutional. Internet Accessible Remote Laboratories: Scalable E-Learning Tools for Engineering and Science Disciplines: Scalable E-Learning Tools for Engineering and Science Disciplines, 453.

  19. Lustigova, Z., & Novotna, V. (2013). The role of e-laboratories in science education. In World Conference on Computers in Education, pp 2–8.

  20. Ma, J., & Nickerson, J. V. (2006). Hands-on, simulated, and remote laboratories: A comparative literature review. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 38(3), 7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Marques, M. A., Viegas, M. C., Costa-Lobo, M. C., Fidalgo, A. V., Alves, G. R., Rocha, J. S., et al. (2014). How remote labs impact on course outcomes: Various practices using VISIR. IEEE Transactions on Education, 57(3), 151–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Mason, D. (2013). Design, implementation and evaluation of virtual learning environments. Online Information Review, 37(2), 340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Mujkanovic, A., Lowe, D., Guetl, C., & Kostulski, T. (2011). An architecture for automated group formation within remote laboratories. In REV 2011: 8th International Conference on Remote Enginering and Virtual Instrumentation, 2011 (pp. 91–100).

  24. Mujkanovic, A., Lowe, D., & Willey, K. (2012). Adaptive group formation to promote desired behaviours. In Paper presented at the profession of engineering education: Advancing teaching, research and careers: 23rd annual conference of the australasian association for engineering education 2012.

  25. Olympiou, G., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2012). Blending physical and virtual manipulatives: An effort to improve students’ conceptual understanding through science laboratory experimentation. Science Education, 96(1), 21–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Orduna, P., Botero Uribe, S., Hock Isaza, N., Sancristobal, E., Emaldi, M., Pesquera Martin, A., et al. (2013). Generic integration of remote laboratories in learning and content management systems through federation protocols. In Paper presented at the Frontiers in Education Conference, 2013 IEEE.

  27. Paechter, M., Maier, B., & Macher, D. (2010). Students’ expectations of, and experiences in e-learning: Their relation to learning achievements and course satisfaction. Computers and Education, 54(1), 222–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Prieto-Blazquez, J., Herrera-Joancomarti, J., & Guerrero-Roldán, A. (2009). A virtual laboratory structure for developing programming labs. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 4(2009), 47–52.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Razvan, I., Wilson, G., Winckles, A., Cirstea, M., & Jones, A. (2012). A cloud-based virtual computing laboratory for teaching computer networks. Paper presented at the 13th International Conference on Optimization of Electrical and Electronic Equipment (OPTIM), 2012.

  30. Richter, T., Tetour, Y., & Boehringer, D. (2011). Library of labs-a European project on the dissemination of remote experiments and virtual laboratories. Paper presented at the 2011 IEEE International Symposium on Multimedia.

  31. Sancristobal, E., Castro, M., Harward, J., Baley, P., DeLong, K., & Hardison, J. (2010). Integration view of web labs and learning management systems. Paper presented at the Education Engineering (EDUCON), 2010 IEEE.

  32. Schaffer, H. E., Averitt, S. F., Hoit, M., Peeler, A., Sills, E. D., & Vouk, M. (2009). NCSU’s virtual computing lab: A cloud computing solution. Computer, 42(7), 94–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Seiler, S. (2013). Current trends in remote and virtual lab engineering. Where are we in 2013? iJOE, 9(6), 12–16.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Tawfik, M., Sancristobal, E., Martin, S., Gil, R., Diaz, G., Colmenar, A., et al. (2013). Virtual instrument systems in reality (VISIR) for remote wiring and measurement of electronic circuits on breadboard. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 6(1), 60–72. doi:10.1109/TLT.2012.20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Tuysuz, C. (2010). The effect of the virtual laboratory on students’ achievement and attitude in chemistry. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 2(1), 37–53.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Wiesner, T. F., & Lan, W. (2004). Comparison of student learning in physical and simulated unit operations experiments. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 195–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Woodfield, B. F., Andrus, M. B., Andersen, T., Miller, J., Simmons, B., Stanger, R., et al. (2005). The virtual ChemLab project: A realistic and sophisticated simulation of organic synthesis and organic qualitative analysis. Journal of Chemical Education, 82(11), 1728.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Woodfield, B. F., Catlin, H. R., Waddoups, G. L., Moore, M. S., Swan, R., Allen, R., et al. (2004). The virtual ChemLab project: A realistic and sophisticated simulation of inorganic qualitative analysis. Journal of Chemical Education, 81(11), 1672.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Zacharia, Z. C., & Constantinou, C. P. (2008). Comparing the influence of physical and virtual manipulatives in the context of the Physics by Inquiry curriculum: The case of undergraduate students’ conceptual understanding of heat and temperature. American Journal of Physics, 76(4), 425–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Zacharia, Z. C., Loizou, E., & Papaevripidou, M. (2012). Is physicality an important aspect of learning through science experimentation among kindergarten students? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27(3), 447–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Zacharia, Z. C., Olympiou, G., & Papaevripidou, M. (2008). Effects of experimenting with physical and virtual manipulatives on students’ conceptual understanding in heat and temperature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(9), 1021–1035.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Tareq Alkhaldi or Rukshan I. Athauda.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Alkhaldi, T., Pranata, I. & Athauda, R.I. A review of contemporary virtual and remote laboratory implementations: observations and findings. J. Comput. Educ. 3, 329–351 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-016-0068-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Hands-on laboratory
  • Physical laboratory
  • Remote laboratory
  • Virtual laboratory
  • Simulation laboratory