Online laboratories for science education: a summary of evidence
Keywords:science education; online laboratory; systematic-reviews; meta-analysis; evidence based education.
In this study, the results of a second-order systematic review concerning the impact of online (virtual and remote) laboratories on learning in STEM education for secondary school students are discussed. After the selection phase, based on eligibility criteria, ten systematic reviews and meta-analyses were included. The comparative analysis of data provides useful information for the instructional design of laboratory activities mediated by technologies and for the future research. In particular, results showed that online laboratories generally support learning outcomes comparable to those in traditional laboratories; and they suggest that some factors (e.g. teacher training; coherence of goals, laboratory activities, assessment; teacher feedback; integration of online-traditional laboratory activities) can maximize their efficacy. In addition, methodological limitations of current literature suggest the need for further primary studies with a more rigorous design.
Becker, L. A., & Oxman, A. D. (2008). Overviews of Reviews. In J.P.T. Higgins, S. Green (Eds.), Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: Cochrane Book Series, 607-631. The Cochrane Collaboration and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
*Brinson, J. R. (2015). Learning outcome achievement in non-traditional (virtual, remote) versus traditional (handson) laboratories: A review of the empirical research. Computer & Education, 87, 218-237.
*Brinson, J. R. (2017). A further characterization of empirical research related to learning outcome achievement in remote and virtual science labs. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 26, 546-560.
Chatterjee, S. (2021). A primer for transitioning to online science labs: “Identifying potential types of guidance for supporting student inquiry when using virtual and remote labs in science”. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69, 249-253.
Dewey, J. (1949). Scuola e società. Firenze: La Nuova Italia.
Fadda, D., & Vivanet, G. (2021). Tecnologie digitali e didattica laboratoriale nell’educazione STEM: Evidenze scientifiche e raccomandazioni pratiche. Quaderni dell’Osservatorio n. 37, Fondazione Cariplo. URL: https://www.fondazionecariplo.it/it/strategia/osservatorio/quaderni/tecnologie-digitali-e-didattica-laboratoriale-nell-educazione-st
Gonzalez, H. B., & Kuenzi, J. J. (2012). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education: A primer. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress.
Higgins, S., Xiao, Z., & Katsipataki, M. (2012). The Impact of Digital Technology on Learning: a Summary for the Education Endowment Foundation. EEF – Education Endowment Foundation. URL: https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/public/files/Presentations/Publications/The_Impact_of_Digital_Technologies_on_Learning_(2012).pdf.
Hofstein, A., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2007). The laboratory in science education: The state of the art. Chemistry education research and practice, 8(2), 105-107.
MIUR - Ministero dell’istruzione, dell’università e della ricerca (2015). Piano Nazionale Scuola Digitale.
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & The PRISMA Group (2009). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med 6(7), https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2018). Indicators for monitoring undergraduate STEM education. Washington, DC, USA: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/24943.
Ndoro, M. C. (2017). Learner performance in integrated science process skills and attitudes in hands-on practical work versus virtual practical work. Master’s thesis, University of Cape Town.
NRC – National Research Council (2006). America’s lab report: Investigations in high school science. Washington,
DC, USA: National Academy Press.
NSTA – National Science Teachers Association (2007). The integral role of laboratory investigations in science instruction. Arlington, VA: NSTA – www.nsta.org.
Pellegrini, M., & Vivanet, G. (2018). Sintesi di ricerca in educazione. Basi teoriche e metodologiche. Roma: Carocci.
Polanin, J. R., Maynard, B. R., & Dell, N. A. (2017). Overviews in education research: A systematic review and analysis. Review of Educational Research, 87(1), 172-203.
*Rubim, J. P., Mota, V. P., Garcia, L. G., Brito, G. L. R., & Santos, G. F. (2019). The use of remote experimentation as a teaching tool: A literature review. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 11, 826-830.
*Scalise, K., Timms, M., Moorjani, A., Clark, L., Holtermann, K., & Irvin, P. S. (2011). Student learning in science simulations: Design features that promote learning gains. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(9), 1050-1078.
Serrano-Perez, J. J., González-García, L., Flacco, N., Taberner-Cortés, A., García-Arnandis, I., Pérez-López, G., ...
Romá-Mateo, C. (2021). Traditional vs. Virtual Laboratories in Health Sciences Education. Journal of Biological Education, 1-15.
*Sypsas, A., & Kalles, D. (2018, November-December). Virtual laboratories in biology, biotechnology and chemistry education: A literature review. In Proceedings of the 22nd Pan-Hellenic Conference on Informatics (Proceedings of PCI ‘18), Athens, Greece.
*Tho, S. W., Yeung, Y. Y., Wei, R. Chan, K. W., & So, W. W. (2017). A systematic review of remote laboratory work in science education with the support of visualizing its structure through the HistCite and CiteSpace software. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15, 1217-1236.
*Tsihouridis, C., Vavougios, D., Batsila, M., & Ioannidis, G. S. (2019). The timeless controversy between virtual and real laboratories in science education—“And the winner Is…”. In M. Auer, & T. Tsiatsos (Eds.), The Challenges of the Digital Transformation in Education. ICL 2018. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, 916. Springer.
*Udin, W. N., Ramli, M., & Muzzazinah (2020). Virtual laboratory for enhancing students’ understanding on abstract biology concepts and laboratory skills: A systematic review. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1521( 4), 1-5.
Vivanet, G. (2017). Tecnologie per apprendere. Quando e come utilizzarle. In G. Bonaiuti, A. Calvani, L. Menichetti & G. Vivanet (Eds.), Le tecnologie educative, 81-125. Roma: Carocci editore.
*Wang, C. Y., Wu, H. K., Lee, S. W. Y., Hwang, F. K., Chang, H. Y., Wu, Y. T., … Tsai, C. C. (2014). A review of research on technology-assisted school science laboratories. Educational Technology & Society, 17(2), 307-320.
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 68-81.
*Zacharia, Z. C., Manoli, C., Xenofontos, N., de Jon, T., Pedaste, M., van Riesen S. A. N., … Tsourlidak, E. (2015). Identifying potential types of guidance for supporting student inquiry when using virtual and remote labs in science: A literature review. Educational technology research and development, 63, 257-302.
How to Cite
Copyright (c) 2021 Daniela Fadda , Giuliano Vivanet
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The authors who publish in this magazine accept the following conditions:
- The authors retain the rights to their work and give the magazine the right to first publish the work, simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons License - Attribution which allows others to share the work indicating the intellectual authorship and the first publication in this magazine.
- Authors may adhere to other non-exclusive license agreements for the distribution of the version of the published work (eg deposit it in an institutional archive or publish it in a monograph), provided that the first publication took place in this magazine.
- Authors can disseminate their work online (eg in institutional repositories or on their website) before and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges and increase citations of the published work.