Virtual Laboratories for Equitable STEM Learning in Resource-Constrained Education
A Systematic Review
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33830/ijrse.v8i2.14753Keywords:
Virtual laboratories, STEM education, resource-constrained education, educational equity, simulation-based learning, blended laboratoriesAbstract
Virtual laboratories are increasingly used to extend practical science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) learning where equipment, consumables, safety, staffing, or access to physical laboratories are constrained. This systematic narrative review examines how virtual laboratories support STEM learning and under which technological, pedagogical, and institutional conditions their benefits may extend to resource-constrained educational settings. A structured search of Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar was conducted for literature published from 2010 to 2024, with citation verification and a targeted update during revision. The screening record identified 320 records; after duplicate removal and screening, 30 studies were retained for the core synthesis. Findings show that virtual laboratories can produce conceptual-learning outcomes comparable to physical laboratories and can strengthen engagement, self-efficacy, visualization, and opportunities for repeated practice. However, effects are conditional. Sequential or blended use of virtual and physical laboratories is frequently stronger than treating either mode as a universal substitute, and immersive virtual reality can increase presence while also increasing cognitive load. Access to a virtual laboratory should therefore not be equated with educational equity: devices, connectivity, reliable power, teacher capability, curriculum alignment, accessibility, and instructional guidance determine who benefits. The review proposes an affordance-and-conditions framework in which virtual laboratories are positioned as complementary infrastructure for resilient STEM education, particularly when designed for low-bandwidth or offline use and integrated with teacher-supported inquiry and authentic practical experiences.
References
Agbonifo, O. C., Sarumi, O. A., & Akinola, Y. M. (2020). A chemistry laboratory platform enhanced with virtual reality for students' adaptive learning. Research in Learning Technology, 28, 2419. https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v28.2419
Bonde, M. T., Makransky, G., Wandall, J., Larsen, M. V., Morsing, M., Jarmer, H., & Sommer, M. O. A. (2014). Improving biotech education through gamified laboratory simulations. Nature Biotechnology, 32(7), 694-697. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.2955
Bortnik, B., Stozhko, N., Pervukhina, I., Tchernysheva, A., & Belysheva, G. (2017). Effect of virtual analytical chemistry laboratory on enhancing student research skills and practices. Research in Learning Technology, 25, 1968. https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v25.1968
Brinson, J. R. (2015). Learning outcome achievement in non-traditional (virtual and remote) versus traditional (hands-on) laboratories: A review of the empirical research. Computers & Education, 87, 218-237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.07.003
Cano de las Heras, S., Kensington-Miller, B., Young, B., & Baroutian, S. (2021). Benefits and challenges of a virtual laboratory in chemical and biochemical engineering: Students' experiences in fermentation. Journal of Chemical Education, 98(3), 866-875. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c01227
Chan, P., Van Gerven, T., Dubois, J.-L., & Bernaerts, K. (2021). Virtual chemical laboratories: A systematic literature review of research, technologies and instructional design. Computers and Education Open, 2, 100053. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2021.100053
Corter, J. E., Esche, S. K., Chassapis, C., Ma, J., & Nickerson, J. V. (2011). Process and learning outcomes from remotely-operated, simulated, and hands-on student laboratories. Computers & Education, 57(3), 2054-2067. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.04.009
Darrah, M., Humbert, R., Finstein, J., Simon, M., & Hopkins, J. (2014). Are virtual labs as effective as hands-on labs for undergraduate physics? A comparative study at two major universities. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23(6), 803-814. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-014-9513-9
de Jong, T., Linn, M. C., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2013). Physical and virtual laboratories in science and engineering education. Science, 340(6130), 305-308. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1230579
Donnelly, D., O'Reilly, J., & McGarr, O. (2013). Enhancing the student experiment experience: Visible scientific inquiry through a virtual chemistry laboratory. Research in Science Education, 43(4), 1571-1592. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-012-9322-1
Dyrberg, N. R., Treusch, A. H., & Wiegand, C. (2017). Virtual laboratories in science education: Students' motivation and experiences in two tertiary biology courses. Journal of Biological Education, 51(4), 358-374. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2016.1257498
Fadda, D., Salis, C., & Vivanet, G. (2022). About the efficacy of virtual and remote laboratories in STEM education in secondary school: A second-order systematic review. Journal of Educational, Cultural and Psychological Studies, 26. https://doi.org/10.7358/ecps-2022-026-fadd
Faulconer, E. K., & Gruss, A. B. (2018). A review to weigh the pros and cons of online, remote, and distance science laboratory experiences. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(2), 155-168. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v19i2.3386
Hamed, G., & Aljanazrah, A. (2020). The effectiveness of using virtual experiments on students' learning in the general physics lab. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 19, 977-996. https://doi.org/10.28945/4668
Hawkins, I., & Phelps, A. J. (2013). Virtual laboratory vs. traditional laboratory: Which is more effective for teaching electrochemistry? Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 14(4), 516-523. https://doi.org/10.1039/C3RP00070B
Heradio, R., de la Torre, L., Galan, D., Cabrerizo, F. J., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Dormido, S. (2016). Virtual and remote labs in education: A bibliometric analysis. Computers & Education, 98, 14-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.03.010
Hong, Q. N., Gonzalez-Reyes, A., & Pluye, P. (2018). Improving the usefulness of a tool for appraising the quality of qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies, the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 24(3), 459-467. https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.12884
International Commission on the Futures of Education. (2021). Reimagining our futures together: A new social contract for education. UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000379707
Kapici, H. O., Akcay, H., & de Jong, T. (2019). Using hands-on and virtual laboratories alone or together - Which works better for acquiring knowledge and skills? Journal of Science Education and Technology, 28(3), 231-250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-018-9762-0
Kolil, V. K., Muthupalani, S., & Achuthan, K. (2020). Virtual experimental platforms in chemistry laboratory education and its impact on experimental self-efficacy. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17, 30. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-020-00204-3
Li, J., & Liang, W. (2024). Effectiveness of virtual laboratory in engineering education: A meta-analysis. PLOS ONE, 19(12), e0316269. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0316269
Makransky, G., Petersen, G. B., & Klingenberg, S. (2020). Can an immersive virtual reality simulation increase students' interest and career aspirations in science? British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(6), 2079-2097. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12954
Makransky, G., Terkildsen, T. S., & Mayer, R. E. (2019). Adding immersive virtual reality to a science lab simulation causes more presence but less learning. Learning and Instruction, 60, 225-236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.12.007
Merchant, Z., Goetz, E. T., Cifuentes, L., Keeney-Kennicutt, W., & Davis, T. J. (2014). Effectiveness of virtual reality-based instruction on students' learning outcomes in K-12 and higher education: A meta-analysis. Computers & Education, 70, 29-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.07.033
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. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20463
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
Paxinou, E., Panagiotakopoulos, C. T., Karatrantou, A., Kalles, D., & Sgourou, A. (2020). Implementation and evaluation of a three-dimensional virtual reality biology lab versus conventional didactic practices in lab experimenting with the photonic microscope. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 48(1), 21-27. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.21307
Peechapol, C. (2021). Investigating the effect of virtual laboratory simulation in chemistry on learning achievement, self-efficacy, and learning experience. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 16(20), 196-207. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v16i20.23561
Potkonjak, V., Gardner, M., Callaghan, V., Mattila, P., Guetl, C., Petrovic, V. M., & Jovanovic, K. (2016). Virtual laboratories for education in science, technology, and engineering: A review. Computers & Education, 95, 309-327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.02.002
Pyatt, K., & Sims, R. (2012). Virtual and physical experimentation in inquiry-based science labs: Attitudes, performance and access. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(1), 133-147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-011-9291-6
Rutten, N., van Joolingen, W. R., & van der Veen, J. T. (2012). The learning effects of computer simulations in science education. Computers & Education, 58(1), 136-153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.07.017
Shambare, B., & Jita, T. (2025). From desire to understanding: Unveiling science teachers' perspectives on virtual laboratories in rural classrooms. Cogent Education, 12(1), 2529079. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2025.2529079
Smetana, L. K., & Bell, R. L. (2012). Computer simulations to support science instruction and learning: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 34(9), 1337-1370. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2011.605182
Tatli, Z., & Ayas, A. (2013). Effect of a virtual chemistry laboratory on students' achievement. Educational Technology & Society, 16(1), 159-170. https://repository.bilkent.edu.tr/items/038f0894-0548-436f-baa9-00fd81567920
Zacharia, Z. C., & Olympiou, G. (2011). Physical versus virtual manipulative experimentation in physics learning. Learning and Instruction, 21(3), 317-331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.03.001
Zendler, A., & Greiner, H. (2020). The effect of two instructional methods on learning outcome in chemistry education: The experiment method and computer simulation. Education for Chemical Engineers, 30, 9-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ece.2019.09.001
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Mackenzie Tuhirirwe, Specioza Twinamatsiko
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Content Licensing, Copyright, and Permissions
1. License
International Journal of Research in STEM Education has CC-BY NC or an equivalent license as the optimal license for the publication, distribution, use, and reuse of scholarly work for non-commercial purposes. The non-commercial use of the article will be governed by the Creative Commons Attribution license as currently displayed on Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Creative Commons License
2. Author’s Warranties
The author warrants that the article is original, written by the stated author(s), has not been published before, contains no unlawful statements, does not infringe the rights of others, is subject to copyright that is vested exclusively in the author and free of any third party rights, and that any necessary written permissions to quote from other sources have been obtained by the author(s).
3. User Rights
The International Journal of Research in STEM Education's objective is to disseminate articles published as free as possible. Under the Creative Commons license, this journal permits users to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work for non-commercial purposes only. Users will also need to attribute authors and this journal on distributing works in the journal.
4. Rights of Authors
Authors retain the following rights:
Copyright, and proprietary rights relating to the article, such as patent rights,
The right to use the substance of the article in future own works, including lectures and books, The right to reproduce the article for own purposes, The right to self-archive the article, the right to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the article's published version (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal (International Journal of Research in STEM Education).
The author has a non-exclusive publishing contract with a publisher, and the work is published with a more restrictive license, the author retains all the rights to publish the work elsewhere, including commercially, because she/he is not subject to the conditions of her / his own license, regardless of the type of CC license chosen.
5. Co-Authorship
If the article was jointly prepared by other authors, the signatory of this form warrants that he/she has been authorized by all co-authors to sign this agreement on their behalf and agrees to inform his/her co-authors of the terms of this agreement.
6. Termination
This agreement can be terminated by the author or International Journal of Research in STEM Education at two months' notice where the other party has materially breached this agreement and failed to remedy such breach within a month of being given the terminating party's notice requesting such breach to be remedied. No breach or violation of this agreement will cause this agreement or any license granted in it to terminate automatically or affect the definition of the International Journal of Research in STEM Education.
7. Royalties
This agreement entitles the author to no royalties or other fees. To such extent as legally permissible, the author waives his or her right to collect royalties relative to the article in respect of any use of the article by This agreement can be terminated by the author or International Journal of Research in STEM Education upon two months's notice where the other party has materially breached this agreement and failed to remedy such breach within a month of being given the terminating party's notice requesting such breach to be remedied. No breach or violation of this agreement will cause this agreement or any license granted in it to terminate automatically or affect the definition of the International Journal of Research in STEM Education or its sublicensee.
8. Miscellaneous
International Journal of Research in STEM Education‚ will publish the article (or have it published) in the journal if the article's editorial process is successfully completed and the International Journal of Research in STEM Education or its sublicensee has become obligated to have the article published. International Journal of Research in STEM Education may conform the article to a style of punctuation, spelling, capitalization, referencing, and usage that it deems appropriate. The author acknowledges that the article may be published so that it will be publicly accessible, and such access will be free of charge for the readers.
