Science Education International

34(1), 52-57
https://doi.org/10.33828/sei.v34.i1.6

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Virtual Laboratory Simulations in Biotechnology: A Systematic

Review
Justine C. Mercado1*, Jay P. Picardal2
1
Department of Natural Sciences and Mathematics, College of Arts and Science, Notre Dame of Marbel University, Koronadal City, South Cotabato,
Philippines, 2Research Institute of Tropical Biology and Pharmacological Biotechnology, Cebu Normal University, Cebu City, Philippines
*Corresponding Author: [email protected]

ABSTRACT
In biotechnology education, practical laboratory courses are vital. In having these practical courses, a lot of time and monetary resources
are needed, it also requires the presence of the teacher and students and all the necessary equipment, which is currently not allowed in
the Philippines due to the pandemic restrictions. Biotech virtual laboratries are useful in this time but what are the different research
studies that has been done regarding this tool and what elements are important in terms of instructional design and technology? In this
review, different types of technology and instructional design were examined, and overview of the previous research were highlighted
in this paper. The study revealed that virtual laboratory simulations can be equally effective or better than hands on activity and said
to be more effective compared to traditional teaching method. It was also found out that when the traditional teaching methods and
virtual simulation laboratories yields better results in terms of performance. The included studies in this review utilized 2D, 3D, and VR
technologies in having the virtual laboratory for the past few years. The review paper also identified different designs for instructions
such as scaffolding and IBL (inquiry-based learnings). Biotech Virtual labs can be used as an effective alternative or complementary
tool to an actual or physical conduct of laboratory experiment.

KEY WORDS: Virtual laboratories; biotechnology; online learning; systematic review

INTRODUCTION laboratory can give depends on how the simulation is being

L
used, learning without classmates and physical teacher, and the
aboratory activities and work are often viewed as an
feel of a real laboratory are some of the drawbacks of virtual
essential part of science education. Chan et al. (2021)
laboratories (Chan et al., 2021).
specified four essential skills that students should
acquire during the conduct of laboratory experiments: (1) Studies and related studies regarding virtual laboratories are
Skills related to science education, (2) scientific skills, (3) not new topics. In fact, many reviews had been published that
practical skills, and (4) general skills. Seery (2020) expressed compared virtual simulations and distance/remote laboratory
that laboratory experiments are way different from the rest of classes to the traditional hands-on minds on laboratories.
the curriculum as it is a complex environment in which the Most of these reviews are focused on lab practices across
learners need to draw the different skills that were presented disciplines (Earth science, biology, chemistry, and physics)
by Chan et al. (2021). In this time of pandemic where practical but very few reviews have focused on the use of virtual labs
and physical conduct of laboratory experiments may not be in biotechnology.
feasible, many online digital tools are available for use and
one of this are the virtual laboratory simulations. Sypsas and Kalles (2018) were able to be analyzed 29
research journals that underwent peer review which focused
Virtual Laboratory Simulations are alternatives to the face- on virtual laboratory simulations in the discipline of biology,
to-face or actual conduct of practical abilities (Ramadhan biotechnology, and chemistry. The reviewed articles focused
and Irwanto, 2018) that can be done through online distance on its effectiveness and the educational approaches as a
learning. The emergence of these virtual laboratories happened supplementary tool for instruction. This study implied that
because we are now in a fast-changing world in terms of virtual simulations show most likely the same to better results
technology, knowledge advancement, and the onset of the than the traditional way of learning laboratory activities for
COVID-19 pandemic (Sypsas and Kalles, 2018). According
secondary (high school) education. In the review done, the
to Udin et al. (2020), virtual simulations have lots to offer
commonly used approaches were blended and inquiry learning.
compared to the actual conduct of experiments such as greater
accessibility, low cost, time saving, safe environments to Ali and Ullah (2020) and Bellou et al. (2018) conducted a
chemical hazards and other dangers, flexibility, and self-paced literature review on digital learning technologies in primary
learning. On the other hand, the advantages that the virtual and secondary chemistry education. These two studies

52 Science Education International ¦ Volume 34 ¦ Issue 1

 Science Education International
34(1), 52-57
https://doi.org/10.33828/sei.v34.i1.6
Mercado and Picardal: Systematic Review in Biotechnology Simulation

proposed and looked into the different pedagogical approaches, The following words or phrases were used: Biotechnology
graphical interfaces utilized in the simulations, technologies Virtual Laboratory or Biotech Virtual Lab or Simulations,
in learning, learning outcomes of the study, and the research Biotechnology Experiments and Simulations, Biotechnology
methods. Their findings for the studies suggested that the use simulations, or Biotech Virtual Simulation.
of virtual laboratories has positive outcomes and however,
These search key words should be part of the title, abstract
some more efforts are to be done such as a meta-analysis
keywords, or abstract of a publication between 2005 and 2021.
of the studies. Ali and Ullah (2014) also emphasized the
The search resulted in 580 studies all in all when added from
similarities and difference between 2D and 3D virtual science
the different databases, and these studies were then screened
simulations and found out in their study that majority of the
further (Table 1).
virtual simulations do not provide any guidance on how the
experiment should be done. The next step that should be undertaken when doing a systematic
review is selecting the relevant publication articles to be included
This paper’s systematic review is different from the reviews
in the review by searching the title and abstract of each record.
conducted by other researchers, because of the focus on virtual
After initial screening, 87 studies were found to be relevant and
laboratory simulations that involve biotechnology concepts.
valid publications. The other 493 studies were removed. The
Even though the study of Sypsas and Kalles (2018) mentioned
selected publications were then further screened using their
biotechnology laboratory simulations, it was not that thorough
full text version. The researchers filtered out the publication
nor was virtual reality any part of the review. Moreover, this
further using the criteria did they contain a virtual environment
study provides a holistic overview of the literature reviews of
representation. For the last screening process, the researchers
the different studies that involves biotechnology laboratory looked for the type of interface being utilized by the simulation
classes whether online or face-to-face learning that utilizes whether 2D, 3D, or virtual reality and these should be included in
simulations. the text or images in the publication. After the thorough screening,
The main goal of this systematic review is to provide an 22 publication articles remained to be included in the review.
extensive review of the conducted research about virtual The last step that was done was the coding and data analysis.
laboratories in biotechnology education and other related The 22 studies relevant information that were appropriate for
sciences. This study seeks to answer the following questions: the research questions were coded. The variables were then
1. What are the main purposes, evaluation method, and classified into categories through a spreadsheet.
learning outcomes of the research studies on using virtual
simulations in biotechnology?
2. What are the different technologies being used for virtual FINDINGS
biotechnology laboratory and its current trends? This part of the research connects the result of the review
3. What learning theories and instructional design features inquiry to the to the three research questions mentioned and
have been applied to biotechnology laboratory? is divided into different sections: research methodology,
technology, and institutional design.
METHODOLOGY Research Purposes
In conducting this systematic review, the researchers utilized There were three research categories in this study which the
and followed PRISMA’s guiding principle (Moher et al., 2009). purpose of the publication is anchored, these categories were
This principle helped the researchers to conduct the research comparative, evaluative, and technical study. Based on the
in a more complete and transparent manner. The process analysis of this study, the evaluative study had the greatest
required the researchers to select appropriate criteria, selection number of in the searched publications with 45.5%, followed
of articles, searching strategies, and data collection process. by technical study with 32% and lastly, comparative with
22.5% of the relevant publications.
The first step done was to search for the literature in online
data bases such as Google Scholar, Web of Science, Elsevier, Evaluation Method
Scopus, and PubMed. In looking for articles and journals, In evaluating the effectiveness of virtual simulations, different
the researchers used different terms to look for publications. research methods were utilized such as qualitative, qualitative,

Table 1: A list of inclusion and exclusion criteria used to select relevant articles from the database
Inclusion criteria Exclusion criteria
Journal and conference proceedings Review, abstract, and non-peer reviewed publications
Virtual Laboratories used for Science, Biology and Biotech education Publication with full text that is not accessible
Contains Biochemical Laboratory practices or laboratory safety Virtual application that is only used to teach chemical concepts
(e.g., Molecule visualization, periodic table)
Uses 2D, 3D, 4D, VR interfaces or immersive virtual reality devices Virtual Lab application that requires the real environment (augmented reality)
The publication must be in English Publications that are not in English

Science Education International ¦ Volume 34 ¦ Issue 1 53

 Science Education International
34(1), 52-57
https://doi.org/10.33828/sei.v34.i1.6
Mercado and Picardal: Systematic Review in Biotechnology Simulation

and mixed method that was used in measuring different reflection. Similar with the instructional support, some of the
domains or skill-based learning outcomes. There are notable reviewed articles did not indicated any of the instructional
differences in the use of these methods between evaluative support. In the study of Ali and Ullah (2020), scaffolding
and comparative studies. was said to contribute better to the procedural understanding
of the students compared to the no guidance learning. In a
In the reviewed publication the widely used evaluation method
similar way, Borek et al. (2009) studied the effect of guidance
for comparative studies was the test, and on the evaluative
to students in a form of tutors, or direct instruction. They
studies, questionnaires were the widely used material. In
found out that scaffolding resulted in better conceptual and
addition, qualitative evaluation was used to measure the
procedural understanding compared to inquiry-based and
affective outcomes of the participants in the comparative
directed instructions. In both studies, they have recommended
studies. In contrary, evaluative studies utilized more real-time
that learners needed sufficient guidance in using the virtual
assessments compared to comparative studies.
laboratory environment/simulations.
Learning Outcomes
In the investigation of the learning outcomes, the researcher DISCUSSION
has observed that majority of the comparative studies measured
cognitive learning outcomes, while the evaluative studies Biotechnology Virtual Laboratory Research
measure the affective outcomes. Despite the prior findings, In this systematic review, it was found out that most of the
participants’ affective outcomes were still evaluated in published journal articles performed comparison of the
comparative studies. This is because the studies were able to different media which led to comparing the virtual laboratory
evaluate the usability of the virtual laboratory and opinions of simulations with the traditional teaching styles. Quantitative
the participants based on the comparative analysis. methods were utilized in comparing the different the different
approaches in laboratory teaching some of the forms of
Technology evaluation were knowledge test for cognitive competence and
In this study, technology was reviewed in two categories: the practical assessments such as actual laboratory performance
technological trends and display technology and interface. to assess laboratory practical skills. In this review paper,
In the reviewed publication, display technology in the declarative knowledge was the mostly studied leaning
biotechnology virtual simulations refers to the visual display of outcome which is also similar to other studies (Brinson,
the biological instruments and reagents in a virtual classroom 2018). Moreover, qualitative methods of evaluation were also
environment. The commonly used interface in these types of conducted using interviews, observations, and questionnaires
technologies was three-dimensional displays (n = 15, 68%) to conduct a comparative study.
and others used 2D desktop display (n = 5, 23%) and virtual
The comparison studies found out that the effectiveness of
reality (n = 2, 9%) some used HMD devices, Oculus Go and
the virtual simulation or the virtual laboratory vary depending
Rift, and Samsung gear. It was also found out from the review
on the type of traditional method, they are compared with. In
that since 2000 until today 2D and 3D technologies are the
comparison to the passive media such as traditional lectures,
most prominent display technologies throughout these years,
radio lessons, and video or text presentation, virtual laboratory
even though the virtual reality has slowly emerged from 2012
was found to be more effective for learning the basic facts
until present. It should be noted that virtual reality technologies
about biotechnology and other allied courses. With this, it
were widely used in the year 2018 as when internet technology
is imperative that the virtual simulations can match to the
has become more available in developing countries.
passive media. The study of Makransky et al. (2019) support
Instructional Design this finding, it was elaborated in their paper that overloading
Under the instructional were two different areas that were of cognitive capacity using the virtual reality shows a better
reviewed such as learning theories and instructional support. result when learners need to reason and apply biotechnology
It was found that learning theories were manifested in the concepts in solving problems (Jagodzinski and Wolski, 2014;
reviewed publications, they were indicated in the keywords, Makransky et al., 2019). In the conduct of laboratory classes,
and on the shortened title of the publications. The theories that virtual laboratories are effective ways in showing the students
were included in the review were discovery learning (n = 3), the microscopic domains of biosystems, chemical compounds
independent learning/self-paced learning (n = 4), inquiry-based and more importantly they are manipulative and interactive
learning (n = 5), and learning by doing (n = 3). These learning (Herga et al., 2015). In the study of Tatli et al. (2010), the
theories were the commonly used for biotechnology virtual researcher found out that combinations of media visual support
laboratory. Some of the reviewed studies did not specify the and inactivity.
type of learning theories that they have used in their study.
In comparing the virtual laboratories with the traditional
The second category under instructional design was the conduct of experiments, it was found out that the virtual
instructional support. During the review the following laboratory simulations (VLS) are almost or equally the same
instructional support elements have emerged: Scaffolding or sometimes better than the hands-on laboratory activity in
or guidance, feedbacking, personalization, modality, and terms of effectivity as regards to the skill-based knowledge,

54 Science Education International ¦ Volume 34 ¦ Issue 1

 Science Education International
34(1), 52-57
https://doi.org/10.33828/sei.v34.i1.6
Mercado and Picardal: Systematic Review in Biotechnology Simulation

declarative knowledge, and procedural understanding. Brinson advantages that the VLS offer, there are some drawbacks that
(2015) and Sypsas and Kalles (2018) support the claim emerges such as providing realistic laboratory experience to
that the virtual laboratory is equally effective or better than students to acquire necessary laboratory skills (Ali and Ullah,
traditional laboratories. On the other hand, it was argued that 2020; Qvist et al., 2015).
virtual laboratories cannot replace the hands-on activities,
Most of the articles that has been reviewed in this study
and a very limited evidence was found that VLS was worse
used three-dimensional technology for the VLS. This were
than that of hands-on labs (Faulconer and Gruss, 2018). This
developed to make the virtual laboratory more realistic and
implies that students have learned procedural knowledge and
more accurate representation of the equipment and laboratory
laboratory skills in virtual platforms even physical interaction
environment as well as the manipulation of apparatus are far
was very limited or none (Pyatt and Sims, 2012). Moreover,
better than the two-dimensional technology. Qvist et al. (2015),
Ullah et al. (2016) emphasized that when procedural guidance
Winkelmann et al. (2014) also mentioned in their papers that
was provided during virtual experiments learners will perform
VLS that used 3D technology enabled students to explore, and
better compared to student who attended the physical hands-on
freely manipulate the interface with this the authors agreed
experiments. To justify this claim and strengthen this, more
that the level of interactivity and the realistic effect of the
research should be done because there are limited studies
VLS can help students to be familiar with the concept of the
regarding the difference in effectiveness of the two modalities.
laboratory before going to the actual real laboratory. The study
Kolil et al. (2020) said one factor that should be look into is
Makransky et al. (2019) emphasized that another salient feature
the complexity or the simplicity of the experiments in virtual
of a realistic virtual laboratory is the simulation of hazardous
laboratories that will enable students to master or acquire skills
events that were dangerous when experience in real life. Some
and laboratory techniques.
of these are the unsafety handling of reagents, breaking of some
The second research purpose of this review is to investigate glass wares, and even the good practices in the can be simulated
the evaluative studies about virtual labs. The consideration that with this learning continues without sacrificing the safety of
was employed in this study was the following: The class should the children, and the most important thing is they learn. In this
be using biotechnology laboratories to evaluate the affective 21st century, technology has evolved and developed drastically,
domain learning outcomes of the learners with questionnaires with this computer technologies improvement was made
as the most utilized evaluation method, followed by interview easier and better to realize the simulations into a new level
and observations. Chan et al. (2021) said in their paper that of realism and interactivity which is very far during the time
positive attitude toward biotechnology, better usability of that the computer age is starting. Despite the advancement
virtual simulation and considerable perceived self-efficacy that the 3D simulations have achieved, it is still projected in
are some of the users’ revelation about the effects of VLS. In the computers and still limited. It cannot yet give that same
general, VLS is satisfying, helpful for grasping the lessons, feeling of having the practical and hands-on laboratory class
and requires lesser amount of time than the traditional hands- in reality (Winkelmann et al., 2014.)
on laboratory.
Recently, virtual reality technology has emerged in various
Technology used in Virtual Biotechnology Laboratory industries such as entertainment, education, medical, and many
In this review study, the different technologies being used were more. In the education industry, the virtual laboratory has a
the 3D, 2D, and virtual reality. In the study of Ali and Ullah promising application as a tool for science subjects specifically
(2020), same technologies were reviewed; however, in this to biotechnology. With this high-definition media virtual reality
study, the researcher included the virtual reality which is an devices, the feeling of being in the real scenario in a virtual
innovative technology that is not the same as two- and three- environment which is far different from the low immersion
dimensional displays on desktops, and through this virtual technology such as 3D and 2D technologies (Buttussi and
laboratory simulations become realistic and interactive. Chittaro, 2018). Despite the promising technology of VR,
it was reported that in terms of acquisition of conceptual
The virtual biotechnological laboratory simulations with two-
knowledge, it is equally effective as 2D and 3D passive and
dimensional display (2D) have been used to allow students
physical laboratory (Dunnagan et al., 2019; Makransky et al.,
to experience the simple visualizations and simulations of
2019). VR has many drawbacks too just like the 2D and 3D
the experiments. The interface of a 2D display is easier to
technology such as expensive, social isolation, and can cause
navigate, comprehensible animations which help improve
simulator sickness/dizziness (Chan et al., 2021).
the understanding of the learners regarding molecular to
macroscopic applications of biotechnology in experiments. Instructional Design of Virtual Biotech Laboratory
This interaction that is happening between students and the In this systematic review, the researcher has investigated which
simulation offers a big advantage to the students who’s learning theories, instructional support elements were implemented in
biotechnology compared to those who are using the traditional the biotech virtual laboratories. Hew et al. (2019) stated in their
media. Furthermore, using virtual simulations, the experiments paper that inquiry-based learning, discovery learning, learning
become free and readily available always because it does not by doing, and experiential learning were the mostly used
require a laboratory environment. Despite the benefits and theories because as time goes by these theories are evolving

Science Education International ¦ Volume 34 ¦ Issue 1 55

 Science Education International
34(1), 52-57
https://doi.org/10.33828/sei.v34.i1.6
Mercado and Picardal: Systematic Review in Biotechnology Simulation

and becoming more applicable and relevant when conducting Technologies used in biotechnology virtual laboratories were
a laboratory class. The autonomous and interactivity learning from simple to sophisticated one such as two-dimensional (2D)
is aspects of the biotechnology virtual laboratory that enable graphics, to more sophisticated three-dimensional (3D) graphic
learning environments to be constructivist and learner representation of an actual laboratory. Despite the popularity
centered. This allows the learner to create more meaningful and the utilization of the 3D compared to 2D and Virtual
understanding of biotech concepts. reality, each of these technologies have their own advantages
and disadvantages, and they have different purposes. Some of
Another aspect of instructional design is the instructional
the characteristics of these are the low cost, easy to manipulate
support that learners enjoy during the virtual learning
which 2D can offer. On the other hand, 3D can give some
simulation experience (Chan et al., 2021). In the study of
interactions with that of an actual laboratories and can replicate
Makransky et al. (2019), the effective learning in virtual
experiments. Finally, the virtual reality can offer much of the
environment was hindered by cognitive overload or over
realistic view of the laboratory and can give the learner a more
information of the learners. This suggests that providing
profound experience of the actual laboratory.
instructional support could manage this cognitive load better
and could assist learners when needed. Modality, guidance, The researchers also found that most of the studies included in
and feedbacking are some of the instructional support elements the review did not consider instructional support or learning
that were used in most of the review articles. However, theories in designing the instruction. On the other hand,
in the reviewed articles, these instructional supports were studies suggest that offering of scaffolding and introduce the
mentioned very briefly and some of the topics can be learned instructional support to them will help learners to have a better
more when reviewed studies have performed value-added cognitive load.
research on principles of instructional support. According
to the studies of Borek et al. (2009), Georgiou and Pinayotis
Ethical Statement
Ethics was not required for this study because this is a
(2007), and Jagodzinski and Wolski (2014) that virtual
systematic review, and it uses data from open access journals
laboratories and simulations were most effective when support
which are publicly accessible data.
in terms of instruction and materials were given in learning
content of biotechnology using audio media and with proper
scaffolding. Because of the limited number of studies that REFERENCES
have been conducted about biotechnology virtual laboratory, Ali, N., & Ullah, S. (2020). Review to analyze and compare virtual chemistry
the researcher has come to the conclusion that focus more on laboratories for their use in education. Journal of Chemistry Education,
97(10), 3563-3574.
how virtual laboratory on biotech were designed is needed Bellou, I., Papachristos, N.M., & Mikropoulos, T.A. (2018). Digital learning
than comparing the instructional media. Through this, we can technologies in chemistry education: A review. In: Sampson, D.,
find a more meaningful, more effective, and organized way in Ifenthaler, D., Spector, J.M., & Isias, P., (Eds.), Digital Technologies:
understanding the virtual laboratory system. Sustainable Innovations for Improving Teaching and Learning.
New York: Springer International Publishing. pp. 57-80.
Borek, A., Mclaren, B., Karabinos, M., & Yaron, D. (2009). How much
CONCLUSION assistance is helpful to students in discovery learning? Lecture Notes in
Computer Science, 5794, 391-404.
The conducted systematic review has been done in Buttussi, F., & Chittaro, L. (2018). Effects of different types of virtual
biotechnology virtual laboratories. This reviewed focused not reality display on presence and learning in a safety training scenario.
only on the utilization and effectiveness of virtual laboratories IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 24(2),
1063-1076.
but also to the included a thorough analysis of technologies Chan, P., Van Gerven, T., Dubois, J.L., & Bernaerts, K. (2021). Virtual
and instructional design being used in doing the laboratory chemical laboratories: A systematic literature review of research,
activities. technologies and instructional design. Computers and Education Open,
2, 100053.
Based on the review, it can be concluded that virtual biotech Dunnagan, C.L., Dannenberg, D.A., Cuales, M.P., Earnest, A.D., Gurnsey,
laboratories can be used as an effective complementary or R.M., & Gallardo-Williams, M.T. (2019). Production and evaluation
support tool or even an alternative to the physical hands-on of a realistic immersive virtual reality organic chemistry laboratory
experience: Infrared spectroscopy. Journal of Chemical Education,
laboratory activities, despite the argumentation presented by 97(1), 258-262.
some authors that it can never be used as a replacement. In Faulconer, E.K., & Gruss, A.B. (2018). A review to weigh the pros and cons
considering learning outcomes of all domains such as cognitive, of online, remote, and distance science laboratory experiences. The
affective, and skill-based or psychomotor, virtual laboratories International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning,
19(2), 155-168.
can provide better outcomes and it can be claimed that virtual Georgiou, S., Stavrinides, P., & Kalavana, T. (2007). Is victor better than
laboratories are equally effective as the traditional media or Victoria at maths? Educational Psychology in Practice, 23, 329-342.
sometime better that it. The literature has suggested also that Hew, K.F., Lan, M., Tang, Y., Jia, C., & Lo, C.K. (2019). Where is the
virtual laboratories are more effective when combined with “theory” within the field of educational technology research? British
Journal of Educational Technology, 50, 956-971.
the hands-on laboratory activities, but to achieve this utmost Herga, N.R., Glažar, S.A., & Dinevski, D. (2015). Dynamic visualization
consideration should be given to the choice of technology and in the virtual laboratory enhances the fundamental understanding of
instructional design. chemical concepts. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 14(3), 351-365.

56 Science Education International ¦ Volume 34 ¦ Issue 1

 Science Education International
34(1), 52-57
https://doi.org/10.33828/sei.v34.i1.6
Mercado and Picardal: Systematic Review in Biotechnology Simulation

Jagodzinski, P., & Wolski, R. (2014). The examination of the impact on International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy (iJEP), 5(4), 64-75.
students’ use of gestures while working in a virtual chemical laboratory Ramadhan, M.F., & Irwanto. (2017). Using Virtual Labs To Enhance
for their cognitive abilities. Problems in Education 21st Century, 61, 46-57. Students’ Thinking Abilities, Skills, and Scientific Attitudes. In:
Kolil, V.K., Muthupalani, S., & Achuthan, K. (2020). Virtual experimental International Conference on Educational Research and Innovation
platforms in chemistry laboratory education and its impact on (ICERI 2017). pp. 494-499.
experimental self-efficacy. International Journal of Educational Seery, M.K. (2020). Establishing the laboratory as the place to learn how to
Technology in Higher Education, 17, 30. do chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 97(6), 1511-1514.
Makransky, G., Borre-Gude, S., & Mayer, R.E. (2019). Motivational and Sypsas, A., & Kalles, D. (2018). Virtual Laboratories in Biology,
cognitive benefits of training in immersive virtual reality based on Biotechnology and Chemistry Education: A Literature Review. In: ACM
multiple assessments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 35(6), International Conference Proceeding Series. pp. 70-75.
691-707. Tatli, A., Bridgstock, R., Lettice, F., & Ozbilgin, A. (2010). Diversity
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D.G., & PRISMA Group. management for innovation in social enterprises in the UK.
(2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta- Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 22, 557-574.
analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), e1000097. Udin, W.N., Ramli, M., & Muzzazinah. (2020). Virtual laboratory for
Pyatt, K., & Sims, R. (2012). Virtual and physical experimentation in enhancing students’ understanding on abstract biology concepts and
inquiry-based science labs: Attitudes, performance and access. Journal laboratory skills: A systematic review. Journal of Physics Conference
of Science Education and Technology, 21, 133-147. Series, 1521(4), 042025.
Qvist, P., Kangasniemi, T., Palomäki, S., Seppänen, J., Joensuu, P., Natri, Winkelmann, K., Scott, M., & Wong, D. (2014). A study of high school
O., & Nordström, K. (2015). Design of virtual learning environments: students’ performance of a chemistry experiment within the virtual
Learning analytics and identification of affordances and barriers. world of second life. Journal of Chemical Education, 91(9), 1432-1438.

Science Education International ¦ Volume 34 ¦ Issue 1 57

Copyright of Science Education International is the property of Science Education
International and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a
listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.