https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3143-4050
Abstract
As Higher Education Institutions closed for an indefinite period in 2019 due to the COVID19 (coronavirus) pandemic, the urgency to commence with online modes of teaching and learning were realised. The rapid and abrupt transition from face-to-face to online teaching and learning was met with several challenges. However, it prompted new examples of educational innovation using online technologies fostering remote or distance education, such as Virtual Labs. While research suggests that Virtual Labs may improve academic performance, the impact on the students’ independence is limited. This systematic review study aims to determine the effect of VLabs on teaching and self-regulated learning. Fifty-one articles were initially identified from the Web of Science database as a result of the PRISMA guidelines and criteria set out in this study to 16 eligible articles. The following keywords were searched: virtual labs, self-regulation, virtual reality, augmented reality, Higher Education Institution/s, university, college, remote learning, distance learning and online learning. The findings reveal that Higher Education Institutions worldwide are transitioning towards online education. Further findings propose that virtual labs have the ability to initiate self-regulation hence meaningful learning in times of social distancing due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, six key themes were revealed: nurture, truly learner-centred, visualisation, digital natives, learning experience and management skills. This research also provides a strong platform for further research.
1. Introduction and background
Emerging Information Communication Technologies (ICTs) in this digital age, coupled with the COVID-19 pandemic, have captivated us as we have become dependent on them as they become part of our daily lives. COVID-19 is the name given to the coronavirus of 2019, which resulted in a global pandemic declared by the World Health Organisation (WHO; Lim, Citation2021). Due to the nature of the virus, face-to-face communication had ceased in the education sector and a venture of online modes of teaching and learning commenced.
The impetus to continue with education while maintaining the necessary health protocols was essential. Exploring online teaching and learning methods were and are currently trending during the post/COVID-19 global pandemic (R. G. Govender & Khoza, Citation2022). One particular technology that stands out is the use of a Virtual Lab (VLab). VLab also known as remote lab, is considered an interactive learning-based online simulation tool that acts real-world phenomena in a virtual space (Lynch & Ghergulescu, Citation2017). VLab relies on internet technologies to create an online environment; students can access the platform anytime, anywhere, at their institution, or even from home. VLab provides unlimited access to any tool or apparatus available on their device (laptop, PC, tablet or smartphone).
While it may seem that VLabs support distance or remote learning by creating simulated learning environments, the design of subject content using such a tool is of utmost importance. A student alone without immediate help requires the need for metacognitive activities during the learning process allowing for conviction. An encounter of conviction can be described as self-realisation or self-thought before completing an activity or task. Hence being metacognitive in nature, as metacognition is the awareness and thinking about how you think and learn (Chick, Citation2013). Carefully crafted and designed VLabs are essential for the student to obtain skills and experience that can be applied to finding solutions to real-life problems. Some well-established VLab vendors are PhET Interactive Simulations by the University of Colorado Boulder, Hayden-McNeil Lab by Macmillan Learning and MERLOT supported by California State University (Badillo et al., Citation2020).
Research has shown that VLabs make learning interesting, engaging, deepen understanding and improve academic performance (Cakir et al., Citation2021; Lynch & Ghergulescu, Citation2017; Wästberg et al., Citation2019). There is limited to moderate research around the use of VLab’s impact on individual learning resulting in a sense of independence as one navigates and develops knowledge through online experiments without immediate help by the facilitator.Footnote1 The background to this systematic review examines self-regulated learning (SRL) through the use of VLabs. Therefore the study aims to answer the question: What impact do VLabs have on teaching and learning?Footnote2
2. Literature review
2.1. Virtual laboratory (VLab)
A VLab can be created based on any subject content and is usually embedded into the Learning Management System (LMS; Guinaldo et al., Citation2013). For example, a virtual chemical lab (Figure ), the student might find beakers, filtration systems, pipettes, Bunsen burners, a collection of acids, bases and other solutions etc., as in a real lab or a recreation of a crime scene with bullets and cartridge casings in a forensics online course.
Figure 1. A PhET Interactive Simulation building an atom
In a VLab, the student is provided with easy-to-follow steps or instructions while observing and recording the results of their actions. VLabs provide functions like stop, play, and replay of events; hence, the student can digitally view the stimulated results of their actions. At the same time, grading the student or checking if goals have been achieved is possible. With various software companies offering VLabs and regular deployments of updates, VLabs have the potential to include Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems that monitor and give individualised feedback and also include Virtual Reality (VR) and Augmented Reality (AR) features (Arista & Kuswanto, Citation2018). The latter digital features allow VLab to make the learning experience as close to reality as possible. A VR environment fully immerses an individual into a virtual world, while AR adds digital elements to the real-world environment around the individual (Hu-Au & Lee, Citation2017).
2.2. Issues with online education
The results by S. Khan and Khan (Citation2019) indicate four significant critical findings or concerns regarding High Education Institution (HEI) students’ perspectives regarding online education. An attempt to use these four findings in guiding the discussion around online education follows. Firstly, preference and apprehension, whereby students resist the change from face-to-face (F2F) to online. This suggests the unwillingness to break from the norm or familiar experiences. In addition, the transition to online is coupled with stress, fatigue and health issues associated with using digital devices for long periods. As reasserted by the NBC News (Citation2021) survey findings, 84% of students reported exhaustion, headaches, insomnia, or other stress-related ailments. Figure shows how students’ levels have changed due to the pandemic.
Figure 2. Stressed levels of students during the pandemic
A further contributor to the unwillingness to transit online could be the lack of human interaction and emotion during teaching and learning online. R. G. Govender and Khoza (Citation2022) expressed that human interaction is reduced as education transits from F2F to online (Figure ). Eventually, education shifts from dynamic and spontaneous to a one-size-fits-all approach.
Figure 3. Human interaction versus delivery mode of teaching
The second finding is about technology and technology competency. As 5 G connectivity spreads around the globe offering exhilarating data speeds, there remain parts of the world with little to no telecommunication infrastructure (Bankole & Mimbi, Citation2017; Fomunyam, Citation2019; Mofokeng & Mji, Citation2010). Furthermore, compounded with the rise in data costs (Adams et al., Citation2018), it is difficult to comprehend the possibilities of online education. Students’ and lecturers’ access to essential working devices (laptops, desktops, PC tablets and smartphones) to support online education poses further impediments (Figure ). Such challenges were evident for some time pre COVID-19 era and persisted into the post COVID-19 era (Adarkwah, Citation2021; Hussein, Citation2021).
Figure 4. Challenges of online instruction from the perspectives of lecturers and students during COVID-19
The digital divide in communities that feed into HEIs makes it difficult for students to complete basic computing tasks, let alone online activities, hindering teaching and learning (Soomro et al., Citation2020). This is especially challenging for first-year students who have not been prepared or allowed time to sync into the digital world as they find themselves forced into the transition from F2F to online education as a result of the urgency to continue with education during the pandemic. Teaching staff can find themselves under the pressures of being bombarded with many online tools and digital tools that support online teaching resulting in technostress (R. Govender & Mpungose, Citation2022). The need to be computer literate stands out as an advantage for the successful comprehension of online education. Such skills that deem a person computer literate include touch typing of assessments (typing skill), effective e-communication adhering to basic netiquette and easy navigation of computer systems (OS) and applications (Eynon, Citation2021).
The third concern is assessment layout, cheating and subject discipline. Due to the educational paradigm shift because of COVID-19, students not only transit to online education but also the assessment and its format. The most common online assessment format is multiple-choice or closed-ended questions (R. A. Khan & Jawaid, Citation2020). Such genres of question types restrict or limit the diversity in students’ responses. However, these closed-ended question formats have eased the marking load on the facilitator as most LMSs have an automatic marking feature option when creating the question. Cheating and plagiarism have been significant concerns from the outset of online education during the pandemic (Abdelrahim, Citation2021; Bilen & Matros, Citation2021). It was found that most lecturers needed to be skilled in creating quizzes by exploring the features of the LMS to curb plagiarism (refer to the topic with 58% in Table ).
Table 1. Topics identified by lecturers for further skill enhancement
Students are constantly devising new methods by taking advantage of the online education loopholes. Showing the working out steps of equations by freely making side notes, highlighting, striking and solving is difficult online and poses a challenge to the student and the facilitator without the correct hardware and software (refer to Issues with online writing tool in Figure ). Online education seems to favour theoretically based disciplines rich in text literature. In contrast, STEM-based (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) disciplines have a challenge to successfully implement online education due to the lack of hands-on activity, like being able to show full working out of calculations and no lab or workshop tasks (Asgari et al., Citation2021).
The last and fourth finding by S. Khan and Khan (Citation2019) is grading and assessment feedback. While students who rapidly transitioned from F2F to online may be concerned about their grades during online education- it has been a twofold process for the facilitator: 1. procuring and setting up the necessary hardware and software 2. adjusting/transitioning the discipline content online (Naylor & Nyanjom, Citation2021; Soomro et al., Citation2020). These early processes affect how the grading and assessment feedback is accomplished. Quiz and open book were the most favoured method of assessment during the COVID-19 pandemic (Table ).
Table 2. Assessment methods lecturers used during the online education
The facilitator faces a plethora of specialised educational software and hardware that needs vetting according to the context, subject, and topic, which can lead to technostress (Chiappetta, Citation2017). While one might argue that a PowerPoint is reasonable for use in online education (Hickey, Citation2020), the creation and design must promote self-regulation to the extent that there is some degree of metacognition. Therefore, during this two-fold process, the facilitator familiar with F2F education does not possess the necessary pedagogic skill set for online education, affecting grading and assessment feedback.
2.3. Being equipped
The rapid development of ICTs has made our daily lives easier (Govender, Citation2021) however it has altered the pattern of humanity from how we process information to our emotions (Naylor & Nyanjom, Citation2021). For example, the physical presence or a handwritten greeting card resembling some form of human existence and identification of a family member has been replaced by some generic font available on your smartphone. Yet this digital greeting can provide the same emotion or even enhance the emotion of the physical presence of a human feeling. As supported by Collins (Citation2020), additions to sensory modules to electronic media are likely to mimic quite strong Interaction RitualsFootnote3 (IR). As a result of the sudden need to continue with education due to the pandemic, one may ask, what constitutes the essential online pedagogic skill set? This is an open question and will remain an open question. The theories/models of Connectivism, Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK), Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTUAT), etc., were devised when F2F education was affordable. Due to the scarcity of F2F education and the rapid advancements of ICTs, modifications and revisions are needed to theories underpinning ICTs in Education. As a result of being undeveloped or ill-prepared regarding online pedagogical techniques, students bear the consequences (Figure ).
Figure 5. Challenges students encountered during online instruction
One cannot relate new ICTs with former technology theories. Similar theories regarding students and learning, such as Piaget’s stages of cognitive development, Bruner’s theory of development, Erikson’s psychosocial development etc., need to be revised. Thus aligning them to be relevant and significant in today’s ICT driven world.
3. Theoretical/conceptual framing
Since the dawn of the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) and the global pandemic, education has been venturing into unknown territory in many countries, especially in developing countries that lack technology infrastructure (Adarkwah, Citation2021; Hussein, Citation2021). Naidoo and Govender (Citation2014) propose a framework for the meaningful implementation of online learning (Figure ). This framework is defined by three interconnected principles that govern productive online learning: online technology, self-regulation, and learner-centredFootnote4 education. An individual’s knowledge is developed as a result of meaningful created online educational technologies that are learner-centred and promote self-regulation (and vice-versa).
Figure 6. Effects of online technology on teaching and learning
Learner-centred education is informed by constructivism based on the grounds that learning takes place in an active and engaging process rather than a passive one (Clark, Citation2018; Shah, Citation2020; Tadesse et al., Citation2021). Thus, learner-centred education favours interactive strategies that engage students in developing their knowledge. SRL promotion is crucial for online or remote learning since the facilitators’ presence is limited in a virtual environment. They cannot attend to each student in a similar manner that F2F provides. Zimmerman (Citation2000) describes SRL as an action of self-reflecting and self-monitoring while maintaining a focus on progress, ensuring the achievement of the goal. Therefore, self-regulation occurs when the individual is provided a chance to think about what they are learning hence a metacognitive state (Naidoo & Govender, Citation2014).
4. Research design and methods
The study adopts a systemic review adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PRISMA usually evaluates the effects of interventions; however, it can be used for reporting systematic reviews with objectives other than evaluating interventions (McKenzie et al., Citation2021).
While PRISMA guidelines are used largely in medical-related research, it has been adopted in other disciplines (Flemming et al., Citation2018). There are five key processes to follow in executing the guidelines. First article Identification: The researcher gathered and categorised journal articles from a reputable indexed data centre (Web of Science). The following keywords were searched: VLabs, VR, AR, SRL, Higher Education Institution, university college, remote learning, distance learning and online learning.
Second article Screening: The articles were further categorised to Education Educational Research (found under the Web of Science Categories) by examining the titles and abstracts.
Third article Eligibility: The articles’ feasibility was based on a set of criteria: being published in the last ten years to date (2013–2022), availability in the English language and must be in a peer-reviewed journal. The ten-year period provided a progressional outlook and development of the research in the field while insisting on a peer-reviewed publication that provided the rigour and validity of the study.
Fourth article Included: The researcher was able to clearly distinguish and separate the eligible articles using the key variables: SRL, Virtual environments, collaboration, social culture, Vlabs, VR, AR, Motivation, Metacognition, Self-direction, Self-worth, Hands-on (including ICTs hence blended approach).
Fifth and last article/s Extracted: In this process, the researcher made a section based on the research question by examining the literature review, methodology, findings, discussions and conclusions or similar structures that may be available in the article.
5. Findings and discussion
Through the systemic review process (PRISMA), a number of studies have captivated SRL and VLabs. The findings generated from the review were 51 articles, which were further analysed to reveal critical articles related to the aim of this study, which resulted in 16 articles (Table ).
Table 3. Eligible articles
Most findings are based during the global pandemic (COVID-19) era, indicating a trend to remote or online learning environments. Six key themes emerged from the 16 articles: nurture, truly learner-centred, visualisation, digital natives, learning experience and management skills. These themes trend the impact of VLabs and SRL in achieving Learning.
5.1. Nurture
Progressive development is encouraged through VLabs. Nurturing is critical in this process as self-paced learning enables the students to control their progress online. The latter occurs while the student completes different phases of development through the VLab experience. Chen and Hsu (Citation2020) purport these phases are real experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualisation and active experiments. The probability of the student’s experience being abstract and challenging is likely, since the later phases allow the connection to prior knowledge and lived experiences (Azevedo & Gašević, Citation2019; Taub et al., Citation2020).
This is similar to ZPD, which bridges the gap between what the student can do with no guidance and what a student can do with guidance or collaboration (Billings & Walqui, Citation2018). The act of scaffolding is support that can be provided through an active social experience (Zheng et al., Citation2017). Thus, VLab positively contributes to the learner’s knowledge, skills and attitude when completing a learning activity. Individual and group activities are possible, demonstrating a relationship between cognition and constructivism. Thus, VLabs and SRL’s nurturing of students’ development is made possible in an online space.
5.2. Truly learner-centred
In contrast to traditional learning methods, where the teacher/instructor is the gatekeeper to knowledge and thriving on memorisation of large sets of information is the norm, VLab allows the student to take control by crafting their educational environment (Zheng et al., Citation2017). VLab’s ability to create virtual experiences simulating realistic experiences can engage SRL individually or among peers. The essence of learner-centred education is the absence of the teacher/instructor as they take on a facilitator’s role. The facilitator’s role is further enhanced due to the online environment since the teacher/instructor has limited to no digital F2F interaction with the student. Therefore, cognitive and behaviour engagements are heightened since students actively participate in VLab activities (Baxter & Hainey, Citation2020; Pellas & Kazanidis, Citation2015; Verstege et al., Citation2019), while their ability to complete academic tasks is intrinsically motivated.
5.3. Visualisation
VLab, a virtual environment, uses visual effects and simulation models to make abstract concepts understandable in a concrete manner, as supported by Fabregas et al. (Citation2017) that visual effects in VLab motivate and aid in developing a conceptual understanding of the subject matter. Computer-simulated environments offered by VLabs prevent hazardous scenarios, are cost-effective, have no wastage of materials (e.g., chemicals) and are flexible, offering anytime access to the online lab (Bose, Citation2013). The achievement of learning objectives by capturing learned concepts in real-world situations develops students’ confidence (Jasti et al., Citation2020; Zheng et al., Citation2017).
5.4. Digital natives
VLabs enhance learning to a state of an independent exercise without external influence/s. The student is highly motivated in the learning process as VLabs provide the ability to personalise the learning experience and engage the student in metacognitive activities (Azevedo & Gašević, Citation2019; Pellas & Kazanidis, Citation2015; Taub et al., Citation2020). The possibility of the student being exposed to technologies from an early age demonstrates the ability to seemingly navigate through virtual environments with ease. Thus, being a digital native, the students can fully immerse themselves in meaningful learning compared to a traditional classroom setting. Furthermore, VLab resources consist of scaffolding activities that are interactive and self-regulatory.
5.5. Learning experience
VLabs improve learning outcomes as they offer a highly interactive experience. Miller and Bugnariu (Citation2016) describe three levels of immersion in a virtual environment: low, moderate and high. VLabs immerse the user into the virtual environment via a sense of presence (Özgen et al., Citation2021). Thus, VLabs can present a low to moderate immersion with gradual development potential to attain high immersion levels. While the student is immersed in the learning, these environments necessitate self-regulation. However, this poses a challenge regarding student motivation, commitment, desire to learn and social connections (Urbina et al., Citation2021). Hence deriving from the framework, any online environment or similar must be carefully designed and offer scaffolded opportunities to support students in their learning experience. In addition, the environment must be set up so that it is engaging, linked to real-life experiences, contextual and enjoyable (Naidoo & Govender, Citation2014). Hence aids in developing a fundamental understanding of abstract phenomena by providing hands-on- experiences (Bortnik et al., Citation2017).
5.6. Management skills
VLabs allow the students to develop their leadership and management skills. Furthermore, these skills are set within a self-regulated environment. Students’ ability to control and manage their learning improves their self-efficacy in other areas of life and future endeavours (Kilis & Yıldırım, Citation2018). VLabs offer a pedagogical shift to student-led learning, which encourages an explorative attitude and willingness to experiment with new ICTs as a teacher. It has been reported that greater interest, confidence, and a better understanding of subject content resulted from VLabs being easy to use (Wong et al., Citation2020). The visual aid highlighted earlier serves to teach abstract concepts that involve students thinking critically and analytically. Therefore, the students are prepared, allowing them to change and adapt to the demands they encounter when developing strategies utilising virtual resources (Gal et al., Citation2015).
6. Conclusion
Higher Education Institutions globally have faced the urgent transition from F2F education to online modes due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This study lays a foundation for advancing online learning environments focusing on VLabs in achieving quality teaching and learning. The PRISMA guidelines were adhered to, to perform a systematic review of SRL determined by VLabs focusing on an HEI setting. The author identified 16 critical articles relevant to the topic that met the set criteria. It was found that a significant amount of research was done in recent years indicating the development and showing the relevance of the topic, especially in this pandemic period. The following key themes emerged from the review of research in terms of VLabs: Nurture, Truly learner-centred, visualisation, digital natives, learning experience and management skills. Overall, the results showed that students appreciated teaching that uses VLabs, ensuing improved learning, motivation, and knowledge development. In addition, VLabs being online allows learner-centred education, likely promoting self-regulation.
Ethical statements
There are no human subjects in this article and informed consent is not applicable.
Glossary of terms
Artificial Intelligence: A smart machine/system that monitors and learns patterns in its surrounding environment and autonomously respond.
Augmented Reality: Adds digital elements to the real-world environment around the user.
e-learning: Electronic learning is are generally platforms or environments that are created which enable distance education.
Information Communication Technologies: Refers to the infrastructure and components that enable computing such as the internet, wireless networks, smartphones, PC-tablets, computers, software, social networking, etc.
Interaction Rituals: Is the social form of behavior leading to social action that develops emotions and feelings.
Learning Management System: A software application that provides administration and delivery of learning.
Netiquette: Is online etiquette which is a set of rules that encourages appropriate and courteous online behavior
Operating System: A software that manages computer hardware and software resources.
Platform: Referred to sometimes as a computing platform or digital platform is a system made up of computer software and hardware that creates an environment in which software is executed.
Technostress: A modern disease of adaptation caused by an inability to cope with new computer technologies.
Virtual Lab: An interactive online simulation tool that acts real-world phenomena as if one was in a real lab.
Virtual Reality: Immerses an individual into a virtual world through a headset.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Data availability statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Additional information
Funding
Notes on contributors
Govender Reginald
Reginald G. Govender (PhD) is a Lecturer: Computer Science Education at the University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. He coordinates several Computer Science Education modules dealing with coding and robotics, teaches and supervises postgraduate research in computer programming, educational robotics, and ICT integration. On his website http://fibonacci.africa/ you can find many applets that allow for self-exploration. He has published in local and international journals. Contact details: [email protected]
Notes
1. The word facilitator is in reference to teacher, educator or lecturer at a HEI.
2. Note that more emphasis was on learning because the focus being SRL.
3. Interaction Rituals refers to the social form of behaviour leading to social action that develops emotions and feelings.
4. Learner and student interchangeable.
References
- Abdelrahim, Y. (2021). How COVID-19 quarantine influenced online exam cheating: A case of Bangladesh university students. Journal of Southwest Jiaotong University, 56(2), 1. https://doi.org/10.35741/.0258-2724.56.1.18
- Adams, D., Sumintono, B., Mohamed, A., & Noor, N. S. M. (2018). E-learning readiness among students of diverse backgrounds in a leading Malaysian higher education institution. Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction, 15(2), 227–14. https://doi.org/10.32890/MJLI2018.15.2.7789
- Adarkwah, M. A. (2021). “I’m not against online teaching, but what about us?”: ICT in Ghana post Covid-19. Education Information Technology, 26(2), 1665–1685. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10331-z
- Altmeyer, K., Kapp, S., Thees, M., Malone, S., Kuhn, J., & Brünken, R. (2020). The use of augmented reality to foster conceptual knowledge acquisition in STEM laboratory courses—theoretical background and empirical results. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(3), 611–628. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12900
- Arista, F. S., & Kuswanto, H. (2018). Virtual physics laboratory application based on the android smartphone to improve learning independence and conceptual understanding. International Journal of Instruction, 11(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.12973/iji.2018.1111a
- Asgari, S., Trajkovic, J., Rahmani, M., Zhang, W., Lo, R. C., & Sciortino, A. (2021). An observational study of engineering online education during the COVID-19 pandemic. PLoS One, 16(4), e0250041. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250041
- Azevedo, R., & Gašević, D. (2019). Analyzing multimodal multichannel data about self-regulated Learning with advanced learning technologies: Issues and challenges. Computers in Human Behavior, 96(2019), 207–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.03.025
- Badillo, J., Londino-Smolar, G., & Savvides, P. (2020). 7 things you should know about virtual labs. https://library.educause.edu/-/media/files/library/2020/8/eli7174.pdf
- Bankole, F., & Mimbi, L. (2017). ICT infrastructure and it’s impact on national development: A research direction for Africa. The African Journal of Information Systems, 9(2), 1. https://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/ajis/vol9/iss2/1
- Baxter, G., & Hainey, T. (2020). Student perceptions of virtual reality use in higher education. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 12(3), 413–424. https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-06-2018-0106
- Bilen, E., & Matros, A. (2021). Online cheating amid COVID-19. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 182, 196–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2020.12.004
- Billings, E., & Walqui, A. (2018). The zone of proximal development: An affirmative perspective in teaching ELLs/MLLs. In Retrieved August (pp. 6). New York State Education Department. https://www.wested.org/resources/zone-of-proximal-development/
- 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(2017). https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v25.1968
- Bose, R. (2013). Virtual labs project: A paradigm shift in internet-based remote experimentation. IEEE Access, 1(2013), 718–725. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2013.2286202
- Cakir, N., Guven, G., & Celik, C. (2021). Integration of mobile augmented reality (MAR) applications into the 5E learning model in biology teaching. International Journal of Technology in Education (IJTE), 4(1), 93–112. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijte.82
- Chen, Y. L., & Hsu, C. C. (2020). Self-regulated mobile game-based English learning in a virtual reality environment. Computers & Education, 154(2020), 103910. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103910
- Chiappetta, M. (2017). The technostress: Definition, symptoms and risk prevention. Senses and Sciences, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.14616/sands-2017-1-358361
- Chick, N. (2013). Metacognition. Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching. https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/metacognition/
- Clark, K. R. (2018). Learning theories: Constructivism. Radiologic Technology, 90(2), 180–182. http://www.radiologictechnology.org/content/90/2/180.extract
- Collins, R. (2020). Social distancing as a critical test of the micro-sociology of solidarity. American Journal of Cultural Sociology, 8(3), 477–497. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41290-020-00120-z
- Eynon, R. (2021). Becoming digitally literate: Reinstating an educational lens to digital skills policies for adults. British Educational Research Journal, 47(1), 146–162. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3686
- Fabregas, E., Dormido-Canto, S., & Dormido, S. (2017). Virtual and remote laboratory with the ball and plate system. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 50(1), 9132–9137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2017.08.1716
- Flemming, K., Booth, A., Hannes, K., Cargo, M., & Noyes, J. (2018). Cochrane qualitative and implementation methods group guidance series—paper 6: Reporting guidelines for qualitative, implementation, and process evaluation evidence syntheses. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 97(2018), 79–85. PMID 29222060. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.10.022
- Fomunyam, G. (2019). ICT possibilities for primary and secondary education in Africa. International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology, 10, 12. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3525951
- Gal, Y. A., Uzan, O., Belford, R., Karabinos, M., & Yaron, D. (2015). Making sense of students’ actions in an open-ended virtual laboratory environment. Journal of Chemical Education, 92(4), 610–616. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed500531a
- Govender, R. G. (2021). Embracing the fourth industrial revolution by developing a more relevant educational spectrum: Coding, robotics, and more. In J. Naidoo (Ed.), Teaching and learning in the 21st century (pp. 30–49). Brill: SENSE. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004460386_003
- Govender, R. G., & Khoza, S. B. (2022). First-hand user experience: Can Kaltura video come to the rescue of moodle during/post COVID-19? African Identities, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/14725843.2022.2082376
- Govender, R., & Mpungose, C. (2022). Lecturers’ technostress at a South African university in the context of coronavirus (COVID-19). Cogent Education, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2022.2125205
- Guinaldo, M., de la Torre, L., Heradio, R., & Dormido, S. (2013). A virtual and remote control laboratory in moodle: The ball and beam system. IFAC Proceedings Volumes, 46(17), 72–77. https://doi.org/10.3182/20130828-3-UK-2039.00021
- Hickey, R. (2020). Creating videos with PowerPoint. Technology tools for teaching in higher education. The Practical Handbook Series Open Press.
- Hu-Au, E., & Lee, J. J. (2017). Virtual reality in education: A tool for learning in the experience age. International Journal of Innovation in Education, 4(4), 215–226. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJIIE.2017.091481
- Hussein, A. (2021). Information and communication technology for african higher education institutions: Challenges and opportunities. In I. Fayed & J. Cummings (Eds.), Teaching in the post COVID-19 era (pp. 129-138). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-74088-7_12
- Jasti, N. V. K., Kota, S., & Venkataraman, P. B. (2020). An impact of simulation labs on engineering students’ academic performance: A critical Investigation. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEDT-03-2020-0108
- Khan, R. A., & Jawaid, M. (2020). Technology enhanced assessment (TEA) in COVID 19 pandemic. Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences, 36(COVID19–S4), S108. https://do.org/10.12669/pjms.36.COVID19-S4.2795
- Khan, S., & Khan, R. A. (2019). Online assessments: Exploring perspectives of university students. Education and Information Technologies, 24(1), 661–677. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9797-0
- Kilis, S., & Yıldırım, Z. (2018). Investigation of community of inquiry framework in regard to self-regulation, metacognition and motivation. Computers & Education, 126(2018), 53–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.06.032
- Lim, W. M. (2021). History, lessons, and ways forward from the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Quality and Innovation, 5(2), 101–108. https://www.inderscience.com/info/dl.php?filename=2021/ijqi-7348.pdf
- Lynch, T., & Ghergulescu, I. (2017). Review of virtual labs as the emerging technologies for teaching stem subjects. Presented at the International Technology, Education and Development Conference, Valencia, Spain, (pp. 6082–6091). https://doi.org/10.21125/inted.2017.1422
- Miller, H. L., & Bugnariu, N. L. (2016). Level of immersion in virtual environments impacts the ability to assess and teach social skills in autism spectrum disorder. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 19(4), 246–256. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2014.0682
- Mofokeng, P., & Mji, A. (2010). Teaching mathematics and science using computers: How prepared are South African teachers to do this? Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2010), 1610–1614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.245
- Naidoo, J., & Govender, R. (2014). Exploring the use of a dynamic online software programme in the teaching and learning of trigonometric graphs. Pythagoras, 35(2), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.4102/pythagoras.v35i2.260
- Naylor, D., & Nyanjom, J. (2021). Educators’ emotions involved in the transition to online teaching in higher education. Higher Education Research & Development, 40(6), 1236–1250. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2020.1811645
- NBC News. (2021) Survey more than 10000 students in fall 2020. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/education/remote-students-are-more-stressed-their-peers-classroom-study-shows-n1257632
- Özgen, D. S., Afacan, Y., & Sürer, E. (2021). Usability of virtual reality for basic design education: A comparative study with paper-based design. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 31(2), 357–377. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-019-09554-0
- Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M. et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews, 10(1), 89. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01626-4
- Pellas, N., & Kazanidis, I. (2015). On the value of second life for students’ engagement in blended and online courses: A comparative study from the higher education in Greece. Education and Information Technologies, 20(3), 445–466. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-013-9294-4
- Reeves, S. M., Crippen, K. J., & McCray, E. D. (2021). The varied experience of undergraduate students learning chemistry in virtual reality laboratories. Computers & Education, 175(2020), 104320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104320
- Shah, R. K. (2020). Concepts of student-centred teaching. Shanlax International Journal of Education, 8(3), 45–60. https://doi.org/10.34293/education.v8i3.2926
- Soomro, K. A., Kale, U., Curtis, R., Akcaoglu, M., & Bernstein, M. (2020). Digital divide among higher education faculty. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-020-00191-5
- Tadesse, A., Eskelä-Haapanen, S., Posti-Ahokas, H., & Lehesvuori, S. (2021). Eritrean teachers’ perceptions of learner-centred interactive pedagogy. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 28, Article 100451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2020.100451
- Taub, M., Sawyer, R., Smith, A., Rowe, J., Azevedo, R., & Lester, J. (2020). The agency effect: The impact of student agency on learning, emotions, and problem-solving behaviors in a game-based learning environment. Computers & Education, 147(3), 103781. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103781
- Trúchly, P., Medvecký, M., Podhradský, P., & El Mawas, N. (2019). STEM education supported by virtual laboratory incorporated in self-directed learning process. Journal of Electrical Engineering, 70(4), 332–344. https://doi.org/10.2478/jee-2019-0065
- Urbina, S., Villatoro, S., & Salinas, J. (2021). Self-regulated learning and technology-enhanced learning environments in higher education: A scoping review. Sustainability, 13(13), 7281. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13137281
- Verstege, S., Pijeira-Díaz, H. J., Noroozi, O., Biemans, H., & Diederen, J. (2019). Relations between students’ perceived levels of self-regulation and their corresponding learning behavior and outcomes in a virtual experiment environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 100(2019), 325–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.02.020
- Wästberg, B., Eriksson, T., Karlsson, G., Sunnerstam, M., Alexsson, M., & Billger, M. (2019). Design considerations for virtual laboratories: A comparative study of two virtual laboratories for learning about gas solubility and colour appearance. Education and Information Technologies, 24(2019), 2059–2080. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-09857-0
- Wong, W. K., Chen, K. P., & Chang, H. M. (2020). A comparison of a virtual lab and a microcomputer-based lab for scientific modelling by college students. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 19(1), 157–173. https://doi.org/10.33225/jbse/20.19.157
- Zheng, D., Schmidt, M. M., Hu, Y., Liu, M., & Hsu, J. (2017). Eco-dialogical learning and translanguaging in open-ended 3D virtual learning environments: Where place, time, and objects matter. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 33, 5. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.2909
- Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of selfregulation (pp. 13–39). Academic Press.