Learning outcome achievement in non-traditional (virtual and remote) versus traditional (hands-on) laboratories: A review of the empirical research

56 empirical studies comparing non-traditional and traditional labs

Mostly higher education (including 6 medical-school studies), with a minority of secondary-school studies; science and engineering laboratory courses.

Vote-counting review, NOT a meta-analysis — no pooled effect size, no weighting by study quality, no publication-bias assessment. Outcomes are classified with the author's own KIPPAS scheme (Knowledge, Inquiry, Practical, Perception, Analytical, Social/scientific communication). Vote counting systematically favours 'no difference' conclusions in an underpowered literature, so the 89% figure should be read as 'no detected disadvantage in 89% of studies', not 'proven equivalent'. Study-level outcome measures are heterogeneous and include course grades and GPA in 11% (n=6) of studies, which the author himself flags as the least discriminating possible instrument. Population is predominantly undergraduate, which is why this file supports rather than settles the K-12 question.

The largest tally of head-to-head virtual/remote versus hands-on laboratory comparisons: 50 of 56 studies (89%) found learning outcome achievement EQUAL OR HIGHER in the non-traditional lab. On knowledge specifically, 46 of 53 (87%). Strikingly, even on PRACTICAL SKILL — the outcome the physical apparatus is supposed to own — 7 of 9 studies found virtual/remote equal or better. And on perception/attitude, 25 of 29. Read carefully, though: this is vote counting in a literature of small underpowered studies where 'no significant difference' is the cheap default, roughly a tenth of studies used course grades or GPA as the outcome, and the population is predominantly undergraduate. What it establishes is not that simulations are better but that the burden has shifted: after 56 comparisons nobody has demonstrated a robust learning advantage for the expensive option.

Not applicable at review level; individual studies are mostly within-course comparisons.

Extended by Brinson's own 2017 follow-up characterisation (J Sci Educ Technol) and consistent with de Jong, Linn & Zacharia 2013 (Science) and with the K-12 physical-vs-virtual randomised studies (Triona & Klahr 2003; Klahr et al. 2007; Zacharia et al. 2012).