The virtual and remote labs literature to 2015 can be characterized by its most influential publications, most researched topics, and evolving topic interest¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · reviewr?·q1
Currency · newest study 2016 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q1 i? Examining bibliographical data from ISI Web of Science, Scopus, and GRC2014 with science mapping and performance analysis identifies the most influential publications and most researched topics in virtual and remote labs, and shows how interest in those topics evolved to 2015. → Ruben Heradio 2016
Evidence¶
Ruben Heradio 2016¶
Ruben Heradio, Luis de la Torre, Daniel Galan, Francisco Javier Cabrerizo, Enrique Herrera-Viedma, Sebastian Dormido. (2016). Virtual and remote labs in education: A bibliometric analysis. Computers & Education, Volume 98, Pages 14-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.03.010
q1 · i? · review · r?
The abstract states the review's analytical contribution: a bibliometric analysis of the virtual and remote labs literature from its beginnings to 2015 that identifies influential publications and researched topics and tracks the evolution of interest in them. No specific topic names or publication counts appear in the supplied text.
"This paper analyzes the literature on virtual and remote labs from its beginnings to 2015, identifying the most influential publications, the most researched topics, and how the interest in those topics has evolved along the way."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- The body of literature on guidance for inquiry with virtual and remote labs has weaknesses exposed by the 2015 review — related
- Leveraging appropriate types of guidance during the relevant phases of inquiry benefits student inquiry in virtual and remote labs — related
- Students reported that the virtual-lab lesson made learning fun, helped them figure out concepts themselves, and supported thinking like real scientists — related
- Some students found the guided-inquiry worksheet activities insufficiently thought-provoking and the data exchange troublesome — related
- Collaborative VRLs are predominantly STEM-focused, virtual, non co-located, synchronous, and 2D — related
- Guidance tools in CoSIL increased ease of use but failed to personalize support to individual students, as reported by the reviewed literature — related
- Virtual and remote labs reduce the costs associated with conventional hands-on labs — related
- Virtual and remote labs provide additional benefits: distance learning support, accessibility for handicapped people, and safety for dangerous experimentation — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
bibliometric-characterization-virtual-remote-lab-literature |
title |
The virtual and remote labs literature to 2015 can be characterized by its most influential publications, most researched topics, and evolving topic interest |
description |
The virtual and remote labs literature to 2015 can be characterized by its most influential publications, most researched topics, and evolving topic interest |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
weak |
newest_evidence |
2016 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-29 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — ruben-heradio-2016 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.