Collaborative VRLs are predominantly STEM-focused, virtual, non co-located, synchronous, and 2D¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · review r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · recheck by 2030: baselines and conditions change

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Publications mostly concern virtual labs (n = 28, 45%), with a fairly even remote/virtual distribution, and STEM disciplines predominate. → Kurtz 2025 q2 i? Synchronous connections predominate (n = 56, 90%), labs are usually 2D (n = 27, 44%), and none are fully co-located, confirming a need for remote-collaboration tools. → Kurtz 2025 (2)

Evidence¶

Kurtz 2025¶

Kurtz, M., Benabbou, A., Pons, C., & Broisin, J. (2025). Collaboration in virtual and remote laboratories for education: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-025-09454-7

q2 · i? · review · r2

System-category results of the review across 62 publications, with appendix showing predominant STEM focus (electronics, computer science, chemistry, mechanical engineering). "publications mostly concern virtual labs (n = 28, 45%)".

"According to Fig. 3a, publications mostly concern virtual labs (n = 28, 45%), although the distribution between remote and virtual laboratories is fairly even."

Kurtz 2025 (2)¶

Kurtz, M., Benabbou, A., Pons, C., & Broisin, J. (2025). Collaboration in virtual and remote laboratories for education: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-025-09454-7

q2 · i? · review · r2

System-category coding of temporality across the 62 publications: "synchronous connections are predom- inant" at n = 56 (90%). Labs are usually 2D (n = 27, 44%) and none of the reviewed laboratories were fully co-located.

"With regard to temporality, Figure 3cshows that synchronous connections are predom- inant, with users having the possibility to connect and engage in real-time actions in the majority of cases (n = 56, 90%)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Only a minority of VRL studies assess collaboration quality or learning, but most studies that measure learning report positive impact
• Group awareness tools showing peer presence, peer activities, or multiple artifacts are integrated in many educational VRLs, but performance and teacher-presence indicators are never standalone — related
• Synchronous communication is the most common collaboration support integrated in educational VRLs, and few labs offer none — related
• Regulation tools for collaboration are very rare in educational VRLs, identified in only 8 laboratories, mostly supporting regulation by teachers — related
• Guidance tools supporting collaboration are relatively uncommon in educational VRLs, integrated in only 13 of 62 reviewed systems — related
• In one reviewed study, students who first collaborate and then complete an activity individually in the VRL are more successful than students who complete an individual task first and then collaborate — related