Article Sidebar

Submitted
Dec 30, 2022
Accepted
Jan 8, 2024
Published
Jan 31, 2024
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 388 Download : 245

Main Article Content

Abstract

A great number of educational institutions worldwide have had their activities partially or fully interrupted following the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. Consequently, universities have had to take the necessary steps in order to adapt their teaching, including laboratory workshops, to a fully online or mixed mode of delivery while maintaining their academic standards and providing a high-quality student experience. This transition has required, among other efforts, adequate investments in tools, accessibility, content development, and competences as well as appropriate training for both the teaching and administrative staff. In such a complex scenario, Virtual Reality Laboratories (VRLabs), which in the past already proved themselves to be efficient tools supporting the traditional practical activities, could well represent a valid alternative in the hybrid didactic mode of the contemporary educational landscape, rethinking the educational proposal in light of the indications coming from the scientific literature in the pedagogical field. In this context, the present work carries out a critical review of the existent virtual labs developed in the Engineering departments in the last ten years (2010-2020) and includes a pre-pandemic experience of a VRLab tool - StreamFlowVR - within the Hydraulics course of Basilicata University, Italy. This analysis is aimed at highlighting how ready VRLabs are to be exploited not only in emergency but also in ordinary situations, together with valorising an interdisciplinary dialogue between the pedagogical and technological viewpoints, in order to progressively foster a high-quality and evidence-based educational experience.

Keywords

StreamFlowVR Tool Engineering Education Blended Approach COVID-19 Pandemic Virtual Reality Laboratories

Article Details

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

The author declares that the submitted to Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society (Je-LKS) is original and that is has neither been published previously nor is currently being considered for publication elsewhere.
The author agrees that SIe-L (Italian Society of e-Learning) has the right to publish the material sent for inclusion in the journal Je-LKS.
The author agree that articles may be published in digital format (on the Internet or on any digital support and media) and in printed format, including future re-editions, in any language and in any license including proprietary licenses, creative commons license or open access license. SIe-L may also use parts of the work to advertise and promote the publication.
The author declares s/he has all the necessary rights to authorize the editor and SIe-L to publish the work.
The author assures that the publication of the work in no way infringes the rights of third parties, nor violates any penal norms and absolves SIe-L from all damages and costs which may result from publication.

The author declares further s/he has received written permission without limits of time, territory, or language from the rights holders for the free use of all images and parts of works still covered by copyright, without any cost or expenses to SIe-L.

For all the information please check the Ethical Code of Je-LKS, available at http://www.je-lks.org/index.php/ethical-code

Author Biographies

Marina Brancaccio, Università degli Studi Internazionali di Roma - UNINT

Marina Brancaccio is Adjunct Professor of English and a Ph.D. student in Linguistics at UNINT, while cooperating with various other universities and educational institutions. Her interests cover the field of Foreign/Second Language Acquisition, Interpreting and Translation Studies, Sociolinguistics, and Critical Discourse Analysis, as well as the use of technology in education.

Domenica Mirauda, Basilicata University - UNIBAS

Domenica Mirauda is Associate Professor in Hydraulics at the School of Engineering of Basilicata University. In 2021 she qualified as Full Professor. She has published about 90 papers on national and international journals and international proceedings on different topics of Fluid Mechanics and Applied Hydraulics.

Salvatore Patera, Università degli Studi Internazionali di Roma - UNINT

Salvatore Patera is Associate Professor in Education at UNINT. He has published about 50 papers on national and international journals and international proceedings on different topics. He was visiting researcher and professor in many universities: Universidad de Zaragoza, Universidad Politécnica Salesiana (Ecuador), Pontificia Universidad Catolica do Rio Grande do Sul.

Ugo Erra, Basilicata University - UNIBAS

Ugo Erra is an Associate Professor at the University of Basilicata in Potenza, Italy, where he is the founder and the head of the Computer Graphics Lab. His interests are related to Computer Graphics, Extended Reality, and Artificial Intelligence.

How to Cite
Brancaccio, M., Mirauda, D., Patera, S., & Erra, U. (2024). Virtual Reality Laboratories in Engineering Blended Learning Environments: Challenges and Opportunities. Journal of E-Learning and Knowledge Society, 19(4), 34-49. https://doi.org/10.20368/1971-8829/1135825

References

  1. Abdulwahed, M., & Nagy, Z. K. (2013). Developing the TriLab, a triple access mode (hands-on, virtual, remote) laboratory, of a process control rig using LabVIEW and Joomla. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 21(4), 614-626. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.20506
  2. Andersen, K. G., Rambaut, A., Lipkin, W. I., Holmes, E. C., & Garry, R. F. (2020). The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2. Nature Medicine, 26(4), 450–452. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-020-0820-9
  3. Angel-Urdinola, D. F., Castillo-Castro, C., & Hoyos. A. (2021). Meta-Analysis Assessing the Effects of Virtual Reality Training on Student Learning and Skills Development. Policy Research Working Paper, 9587. World Bank, Washington, DC
  4. August, S. E., Hammers, M. L., Murphy, D. B., Neyer, A., Gueye, P., & Thames, R. Q. (2016). Virtual Engineering Sciences Learning Lab: Giving STEM Education a Second Life. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 9(1), 18-30. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2015.2419253
  5. Aziz, E. S. S., Chang, Y., Esche, S. K., & Chassapis, C. (2014). A multi-user virtual laboratory environment for gear train design. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 22(4), 788-802. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.21573
  6. Aziz, E. S. S., Esche, S. K., & Chassapis, C. (2009). Content-rich interactive online laboratory systems. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 17(1), 61 – 79. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.20210
  7. Babich, A., & Mavrommatis, K. T. (2009). Teaching of complex technological processes using simulations. International Journal of Engineering Education, 25(2).
  8. Bailenson, J. N., Yee, N., Blascovich, J., Beall, A. C., Lundblad, N., & Jin, M. (2008). The use of immersive virtual reality in the learning sciences: Digital transformations of teachers, students, and social context. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(1), 102–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508400701793141
  9. Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Lou, Y., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Wozney, L., Wallet, P. A., Fiset, M., & Huang, B. (2004). How does distance education compare with classroom instruction? A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Review of Educational Research, 74(3). https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543074003379
  10. 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. https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v25.1968
  11. Caena, F., & Redecker, C. (2019). Aligning teacher competence frameworks to 21st century challenges: The case for the European Digital Competence Framework for Educators (Digcompedu). European Journal of Education, 54(3), 356-369. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12345
  12. Camargo, C. P., Tempski, P. Z., Busnardo, F. F., Martins, M. de A., & Gemperli, R. (2020). Online learning and COVID-19: a meta-synthesis analysis. Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 75. https://doi.org/10.6061/clinics/2020/e2286
  13. Capece, N., Erra, U., & Mirauda, D. (2019). StreamFlowVR: A Tool for Learning Methodologies and Measurement Instruments for River Flow Through Virtual Reality. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 11614 LNCS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25999-0_37
  14. Castaño-Muñoz, J., Duart, J. M., & Sancho-Vinuesa, T. (2014). The Internet in face-to-face higher education: Can interactive learning improve academic achievement? British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(1), 149-159. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12007
  15. Castro, A., Patera, S., & Fernández, D. (2020). ¿Cómo aprenden las generaciones Z y Alpha desde la perspectiva docente? Implicaciones para desarrollar la competencia aprender a aprender. Aula Abierta, 49(3), 279-292. https://doi.org/10.17811/rifie.49.3.2020.279-292
  16. Cavanaugh, C., Gillan, K. J., Kromrey, J., Hess, M., & Blomeyer, R. (2004). The Effects of Distance Education on K–12 Student Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis. Learning Point Associates, October.
  17. Chemers, M. M., Zurbriggen, E. L., Syed, M., Goza, B. K., & Bearman, S. (2011). The role of efficacy and identity in science career commitment among underrepresented minority students. Journal of Social Issues, 67(3), 469–491. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2011.01710.x
  18. Cheong, K. H., & Koh, J. M. (2018). Integrated virtual laboratory in engineering mathematics education: Fourier theory. IEEE Access, 6, 58231-58243. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2873815
  19. Cheung, A. & Slavin, R. E. (2011). The effectiveness of educational technology applications for enhancing reading achievement in K-12 classrooms: A meta-analysis. Best Evidence Encyclopedia.
  20. Chini, J. J., Madsen, A., Gire, E., Rebello, N. S., & Puntambekar, S. (2012). Exploration of factors that affect the comparative effectiveness of physical and virtual manipulatives in an undergraduate laboratory. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.8.010113
  21. Cobb, S., Heaney, R., Corcoran, O., & Henderson-Begg, S. (2009). The Learning Gains and Student Perceptions of a Second Life Virtual Lab. Bioscience Education, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.3108/beej.13.5
  22. Cummings, J. J., & Bailenson, J. N. (2016). How Immersive Is Enough? A Meta-Analysis of the Effect of Immersive Technology on User Presence. Media Psychology, 19(2), 1-38- https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2015.1015740
  23. Dalgarno, B., & Lee, M. J. W. (2010). What are the learning affordances of 3-D virtual environments? British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(1), 10-32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.01038.x
  24. Darrah, M., Humbert, R., Finstein, J., Simon, M., & Hopkins, J. (2014). Are Virtual Labs as Effective as Hands-on Labs for Undergraduate Physics? A Comparative Study at Two Major Universities. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23(6), 803-814. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-014-9513-9
  25. de Jong, T., Gillet, D., Rodríguez-Triana, M. J., Hovardas, T., Dikke, D., Doran, R., Dziabenko, O., Koslowsky, J., Korventausta, M., Law, E., Pedaste, M., Tasiopoulou, E., Vidal, G., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2021). Understanding teacher design practices for digital inquiry–based science learning: the case of Go-Lab. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69(2), 417–444. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09904-z
  26. de Jong, T., Sotiriou, S., & Gillet, D. (2014). Innovations in STEM education: the Go-Lab federation of online labs. Smart Learning Environments, 1(3). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-014-0003-6
  27. Dyrberg, N. R., Treusch, A. H., & Wiegand, C. (2017). Virtual laboratories in science education: students’ motivation and experiences in two tertiary biology courses. Journal of Biological Education, 51(4), 358-374. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2016.1257498
  28. Ekmekci, A., & Gulacar, O. (2015). A case study for comparing the effectiveness of a computer simulation and a hands-on activity on learning electric circuits. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 11(4), 765-775. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2015.1438a
  29. Fernández-Cantí, R. M., Lázaro-Villa, J. A., Zarza-Sánchez, S., & Villar-Zafra, A. (2012). An open source multiplatform virtual laboratory for engineering education. International Journal of Online Engineering, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.3991/ijoe.v8iS3.2267
  30. Fogarty, L., Strimling, P., & Laland, K. N. (2011). The evolution of teaching. Evolution, 65(10), 2760–2770. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1558-5646.2011.01370.x
  31. Fullan, M. & Langworthy, M. (2014) A Rich Seam: How New Pedagogies Find Deep Learning, London: Pearson.
  32. Goudsouzian, L. K., Riola, P., Ruggles, K., Gupta, P., & Mondoux, M. A. (2018). Integrating cell and molecular biology concepts: Comparing learning gains and self-efficacy in corresponding live and virtual undergraduate laboratory experiences. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 46(4), 361-372. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.21133
  33. Griffin, P., & Esther Care, E. (2015). Assessment and Teaching of 21st Century Skills (Griffin Patrick & Care Esther, Eds.; 1st ed.). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9395-7
  34. Grodotzki, J., Ortelt, T. R., & Tekkaya, A. E. (2018). Remote and Virtual Labs for Engineering Education 4.0. Procedia Manufacturing, 26, 1349-1360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2018.07.126
  35. Hamed F. Manesh, & Schaefer, D. (2010). Virtual Learning Environments for Manufacturing Education and Training. Computers in Education Journal, 1(1), 77–89.
  36. Hernández-de-Menéndez, M., Vallejo Guevara, A., & Morales-Menendez, R. (2019). Virtual reality laboratories: a review of experiences. International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing, 13(3), 947–966. doi.org/10.1007/s12008-019-00558-7
  37. Howard, M. C., & Gutworth, M. B. (2020). A meta-analysis of virtual reality training programs for social skill development. Computers and Education, 144, 103707. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103707
  38. Howard, M. C., & van Zandt, E. C. (2021). A meta-analysis of the virtual reality problem: Unequal effects of virtual reality sickness across individual differences. Virtual Reality. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-021-00524-3
  39. Hu, W., Lei, Z., Zhou, H., Liu, G. P., Deng, Q., Zhou, D., & Liu, Z. W. (2017). Plug-in free web-based 3-D interactive laboratory for control engineering education. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, 64(5), 3808-3818. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIE.2016.2645141
  40. Jara, C. A., Candelas, F. A., Puente, S. T., & Torres, F. (2011). Hands-on experiences of undergraduate students in Automatics and Robotics using a virtual and remote laboratory. Computers and Education, 57(4), 2451-2461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.07.003
  41. Johnson-Glenberg, M. C., Bartolomea, H., & Kalina, E. (2021). Platform is not destiny: Embodied learning effects comparing 2D desktop to 3D virtual reality STEM experiences. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 37(5), 1263-1284. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12567
  42. Kalúz, M., Čirka, L., & Fikar, M. (2012). Virtual and remote laboratories in process of control education. International Journal of Online Engineering, 8(1). doi.org/10.3991/ijoe.v8i1.1830
  43. Kapilan, N., Vidhya, P., & Gao, X. Z. (2021). Virtual Laboratory: A Boon to the Mechanical Engineering Education During Covid-19 Pandemic. Higher Education for the Future, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2347631120970757
  44. Kaplan, A. D., Cruit, J., Endsley, M., Beers, S. M., Sawyer, B. D., & Hancock, P. A. (2021). The Effects of Virtual Reality, Augmented Reality, and Mixed Reality as Training Enhancement Methods: A Meta-Analysis. Human Factors, 63(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720820904229
  45. Kester, L., Kirschner, P. A., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Baumer, A. (2001). Just-in-time information presentation and the acquisition of complex cognitive skills. Computers in Human Behavior, 17(4), 373-391. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0747-5632(01)00011-5
  46. Koh, C., Tan, H. S., Tan, K. C., Fang, L., Fong, F. M., Kan, O., Lin Lye, S., & Lin Wee, A. (2010). Investigating the effect of 3D simulation-based learning on the motivation and performance of engineering students. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(3), 237-251. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2010.tb01059.x
  47. Koretsky, M. D., Amatore, D., Barnes, C., & Kimura, S. (2008). Enhancement of student learning in experimental design using a virtual laboratory. IEEE Transactions on Education, 51(1), 76 – 85. https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2007.906894
  48. Lau, K. W., & Lee, P. Y. (2015). The use of virtual reality for creating unusual environmental stimulation to motivate students to explore creative ideas. Interactive Learning Environments, 23(1), 3-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2012.745426
  49. Lewis, D. I. (2014). The pedagogical benefits and pitfalls of virtual tools for teaching and learning laboratory practices in the Biological Sciences. School of Biomedical Sciences, University of Leeds
  50. Liang, Y., & Liu, G. P. (2018). Design of Large Scale Virtual Equipment for Interactive HIL Control System Labs. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 11(3), 376-388. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2017.2731772
  51. Liao, Y.-K. C. (1999). Effects of Hypermedia on Students’ Achievement: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 8(3), 255–277.
  52. Lynch, T., & Ghergulescu, I. (2017). Review of virtual labs as the emerging technologies for teaching stem subjects. INTED2017 Proceedings International Technology, Education and Development Conference. https://doi.org/10.21125/inted.2017.1422
  53. Makransky, G., Terkildsen, T. S., & Mayer, R. E. (2019). Adding immersive virtual reality to a science lab simulation causes more presence but less learning. Learning and Instruction, 60, 225-236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.12.007
  54. Makransky, G., Thisgaard, M. W., & Gadegaard, H. (2016). Virtual simulations as preparation for lab exercises: Assessing learning of key laboratory skills in microbiology and improvement of essential non-cognitive skills. PLoS ONE, 11(6). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0155895
  55. Martín-Gutiérrez, J., Mora, C. E., Añorbe-Díaz, B., & González-Marrero, A. (2017). Virtual technologies trends in education. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(2), 469-486. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00626a
  56. Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., & Baki, M. (2013). The effectiveness of online and blended learning: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Teachers College Record, 115(3), 1–47.
  57. Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2010). Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning. A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies. Department of Education (ED), Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development; SRI International
  58. Mirauda, D., Capece, N., & Erra, U. (2019). StreamflowVL: A virtual fieldwork laboratory that supports traditional hydraulics engineering learning. Applied Sciences (Switzerland), 9(22), 4972. https://doi.org/10.3390/APP9224972
  59. Mirauda, D., Capece, N., & Erra, U. (2020). Sustainable water management: Virtual reality training for open-channel flow monitoring. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(3), 757. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12030757
  60. Nedeljkovic, M. S., Cantrak, D., Jankovic, N., Ilic, D., & Matijevic, M. (2019). Virtual Instrumentation Used in Engineering Education Set-Up of Hydraulic Pump and System. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, 47. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95678-7_75
  61. Nedeljkovic, M. S., Cantrak, D. S., Jankovic, N. Z., Ilic, D. B., & Matijevic, M. S. (2018). Virtual instruments and experiments in engineering education lab setup with hydraulic pump. IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference, EDUCON, 1139-1146. https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON.2018.8363358
  62. Noguez, J., & Sucar, L. E. (2006). Intelligent virtual laboratory and project-oriented learning for teaching mobile robotics. International Journal of Engineering Education, 22(4), 743-757
  63. Ogbuanya, T. C., & Onele, N. O. (2018). Investigating the Effectiveness of Desktop Virtual Reality for Teaching and Learning of Electrical/Electronics Technology in Universities. Computers in the Schools, 35(3), 226-248. https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2018.1492283
  64. Ouzzani, M., Hammady, H., Fedorowicz, Z. Elmagarmidl, A. (2016). Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews, 5, 210. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4
  65. Patera, S. (2016). Edoc@Work 3.0: Valutare la formazione mediata dalle tecnologie. Alcuni criteri di ricerca e di intervento a partire dai risultati delle principali meta-analisi, pp.86-96, in Pace R., Mangione G. R., Limone P. (a cura di). Dimensione didattica, tecnologica e organizzativa. La costruzione del processo di innovazione a scuola. ISBN: 978-88-917-3412-9, Milano: Franco Angeli
  66. Pauniaho, L., Hyvönen, M., Erkkilä, R., Vilenius, J., Koskinen, K. T., & Vilenius, M. (2005). Interactive 3D Virtual Hydraulics. In E-Training Practices for Professional Organizations. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-23572-8_33
  67. Pieritz, R. A., Mendes, R., da Silva, R. F. A. F., & Maliska, C. R. (2004). CFD studio: An educational software package for CFD analysis and design. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 12(1), 20 – 30. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.10055
  68. Potkonjak, V., Gardner, M., Callaghan, V., Mattila, P., Guetl, C., Petrović, V. M., & Jovanović, K. (2016). Virtual laboratories for education in science, technology, and engineering: A review. Computers and Education, 95, 309-327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.02.002
  69. Raes, A., Detienne, L., Windey, I., & Depaepe, F. (2020). A systematic literature review on synchronous hybrid learning: gaps identified. In Learning Environments Research, 23(3), 269–290. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-019-09303-z
  70. Reeves, S. M., & Crippen, K. J. (2021). Virtual Laboratories in Undergraduate Science and Engineering Courses: a Systematic Review, 2009–2019. In Journal of Science Education and Technology, 30(1), 16–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-020-09866-0
  71. Schneider, M., & Preckel, F. (2017). Variables associated with achievement in higher education: A systematic review of meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 143(6), 565-600. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000098
  72. Sivapragasam, C., Archana, B., Rithuchristy, G. C., Aswitha, A., Vanitha, S., & Saravanan, P. (2020). Developing Virtual Labs in Fluid Mechanics with UG Students’ Involvement. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, 80. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23162-0_66
  73. Tanyildizi, E., & Orhan, A. (2009). A virtual electric machine laboratory for synchronous machine application. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 17(2), 187-195. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.20133
  74. Torres, F., Candelas, F. A., Puente, S. T., Pomares, J., Gil, P., & Ortiz, F. G. (2006). Experiences with virtual environment and remote laboratory for teaching and learning robotics at the university of Alicante. International Journal of Engineering Education, 22(4), 766-776.
  75. Toth, E. E. (2016). Analyzing “real-world” anomalous data after experimentation with a virtual laboratory. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(1), 157–173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9408-3
  76. Vasiliadou, R. (2020). Virtual laboratories during coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 48(5), 482-483. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.21407
  77. Vergara, D., Extremera, J., Rubio, M. P., & Dávila, L. P. (2019). Meaningful learning through virtual reality learning environments: A case study in materials engineering. Applied Sciences (Switzerland), 9(21), 4625. https://doi.org/10.3390/app9214625
  78. Vergara, D., Extremera, J., Rubio, M. P., & Dávila, L. P. (2020a). The proliferation of virtual laboratories in educational fields. ADCAIJ: Advances in Distributed Computing and Artificial Intelligence Journal, 9(1), 85-97. https://doi.org/10.14201/adcaij2020918597
  79. Vergara, D., Extremera, J., Rubio, M. P., & Dávila, L. P. (2020b). The technological obsolescence of virtual reality learning environments. Applied Sciences (Switzerland), 10(3), 915. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10030915
  80. Vo, H. M., Zhu, C., & Diep, N. A. (2017). The effect of blended learning on student performance at course-level in higher education: A meta-analysis. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 53, 17-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2017.01.002
  81. Vrellis, I., Avouris, N., & Mikropoulos, T. A. (2016). Learning outcome, presence and satisfaction from a science activity in Second Life. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 32(1), 59-77. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.2164
  82. Wadhera, M. (2016). The information age is over; welcome to the Experience Age. Tech Crunch.
  83. Whisker, V., Yerrapathruni, S., Messner, J., & Baratta, A. (2020). Using Virtual Reality to Improve Construction Engineering Education. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--11970
  84. Wiesner, T. F., & Lan, W. (2004). Comparison of Student Learning in Physical and Simulated Unit Operations Experiments. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 195-204. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00806.x