Enhancing distance learning of science—Impacts of remote labs 2.0 on students' behavioural and cognitive engagement
Abstract
Background With the increasing popularity of distance education, how to engage students in online inquiry‐based laboratories remains challenging for science teachers. Current remote labs mostly adopt a centralized model with limited flexibility left for teachers' just‐in‐time instruction based on students' real‐time science practices. Objectives The goal of this research is to investigate the impact of a non‐centralized remote lab on students' cognitive and behavioural engagement. Methods A mixed‐methods design was adopted. Participants were the high school students enrolled in two virtual chemistry classes. Remote labs 2.0, branded as Telelab, supports a non‐centralized model of remote inquiry that can enact more interactive hands‐on labs anywhere, anytime. Teleinquiry Instructional Model was used to guide the curriculum design. Students' clickstreams logs and instruction timestamps were analysed and visualized. Multiple regression analysis was used to determine whether engagement levels influence their conceptual learning. Behavioural engagement patterns were corroborated with survey responses. Results and Conclusions We found approximate synchronizations between student–teacher–lab interactions in the heatmap. The guided inquiry enabled by Telelab facilitates real‐time communications between instructors and students. Students' conceptual learning is found to be impacted by varying engagement levels. Students' behavioural engagement patterns can be visualized and fed to ins…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In active learning, learning outcomes are primarily a function of student engagement rather than the level of prior knowledge.
“In active learning, learning outcomes are primarily a function of student engagement rather than the level of prior knowledge (De Santo et al. 2022;Sung et al. 2021).”
From Incorporating Computational Thinking Into Virtual Laboratories to Enhance Learning Motivation, Engagement, and Higher‐Order Thinking Skills (2025) · cites this paper as Sung et al. 2021
Cites
Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground
Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2004) · Journal of the Learning Sciences · doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1301_1 · Cited by 2,642 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Wu, T., Sarwono, E., & Huang, Y. (2025) · Journal of Computer Assisted Learning · doi:10.1111/jcal.70017 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
- Authors
- Sung, S. H., Li, C., Huang, X., & Xie, C.
- Affiliations
- Institute for Future Intelligence (US)
- University of Florida (US)
- Corresponding author
- Sung, Shannon H.
- Venue
- Journal of Computer Assisted Learning
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2021-08-27
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1606-1621
- ISSN
- 0266-4909 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2729
- OpenAlex
- W3197754406
- Cited by
- 35
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1
- FWCI
- 2.58
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Computer Assisted Learning (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (#2054079)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Media Technology › Experimental Learning in Engineering
- Social Sciences › Education › Online and Blended Learning
- Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
- Keywords
- remote laboratory, distance education, science education, student engagement, behavioral engagement, cognitive engagement, inquiry-based learning, teacher-student relationship, conceptual learning, telepresence, clickstream analysis, high school students
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review