The emergence of the Virtual educational environment, specifically Virtual Laboratories (V-Labs), has transformed the traditional teaching approaches to modern scientific experimentation for students and researchers, opening new and innovative ways to explore and understand complex phenomena. A virtual lab is a digital simulation environment in which experiments or simulation activities are conducted virtually without the need for a physical lab. Recently, virtual labs have been widely used across the primary, secondary, and higher education sectors due to their ability to engage students and educators through simulation in teaching and learning settings.

While V-Labs have been found effective in enhancing student learning outcomes when compared to traditional labs, they provide special benefits for enabling experimental analysis across several disciplines (Al-Nakhle, 2022). The benefits attributed to cost efficiency by eliminating physical space and equipment (Apiola et al., 2022; Elmoazen et al., 2023), providing a safe environment for experiential learning (Potkonjak et al., 2016), time efficiency by elimination setup, and global accessibility (He et al., 2022). Despite its potential, access to the V-Labs relies on reachability, and connectivity of the internet, which may create a gap in disparities of access and hinder inclusivity. Research by Van den Beemt et al. (2023) suggests that V-Labs promote active student engagement; improve learning outcomes and academic performance (Wahyuman et al., 2021), facilitate self-directed learning (Reginald, 2023), and motivate learners through gamified interactions.

To fully utilize V-Labs for teaching and learning, a multifaceted strategy is needed. For instance, the need to ensure proper functionality, regular maintenance, and use of the latest technology are essential. While V-Labs should be designed to captivate learners, make experimentation fun, and integrate into curricula emphasizing the practical application of course content; studies focus, for example (Sapriati et al., 2023), on evaluating the effectiveness and outcome of using V-Labs in various disciplines. Besides, incorporating accessible features in V-Labs for diverse learners, including those with visual or other impairments, is essential. Due to this, the effectiveness of V-Labs accessibility depends on how they are implemented and integrated into the learning environment.

Several reviews have recently explored many facets of V-Labs. For example, some studies address barriers, challenges, and possible advances in their area (e.g., Alnagrat et al., 2021; Deriba et al., 2023). Other reviews have highlighted trends and advancements in the academic landscape of V-Labs (Raman et al., 2022). In addition, specific studies examined the implementation and benefits of V-Labs within various disciplines and courses (Fan et al., 2021; Reeves and Crippen, 2021). The remaining examined the application of learning analytics and assessment methods within V-Labs’ environment (Elmoazen et al., 2023). However, it is important to note that there are limited studies that focus on examine the accessibility of V-Labs and exploring the current state V-labs environment. To address these gaps, our study poses two key research questions:

(RQ.1) What essential accessibility features are integrated into V-Labs to cater to diverse user needs?

(RQ.2) How do existing studies assess the effectiveness of accessibility of V-Labs and which aspects do they assess?

This paper provides insights from a systematic review, making at least the following contributions:

The remaining section of our study is organized as follows: Section two reviews the existing state-of-the-art focusing on accessibility, inclusiveness, and the existing challenges of the V-Lab. Section three outlines the methods employed to investigate the study. Section four presents the synthesized results from the studies, and discussions are presented in section five. Finally, we provide the concluding remarks in section six.

The authors followed a systematic literature review guideline (Page et al., 2021) and the eight basic steps of systematic reviews described by Okoli and Schabram (2015). These guidelines were used to identify the objective of the review, develop a draft protocol, establish inclusion and exclusion criteria, conduct a comprehensive search for relevant data, and assess the quality of selected articles before writing the review.

First, the authors identified the study’s objective, which was to examine the accessibility features and inclusiveness of V-Labs in addressing research questions. After defining the scope of the review, the authors collaborated regularly to develop a protocol, aimed at minimizing bias during publication selection and data processing. By meticulously planning the review strategy, as outlined by Fink (2019), the protocol ensured reproducibility and consistency. It encompassed various aspects, including information sources, literature search strategy, inclusion criteria, quality assessment of studies, data extraction, and data synthesis methods, following the guidelines established by Kitchenham et al. (2007).

The criteria for including and excluding studies [that] used were derived from the research questions (Kitchenham, 2004). To be considered for inclusion, the reviewed articles needed to address the accessibility features, and accommodate diverse learning environments in V-Labs. Table 2 shows the inclusion and exclusion criteria that were applied in the selection process.

This section aims to discuss of our main findings guided by the research questions.

(RQ1): What essential accessibility features are integrated into V-Labs to cater to diverse user needs?

To address the research question, we examined the reported studies’ accessibility features of the labs, framed them, and provided them with different perspectives.

Perspective 1: Accessibility of the lab features to users with cognitive, visual, and auditory limited abilities. While there have been studies that developed V-lab environments for students, limited attention has been given to how students with learning disabilities navigate these environments without restrictions on their abilities (Gavronskaya et al., 2021). Gavronskaya emphasized the importance of providing appropriate lab interfaces that focus on students’ abilities, enabling them to gain a sense of mastery through experimentation. However, the review revealed a scarcity of studies addressing the integration of assistive technologies. Only two studies [S3, S15] demonstrated certain features, such as keyboard equivalents, visual focus indicators, simple interfaces with smart speakers, and voice recognition tools, which contribute to the inclusion of users with diverse abilities. For example, students with motor or visual limitations can navigate and interact with V-Labs without needing a mouse, while the integration of smart speakers may facilitate experiments for users with visual impairments.

Despite the inclusion of these features, the studies did not highlight the benefits of such assistive tools on learning outcomes, task completion, or deeper understanding. In this regard, Lin et al. (2017) emphasized the importance of designing teaching activities and the flexible application of technology tools in integrated education. Further exploration is needed to determine practical teaching strategies for enhancing effectiveness using V-labs.

On the other hand, Bong and Chen (2024) raised concerns about the challenges faced by students with disabilities due to the inaccessibility of digital tools and learning materials. Our study suggests that existing V-labs are inaccessible to students with various abilities, including those with cognitive, visual, and auditory limitations. Adhering to digital technology accessibility guidelines (Chisholm et al., 2001) is essential, necessitating a focus on labs designed for different abilities. For example, students with cognitive limitations may benefit from V-labs with simplified interfaces, clear instructions, step-by-step guidance, and interactive feedback. Considering these features and incorporating multiple learning modes and customization options ensures accessibility and accommodates the needs of cognitively limited students. Additionally, addressing the challenges faced by students with limited vision requires V-labs with screen reader compatibility, text-to-speech functionality, keyboard navigation, and compatibility with assistive listening devices (Butler et al., 2017; Bell and Foiret, 2020). Further research on virtual learning tools that address the diverse needs of students with different abilities and explore their impact on the educational process is warranted.

Perspective 2: Accessibility of the lab features for users with diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds. Considering diversity and equity in education, and exploring multiple approaches to teaching learners while fostering motivation in both practical and laboratory work, are essential requirements for effectively preparing students and facilitating their mastery of practical skills. Hunter et al. (2010) stated that thoughtful design of laboratory activities can positively impact students with diverse educational, social, and cultural backgrounds. However, less attention has been given to how laboratory experiments can promote diversity and inclusion (Nonnemacher and Sokhey, 2022). To promote the equity and inclusion of V-lab to students from different backgrounds, limited studies highlight accessibility features that are beneficial to users from different backgrounds. For example, in the reviewed study, only three studies [S12, S17, S24] indicate the integration of multilingual support in V-Labs. While this feature addresses the language barrier during experiments, promoting linguistic diversity in instructional approaches by offering multilingual support needs further attention. To solve this issue, Hackl and Ermolina (2019) suggest establishing an inclusive cultural feature within laboratories.

Studies explored integrating online tutoring as another feature of V-Lab that engages students in learning through active participation rather than passive observation. While integrating online tutoring into V-Labs, the diverse student is assisted by several means, e.g., either error messages warning students about wrong actions or hints related to the next action of the practice (Paladines et al., 2023). In the context of tutoring, only 16.7% of studies were included, demonstrating the integration of the feature into developed lab environments. The included studies did not explore how tutoring contributes to real-time support for a student who experiences challenges or difficulties during lab sessions.

In addition, the integration of collaborative tools as a feature into V-lab is another feature that supports diverse cultural students. The included studies [S13, S30] highlighted a collaborative tool that promotes teamwork. According to De La Torre et al. (2013), an extension of collaborative tools to V-labs fosters students’ practical skills through working in groups of two or more, mutually searching for understanding and exchanging ideas on difficult concepts. Regarding collaborative tools, several open areas need to be further investigated from this perspective, e.g., Which modalities of online tutoring (e.g., chat, video, audio) are most effective in the context of V-Labs and what contribution does online tutoring make to peer-to-peer learning in the V-Lab environment? How can cultural nuances and language-specific pedagogical approaches be taken into account when implementing multilingual support in V-Labs? These need to be addressed to encourage strong linguistic backgrounds and the inclusion of different cultures to use the V-Labs in academia.

Perspective 3: Accessibility of the lab features in terms of instructional design and content availability. Augmenting instructional design with V-Labs has several effects on student engagement in critiquing experiments, enhancing students’ critical judgment of inquiry processes and their scientific literacy (Liu et al., 2022). This shows various instructional design accessibility features improve educational outcomes using lab experiments. Interestingly, many function-related aspects are addressed in the reviewed studies. For example, educational games (16.7%), immediate and interactive feedback (16.7%), 2D or 3D simulations (22.2%), zooming and viewing angle control (11.1%), and Video or audio content descriptions (19.44%) in V-Labs. Our study extends the idea of instructional design features mentioned in Chan et al. (2021), by identifying further the elements of design features. This customized feature enables the achievement of educational goals by entertaining the educator by integrating the gameplay into the virtual learning environment. The inclusion of 2D or 3D simulations or animations promotes student engagement and adds to the educational experience. On the other hand, improved zooming and viewing angle control are used for different lab forms such as labs designed for students with different (dis) abilities. Adamo-Villani et al. (2006) demonstrated that the ability to zoom in or out feature allows students with limited vision to connect better with small devices.

The availability of V-lab content at any time, place, and on any device is crucial. Several reviewed studies have discussed this issue. For example, 6 out of 36 studies stated that their developed V-Labs are fully accessible to students in both offline and online forms, while one [S7] study required booking lab sessions to access V-Lab services, including exams, projects, and other online experiments. We believe that offering 24/7 services, both online and offline, to accommodate students with varying schedules, time constraints, or residing in different time zones, can significantly contribute to providing equitable access to educational resources for students worldwide. Boukil and Ibriz (2015) support this notion, asserting that cloud-based lab environments offer restricted access to either time or location. In such circumstances, instructors and learners can access lab documentation and resources at their convenience, facilitating individual or collaborative engagement from any location. However, it prompts us to rethink the vulnerabilities, privacy, and security of labs. These labs may present risks of degrading essential and optional educational characteristics and technical difficulties. Another aspect to explore is how the offline accessibility of virtual labs caters to the needs of students who may opt for offline study or face limitations in accessing a stable internet connection. Therefore, further investigation is required.

Perspective 4: Accessibility of the lab feature in terms of interaction design supporting features. Sahin and Gul (2014) raised interesting points regarding the design practices of digital technology, particularly how designers grapple with the complexity inherent in design activities. These insights emphasize the importance of integrating design-supporting features into digital educational tools, including V-Labs. Our study aimed to evaluate the alignment of interaction design support, revealing a thorough examination of numerous accessibility features. Building on this, Wray et al. (2019) emphasized the necessity for users to provide a model of their motivations, goals, and contexts to inform the development of user-centric interventions. However, the incorporation of such considerations was largely limited in the studies reviewed, with only a few addressing integration design accessibility.

Among the 36 studies analyzed, 13 identified adjustable parameters and extensive input options. This focus on customizable parameters is commendable, as it contributes to fostering an inclusive learning environment and encourages creative experimentation. Höök and Löwgren (2021) corroborated the benefits of utilizing digital tools with adjustable parameters and extensive input options to enhance learning experiences.

Furthermore, three studies delved into the utility of trial-and-error features, highlighting their role in facilitating experimentation within structured learning objectives. Horsman (2018) noted that students employing a trial-and-error approach exhibited statistically lower levels of test anxiety compared to their peers. However, the reviewed studies failed to elucidate how trial-and-error features could help destigmatize errors and achieve desired outcomes through error recognition and elimination. Another significant aspect, intelligent suggestions, as well as error display and correction, received limited attention in certain studies [S16]. Although discussed in a different context, Ai (2017) identified corrective feedback as effective in aiding learners to self-identify and rectify issues, albeit with the occasional necessity of intervention from an onsite tutor when the system falls short. Crucial questions pertaining to autosuggestion and error correction in lab experiments, such as the scope of errors autocorrection can address and how V-Labs can provide meaningful feedback on correcting and refining experimental techniques, remain unexplored by the studies included in our analysis.

A study, Ballantyne et al. (2018) examined the design accessibility of universal guidelines within selected mobile applications, thus contributing to a broader comprehension of accessibility evaluation within design contexts. Although their evaluation centered on mobile applications, our study expanded this assessment to the domain of V-Labs. Consequently, there remains untapped potential for further investigation into V-Labs, particularly in the development of virtual learning tools. The integration of features aimed at enhancing accessibility could not only improve the overall user experience but also advance the ongoing evolution of inclusive educational technologies.

RQ.2: How do existing studies assess the effectiveness of accessibility of V-Labs and which aspects do they assess?

The effectiveness of V-Labs has been examined in several ways. For example, Faias et al. (2007) stated it in two ways: either heuristic evaluation conducted by experts based on the usability guidelines or practical tests with users. While there are accessibility guidelines (e.g., WAG) to evaluate the effectiveness of digital tools such as websites, to our knowledge, there are no specified standard guidelines to evaluate the effectiveness of V-Lab. We found that the focus of the evaluation varied based on the study’s aim. For example, Manyilizu (2023) evaluated the effectiveness of the lab on the impact on student learning outcomes.

In this review, while we found the assessment of the accessibility of the V-Labs in three focuses, only less than a third (11 out of 36 studies) of the reviewed studies have evaluated and stated assessment aspects of the V-Labs. Our result aligned with the findings of Lai et al. (2022) that the evaluation of the effectiveness of V-Labs has a gap and requires further investigation. The reviewed study primarily found three viewpoints of evaluation aspects including usability and interaction of the lab with users, user experience and satisfaction of the lab, and level of engagement with the system.

Several topics by different scholars were raised related to evaluating the assessment of usability and interaction of the system. While reviewed studies such as [S1], [S27], and [S28] evaluate the focus on technical usability checklists by users, other studies like [S17] pedagogical usability such as the contribution of the lab to the improvement of their examination in their result or grade. Interestingly, our result also aligned with Kumar et al. (2018) findings regarding the usability analysis of V-Labs, where they identified 15 technical usability checklist items and 21 pedagogical usability checklist items to evaluate the usability of Labs. However, there are still unsolved problems. For example, identifying types of interactions (e.g., simulations, virtual experiments, collaborative features) are most effective for promoting active learning in V-Labs.

Our review report also showed an evaluation of the lab through rating in terms of user experience and satisfaction. Estriegana et al. (2019) investigated students’ perceived satisfaction as a critical issue in better understanding learners’ behavioral intention to use online learning Environments (e.g., V-Lab). In our study, the reports [S13], and [S14] discussed the satisfaction of students with the integration of gamification in the V-Labs, satisfaction with the understanding of course topics, and the practical skills acquired. Further studies are required to examine key indicators of user satisfaction when using V-Labs. The report also showed that they looked at the level of engagement but did not specify the level of interactivity that contributes to student engagement and understanding of complex concepts.

On the other hand, we found that only 42% of studies evaluated V-Labs. In our review, the studies used different assessment methodologies, even for the same accessibility aspects, which may introduce bias in determining the true effectiveness of the developed labs. Although the objective of studies varies, either they need to develop and validate evaluation instruments or adopt developed assessment instruments such as Kumar et al. (2018) technical, and pedagogical instruments.

Our study acknowledges several limitations in terms of search accessibility and study inclusion. Primarily, we conduct searches and select studies exclusively from three databases, focusing on conference proceedings and journal articles. Our search criteria were limited to two terms, “Virtual Lab” and “Accessib*,” potentially overlooking relevant studies on V-Labs during our search process. We acknowledge that different fields use various terms, such as remote lab, online lab, remote experiment, online experiment; simulation in medical science. Further research could be explored by incorporating these key terms for future studies.

In the context of the study’s focus, we aimed to assess the accessibility of V-Labs. We found that achieving equitable and accessible V-Labs is still a distant goal, prompting us to consider accessibility from four different perspectives. This study also calls for investigations into the accessibility of other emerging virtual education technologies including Learning Management Systems, e-learning platforms, VR, and AR within an educational context for various learning ability students.

Several unanswered questions emerge, necessitating further research. For example, how can the increased accessibility of VR and AR technologies benefit across different education levels and various learner demographics (diverse learners)? How do adaptive learning technologies, such as AI applications, address accessibility issues and enhance the effectiveness of V-Labs or other learning environments in delivering person-centric learning experiences? Additionally, how do students understand accessibility concepts in classrooms during the development of learning environments or systems that are considered for all users? These guided questions serve as a foundation for future work stemming from our studies.

Addressing accessibility in V-Labs is pivotal to making students fully participate and promoting diversity and innovation in the field. To harness the potential of V-Labs in the education domain requires a multi-faceted approach that ensures proper functionality and accessibility while addressing existing gaps in accommodating diverse users’ needs. In this work, we reviewed the accessibility of V-Lab technologies by examining how studies address accessibility within the V-Lab environment and specific aspects under assessment. While we emphasize the significance of accessibility features for enriching V-Labs, our study highlighted a predominant focus on higher education institutions in existing V-Labs. However, a noticeable gap has been identified in studies exploring various (dis)abilities in K-12 education, indicating a pressing need for more inclusive and accessible lab development.

The study revealed that understanding the aspects of accessibility such as usability, interaction, and satisfaction of students with the V-Lab is crucial for promoting inclusive learning environments and ensuring equal opportunities for all learners, regardless of their abilities. The study uncovered a diverse array of accessibility categories encompassing instructional design, interaction support, virtual service accessibility, cognitive, visual, and auditory accessibility support, and subject-specific accessibility support. It showcases the multifaceted nature of accommodating diverse learners in V-Lab environments.

Augmenting instructional design with V-Labs positively impacts student engagement and academic literacy. Furthermore, the availability of V-lab content at any time, place, and on any device is fundamental for equitable access to educational resources. However, we found that existing V-labs limited attention has been given to how students with learning disabilities navigate these environments without restrictions on their abilities.

Our review highlights the necessity to evaluate the effectiveness of V-Labs, particularly concerning usability, user experience, satisfaction, and engagement. Further research is imperative to address the current gaps and inconsistencies in evaluating V-Labs, ultimately enhancing their impact on student learning outcomes, and ensuring widespread accessibility.

In conclusion, our review has shed light on issues related to the assessment of accessibility in V-Labs and other emerging virtual educational technologies, emphasizing the need to consider accessibility elements during the design and development of various systems. It has provided valuable insight into areas that still harbor significant gaps, paving the way for future studies to address these shortcomings and contribute to the advancement of accessible and inclusive virtual learning environments.

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

FD: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – original draft. MS: Conceptualization, Supervision, Validation, Writing – review & editing. MT: Funding acquisition, Supervision, Validation, Writing – review & editing.