Inclusive pre-laboratory learning in engineering laboratories: A systematic literature review on accessibility for students with disabilities
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61511/ajcsee.v4i1.2026.3286Keywords:
engineering laboratories, inclusive education, pre-laboratory learning, students with disabilitiesAbstract
Background: Laboratory-based engineering education continues to face persistent challenges in ensuring accessible and inclusive learning environments for students with disabilities, particularly during the pre-laboratory phase, which is often characterized by technical complexity and safety risks. Inadequate pre-laboratory preparation may lead to learning barriers, reduced participation, and increased procedural errors. This study aims to systematically examine inclusive pre-laboratory learning strategies in engineering laboratories and analyze their implications for accessibility, laboratory safety, and overall learning quality. Methods: This study employed a systematic literature review grounded in inclusive education theory and Universal Design for Learning. Peer-reviewed scholarly articles related to engineering laboratories, pre-laboratory instruction, accessibility, and disability were systematically identified and thematically analyzed to explore dominant instructional approaches, design strategies, and reported educational outcomes. Findings: The review reveals that inclusive pre-laboratory learning, implemented through multimodal instructional materials, adaptive safety guidance, and virtual or simulated laboratory environments, consistently enhances students’ cognitive and procedural preparedness. These strategies reduce procedural errors, improve compliance with safety standards, and strengthen confidence and perceived safety among students with disabilities. The findings further demonstrate that such approaches benefit not only students with disabilities but also the broader student population, supporting the principles of Universal Design for Learning that emphasize flexibility, multiple means of representation, and learner engagement. Conclusion: Inclusive pre-laboratory learning is identified as an effective, scalable, and sustainable pedagogical strategy for developing equitable engineering laboratory environments without requiring extensive physical infrastructure modifications. Novelty/Originality of this article: This article contributes to the field by providing a systematic synthesis that integrates accessibility, laboratory safety, and pre-laboratory learning into a unified and practical conceptual framework, thereby advancing the state of the art in inclusive engineering education.
References
Achuthan, K., & Murali, S. S. (2017). Virtual lab: An adequate multi-modality learning channel for enhancing students’ perception in chemistry. Computer Science On-Line Conference, 419–433. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57264-2_42
Agustian, H. Y., & Seery, M. K. (2017). Reasserting the role of pre-laboratory activities in chemistry education. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 18(4), 518–532. https://doi.org/10.1039/C7RP00140A
Ahn, M. Y., & Davis, H. H. (2020). Students’ sense of belonging and their socio-economic status in higher education. In Teaching in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1778664
Asghar, A., Sladeczek, I. E., Mercier, J., & Beaudoin, E. (2017). Learning in STEM: Supporting students with learning disabilities. Canadian Psychology, 58(3), 238–249. https://doi.org/10.1037/cap0000111
Aşıksoy, G., & Islek, D. (2017). The impact of the virtual laboratory on students’ attitudes in a general physics laboratory. International Journal of Online Engineering, 13(4), 128–144. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/270196739.pdf
Baladoh, S. M., Elgamal, A. F., & Abas, H. A. (2017). Virtual lab to develop achievement in electronic circuits for hearing-impaired students. Education and Information Technologies, 22(2), 2071–2085. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-016-9532-7
Batty, L., & Reilly, K. (2023). Understanding barriers to participation within undergraduate STEM laboratories: Towards development of an inclusive curriculum. Journal of Biological Education, 57(5), 1147–1169. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2021.2012227
Bretz, S. L. (2019). Evidence for the importance of laboratory courses. Journal of Chemical Education, 96(2), 193–195. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00874
Bunbury, S. (2018). Disability in higher education: Do reasonable adjustments contribute to an inclusive curriculum? International Journal of Inclusive Education, 25(2), 125–133. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2018.1503347
Bunce, L., King, N., Saran, S., & Talib, N. (2021). Experiences of black and minority ethnic students in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 46(3), 534–547. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1643305
Burwell, S. M. (2018). Generation stress: The mental health crisis on campus. In Foreign Affairs (pp. 150–158). https://doi.org/doi:10.1126/sciadv.aau4734.
Canning, E. A., Muenks, K., Green, D. J., & Murphy, M. C. (2019). STEM faculty who believe ability is fixed have larger racial achievement gaps. Science Advances, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aau4734
Carabajal, I. G., Marshall, A. M., & Atchison, C. L. (2017). Instructional strategies addressing barriers to inclusion for students with disabilities. Journal of Geoscience Education, 65(4), 532–541. https://doi.org/10.5408/16-211.1
Carvalho, P. S., Machado, N. A., & Araujo, P. P. (2021). Project VLAB-FIS: A novel approach to engage students on experimental work in physics. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1929, 12023. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1929/1/012023
Casad, B. J., Petzel, Z. W., & Ingalls, E. A. (2018). Threatening academic environments and women STEM engagement. Sex Roles, 80(1), 469–488. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-018-0942-4
Cech, E. A., & Rothwell, W. R. (2018). LGBTQ inequality in engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 107(4), 583–610. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20239
Claridge, H., Stone, K., & Ussher, M. (2018). The ethnicity attainment gap among medical and biomedical science students. BMC Medical Education, 18(1), 124–139. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-018-1426-5
Coleman, S. K., & Smith, C. L. (2019). Evaluating the benefits of virtual training for bioscience students. Higher Education Pedagogies, 4(1), 287–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/23752696.2019.1599689
Consignado, J. A. V. (2025). Hybrid laboratory application: Impact on students’ process skills and knowledge. International Journal of Research and Scientific Innovation, 11(11), 224–244. https://rsisinternational.org/journals/ijrsi/articles/hybrid-laboratory-application-impact-on-students-process-skills-and-knowledge-in-pamantasan/
Cooper, K. M., Gin, L. E., Akeeh, B., Clark, C. E., Hunter, J. S., Roderick, T. B., & Elliott, D. B. (2019). Factors predicting student persistence in undergraduate research. PLOS ONE, 14(8), e0220186. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0220186
Cotner, S., & Ballen, S. J. (2017). Can mixed assessment methods make biology classes more equitable? PLOS ONE, 12(12), e0189610. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189610
Coutinho, G. S., Mello, A. S., Magana, A. J., Dias, V., & Côrtes, V. (2020). Developing virtual equipment to enhance learning of structures and material science. Global Journal of Engineering Science, 4(4), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.33552/GJES.2020.04.000593
Deiglmayr, A., Stern, E., & Schubert, R. (2019). Beliefs in brilliance and belonging uncertainty in STEM students. Frontiers in Psychology, 18(2), ar17. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01114
Dowey, N., Barclay, J., Fernando, B., Giles, S., Houghton, J., Jackson, C., & Khatwa, A. (2021). Tackling the geoscience racial diversity crisis. Nature Geoscience, 14(5), 256–259. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-021-00737-w
Ertl, B., Luttenberger, S., & Paechter, M. (2017). Gender stereotypes and self-concept in STEM. Frontiers in Psychology, 8(1), e1289. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00703
Finnegan, C. (2024). Enhancing practical pedagogy: A UDL perspective on the value of videos for practical class preparation. All Ireland Journal of Higher Education, 16(2). https://doi.org/10.62707/aishej.v16i2.851
Hughes, B. E. (2018). Coming out in STEM. Science Advances, 4(3), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aao6373
Huisman, B., Saab, N., van den Broek, P., & van Driel, J. (2019). Formative peer feedback in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(6), 863–880. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1545896
Kauser, S., Yaqoob, S., Cook, A., O’Hara, M., Mantzios, M., & Egan, H. (2021). Experiences of BAME students who withdraw from undergraduate degrees. SN Social Sciences, 1(5). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43545-021-00115-8
Kirsh, B., Friedland, J., Cho, S., Gopalasuntharanathan, N., Orfus, S., Salkovitch, M., & Snider, K. (2016). University students living with mental health problems. Work, 53(2), 325–335. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-152153
Krishnaveni, K., Das, M. S., Babu, G. S., Krishna, T. M., & Gowri, N. V. (2021). Alternative approaches for laboratory learning and assessment in engineering education. Journal of Electrical Engineering and Technology, 12(6), 221–230. https://doi.org/10.34218/IJEET.12.6.2021.021
Logothetis, T. (2024). The times of COVID-19 and beyond: How laboratory teaching evolved through the pandemic. Chemistry Teacher International, 6(1), 59–64. https://doi.org/10.1515/cti-2022-0044
Martin-Hansen, L. (2018). Examining ways to meaningfully support students in STEM. International Journal of STEM Education, 5(1), 198–223. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0150-3
McMaster, N. C. (2017). Who studies STEM subjects at A level and degree in England? British Educational Research Journal, 43(3), 528–553. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3270
Meaders, C. L., Lane, A. K., Morozoc, A. I., Shuman, J. K., Toth, E. S., Stains, M., & Stetzer, M. R. (2020). Undergraduate student concerns in introductory STEM courses. Journal of STEM Education Research, 3(2), 195–216. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-020-00031-1
Nicol, C. B., Gakuba, E., & Habinshuti, G. (2022). Students’ opinions, views, and perceptions of science laboratory learning: A systematic review. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 18(3), 1221–1239. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/11793
Panasiuk, O., Akimova, L., Kuznietsova, O., & Panasiuk, I. (2021). Virtual laboratories for engineering education. International Conference on Advanced Computer Information Technologies, 2224–2239. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACIT52158.2021.9548567
Pearson, A. G. (2025). Intentional design of pre-laboratory modules for first-year chemistry courses. In Transformative Approaches to Career-Ready Education (pp. 1–330). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-96-7018-5_3
Png, C. W., Goh, L. I., Chen, Y. K., Yeo, H., & Liu, H. (2024). A comparison of students’ preferences for face-to-face and online laboratory sessions. Journal of Microbiology and Biology Education, 25(2), 98–122. https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.00181-23
Pokoo-Aikins, G. A., Hunsu, N., & May, D. (2019). Development of a remote laboratory diffusion experiment module for an enhanced laboratory experience. IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE43999.2019.9028460
Purkayastha, S., Surapenini, A. K., Maity, P., Rajapuri, A. S., & Gichoya, J. W. (2019). Critical components of formative assessment in online labs. Electronic Journal of E-Learning, 17(2), 79–92. https://doi.org/10.34190/JEL.17.2.02
Quiroga, M., & Choate, J. K. (2019). A virtual experiment improved students’ understanding. Advances in Physiology Education, 43(4), 495–503. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00050.2019
Rainey, K., Dancy, M., Mickelson, R., Stearns, E., & Moller, S. (2018). Race and gender differences in sense of belonging in STEM. International Journal of STEM Education, 5(1), 87–98. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0115-6
Rayment, S., Evans, J. R., Coffey, M., Kirk, S., Sivasubramaniam, S. D., & Moss, K. (2023). The role of technology in undergraduate bioscience laboratory learning. Education Sciences, 13(8), 766. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13080766
Reyes, R. L., Isleta, K. P., Regala, J. D., & Bialba, D. M. R. (2024). Enhancing experiential science learning with virtual labs. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 40(6), 3167–3186. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.13061
Rosen, D. J., & Kelly, A. M. (2020). Epistemology, socialization, help seeking, and gender-based views in undergraduate physics laboratories. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 16(2), 20116. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.16.020116
Sypsas, A., & Kalles, D. (2018). Virtual laboratories in biology, biotechnology and chemistry education: A literature review. Pan-Hellenic Conference on Informatics, 70–75. https://doi.org/10.1145/3291533.3291560
Tambiga, J. M., Revelo, J. M., Tulba, D. F. G., Bazar, J. S., & Baluyos, G. R. (2024). Virtual laboratory learning environment and the students’ performance. United International Journal for Research & Technology, 5(10), 23–41. https://uijrt.com/articles/v5/i10/UIJRTV5I100014.pdf
Villanueva, M. G., & Hand, B. (2015). Science for all: Engaging students with special needs in and about science. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 26(4), 233–240. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2011.00344.x
Walker, J. P., Sampson, V., Southerland, S., & Enderle, P. J. (2016). Using the laboratory to engage all students in science practices. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17(4), 1098–1113. https://doi.org/10.1039/C6RP00093B
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Citation Check
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Kadek Adi Mahendra

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













