MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3017100461 · doi:10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00756

Learning Beyond the Laboratory: A Web Application Framework for Development of Interactive Postlaboratory Exercises

2020· article· en· W3017100461 on OpenAlexafffund
Kimia Moozeh, Jennifer Farmer, Deborah Tihanyi, Greg J. Evans

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Chemical Education · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicExperimental Learning in Engineering
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsFormative assessmentComputer scienceVirtual LaboratoryContext (archaeology)CurriculumMultimediaHuman–computer interactionMathematics educationPsychologyPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High Resolution Image Download MS PowerPoint Slide Information overload and limited laboratory time usually result in students focusing mostly on procedural tasks to get the results, rather than being engaged with what they are doing. Moreover, traditional laboratory curricula rarely provide students opportunities to repeat experiments. This study presents the design of a web-based application framework for the development of interactive postlaboratory exercises that complement and extend the hands-on laboratories. The framework has four main modules: (1) a video module to present information and concepts through embedded videos, (2) a virtual lab module to perform experiments, (3) a reaction mechanism module to practice drawing reaction mechanisms, and (4) a formative assessment module including questions and explanatory feedback to guide students and to encourage reflection. On the basis of this framework, postlaboratory exercises have been developed for two experiments in an undergraduate chemistry laboratory course. The exercises allowed students to reinforce and extend the laboratory-gained knowledge in a new virtual context by comparing two different chemical reactions related to the experiments they had performed. A survey conducted at the end of the exercises revealed that a majority of students found the postlaboratory exercises helpful and thought they provided an opportunity for application and helped with reinforcing theory and integrating concepts.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.255 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Chemical EducationSame topicExperimental Learning in EngineeringFrench-language works237,207