Laboratory activities to support online chemistry courses: a literature review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The laboratory is an essential element in the teaching and learning of chemistry, but it is challenging to provide this when delivering courses and programs online or at a distance. Studies have repeatedly shown that alternate laboratory modes can lead to equivalent student performance when compared with in-person experiences. In this literature review, we will examine five modes of laboratory delivery (i.e., face-to-face, virtual, remote control, home-study kits and, to a lesser extent, self-guided field trips) that may be considered in providing quality practical laboratory activities to support online studies. Each mode brings its own particular strengths and weaknesses and can be used individually or in combination. The selection and integration of those modes, which is driven by learning outcomes and other factors, will be examined as part of the design process. Finally, future laboratory design will certainly include new technologies, but potentially also elements like open educational resources, learning analytics, universal design, and citizen science.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it