Student Perceptions of Remote Chemistry Laboratory Delivery Models
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 COVID-19 pandemic of Spring 2020 saw chemistry instructors across the globe working to deliver traditional hands-on laboratory learning within a remote learning environment. This study focused on the student perspective on remote laboratory delivery models across 13 Fall 2020 chemistry courses with students from all four years of undergraduate study and varying declared majors. For those students who were able to experience in-person laboratory experiments, the majority indicated that they were of high value to their overall learning experience. Specifically, the students noted that the value of the in-person experiential laboratory learning was tied to their ability to learn and practice their technical skills while putting the theory learned in class into practical context and application. Remote laboratory alternatives in the form of video-recorded experiments and online simulations were seen to be less valuable to the overall student learning experience. While students indicated that they highly valued in-person laboratory experiences and would like to see them continually implemented within their learning experiences, careful design and implementation of remote alternatives may provide meaningful alternatives when in-person laboratory instruction is not possible or perhaps enhance already existing laboratory curricula.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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