MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388107224 · doi:10.5267/j.ijdns.2023.9.017

Enhancing secondary school students' attitudes toward physics by using computer simulations

2023· article· en· W4388107224 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Firas Tayseer Ayasrah, Khaleel Alarabi, Maitha Al mansouri, Hadya Abboud Abdel Fattah, Khaleel Al‐Said

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Data and Network Science · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEducational Games and Gamification
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematics educationTest (biology)Intervention (counseling)Significant differenceControl (management)Motion (physics)Physics educationScience educationFace (sociological concept)PsychologyMedical educationComputer scienceMedicineSociologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Educational systems worldwide have witnessed a significant shift towards technological applications, especially after COVID-19, which impacted how the learning contents are delivered in classrooms. Given the increased attention given to the numerous advantages of computer Simulations (CSs) programs, particularly in science education, this study compared the efficacy of employing a lab simulation of Newton's Second Law of Motion to teach physics in the UAE secondary school environment versus the more conventional approach (Face-to-face instruction). The study employed a quasi-experimental design that included 90 UAE 11th-grade students from two public schools in the City of Al Ain. The intervention included student engagement in the PhET interactive simulation of Newton’s second law of motion. The study employed the Test of Science-Related Attitudes (TOSRA) questionnaire to collect data before and after the intervention for the experimental and control groups. The findings demonstrated statistically significant differences between experimental and control groups in students' attitudes toward scientific inquiry, enjoyment of science lessons, and career interest in physics/science. Furthermore, results showed a significant difference in attitudes perceived in these scales, with males having a more significant effect size than female students in all three scales. The study concludes with implications and suggests recommendations for future research and practice.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.231
Threshold uncertainty score0.252

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.080
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.360 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations26
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Data and Network ScienceSame topicEducational Games and GamificationFrench-language works237,207