Contribution of an instructional module incorporating PhET simulations to Rwandan students' knowledge of chemical reactions, acids, and bases through social interactions
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 current study ascertained the influence an instructional module had on enhancing students’ understanding of chemical reactions and acid–base topics. The sample size for this study consisted of 197 students, including 101 in an “experimental” group and 96 in a “control” group, selected from schools in two Districts (Rwamagana and Musanze) in Rwanda, Africa. The experimental and control groups received a pre-test and post-test to collect data. In addition, focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted with students in the experimental group. Further, a test question analysis was used to evaluate the students’ content knowledge of chemical reactions and acids, bases, and pH. To analyze the research data, the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software was used for quantitative analysis. The independent t -test results indicated no significant difference between the means of the control and experimental groups at the pre-test stage (d f = 195, p = 0.380). At the post-test stage, a statistically significant increase was observed in the mean scores of the experimental group compared to the control group (d f = 195, p < 0.001), showing that the intervention effectively improved student learning outcomes in chemistry education.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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