Enhancing Science Process Skills and Scientific Mind with Low-cost mini science experiment kits for Thai 6th Graders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purposes of this study were: To examine the effects of low-cost mini science experiment kits on Thai 6th graders' science learning achievement; To investigate how these kits impact Thai 6th graders' Science process skills; To explore their influence on Thai 6th graders' scientific mindset The participants were 111 sixth-grade students from three public schools in a rural province in Northeastern Thailand. The study utilized four key instruments: (1) a set of learning management plans (2) a learning achievement test, (3) a scientific process skills assessment, and (4) a scientific mindset assessment. The results showed that students achieved an overall learning achievement score of 74.71%, a scientific process skills score of 93.56%, and a scientific mindset score of 96.62%, all exceeding the predetermined criteria. These findings indicate that Low-Cost Mini Science Experiment Kits effectively enhance science learning outcomes, encourage hands-on engagement, and support skill development in resource-limited educational settings. The results of the study contribute to the field of science education by demonstrating how affordable, accessible learning tools can promote educational equity and improve science instruction in underfunded schools.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".