Source: https://mokxi.com/research Research # Research basis and logic model Last reviewed October 11, 2026. Why Mokxi is built the way it is: the problem it is meant to solve, how we expect it to help, and the published research behind those choices. Mokxi itself has not been studied yet. The research below is about simulations, feedback and active learning in general, not about Mokxi. We plan a pilot study, described at the end of this page, and invite schools to take part. Under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), this is the evidence level called "demonstrates a rationale" (Tier 4): a logic model, informed by research, with an effort under way to study its effects. ## The problem Many schools want to teach electronics and programming with real circuits, but cannot. A lab of boards, parts and meters costs money a budget may not have, parts get lost or broken, and a class period can go to setup instead of learning. Students then hit setup barriers of their own: software that will not install on a school Chromebook, a wire in the wrong hole with no one free to spot it, or a kit that stays at school. Mokxi is meant to remove those barriers, so every student can build, test and fix a circuit in a browser tab, at school or at home. The costs a school weighs are on what an electronics lab costs. ## Logic model Read left to right, or top to bottom on a phone. Inputs and activities are what Mokxi does today. Outcomes are what we intend, not what has been measured. ### Inputs - A circuit and microcontroller simulator that runs in a browser tab, on the student’s own Chromebook, laptop or phone, with nothing to install. - Guided lessons whose steps check themselves against the running circuit. - The free 12-week course and four curriculum packs: lesson plans, objectives, vocabulary, graded checks and a teacher answer key. - Class tools: a roster, assignments, hand-ins and checks that grade each one. - The Circuit Doctor, which reads the wiring and the code together. - A teacher, and class time. ### Activities - Students wire circuits and write code, press Run and watch what happens. - Students work through guided lessons. Each step checks the running circuit and says what is still wrong. - When a project does not work, the Circuit Doctor says why in plain words, with a fix where one is safe. - Teachers assign lessons and projects to a class, and students hand in their work as links. - Teachers run the course or a pack: the plan, the discussion questions and the design projects. ### Outputs - Lesson steps completed, for each student, recorded with the hand-in. - Circuits and programs handed in, each a link that opens and runs. - Check results for every hand-in. - Weeks of the course or a pack taught. ### Short-term outcomes - Less class time lost to setup, missing parts and broken hardware. - More test-and-change cycles in a class period, because a change shows its effect at once. - Students can build, explain and debug basic circuits and short programs. - Teachers see where each student is without checking every bench. ### Long-term outcomes - Stronger understanding of circuits and computing systems. - Schools without a lab budget can offer hands-on electronics and computing. - More students take and finish electronics, engineering and computer science courses. - Students carry what they learned to real hardware. The course and packs: the 12-week course, Intro to Electronics, Arduino Programming, IoT with ESP32, Game Design with Microcontrollers. Their standards are on the standards map. ## The research basis Each study in one plain sentence, and what we took from it. None of these studied Mokxi, and several were done with college students, so they support the design, not a claim about results. Finkelstein, Adams, Keller, Kohl, Perkins, Podolefsky, Reid and LeMaster (2005). When learning about the real world is better done virtually: A study of substituting computer simulations for laboratory equipment. Physical Review Special Topics: Physics Education Research, 1, 010103. What it found: In a large introductory college physics course, students who did the circuits lab with a computer simulation did better on a conceptual survey, and at building and explaining a real circuit, than students who used real bulbs, meters and wires. What we took from it: It is the closest published comparison to what Mokxi does: circuits learned in a simulation instead of on a bench. Hattie and Timperley (2007). The Power of Feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112. What it found: A review of the research found that feedback is one of the most powerful influences on learning, but that its effect depends on what kind of feedback it is and how it is given. What we took from it: It is why a lesson step says what is still wrong, about the task in front of the student, rather than only pass or fail. Wieman, Adams and Perkins (2008), and the PhET research base. PhET: Simulations That Enhance Learning. Science, 322(5902), 682-683. What it found: The PhET team tests each simulation in interviews with students and reports that well-designed simulations lead students to explore ideas much as scientists do, while noting that simulations alone do not teach skills with real equipment. What we took from it: It shaped two choices: let students change a value and see the result at once, and say on each part’s page what it does not model, so the step to real hardware stays in view. Freeman, Eddy, McDonough, Smith, Okoroafor, Jordt and Wenderoth (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410-8415. What it found: A meta-analysis of 225 studies of undergraduate STEM courses found higher exam scores under active learning, and that students in traditional lectures were about 1.5 times as likely to fail. What we took from it: Every lesson has students build, run and change something rather than watch. de Jong, Linn and Zacharia (2013). Physical and Virtual Laboratories in Science and Engineering Education. Science, 340(6130), 305-308. What it found: A review of the research found that both virtual and physical labs can meet the goals of lab work, that each has strengths the other lacks, and that combining the two is likely to work best. What we took from it: We describe Mokxi as a way in when there is no lab, and a way to plan and test before the bench, not a replacement for real hardware. The PhET project lists its studies on its research page. ## How we will study it No study has been done yet. This is the plan for the first one. A pilot in a small number of middle and high school classes, each teaching one unit with Mokxi: a few weeks of the 12-week course or one curriculum pack. We will measure three things: - Concept inventory, before and after A published circuits concept test, chosen with the teachers to fit the grade level, given at the start and the end of the unit. - Lesson step completion How many guided lesson steps each student completes, read from the class hand-ins the teacher already receives. Reported only as class totals. - Teacher survey A short survey at the end: setup time, what worked, what got in the way, and how well the course or pack fit the class. We will follow each district’s research approval process and our student data privacy commitments. Results will be reported for whole classes, never for a named student, and we plan to publish them on this page whatever they show. If your school or district would like to take part, tell us which grades and course you teach, and we will send the details. Offer a class for the pilot ## Contact Questions about this page or the pilot: email support@mokxi.com, call (719) 246-1726, or use the support page. A person reads every message. Mailing address Mokxi LLC 5142 N Academy Blvd PMB 1021 Colorado Springs, CO 80918 United States