Hello,

I would be grateful if you could explain how they arrived at Fig. 1, Table 1, Table 2, and Table 3. Why did they use 0.05 as the assumed p value for normality? How did they arrive at an n-gain score of 0.71, and what is the significance of the Shapiro-Wilk and Wilcoxon tests? Please let me know if you need any further clarification, although I think this information should suffice. Countless thanks!

METHOD The pretest-posttest experimental design was conducted in this study, the pretest (01) - posttest (02) was carried out before and after the learning treatment, while the ent, while the learning treatment was a motion kinematics experiment using virtual simulation. The research sample was taken purposively, they were 24 students of the Education Study Program, who took Basic Physics courses, and were involved in the kinematics of motion material. Demographics (age and gender) of the sample were not considered because the researcher assumed that demographic aspects did not affect the effect of treatment on expected learning outcomes. Learning meetings outside the pretest-posttest are 3 times on the kinematics of motion material. Aspects of learning outcomes that are measured are specific to cognitive learning outcomes (Bloom, 1956), namely at the cognitive level C2 to C6 (understanding-C2, application-C3, analysis-C4, synthesis-C5, and evaluation-C6). The instrument for measuring cognitive learning outcomes is in the form of an essay test, each cognitive level uses one item so that the number of questi used is five questions. This instrument has been tested for validity in differe collection instrument in this study. A standardized grading scale from the university is used where the lowest score is 0 and the highest is 100, this is divided into five groups of score criteria, namely 0-20 (poor), 21-40 (less), 41-60 (moderate), 61-80 (good), and 81-100 (very good). Learning outcomes data were analyzed descriptively with the average score of achievement or performance of students' cognitive learning outcomes at pretest and posttest, as well as n-gain analysis (Hake, 1999) to determine the criteria for increa ng student learning outcomes scores. In additi y the pair t-test to determine the difference in the average score of student learning outcomes between the pre- posttest, this analysis used the prerequisites for the assumption of data normality. The hypothesis being tested is the significant difference in the average score of student learning outcomes before and after the motion kinematics experiment using virtual simulation. Each statistical test used a significance level of 0.05. Statistical analysis using SPSS 25.0 software. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The results of descriptive analysis of student cognitive learning outcomes in motion kinematics experiments in biology class using virtual mulations are summarized in Figure 1 and Table 1. Descriptively, it can be seen that there is a gap in student learning outcomes between the pretest and posttest. The highest score of learning outcomes in the pretest was 45.00 and the lowest was 12.00, while the hest score was 91.00 and the lowest was 49.00. The results of the pretest showed that the average score of student learning outcomes was 22.25 with the criteria of "less," while the posttest increased with an average score of 77.10 with the criteria of "good." The increase in student learning outcomes scores with high criteria with an n-gain score of 0.71. Score 5 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 10 21 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Figure 1. The results of descriptive analysis of student cognitive learning outcomes Table 1. The summary of student cognitive learning outcomes Intervals Criteria Pretest Posttest Averages Averages N-gain Criteria 81-100 Very good 0, (0) 14, (58.4) 77.10 0.71 High 61-80 Good 0, (0) (Less) 8, (33.3 ) ( Good) 41-60 Moderate 1 , ( 4.2) 2, (0.3) 21-40 Less 11, (45.8) 0, (0) 0-20 Poor 12, (60.0) 0, (0) amount 24, (100) 4, (100) The significance of differences in student learning outcomes between groups (pretest- posttest) was statistically analyzed using a pair t-test, this was preceded by a prerequisite test (normality assumption). The results of the normality test for the two groups of learning outcomes are presented in Table 2. Since the number of samples is less than 50, the Shapiro- Wilk normality test is used. Table 2. Normality test results for two groups of learning outcomes data (assumed normality, p> 0.05) Group Shapiro-Wilk Statistic Pretes 0.897 af Sig. Normality 0.019 Sig