MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2133918661 · doi:10.5539/ass.v6n11p72

An Analysis of “Jordan Opportunities” Objectives in the General Secondary Certificate Examination of English: A Case Study in Jordan between 2008 and 2010

2010· article· en· W2133918661 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mahmoud Sulaiman Bani Abdelrahman

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsActive listeningPsychologyMathematics educationReading (process)Sample (material)Descriptive statisticsCertificateLinguisticsStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study aimed at investigating the GSCE through assessing to what extent English Language Teaching Objectives are available in the GSCE in Jordan between 2008 and 2010.This study attempts to answer the following questions:1- To what extent are the English language Teaching objectives realized in the GSCE in Jordan between 2008 and 2010 for each academic year?2- To what extent are the English language Teaching objectives realized in the GSCE in Jordan between 2008 and 2010 for all the three years collectively?The sample of the study consists of all examination papers of the GSCE in English in Jordan between the years 2008 and 2010. For the purpose of the study, the researcher developed a questionnaire that consists of 13 Thirston –type items that were classified under the following categories:1- listening 22- speaking 33- reading 34 - writing 5The questionnaire was prepared in English. The questionnaire was given to a jury of professors, supervisors and teachers of English. The jury’s responses on the questionnaire were analyzed as follows:1- Percentage and frequency in each response category.2- Basic descriptive statistical mean and standard deviation.3- Phi and Cramer’s V for nominal variables (corresponding internal contingency coefficient in case of interval variables) Using the Statistical Package for Social Studies (SPSS) uses the above-mentioned procedure.The study presents the following1- The objectives of listening and speaking are not available in the GSCE completely.2- Two out of three of the reading objectives are available.3- Four out of five of the writing objectives are available in the GSCE.On the basis of the findings, the researcher recommended the following:1- Include speaking and listening exams in the GSCE because of the need to let teachers teach them in classes.2- Vary the questions of reading and writing to cover all the objectives.3- To test what we teach not to teach what we are going to test as the case in most 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Social Science→Same topicEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning→French-language works237,207→