Comparative Study of Physics Curriculum in Iran with Several Other Countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p class="apa">This article is a qualitative study, which was done in 2013-2014. In this study using a comparative study was conducted to compare physics curriculum elements of Iran with the countries studied. Countries studied: Singapore, Turkey, India, England and Australia have diverse educational system. In this study, the structure of the educational system, the physics curriculum, teaching methods, students' achievement evaluation methods were studied and compared. The aim of the research was to identify the Features of the physics curriculum in Iran. In some cases, similarities and differences were observed. From the major problems in the physics curriculum of Iran is many number of books is more than in other countries. And time teaching physics Iranian schools is less than in other countries, While the content of physics books of Iranian schools from all countries studied is further and to do physics experiments in Iranian schools are of less importance. Iran evaluation system is the traditional way and held for final evaluation. The results can help to educational planners and authors of physics textbooks for perform more accurate and more comprehensive correction to the physics curriculum.</p>
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".