Teacher’s Differentiated Instruction Practices and Implementation Challenges for Learning Disabilities in Jordan
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p class="apa">This study aimed to identify the differentiated instruction practices used by Jordanian teachers and the challenges they faced when teaching students with learning disabilities in Amman. The sample of the study consisted of 194 teachers. It followed a mixed method design and consisted of two parts. First, a quantitative analysis of a questionnaire of 75 items was developed on six domains (differentiation in content, process, resources, product, assessment, and differentiation in learning environment). Second, a qualitative analysis of interviews with teachers was conducted. Validity and reliability were established. Results of the study showed that the mean of the scores for the six domains and the entire items are low. ANOVA analysis showed that there were no statistically significant differences related to the variable of teacher’s experience. On the other hand, there were statistically significant differences, as to the type of school, in favor of private schools. The main challenges, as the study found out, were weak administrative support, low parental support, lack of time, and shortages in learning resources.</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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it