Critical Thinking as Reflected in the Sudanese and Jordanian Secondary School Certificate English Language Examinations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study emerges from the need of English Language Teachers in Sudan and Jordan to lay appropriate assessment strategies to meet the anticipated educational objectives among the learners of English. It is also hoped to improve language assessment in similar educational environments in the Arab world. We intended to find out the level of consistency between the educational objectives of the English language syllabus and the English language examinations in these two countries. These examinations are expected to have some beneficial washback on English pedagogy in general and on reading and writing skills in particular. These tests can be used as benchmark for the effectiveness of the teaching and the learning performance in the classroom. We found that most of the reading questions in EL examination focus on testing the low order of thinking such as knowledge and comprehension; which negatively affect the critical thinking abilities among these young learners. The study yielded many other findings but the most important is the negligence of testing speaking and listening skills which renders the standardized English language examinations in Sudan and Jordan to be incomprehensive, but on the other hand the study revealed that these examinations had some content validity.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".