Analysis of the Intended Learning Outcomes and Learning Activities of Action Pack Textbooks in Jordan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to analyze the intended learning outcomes (ILOs) and learning activities in Action Pack textbooks for Jordan in light of the EFL curriculum objectives. in Jordan (delete “in Jordan”, because it is redundant). The sample of the study consisted of Action Pack textbooks for three grade levels students ( delete “students” because it does not seem necessary to the meaning of the sentence) (grade 6, 10, 12) during the academic year 2014/2015. A specially prepared coding sheet was developed by the researcher to analyze the collected data based on a five- point Likert scale. Validity and inter-rater reliability were ensured prior to data analysis. Means and standard deviations in addition to One Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) were used to answer the questions of the study. The results showed that the outcomes and activities in Action Pack textbooks reflect the curriculum objectives to a certain extent. It was recommended that curricula expert, textbook authors and the Ministry of Education (MoE) in Jordan work more closely, so that a higher degree of match between curriculum objectives, textbooks outcomes and learning activities can be achieved.
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 | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".