Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research aims to investigate the impact of adopting e-learning in an attempt to enhance higher thinking skills among students at the University of Jordan. In addition, we examine the relationship between e-learning and higher thinking skills and identify the effect of e-learning on higher thinking skills at the University of Jordan. The study examines the effect of using e-learning effectiveness and its effect on developing higher students’ thinking skills at the university level. The study also focuses on intellectual education for high-level thinking and the impact of the e-learning environment on a group of students at the University of Jordan. The target community for this study is undergraduate students at the University of Jordan, in Amman, Jordan. The resulted sample consists of 45 students. During the experiment, two research tools were used to analyze the relationship between the independent and dependent variables. The quantitative data are collected from the students’ perception analyzed using some statistical tests. The results of the research indicate that students could be helped to enhance higher-order thinking skills and maybe enriched by integrating an e-learning model into teaching and learning. There is also a positive relationship between e-learning and higher thinking skills at the University of Jordan. The experimental results of this study indicate several results, as the adoption of the e-learning model led to a significant improvement in the higher thinking skills of students. The e-learning model can remove many social and cultural barriers.
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 | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".