Education for Sustainable Development: A Qualitative Analytical Study on the Impact of the Jordanian Universities’ Role in Supporting Innovation among University Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed at exploring and theorizing the role of Jordanian Universities in supporting innovation among university students within the context of education for sustainable development from the point of view of Jordanian University students. For that, the researcher adopted the grounded theory methodology by Strauss and Corbin. The study was conducted at two Jordanian Universities: the University of Jordan and Philadelphia University in the academic year (2019-2020), and the study population consisted of students from the two universities. The researcher chose (300) students from both genders from different faculties and academic years. By applying the grounded theory, the study concluded that the key category that emerged after analyzing the student’s responses describing the impact of the Jordanian Universities’ role in supporting innovation among university students for educational sustainable development is the emphasis on the need for developing proper University innovation ecosystems in their educational systems. Also, the respondents- through online interviews - have emphasized this concept of proper University innovation ecosystems. The key category of this study found that positive and negative impacts could result from applying or neglecting to apply this concept, which generated behaviors toward the concept, which could be considered as the phenomena in the current research.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".