MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387938907 · doi:10.5539/mas.v17n2p70

The Extent of Knowledge of Achieving the Final Exam Questions for the Sixth to Eleventh Grades to the Levels Depth of Knowledge "DOK" Webb in Jordan

2023· article· en· W4387938907 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sami Salameh AL-Massarweh

Bibliographic record

VenueModern Applied Science · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Islamic Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEleventhMathematics educationCurriculumTest (biology)Academic yearChristian ministryPopulationPsychologySocial studiesMultiple choicePedagogyMathematicsSociologyStatisticsSignificant differenceTheology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aimed to know the extent to which the final exam questions are achieved in the basic curricula of students from sixth to eleventh in schools of the Ministry of Education in Jordan for the levels depth of knowledge (DOK) webb, and the study population is from all of all the final exams questions for the basic curricula (Islamic Education, Arabic Language, English, Mathematics, Science) that the Evaluation and Examinations Department at the Ministry of Education for the first semester of the 2015/2016 academic year, which number 30 exams. The researcher used the analytical descriptive approach through the use of the computerized statistical package program in the social sciences (SPSS), one-way analysis of variance (One-Way ANOVA), the LSD test for post comparisons, and the T-test, and the most prominent findings Study results. Depth of knowledge (DOK) skills were for the level of remembering, while the depth of knowledge skills were less for extended thinking, and the objective exams achieved the depth of knowledge in all its dimensions compared to the essay questions. there are apparent differences in the dimensions of depth of knowledge (remembering, concepts and skills, strategic thinking, extended thinking) according to the subject type variable, and the differences were indicative only in the areas of strategic thinking and extended thinking. And the differences in the field of concepts and skills were between grades (sixth, seventh, and eighth) on the one hand, and the eleventh grade on the other hand, where the differences were in favor of the eleventh grade, and the differences in extended thinking were between grades (sixth, eighth, and ninth) on the one hand, and the eleventh grade. On the other hand, the differences were in favor of the eleventh grade.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.513
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.149
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueModern Applied ScienceSame topicEducation and Islamic StudiesFrench-language works237,207