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
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".