The Extent to Which Reflective Thinking Skills Are Included in the Content of Mathematics Textbooks for the 4th Grade in the Sultanate of Oman
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although one of the most important elements of curricula is content, the inclusion of reflective thinking in the curriculum content has not been widely investigated in the mathematics curriculum. Exploring the extent to which this type of thinking is included helps curriculum specialists by provided them with feedback on the inclusion of this type of thinking skills in the content of textbooks, which supports and develops it to achieve the goal of enabling students to acquire reflective thinking skills. Therefore, current study aimed to investigate the extent to which reflective thinking skills are incorporated into the content of mathematics textbooks for the 4th grade in the Sultanate of Oman. To achieve this, the researchers used the descriptive analytical method, specifically content analysis, as it is suitable for the nature and objectives of the study. The study population consisted of mathematics textbooks for the 4th grade (Cambridge series, 2020/2021 edition) for the first and second semesters. The list of reflective thinking was then presented to fifteen arbitrators to determine its validity and stability, making the necessary scientific adjustments. The stability of the analysis with time differences was calculated using the (Holsti) equation, and the overall stability coefficient was (0.98), which represents a high stability ratio. likewise, the Cooper equation was used to determine the validity of the analysis, and the overall validity coefficient was (0.95), which reflects a high validity ratio. The study's findings demonstrated that the 4th grade student's book incorporated reflective thinking skills to a high degree. The ability to suggest new solutions received the highest repetition rate (22.65%), then the ability to reach conclusions came in the second place (21.27%), error detection came in the third place (20.63%), providing a convincing interpretation came in fourth place (20.0%), and then the visual thinking skills came in the fifth place (15.4%). Finally, the study recommended incorporating reflective thinking skills into mathematics textbooks for the second cycle of basic education and practicing them.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".