A COMPARISON OF MATHEMATICS ACHIEVEMENT OF JORDANIAN, CANADIAN, AND AMERICAN STUDENTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study sought to compare the achievement levels of twelfth-grade Jordanian students with the achievement levels of twelfth-grade U.S. students on the AIME, SAT-M, and AHSME. This study also sought to compare the achievement levels of twelfth-grade Jordanian students with the achievement levels of twelfth-grade Canadian students on the CMCEC. The study tested the following hypothesis: There is no significant difference between the mathematics achievement levels of three different groups of Jordanian students, high-achiever Scientific, average Scientific, and Humanistic, compared American and Canadian students. Four null hypotheses were tested on these three comparable groups, which were chosen from the Humanistic and Scientific Schools of Irbid City. In addition, comparisons were conducted among the groups of Jordanian students and in regard to male-female achievement levels in mathematics. It was established by statistical analysis that the twelfth-grade U.S. students scored higher than the twelfth-grade Jordanian students on the AIME, SAT-M, and AHSME. The results also indicated that the twelfth-grade average Scientific Jordanian students scored higher than the twelfth-grade Canadian students on the CMCEC. In all instances, Jordanian males scored higher than Jordanian females, with two exceptions: (1) The high-achiever females scored higher than the high-achiever males on the AIME, and (2) The Humanistic females scored higher than the Humanistic males on the SAT-M. As a result of these findings, a review of the literature, and field observations, specific recommendations were made in regard to the generalized development of Jordanian curricula, textbooks, and training programs, and in regard to the specific refinement and modification of the twelfth-grade curriculum. It was further recommended that similar studies at other grade levels be conducted.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".