Methodology and Evaluation of “Making a Museum for Plants and People,” a Project-Based Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The curriculum of Tokyo Gakugei University has adopted a required course called “Making a Museum for Plants and People,” a project-based learning. This course consists of two core lectures and two applied courses for sophomores, and a comprehensive seminar (including four workshops) for juniors. The educational methodology here derives from the one proposed by J. Dewey and W.H. Kilpatrick. From our present perspective, this method resembles a project-based learning from Minnesota New Country School, the United States, and a problem-based learning from McMaster University, Canada. We surveyed the students four times about the educational effects of the project-based learning. They developed new interests and acquired new knowledge of local environmental issues. They even had opportunities to participate in local activities and to learn new skills, but the curriculum did not change fully the students' manners and values toward environmental education. The most of the students did select the same workshop within their major in groups, but failed to choose as a new subject to study. The students declared that they did not always analyze the given data in a logical manner, which means, the curriculum may have failed to form their comprehensive understanding, integrating fully their knowledge from the workshops, the field trips, and the lectures. Consequently, we learned several pointers for the future improvement of the methodology in Environmental Learning Framework. The students contributed so much for this project “A Museum for Plants and People” at Kosuge Village in Yamanashi Prefecture through their effective exhibition designed to promote the understanding of the relationship between plants and humans. The residents expressed their gratitude to the students.
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 | 0.053 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".