Contrasts between didactic and Deweyan approaches to health education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Over the past few decades, several theories and models have evolved to guide health education practice. Some of these models are participatory and democratic; nevertheless, much health education practice is based on achieving goals established by “health authorities,” which are called here the didactic model. The purpose of this paper is to consider that model and contrast it with a Deweyan model, based on the pragmatist philosopher, John Dewey. Design/methodology/approach First provides a historical perspective on the didactic and Deweyan models stressing their implications for health education. The didactic approach is contrasted with a dialectical approach implied by the Deweyan model. Then briefly discusses pragmatism and cognition noting the importance of emotions in the learning process and consider the implications of various philosophical perspectives for understanding human behavior. The final two sections discuss the goals of health education and the role of the health educator based on the essentials of pragmatism—in which health education is value‐laden and lifestyle specific Findings Concludes by advocating for a greater emphasis on a Deweyan philosophy in public health education practice and research. Originality/value Over the past several decades, theoretical frameworks for health education have evolved and a wide variety of educational, social‐psychological and program planning frameworks have been proposed and utilized to guide practice, but none specifically follow the philosophy of John Dewey. This paper is original in that it outlines the Deweyan philosophy and relates it to health education. If that philosophy were to guide health education practice and research, it would improve our service to the community as well as our understanding about why people make the choices they do.
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 | 0.021 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.054 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".