Korean Students’ Environmental Perceptions: Focusing on comparative analysis with Canada and Singapore
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to investigate Korean students’ perception of sustainable development. Using raw data on students’ responses to the PISA 2018, this study analyzed Korean students’ responses to items related to sustainable development and compared these results with those from Canada and Singapore. PISA 2018 student questionnaire's items related to sustainable development were reclassified into environmental awareness, self-efficacy, sense of purpose, and action. Results revealed that students’ awareness of ‘climate change and global warming’ from all three countries was higher than that of ‘global health’, and their scores for environmental awareness were higher than their environmental self-efficacy. Regarding environmental self-efficacy and sense of purpose, Korea and Singapore showed a higher response than Canada. Among the three countries, Korea showed the highest participation rate in environmental actions due to Korea’s sociocultural and institutional characteristics. Students’ perception of sustainable development showed a mostly positive correlation with science achievement, and economic, social, and cultural status (ESCS), and the correlation with science achievement was higher. These results highlight that it is possible to identify Korean students’ perception of sustainable development and suggest implications for education in sustainable development.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".