Differences and Relationships Between Teachers’ Pedagogical Beliefs and Teaching Strategies Used at Different School Levels in Japan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Existing meta-analyses have shown that active learning strategies are effective in improving students’ learning performance. However, their implementation may vary across school levels. This study investigated differences among elementary, middle, and high school teachers in the use of teaching strategies, including those that promote active learning and pedagogical beliefs. We also explored differences in the relationships between beliefs about teaching and learning, teaching experience, and teaching strategies for active learning across school levels. An online survey was conducted with 550 in-service elementary, middle, and high school teachers. Participants completed a questionnaire that measured their teaching strategies, beliefs about teaching and learning, and teaching experience. The results revealed differences in the frequency of use of six teaching strategies, including those that promoted active learning. Elementary school teachers used teaching strategies that promoted active learning most frequently, followed by middle and high school teachers. There were no differences in teachers’ beliefs about teaching and learning across school levels. Multigroup structural equation modeling indicated no differences in the influence of beliefs about teaching and learning on active learning teaching strategies among school levels, except that the traditional conception was negatively associated with the implementation of active learning in middle school. Constructivist beliefs were positively associated with active learning strategies across all levels, whereas teaching experience was negatively associated with teaching strategies that promoted student output at the higher school level. These findings have implications for the implementation of active learning, particularly at higher school levels.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".