Dietary education in Japanese and Korean middle schools: contents and pedagogical styles from a constructivist perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare home economics textbooks used in Japanese and Korean middle schools from the constructivist perspective to examine whether home economics of both countries can promote constructivist learning. For this, the educational contents of textbooks were analyzed from the constructivist perspective. Pedagogical styles of the texts and exercises were classified into four types: Neutral informative, injunctive, persuasive, and participative. The study data consisted commonly used Japanese textbooks (n = 3) and Korean textbooks (n = 6). Compared to Japanese textbooks, we found that Korean textbooks need contents such as context reflecting historical, cultural, and social situations, which are learning elements from the constructivist perspective. Korean textbooks contained limited dietary problems, and these only related to individuals and families. In both countries, the pedagogical styles were usually participative style in exercises (Japan: 61.5%, Korea: 60.4%), but in texts, the proportion of participative style, reflecting the social constructivist perspective, was low (Japan: 5.7%, Korea: 0.7%). It is recommended that systems be established to support the successful implementation of constructivist learning by providing clearer textbook-writing guidelines tailored to constructivist learning, textbook accreditation standards, and curriculum content that reflects a constructivist perspective in teacher education programs.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".