In the book Contemporary Abstract Algebra by Gallian it defines an extension field as follows:
A field $E$ is an extension field of a field $F$ if $F\subseteq E$ and the operations of $F$ are those of $E$ restricted to $F$.
Question 1) When it says "and the operations of $F$ are those of $E$ restricted to $F$" is this equivalent to saying "and the operations of $F$ are those of $E$ such that $F$ is a subfield"? Is this what is meant by "restricted to $F$"?
Also, Kronecker's threorem states:
Let $F$ be a field and let $f(x)$ be a nonconstant polynomial in $F[x]$. Then there is an extension field $E$ of $F$ in which $f(x)$ has a zero.
Question 2) I know that in the theorem above $E=F[x]/\left
$ where $p(x)$ is an irreducible factor of $f(x)$ and that the field $E=F[x]/\left
$ contains an isomorphic copy of $F$. But why doesn't the definition of extension fields take into account up to an isomorphism (since technically $F$ is not a subset of $E$ in this case) when we talk about a field $E$ being an extension of a field $F$?
Can't we define extension fields say as: An extension field of a field $F$ is a pair $(E,\phi)$ such that $\phi$ is a homomorphism from $F$ to $E$ with $\phi(F)\subseteq E$ and the operations of $\phi(F)$ are those of $E$ restricted to $\phi(F)$?