Journal of Baltic Science Education

861-862

Authors: Editorial Board

Cover, JBSE, Vol. 20, No. 6, 2021

864-867

Authors: Todar Lakhvich

In previous editorial (Lakhvich, 2021) we have discussed three comprehensive roles of Science Education, determining its contribution to our life: if briefly, (1) Science Education gives the methodology to digest facts via the experiment, reasoning, and discussion; (2) Science Education gives rise to the development of logics, problem-solving skills, complements the command of language, social communication and etc.; (3) Science Education develops specific person’s thinking skills involved in inquiry, experimentation, evidence evaluation, speculation argumentation, and finally, inference. In this issue we pursue the topic discussing two more roles the Science Education contributes to our life.

881-893

Authors: José Luís Araújo, Carla Morais, João Carlos Paiva

The promotion of positive attitudes towards science is an important goal of science education. This research aimed to identify students' attitudes towards science and whether their participation within a citizen science project has contributed to positive attitudinal changes. So, an attitudinal scale was developed, validated, and applied (as a pre and post-test) to 574 students aged between 12 and 14 years old. Positive attitudes towards science were recorded from the outset among children of both groups. Students' participation within the experimental group enhanced relevant positive attitudinal changes at the level of the critical analysis dimension, related to the perception of skills development such as questioning or critical thinking. Furthermore, positive attitudinal changes were achieved within the affinity dimension, related to perceived self-efficacy and appreciation of science and science classes. Positive attitudinal changes towards science among students indicate that citizen science contributes to enhance affective and attitudinal domains of their scientific literacy.

906-926

Authors: Minsu Ha, Yustika Sya’bandari, Ai Nurlaelasari Rusmana, Rahmi Qurota Aini, Sarah Meilani Fadillah

Scientific reasoning ability is essential to get developed in the current digital age, particularly in the process of judgement and decision-making in complex problems. Few studies have conducted an in-depth exploration of scientific reasoning ability, especially in relation to the confidence level and gender. The scientific reasoning ability of Indonesian upper-secondary school and university students were examined and compared with previous recorded data of US students. In this study, the data were collected from 372 university and 528 upper-secondary education students in Indonesia. Students’ scientific reasoning ability was measured using a scientific formal reasoning test (FORT). In addition, confidence level and metacognitive data was collected through self-reported measures. Two-way ANOVA was performed to compare mean differences between groups based on academic level and gender and to observe interaction between the variables. Students’ confidence level in selecting the correct answer and distractor answer was analyzed using an independent t-test. The results reveal that many Indonesian students selected specific distractors with relatively high confidence. Moreover, upper-secondary school students and female students selected more distractors than the groups’ counterparts. Finally, the factors related to Indonesian students’ responses to the scientific formal reasoning were discussed.

942-955

Authors: Chu-yu Ou, Shao-Rui Xu, Chu-ting Lu, Shao-Na Zhou, Hua Xiao

Flow experience plays a major role in influencing students’ interest of STEM, which is the key to promote STEM talent development. Various teaching behaviors contribute differently to student learning performance and flow experience. Specifically, this research sought to concretely explore the different influences of Autonomy-supportive (AS) teaching behavior and Controlling (C) teaching behavior on students’ STEM learning performance and flow experience. The research conducted an experimental exploration of STEM project among primary school students in two groups with two different teaching behaviors (AS and C) respectively. T-test and ANCOVA analysis revealed that both teaching behaviors greatly contributed to improvement of students’ learning performance. MANCOVA analysis showed that students in Autonomy-supportive group got slightly significant higher flow experience than those in Control group. Regarding flow constructs, both groups had the similar level of engagement, but students in Autonomy-supportive group had higher enjoyment, and stronger control than those in the other group. In other words, Autonomy-supportive teaching behavior and Controlling teaching behavior both enhanced greatly students’ STEM learning performance. While Autonomy-supportive teaching behavior allowed students to be more enjoyable and have a higher level of control in STEM learning.

969-982

Authors: King-Dow Su

The presented research focuses on verifying the confluent application of concept mapping (CM) and socio-scientific issues (SSI) according to the value-laden and moral dilemma orientation to construct problem-solving performance. This research sets up some perspectives for all 146 participants, including 139 students and 7 experts. All findings reveal that the design of SSICM contexts includes a rebuttal process and incense claim to improve students' argument response (16.4%), to increase content knowledge and illuminate their science learning by argumentations. To develop an assessment tool with high validity and reliability (Cronbach's α > .9) and find positive presentations of all learning attitudes in the SSICM context, learning environment and results will concern the best argumentation process. Students’ interview responses and SWOT analysis of teachers indicate that SSICM's use of argument in the classroom is a real benefit. The research provided a better paradigm of attempts to combine analytical and academic hypotheses to explain literature sources by teachers, researchers, textbook developers, and editors.

1001-1004

Authors: Editorial Board

End page, Vol. 20, No. 6, 2021